Food Security UN

7/31/2019 Food Security UN

1/12

1

UNEP Policy Series

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ISSUE NO. 4, JUNE 2011

Food and Ecological Security:

Identifying synergy and trade-offs


2/12

2

DISCLAIMERThe views expressed in this Policy Series do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or contributoryorganization(s). The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoeveron the part of UNEP or contributory organization(s) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or itsauthority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.


3/12

3

Table of Contents1. Status and t ends of food secu ity ...................................................................5

2. Impacts of accele ated food p oduction on ecosystems

and ecosystem se vices ...................................................................................6

3. T ends in ecosystem se vices, especially f om cultivated ecosystems .................8

4. How the twin objectives can be aligned ............................................................9

5. Key messages ......................................................................................... ..........10

Bibliog aphy ............................................................................................................11


4/12

Ib ahim Thiaw, UNEPPushpam Kuma *, UNEP

Makiko Yashi o, UNEP

Ca lota Moline o, UNEPAcknowledgements/ Reviewers

Daniele Pe ot-Mait eLevis Kavagi

Vijay Samnot a

* Co esponding autho


5/12

5

F O O D A N D E C O L O G I C A L S E C U r I T Y :I D E N T I F Y I N G S Y N E r G Y A N D T r A D E - O F F S

1. Status and trends of food security 1

Food secu ity is at the top of the global agenda. Almost half a centu y of g owth infood p oduction notwithstanding, 1 in 7 people today eceive insufficient p otein and

ene gy f om thei diets. With the wo lds population and food consumption on the ise,the p essu e on the food supply system is g owing. G eate u banization and incomein count ies in which meat consumption has t aditionally been low have spa kedan upsu ge in demand fo meat, putting mo e p essu e on land. These t ends indemog aphic dynamics and consumption patte ns, combined with the th eat of climatechange and i eve sible ecosystem se vice deg adation, lead to inc eased unce taintyega ding cu ent food p oduction models. The delive y of ecosystem se vices 2 byag icultu al ecosystems is becoming inc easingly impo tant, what with eve mo e land

being put to ag icultu al use. 3

The United Nations Sec eta y-Gene al ecently suggested that global food p oductionneeded to inc ease by half by 2030 to meet g owing demand. Although in thelonge te m expanded demand and inc eased p ices fo ag icultu al commodities mayep esent an oppo tunity fo ag icultu al and u al development, many const aints mustbe ove come if a significant supply esponse to changes in ag icultu al commodity p icesis to be made without comp omising but athe cont ibuting to pove ty alleviation and

envi onmental sustainability.

recent inc eases in food p ices have caused wo ldwide conce n as to whethe demandwill g adually outst ip supply and equi e a apid expansion of food supply and aninc ease in efficient p oduction, sto age and delive y of food p oducts. Acco dingly,all States have swiftly inc eased thei food secu ity by stepping up food p oduction,mostly th ough ag icultu al intensification. This equi es highe levels of input (fe tilize ,pesticides, wate and new va ieties of c ops th ough plant b eeding and genetic

enginee ing) and decisions will have to be made ega ding t ade-offs between sho t-te m gains and long-te m impacts on ecosystems and thei se vices.

The failu e of supply to meet demand will esult in highe food p ices. Although thismay benefit food p oduce s, it will come at the det iment of consume s if income levelsdo not inc ease concomitantly. As societies a e becoming p og essively mo e u ban innatu e, food p ice hikes could lead to social and political instability, which would in tu nhampe economic g owth and development and effo ts to alleviate pove ty, especially

because the poo food p oduce s do not eap the benefits of any such p ice inc eases.

1 In the p esent b ief, the definition of food secu ity p ovided by the Food and Ag icultu e O ganization of the United Nations isused. Acco ding to that definition, food secu ity exists when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nut itiousfood to meet thei dieta y needs and food p efe ences fo an active and healthy life.

2 Ecosystem se vices, acco ding to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), a e defined as the benefits that people obtainf om ecosystems. These include: p ovisioning se vices, such as food, wate , timbe and fib e; egulating se vices, such as climateegulation, flood egulation and pollination; cultu al se vices, such as aesthetic values, spi itual values and ec eation; and suppo t-ing se vices, such as soil fo mation and nut ient cycling.

3 H. Cha les J. Godf ay and othe s, Food secu ity: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people, Science, vol. 327, No. 5967 (2010),p. 812

Recent increasesin food prices hascaused worldwideconcern on whetherdemand will graduallyoutgrow supplyand will require a

rapid expansion offood supply, and anincrease in efficientproduction, storageand delivery of foodproducts.


