General enquiries on this form should be made to:randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=FO0418_9076... · Web viewGeneral enquiries on this form should be made to: Defra, Science

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 1 of 50

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code FO0418

2. Project title

Global Food Security and Environmental Sustainabilty

3. Contractororganisation(s)

AEAMetroeconomica

54. Total Defra project costs £ 52,119(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 01 March 2009

end date................. 31 August 2009


6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

Reasons for the studyThe Earth's population is forecast to increase from c. 6 • 109 to between 8 and 9 • 109 by 2030 and food production will need to increase commensurately in order to achieve food security. However, c. 35% of the earth’s surface has already been converted to agriculture and much of the remainder is desert or mountainous and unsuitable for cultivation. Moreover, much of the uncultivated area that may have potential for agricultural production is of the greatest biodiversity value and, due to the nature of the soil in many locations, may not be able to sustain agriculture in the long-term. There is concern therefore that food security can only be achieved at the cost of greater environmental degradation, in particular due to conversion of valuable ecosystems to agriculture.

There has been a dearth of research into the linkages and/or trade-offs between food security policies and environmentally-sustainable agricultural production in the developing countries in particular. In addition, the extent to which increased agricultural production may be decoupled from increased emissions to air and water needs to be assessed. This study was therefore carried out to review published estimates of the increase in food production needed to meet forecast demand in 2030 and the environmental consequences of meeting that demand. It also reviewed the role of trade in global food security and policy options for meeting food security objectives.

ObjectivesThe overall objectives of this study were to:

1. review published estimates of the increase in food production needed to meet forecast demand in 2030;

2. identify the most environmentally sustainable way(s) of increasing agricultural production to meet global food needs in 2030 and

3. provide policy recommendations for how HMG can support this.

The specific objectives of the study were to: 4. identify the different global production systems and their relative productivity; 5. identify the environmental impacts of systems and their long-term sustainability;6. assess the potential for better management of harvested food to reduce wastage; 7. evaluate policy options to meet food security.

It is important to note that the focus of this study was at the global level and therefore the overall


conclusions on food production and food security are generalised and regionally-aggregated. These global- and regional-level conclusions may significantly differ from the situation at specific country and local level. In particular, while the report finds that there is physical potential to produce enough food for overall future needs, this certainly does not mean that this potential will be realised. Successful achievement of global food security requires effective implementation of policies which address or take account of the distributional, economic, institutional, political and cultural dimensions of this objective at regional and local level. While this report outlines this wider context, in particular the linkage to the development and poverty reduction agendas, it was not part of this project to analyse these policy dimensions in detail.

The complete findings of this project will be found in the main report below. Further detail is supplied in a series of annexes. These cover the objectives as follows:

Annex 1, identification of different global production systems and their relative productivity (objective 4).Annex 2, identify the environmental consequences of farming systems over the past 50 years and their long-term sustainability (objective 5).Annex 3, to identify the means by which global food production has increased since 1966 (objective 1).Annex 4, to analyse the options for meeting predicted global food needs in 2030 and the likely environmental consequences of these options (objectives 1, 2, 3 and 7).Annex 5, trade and food security: the current situation (objective 1).Annex 6, trade and food security: future scenarios (objective 7). Annex 7, where trade appears to be unable or unlikely to obviate shortfall review alternative options (objectives 3 and 7). Annex 8, assessment of the potential for better management of post harvest food losses (objective 6).Annex 9, published scenarios of options to meet food security in a sustainable manner (objective 7).

MethodsA review was carried out of published reports which estimated the feasibility of achieving global food security by 2030, the means by which this could be achieved, and the likely environmental impact. The project resources did not permit us to carry out our own detailed calculations or evaluations from primary sources: instead we critically evaluated and summarised the conclusions reached by others, principally FAO, IAASTD, World Bank, OECD and IPCC.

We acknowledge that food security is primarily an economic question not simply an issue of agricultural capability. However, the specific remit of the project was to assess the physical potential for and environmental impacts of increased food production, and how these environmental impacts could be minimised. We therefore began by assessing the physical potential of food production and then made some examination of the barriers that might prevent physical availability from being realised as improved security.