6/126


Fu the mo e, inc eased food p oduction may include the intensification and expansionof ag icultu e th ough g eate monoc opping, intensive i igation and use of t ansgenicc ops, chemical fe tilize s and pesticides. This puts p essu e on cultivated ecosystems and,should the t end continue, will fu the deg ade ecosystems ability to p ovide se vices

to society. Ecosystem management will the efo e be key to successful envi onmentalmanagement and food secu ity, given the elationship between food p oduction systemsand the continuation of ecosystem se vice delive y.

2. Impacts of accelerated food production onecosystems and ecosystem services

While food secu ity has imp oved a ound the wo ld as a esult of inc eased ag icultu alp oduction and g eate stability of supply, this has been accompanied by a significantdecline in the state of ecosystems and the se vices that they p ovide. In fact, ag icultu ehas been one of the majo d ive s of global envi onmental change, including th oughchanges in land use, land cove and i igation that affect the global hyd ological cyclein te ms of wate quality and quantity. 4

4 Line J. Go don and othe s, Managing wate in ag icultu e fo food p oduction and othe ecosystem se vices, Ag icultu alWate Management, vol. 97, No. 4 (Ap il 2010); United Nations Envi onment P og amme, The Envi onmental Food C isis: TheEnvi onments role in Ave ting Futu e Food C ises A UNEP rapid response Assessment (2009).

Supporting ecosystemservices- Soil st uctu e and

fe tility- Nut ient cycling- Wate p ovision- Genetic biodive sity

Regulating ecosystemservices- Pollination- Natu al cont ol of plant

pests- Natu al cont ol of plant

and animal diseases- Food sou ces and habi-

tat fo beneficial insectsand othe animals (bi ds,f ogs, etc)

- Wate pu ification- Atmosphe ic egulation

Agriculturalecosystems

Provisioningecosystemservices

Productionof food, fuel,and fibre, etc.

Basic materialfor good life

Regulating

ecosystemservices

Climate

regulation,etc.

Health

Supportingecosystemservices

Agriculturalproductivity,etc.

Security

Culturalecosystemservices

Recreation,etc.

Good socialrelations

Ecosystemservices

Benefits Humanwell-being

To From

Figure 1: Ecosystem services to and from agriculture, and linkagesbetween human well-being and benefits obtained fromecosystem services that are provided by agriculture.


7/127


Ag icultu al ecosystems a e managed by humans in such a way as to optimizep ovisioning ecosystem se vices such as food, fib e and fuel. At the same time, thep oduction of such se vices depends upon suppo ting and egulating ecosystemse vices, such as soil fe tility and pollination. In addition to p ovisioning se vices and

se vices in suppo t of p ovisioning, ag icultu al ecosystems can p ovide othe egulatingand cultu al se vices to communities, such as flood cont ol and scenic beauty,ec eation and tou ism. The benefits obtained the ef om cont ibute to va ious aspectsof human well-being, such as adequate livelihoods, sufficient nut itious food, health,secu e esou ce access and secu ity f om disaste s. If not managed co ectly, howeve ,ag icultu e can lead to educed p oductivity o inc eased p oduction costs as a esult ofp oblems such as pest damage, competition fo wate f om othe ecosystems, nut ientun-off and sedimentation of wate ways.

These negative impacts have often engende ed significant societal costs. They a einc easingly affecting human well-being: fo example, the quality of the wate eachingdownst eam esidents has declined, affecting thei health, and in wetlands and coastalecosystems have also suffe ed, affecting nut ient etention and local livelihoods. Theha mful effects of the deg adation of specific ecosystem se vices on human well-beinga e often bo ne disp opo tionately by the poo , cont ibuting to g owing inequities anddispa ities ac oss g oups of people. Fu the mo e, the e is an inc easing isk of ecosystem

egime shifts, o non-line , ab upt eo ganizations of ecosystems f om one elativelystable state to anothe, which might lead to catast ophic changes in ecosystem se vices.Evidence shows that changes in the quality and quantity of hyd ological flows causedby ag icultu e can inc ease the isk of ecological egime shifts in aquatic systems, thesoil and land-atmosphe e inte actions, which a e often difficult to eve se. The declinesin many ecosystem se vices caused by ag icultu e might also affect the supply of thosese vices, such as pollination, which a e of high impo tance to ag icultu e itself. 5