The forecasts on which these results were based, mainly by FAO, were made using a 'positive' rather than a 'normative' approach, i.e. the assumptions and projections reflected the most likely future but not necessarily the most desirable one. Hence where land use change (LUC) is expected to occur it is expected to be at the expense not only of ecosystems of limited value and on marginal land but also of ecosystems of high value, such as rainforest. Nor is it assumed LUC will occur only on resilient soils capable of sustaining agricultural production in the long term. Instead forecasts have assumed LUC will occur as opportunities arise or local pressures dictate.

A further limitation of the studies reviewed is that they did not attempt to estimate the potential impacts of biofuel production on either achieving food security or on the environmental impacts of achieving food security. We have evaluated reports on the impacts of biofuel production on land use to redress this.

Headline conclusionsOver the last c. 40 years the Earth's population has increased from c. 3.5 • 109 to c. 6 • 109 with forecasts of further increases to between 8 and 9 • 109 by 2030. In that time global food production has increased by c. 170%, broadly in line with the increased demand for food, with crop production increasing by 126% and meat production by 236%. By 2030 global food production is predicted to increase by c. 55% while population is expected to increase by c. 40% (FAO, 2003). However, if global food production is to increase at a greater rate than population this will have impacts on the environment:

Achieving this increase in production is estimated to increase emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by c. 30% with c. 90% of that arising from increased livestock production.

Around 10% of the increase in food production is predicted to arise from increasing the area of agricultural land. This will lead to an increase of c. 6% (c. 290 • 109 ha) of the current agricultural area, and take place mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America (FAO, 2003) and some of this LUC is expected to be at the expense of valuable ecosystems such as tropical rainforest. Should all the LUC be at the expense of tropical rainforest, 75% of which is in S America or Africa,


this would reduce the current area of tropical rainforest (c. 625 • 109 ha) by c. 45%. The further intensification of production, needed to both increase food production and to reduce

the ratio of GHGs emitted per t on production, means there are adverse implications for local air and water quality in areas of intensified production.

Production increases to 2030 to achieve global food security are not axiomatic and significant policy actions are needed to make them happen. In particular, to achieve food security effective polices are needed to ensure sufficient purchasing power in poorer countries and appropriate trade mechanisms are in place to meet food needs in countries whose agriculture cannot supply all the requirements. It is also stressed that effective policies of agricultural adjustment are necessary to achieve well functioning and efficient land, labour and capital markets. Furthermore, careful management is needed to avoid unacceptable increases in pollution and destruction of valuable ecosystems.

There are further caveats to be made and the assumptions on which the forecasts are based need to be recognised. In particular:

The impacts of climate change on agriculture at the global scale are forecast to bring benefits overall up to 2030. However, the benefits are forecast to accrue in the northern hemisphere with adverse impacts in tropical regions.

Water scarcity is not forecast to have an overall adverse impact on rain-fed production but the potential for increasing the area under irrigation will be limited.

Forecasts of food supplies to 2030 have not taken account of projected expansion in the area need to grow crops for first generation biofuels.

Although not specifically addressed the assumption appears to have been made in the forecasts cited that adequate public and private investment in R&D and extension services will be made.

The exception to these generally favourable forecasts is capture fisheries. The majority of such fish stocks are considered to be already fully (52%) or over-exploited (28%). To secure this major source of protein for Asia and Africa may require a more closely controlled approach to fisheries management.

How the increase will be achievedThese increases in food production are expected to arise mainly (c. 78%) from increases in crop yields per ha, with a further c. 12% of the increase arising from greater cropping intensity (more crops per year). The remaining 10% increase in food production is forecast to come from increasing the agricultural area. There is also potential to increase food production by returning land in the CIT, which has not been fully utilized since the end of the Soviet era, to agriculture. The factors which determine how increased crop production will be achieved are land, labour and capital availability and their relative prices. So, where land is available and its price is low, an expansion of cropped area may be the likely means of increased crop production. Conversely, where land is scarce or policies preclude expansion (such as in the EU) using capital (such as to purchase new technology) will be the most cost-effective means of increasing production.

Total global production from aquaculture is forecast to increase by 11% per year and has aquaculture on a course to surpass global beef production (which is itself forecast to increase by >1% per year) by 2010.

There are large variations in post-harvest losses according to crop, country and climate. Post harvest losses have only been studied throughout the post-harvest food chain for a very few crops, and studies have often focussed upon high-value and perishable crops and not the staple foods. Hence it was not possible to draw firm conclusions with respect to total post-harvest losses for the staple commodities. Nevertheless, we consider it prudent to reduce such losses as a means of increasing the supply of food without the environmental burdens of increased food production.

Impacts of biofuel productionThe results presented have usually been taken from studies which have not specifically taken into account the demand for agricultural land from biofuels. There is evidence that these have become a significant driver for LUC. Estimates of the total land requirement for the EU and NAFTA biofuel targets are between 5 and 43% of current cropland (Fulton et al., 2004). However, it is not clear that those estimates took account of the potential should agricultural efficiency improvements be made. In addition there is evidence that the increase in demand for oilseed rape for biofuels has had an impact on production of palm oil. In consequence the sanguine conclusions summarized here, that the increase in food production needed to meet the forecast increase in demand by 2030 without the need for major LUC, may be compromised by the additional demand for agricultural crops as feedstocks for first generation biofuels. There are concerns that intensive biofuel production may also lead to expropriation of small-scale landowners from productive land further increasing pressure for LUC and degradation of less resilient soils.

Impacts of climate change, deterioration post 2030


Climate change is not predicted to have major impacts on total global food production until after 2030. However, this overall conclusion may mask important regional differences since until that date the impacts are expected to potentially increase food production in the northern hemisphere but lead to some decreases in the tropics. Water resources are forecast to remain adequate for the world to continue to feed itself during the rest of this century, albeit climate change is forecast to exacerbate water resources stress in the Middle East, around the Mediterranean, in parts of Europe and in southern Africa.

However, this outcome assumes production in the developed countries (which broadly benefit from climate change) will compensate for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations. After 2030 the disparity between N hemisphere and tropical regions is forecast to increase with forecasts of decreases in yields of crops such as maize of up to 30% in Africa. Moreover, as temperatures increase and crop water stress increases during the growing season, the forecast yield compensation from increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere may not be realized. The positive feedback role of GHG emissions also needs to be taken into account. Unless measures are taken to minimise the additional GHG emissions arising from the drive to meet food security needs to 2030 agricultural emissions may exacerbate warming trends making it more difficult to produce adequate food later in the century.

Water resourcesThe proportion of people living in countries experiencing water stress (using more than 20% of their available resources) is forecast to increase from c. 34 to c. 63% by 2030. This large increase will be driven by increased population and affluence (greater water use per capita), not by climate change. Nevertheless, Parry et al. (2004) concluded that overall water resources will remain adequate for the world to continue to feed itself during the rest of this century. However, this conclusion was reached through the assumption that production in the developed countries (which broadly benefit from climate change) will be able to compensate, via effective trading in food products, for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations.

Rainfed agriculture emerges as a potential key to sustainable development of water and food. Improved water management and crop productivity in rainfed areas would relieve considerable pressure on irrigated agriculture and on water resources. Exploiting the full potential of rainfed agriculture, however, will require investing in water harvesting technologies, crop breeding targeted to rainfed environments, agricultural extension services, and access to markets, credit, and input supplies in rainfed areas. Should all countries and regions phase out unsustainable groundwater extraction over the next 25 years this could lead to a decrease in cereal production concentrated in the basins that currently experience large overdrafts. As a result, the developing world as a whole would need to increase its net imports to ensure food security, as a trade-off for restoring sustainable groundwater supplies. By substituting cereal and other food imports for irrigated agricultural production (so-called imports of virtual water), countries can effectively reduce their agricultural water use. To stimulate conservation of abstracted water and free up agricultural water for environmental, domestic, and industrial uses, the effective price of water to the agricultural sector may need to be gradually increased. As a result, farmers will increase their on-farm investments in irrigation and water management technology, and the efficiency of irrigation systems and basin water use could improve significantly. Increased water prices would not only encourage all users to use water more efficiently, but also could generate funds to maintain existing water infrastructure and to build new infrastructure.

Regional impacts – including LUCThe increase in food production in developing countries (67%) is expected to match the increase in population (50-60%). This increase in food production is forecast to at least keep pace with population increase in all regions, albeit some regions are expected to remain net importers of food. Moreover, it is stressed that these regional level conclusions will mask shortfalls in food production at specific localities.