Policymake s and p actitione s involved in ag icultu al management the efo e facethe challenge of making ce tain that measu es a e in place to ensu e that ag icultu allandscapes p ovide sufficient suppo ting and egulating ecosystem se vices, andthat negative impacts on human well-being stemming f om decline in the state ofecosystems a e limited. To design app op iate policy measu es and managementapp oaches, howeve , the e is a c itical need sufficiently to unde stand the t ade-offsthat may occu between p ovisioning se vices and othe ecosystem se vices, in additionto thei impacts on human well-being and dist ibution between societal g oups. 6

5 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis repo t (Washington, D.C.: Island P ess, 2005),pp. 26; Go don and othe s, Managing wate in ag icultu e fo food p oduction and othe ecosystem se vices; Alison G. Powe ,Ecosystem se vices and ag icultu e: t adeoffs and syne gies, Philosophical Tansactions of the royal Society B: Biological Sciences,vol. 365, No. 1554.

6 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, pp. 26; Go don and othe s, Managing wate in ag icultu e fo food p oduction and otheecosystem se vices, pp. 512519.

Negative impacts ofagriculture on variousecosystem serviceshave often led tolarge societal coststhat are increasinglybeing felt on humanwell-being, including,

for example, declinesin water quality fordownstream residentsaffecting their health,and declines inwetlands and coastalecosystems


8/128


3. Trends in ecosystem services, especially fromcultivated ecosystems

Intensified food p oduction th ough ag icultu e is closely linked to ecosystem decline. TheMillennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 highlighted t ends of significant decline in manyecosystem se vices of high elevance to food secu ity, such as those p ovided by cultivatedecosystems. Acco ding to the Assessment, within te est ial ecosystems, mo e than half ofmajo te est ial biomes, such as tempe ate g asslands, Medite anean fo ests, t opical d y

fo ests, tempe ate b oadleaf fo ests, t opical g assland and flooded g asslands had beenconve ted p ima ily to ag icultu e by 1990. Globally, the ate of conve sion to ecosystemshas begun to slow, mainly because of eductions in the ate of expansion of cultivated land,7 Adapted f om Go don and othe s, Managing wate in ag icultu e fo food p oduction and othe ecosystem se vices, pp. 512519.

Figure 2: Agriculture generally increases provisioning ecosystem services at theexpense of regulating and cultural ecosystem services that are oftenhigher in less human-dominated ecosystems. Shifts can occur to develop

agricultural systems that are designed to produce multiple ecosystemservices and, where synergies exist among these services, trade-offs arereduced. 7

Regulating ecosystem servicesProvisioning ecosystem servicesCultural ecosystem services

AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEM NATURAL ECOSYSTEM

P ollination Pest con tro l

Water balance regulation

Tourism & recreation

Spiritual Values

Crops

Meat

Timber

Pollination

Pes t contro l



Spiritual Values

Crops

Meat

Timber

Regulating ecosystem servicesProvisioning ecosystem servicesCultural ecosystem services

Pollinatio n

Pest con trol



Spiritual Values

Crops

Meat

Timber


9/129


8 Jon Paul rod iquez and othe s, T ade-offs ac oss space, time, and ecosystem se vices, Ecology and Society, vol. 11, No. 1 (2006),p. 28.

9 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, p. 47.

and, in some egions, ecosystems a e etu ning to conditions and species compositionssimila to thei p e-conve sion states. rates of ecosystem conve sion, howeve , emain higho a e inc easing fo specific ecosystems and egions.

The Assessment also epo ted that the quantity of p ovisioning ecosystem se vices (e.g.,food, wate and timbe ) used by humans inc eased apidly du ing the second half ofthe twentieth centu y, and continues to g ow. Actions to inc ease the supply of thosep ovisioning se vices have often b ought about modifications to egulating se vices. Foexample, human activity, such as land-use changes, has affected the climate egulationse vices of ecosystems, cont ibuting to inc eased ca bon dioxide and othe g eenhousegases. Othe egulating se vices, such as e osion egulation, wate pu ification andwaste t eatment, pest egulation and natu al haza d egulation, have also declined. The

Assessment also d ew attention to some declines in cultu al se vices, such as spi itualand eligious values and aesthetic values.

4. How the twin objectives can be alignedAs desc ibed above, changes in one ecosystem se vice (e.g., inc eased food and timbep oduction) can lead to changes in othe s as a esult of such facto s as inc easedwate use, deg aded wate quality, land-use change and g eenhouse-gas eleases. A

key challenge in managing ecosystem se vices is that they a e not independent of oneanothe : individual ecosystem se vices should be ega ded as va ious elements of aninte elated whole o what might be te med a bundle. Effo ts to optimize a singleecosystem se vice often lead to negative changes in othe s. 8

To design app op iate policies on and management app oaches to food secu ity issues,the t ade-offs that may occu between p ovisioning ecosystem se vices and othe typesof ecosystem se vices should fi st be evaluated. In analysing these t ade-offs, the th ee

axes spatial scale, tempo al scale and eve sibility should be conside ed. Spatialscale elates to whethe the effects of the t ade-offs a e felt locally, fo example on-fa m,o at a distant location. It elates pa ticula ly to the use of a p ovisioning se vice t adedoff against anothe ecosystem se vice, such as the impacts of inc easing ag icultu alp oduction th ough g eate use of fe tilize in upst eam a eas, esulting in b oad-scaleeffects on wate quality in downst eam a eas. Tempo al scale efe s to the speed oft ade-offs, such as how apidly o slowly they take place. Fo example, managementdecisions tend to focus on the immediate p ovision of an ecosystem se vice (e.g.,

inc eased ag icultu al p oduction), at the expense of the same ecosystem se vice oothe se vices in futu e (e.g., longe -te m loss of soil quality). reve sibility elates tothe likelihood that the distu bed ecosystem se vices etu n to thei o iginal state whenthe distu bance ceases. In some cases, changes in some ecosystem se vices may bei eve sible. Taking into account these impo tant axes when pe fo ming t ade-off analysis,including an analysis of the dist ibutional effects of the t ade-offs, will allow subsequent

Box 1: IrreversibleChange inthe Aral Sea

Ecosystem9

Poo ly designed andexecuted ag icultu alpolicies led to an i eve siblechange in the A al Seaecosystem. By 1998, theA al Sea had lost mo e

than 60% of its a ea andapp oximately 80% of itsvolume, and ecosystem-elated p oblems in theegion now includeexcessive salt content ofmajo ive s, contaminationof ag icultu al p oducts

with ag ochemicals, highlevels of tu bidity in majowate sou ces, high levelsof pesticides and phenolsin su face wate s, loss ofsoil fe tility, extinctions ofspecies, and dest uction ofcomme cial fishe ies.


10/1210


10 Jon Paul rod iquez and othe s, T ade-offs ac oss space, time, and ecosystem se vices p. 28; Powe , Ecosystem se vices andag icultu e: t adeoffs and syne gies, pp. 29592971.

11 Jon Paul rod iquez and othe s, T ade-offs ac oss space, time, and ecosystem se vices, p. 28; Powe , Ecosystem se vices andag icultu e: t adeoffs and syne gies, pp. 2959-2971; Godf ay and othe s, The futu e of the global food system, PhilosophicalT ansactions of the royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 365, No. 1554 (2010), pp. 27692777; Ha pinde S. Sandhu, StephenD. W atten and ross Cullen, O ganic ag icultu e and ecosystem se vices, Envi onmental Science and Policy, vol. 13, No. 1(Feb ua y 2010), pp. 17.

management decisions p ope ly to conside the spatial complexities of ecosystems andto inco po ate the long-te m effects of p efe ing one ecosystem ove anothe . 10

Policies and management app oaches that aim to minimize the effects of ecosystem

se vice t ade-offs can be developed based on a tho ough unde standing of the t ade-offs. This will also allow policies and management app oaches to foste syne gies,whe eby actions to conse ve o enhance a pa ticula component of an ecosystem oits se vices benefit othe se vices o stakeholde s. These syne getic app oaches couldinclude ag ofo est y that can meet human needs fo food and fuel, esto e soils andcont ibute to biodive sity conse vation. An analysis of yields f om ag icultu al ecosystemswo ldwide also indicates that, on ave age, ag icultu al systems that conse ve ecosystemse vices by using p actices such as conse vation tillage, c op dive sification, legume

intensification and biological cont ol pe fo m as well as intensive, high-input systems.What is equi ed is to inco po ate within the food p oduction system the positive andnegative exte nalities of p oducing food, and identify what could be te med win-winst ategies that can boost yield and inc ease sustainability. 11

5. Policy ImplicationsOn the basis of the above, the following key messages have been devised:

a. Inc eased p oduction of food (p ovisioning se vices) often leads to significantdeclines in othe types of ecosystem se vices, such as egulating and cultu alse vices, which a e c itical in suppo ting sustainable food p oduction. These t ade-offs that may occu between p ovisioning se vices and othe ecosystem se vicesshould be evaluated in te ms of spatial scale, tempo al scale and eve sibility.