North Africa and the Middle East (NAME) appears to be the region most vulnerable to food insecurity, being the only region that is a net importer of all major commodities, except fish. In addition, in NAME agriculture already occupies >100% of all land deemed suitable for agriculture (thereby relying on marginal land to maintain current production). There are also serious concerns for sub-Saharan Africa where, although there is potential to increase both yields per ha and to cultivate more land, many farmers lack the resources to invest in greater production and there are key issues of affordability for local populations.

Most sustainable production optionsThere is clearly potential to increase global food production to the amounts needed to meet total global food requirements in 2030, without large-scale LUC and without commensurate increases in emissions of GHGs or demands for irrigation. However, to achieve these production increases effective policies need to be put in place. Policy options are summarised in Table 4 of the main report below.

Measures which increase productivity by utilising inputs more efficiently also produce less emission of GHGs per t of product as well as avoiding CO2 emissions from LUC. Priority needs to be given to increasing production with minimal increase in GHG emissions since forecasts of climate change


suggest that after 2030 the impacts on agricultural production are likely to begin to be negative overall. Incentives need to be provided to breed crop cultivars that increase productivity while using inputs, especially of nutrients and water, more efficiently. A similar approach is needed for livestock production to increase the feed conversion ratio, again to enable more efficient use of inputs.

While there are adverse implications for local air and water quality from further intensification of production, a continued drive to produce more from the existing area of agricultural land will reduce pressures for LUC and the destruction of natural habitats which provide valuable ecosystem services.

In addition, because of the fertile and stable soils, equitable climate and large yield potentials, and in some countries large areas of under-utilized former agricultural land, there are advantages in increasing production in northern regions rather than encouraging production only in those regions where demand is forecast to increase most. Soil constraints in many tropical countries limit the potential for increased productivity and conversion of land to agriculture. However, while

management (including input and output externalities) to meet rising food and fibre demands while sustaining ecosystem services and livelihoods. As the global population grows, SLM will become increasingly necessary to avoid land degradation and a significant reduction in the productive and service (biodiversity niches, hydrology, carbon sequestration) functions of watersheds and landscapes caused by poor land management.

Options for mitigation of CH4 and N2O emissions from agriculture include reduced or modified fertilizer applications, reducing emissions from livestock manures, e.g. by anaerobic digesters, modified livestock breeding and feeding technologies (AEA, 2009a). A diet with a smaller proportion of meat than is typically consumed in NAFTA and EU countries, as recommended for health reasons, would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2 eq. target by about 50% compared with business as usual.

The ability of livestock to consume crop residues and by-products that are inedible to humans is resource efficient and leads to GHG avoidance, provided the advantages of substitute uses (such as biogas production) do not outweigh their benefits as an animal feed. Nevertheless at current levels of production and consumption – and even more so at projected future levels – the disbenefits of livestock with respect to GHG emissions outweigh the benefits. Clearly ways of tackling the GHGs generated by livestock are urgently needed.

There will be environmental costs in increasing food production to meet food security. We conclude that increased productivity per unit of land offers the most sustainable approach to increasing production by reducing the pressure for LUC and release of CO2 from forests and savannahs, while encouraging production in localities of greatest yield potential will reduce emissions of GHGs per t of production. The disadvantage of this approach is an increase in emissions likely to adversely affect local air and water quality.

Trade and developmentWhile, as outlined above, it would be technically possible, given the right policies in place, for global agricultural production to meet global food needs up to 2030, it is important to state that this does not mean that global food needs will be met through effective global distribution. Therefore, the report also considers the role of trade in food security and the key issue of how to achieve food security in the most vulnerable countries.

Trade offers some opportunities to address food security. Trade in food products among regions is expected in the reviewed studies to increase under an increasingly liberal trade regime, providing both improved opportunities for import of staples by regions which may not produce enough and also to export tropical produce. Increased trade can buffer variations in food production by increasing supply to regions where adverse weather has reduced production and offering the potential for greater returns to producers in areas where produce may be in surplus. Such exchange can contribute to managing the impacts of climate change and greater price security gives farmers confidence to invest in inputs and technology which will enable further increases in productivity. Increasing production of cash crops such as coffee for export has the potential to increase rural incomes, especially if value is added by processing in the country of origin. However, experience has shown that there are risks to this approach which may lead to over-concentration on certain key commodities at the expense of more diverse production. If markets become crowded and prices fall sharply there are potentially serious adverse impacts on local food security of the population dependent on exports. Therefore, we have concluded that it is not appropriate to make generalized policy option recommendations on how the poorest countries could address food security issues through development of agricultural trade. Policies specific to countries and products need to be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking account of policy regime, production potentials and the position in the global marketplace.

A key factor in ensuring food security is to address issues of affordability and income inequality within vulnerable countries, by increasing the purchasing power of the poorer people and increasing productivity of subsistence smallholders who are dependent upon their own production to feed themselves. Policy mechanisms put forward by the OECD to enable this are summarised as follows:

investment in agriculture with a clear long-term perspective; donors should also invest in technical capacities, rather than concentrate purely on food aid and

programmes, to help developing countries improve their sustainable agriculture and food security


conditions; donors should promote processes that are country-driven and owned through inclusive consensus

building.And these mechanisms were broadly embraced by the G8 Summit communiqué in July 2009. A range of policy options are also set out in the main report which address poverty and food security management, including comprehensive schemes promoting farm level and market level initiatives. However, the challenge of establishing food security in the poorest countries should not be underestimated and these countries are likely to continue to depend on aid for some years to come.

Women play a major role in the developing countries in farming and in managing the food security and nutrition of families and children. Governments and donors should ensure that programmes empower women not just to contribute their labour into farming but also to gain income from their contribution. Under the Operation Flood programme in India such empowerment demonstrated a clear correlation between increased income of women and improved food security and nutrition at household level.

Conclusions and recommendationsTo achieve the potential production increases identified, effective policies need to be put in place. At the global level there needs to be incentives to breed crop cultivars that increase productivity while using inputs, especially of nutrients and water, more efficiently. A similar approach is needed for livestock production to increase the feed conversion ratio, again to enable more efficient use of inputs. Increased production, while reducing emissions per t of produce and reducing the need for additional water supplies, is unlikely to happen without direction and funding by government agencies. Effective extension services are also needed to promulgate the developments. But such fundamental research, which aims to produce crop cultivars that provide improved food quality as well as yield while using inputs more efficiently, needs to be integrated with, and to respond to, priorities identified by farmers themselves for tools and methods that are relevant to their specific agro-environment. These need to be enabled by extension services that can provide a dialogue between researcher and farmer.

Increasing production in those regions which have the greatest production potential per ha due to fertile and stable soils, equitable climate and large yield potentials and in those regions with large areas of under-utilized former agricultural land, not only improve prospects for food security but also are likely to lead to fewer GHG emissions per t of product, a 'comparative environmental advantage' for food production. Hence, there is a need to maintain investment in agriculture in those northern regions with a large productive capacity to enable food to be produced with an efficient use of inputs and relatively few GHG emissions. Policies are needed in the vulnerable regions to increase spending power so that populations in those regions are able to better afford food produced domestically as well as imported food products in a free market. This may mean promoting the production of higher-value specialist crops in tropical countries, and adding value to those crops within-country, to generate revenue to import staples from temperate regions. Nevertheless, given the potential vulnerability of producers to fluctuations in commodity prices, there is also a need to take measures to increase the purchasing power of subsistence smallholders who rely on their own produce to feed themselves to enable them to invest in means to increase production. Aid may continue to be needed but with clearly-defined goals and a will to hold recipient governments accountable for its effective disbursement.

In developing countries work is reported on losses during on-farm storage of grain by smallholders, showing improved storage has the potential to reduce such losses by c. 65% (c. 4% of total harvest). Promulgation of best storage practice by extension services should be a priority.

Measures which increase productivity by utilising inputs more efficiently also produce less emission of GHGs per t of product as well as avoiding CO2 emissions from LUC. Priority needs to be given to increasing production with minimal increase in GHG emissions since forecasts of climate change suggest that after 2030 the impacts on agricultural production are likely to begin to be negative overall. Hence any drive to increase production prior to 2030 that disregards GHG emissions may jeopardise the achievement of food security in later years. In this respect it is particularly important that where LUC occurs it is not tropical rainforest that is converted to agricultural use.