b. T ade-offs between ecosystem se vices often shift the costs of deg adationf om one g oup of people to anothe o defe costs to futu e gene ations. The

spatial and tempo al dist ibution of costs should the efo e also be conside ed indesigning policies and management app oaches to tackling food secu ity issues.

c. Changes to the quality and quantity of hydological flows stemming f om ag icultu emay inc ease the isk of ecological egime shifts in aquatic systems, the soil and land-atmosphe e inte actions, which may equi e g eate management costs fo esto ation.

d. The need to mitigate ecosystem impacts and sustain the capacity of ecosystemsfo futu e gene ations makes necessa y the int oduction of app op iate egulato yf amewo ks at all levels that will cont ol exte nalities affecting the capacity of

ecosystems to sustain thei food p ovisioning se vices.e. The t ade-offs between food p oduction and the esulting impact on ecosystems

should be identified and evaluated at all levels of decision-making.f. A possible way to illust ate the t ade-offs could be to exp ess them in moneta y


11/1211


Box 2: AgriculturalProduction andEnvironmental

Challenges inPunjab 12

India p ovince of Punjab isone of the fastest g owingeconomies of the wo ld,with 1.53% of natu algeog aphical a ea of India,

p oviding 55 - 65% ofwheat and 35 - 40% ofice to the national poolannually. Du ing the pe iodf om 1960 to 2008, thep oduction of wheat hasinc eased by nine timeswhile ice p oduction has

gone up by fo ty eighttimes. This level of g owthin food p oduction hadnegative consequences inthe ag icultu al ecosystemin Punjab state, as soil hasbecome nut ient deficient,g ound wate table has

gone down by a metedu ing 2003 2004, c opdive sity has educed andamounts of pollutantsin soil as well as su facewate have inc eased. Theenvi onmental c isis facedin Punjab, which may

impact the sustainabilityof ag icultu al p oductiondese ves immediatenational attention becauseof thei inc easing elativeimpo tance to national foodsecu ity.

12 India, Minist y of Ag icultu e, Ag icultu al statistics at a Glance (2010). Available f om http://dacnet.nic.in/eands/latest_2006.htm.

units using a c edible and obust valuation method.g. Building geo efe enced scena ios would p ovide useful analytical guidance and

help policymake s to visualize the impact of alte native food secu ity st ategies onfood p oduction, ecosystems and pove ty alleviation.

h. Sha ing of info mation and communication between stakeholde s f om othe disciplinesand a multidisciplina y app oach a e needed to gua antee that decisions made accountfo both social benefits and envi onmental costs. In this ega d, gove nment office sdelineating food secu ity st ategies need easily available info mation on the social andenvi onmental impacts that a pa ticula food secu ity st ategy might have.

Bibliography

Godf ay, H. C. J., and othe s. The futu e of the global food system. PhilosophicalT ansactions of the royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 365, No. 1554 (2010).

Godf ay, H. C., and othe s. Food Secu ity: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People.Science, vol. 327, No. 5967 (2010).

Go don, L. J., Finlayson, C. M. and Falkenma k, M. Managing wate in ag icultu e fofood p oduction and othe ecosystem se vices. Ag icultu al Wate Management vol.

97, No. 4 (2010).

Gove nment of India, 2010. Ag icultu al Statictics at a Glance. Di ecto ate of Economicsand Statistics, Depa tment of Ag icultu e and Coope ation, Minist y of Ag icultu e.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesisrepo t. Washington, D.C.: Island P ess, 2005.

Powe, A.G. Ecosystem se vices and ag icultu e: t adeoffs and syne gies. PhilosophicalT ansactions of the royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 365, No. 1554 (2010).

rod iquez, J. P., and othe s. T ade-offs ac oss space, time, and ecosystem se vices.Ecology and Society, vol. 11, No. 1 (2006).

Sandhu, H. S., W atten, S. D. and Cullen, r. O ganic ag icultu e and ecosystem se vices.Envi onmental Science and Policy, vol. 13 (2010).

United Nations Envi onment P og amme. The Envi onmental Food C isis: TheEnvi onments role in Adve ting Futu e Food C ises A UNEP rapid responseAssessment. UNEP/GrID-A endal, 2009.

Zhang, W., and othe s. Ecosystem se vices and dis-se vices to ag icultu e. EcologicalEconomics, vol. 64, No. (2007).


12/12

Do you want to comment on this policy brief?Join the discussion on the dedicated UNEP Policy Dialogue blog at

http://www.unep.org/POLICYSERIES

Documents

Food Security UN