There is evidence that biofuels have become a significant driver for LUC. In consequence the sanguine conclusions summarized here, that the increase in food production needed to meet the forecast increase in demand by 2030 without the need for major LUC, may be compromised by the additional demand for agricultural crops as feedstocks for first generation biofuels.

There are risks that increasing food production in those regions with a comparative environmental advantage will increase developing countries’ reliance on food imports in order to meet their food needs. Hence the need to increase incomes within poor countries so that food imports can be bought via open trade and not donated as aid. To ensure future food supplies policies, both international and national, need to enable farming to be profitable, especially for the smallholder, in order to ensure food producers stay in business, invest in improved techniques and can afford to buy the necessary produce they cannot supply from their own farms.

Getting people out of poverty is a function of income growth. However the distribution of wealth is crucial to the rate at which income growth by investors is translated into national poverty reduction. With more equitable distribution of wealth the same increase can give greater reductions in poverty. Large-


scale systems have relatively less economic impact and tend to concentrate wealth more than would a larger number of smaller-scale investments.

The studies reviewed indicate that if appropriate policies are pursued, and assuming that:

production continues to increase in the N hemisphere; production is intensified such that GHG emissions per ton of food produced are decreased; incomes in developing countries increase sufficiently to purchase food from other regions,

global food production can be increased without large-scale LUC or pro rata increases in GHG emissions or water use for irrigation.

The considerable improvements in agricultural productivity achieved over the last 50 years, in particular due to developing new crop cultivars and livestock breeds that produce greater outputs by using inputs more efficiently, highlight the need for continued substantial research to maintain rates of improvement in the coming years. Research aimed at increasing agricultural output in developing countries, in order to achieve food security, also needs to ensure that agriculture is environmentally sustainable to minimise increases in GHG emissions, conserve water supplies and maintain or improve local water and air quality together with biodiversity. In addition, research to increase the amount of food produced also needs to ensure such food is of good nutritional quality. Among other things, there is scope for research to better quantify post-harvest losses and identify the means to reduce such losses at all stages of the food chain. There is also a need for greater interaction between research and extension services in order not only to promulgate the results of research but to make researchers aware of the priorities perceived by producers.

The review highlights the importance of taking into account sustainability of trade in the context of food security. While some research in this area outlines environmental impacts in source countries of traded commodities and links to livelihoods, poverty and food security, there is a need to establish a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of trade.


Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with

details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

REASONS FOR THE STUDYThe Earth's population has increased from c. 3.5 • 109 to c. 6 • 109 over the last c. 40 years, with forecasts of further increases to between 8 and 9 • 109 by 2030. Global food production has increased by c. 170% since c. 1966, broadly in line with the increased demand for food. Most of this increase has arisen from greater production per ha, since over the past 40 years the total area under crops has increased by only c. 15%. However, c. 35% of the earth’s surface has already been converted to agriculture and much of the remainder is desert or mountainous regions unsuitable for cultivation. Much of the uncultivated area that may have potential for increased agricultural production is of the greatest biodiversity and, due to the nature of the soil in many locations, may not be able to sustain agriculture in the long-term.

Food security has been defined as existing when ''all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life'' (World Food Summit, 1996). Our approach focussed on the physical availability of adequate nutrition.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 10 of 50

We acknowledge that food security is primarily an economic question not simply an issue of agricultural capability. It might be argued that food security is best achieved by overall economic expansion that creates adequate income and demands to stimulate production. However, the specific remit of the project was to assess the physical potential for increased food production, the potential environmental impacts and how those impacts could be minimised. We therefore began by assessing the physical constraints and then made some examination of the barriers that might prevent physical availability from being realised as improved security.

A crucial factor to take into account when evaluating food security is that despite the large increases in food production over the last 40 years, one billion people still do not have enough food (OECD-FAO, 2009). It is noteworthy that in the early 1990s nearly 80% of all malnourished children lived in developing countries that produced food surpluses. Hence increasing food supply alone will not provide security: it needs to be affordable. Affordability is about food being available at prices that people can afford to pay, and in particular, whether low-income consumers can afford enough nutritious food. However, while the World Food Summit definition establishes linkages among food security, increase in agricultural production and poverty alleviation, the definition does not capture the trade-offs between food security issues and environmental sustainability.

There is a pressure on all countries to produce food in a sustainable manner that does not harm the environment and can reduce emissions from the farming sector. There has been a dearth of research in the linkages and/or trade-offs between food security policies and environmentally sustainable agricultural production in the developing countries. In particular, the extent to which increased agricultural production may be decoupled from increased emissions to air and water needs to be assessed. We consider these aspects to be important since emissions to air include gases which contribute to global warming, while reduced air and water quality may have direct adverse impacts on human health as well as on the sustainability of ecosystems. In addition, in some regions at least, forecast changes in climate are predicted to have adverse impacts on agricultural production and may undermine efforts to achieve food security. The prime aim of this project was therefore to assess the physical potential to increase food production, and food supply through reduced wastage, with the least environmental impact, especially with regard to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). While we also addressed issues of trade and poverty reduction these were not the prime focus of this review and have not been considered in detail.

A further impact of agriculture we have not explicitly evaluated is that on the social environment. A key driver of agricultural policy in Europe has been to safeguard farmers incomes or in more recently to undertake rural development. Such concerns weigh equally heavily on the policy options for the development of agriculture in many developing countries. There is also concern about the impact of agriculture on the aesthetic environment. We have taken account of the indirect impacts of such policies on food trade and production in other countries.

This study was carried out to review published estimates of the increase in food production needed to meet forecast demand in 2030.

The specific objectives of the study were to:1. identify the different production systems used globally, and their relative productivity; 2. identify the environmental consequences of these systems over the past 50 years and their long-term sustainability. To meet these objectives required assessments of:

the geographic areas and ecosystems where increases in production are most likely to, or expected to, occur;

the use of different production techniques and their capacity to produce food (including marine/aquaculture systems);

whether production increases are expected to occur through extensification, intensification or increased productivity;

dietary requirements and options for balancing diets and using different protein sources (such as livestock, fisheries and crop-based sources);

physical constraints to production, such as the availability of cultivable land, water availability, and the predicted impacts of climate change such as changes in growing season length and water stress;

the extent to which the geographic areas and ecosystems identified within each of the options are vulnerable to degradation;

the relative merits of focussing additional production in areas where agriculture is already intensive, where there is a skilled workforce and less environmental value, versus expanding production across less intensive agricultural systems;

the extent to which the environmental consequences of each of the options can be mitigated.

3. Assess the potential for better management of harvested food to reduce wastage;4. evaluate policy options to meet food security, in particular to assess:

how UK and wider policies and programmes can support environmentally sustainable agricultural production;

whether trade-offs may be necessary between agricultural production and the environment in order to meet global 2030 food needs;

what policies developing country governments can adopt to boost environmentally sustainable agricultural production; and

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 11 of 50

what are the key enablers for promoting environmentally sustainable agricultural production in developing countries.

These objectives were met by dividing the work into nine tasks:1. to identify the different production systems used globally, and their relative productivity; 2. to identify the environmental consequences of these systems over the past 50 years and their

long-term sustainability;3. to identify the means by which global food production has increased since 1966;4. to analyse the options for meeting predicted global food needs in 2030 and the likely

environmental consequences of these options;5. estimate current trade flows between those regions and identify areas where consumption is in

deficit;6. predictions for future world food trade to 2030 and development of export potential to address

food security issues;7. where trade appears to be unable or unlikely to obviate shortfall review alternative options;8. assess the potential for better management of harvested food to reduce wastage;9. examine published scenarios to explore feasibility of options identified in 7.

The over-arching objective of the project was to identify the most environmentally sustainable way(s) of increasing agricultural production to meet global food needs in 2030, and provide policy recommendations for how HMG can support this. It is understood that in the process of policy formation with respect to food security and environmental sustainability there is a need for a broader approach than is provided here. However, this is one study of a number being conducted and these broader issues have been, or are being, assessed elsewhere

Rather than report the results of each task separately, in this summary report we have grouped the findings as follows:

section 1 provides a discussion of global production systems and their environmental impacts. It outlines the means by which food production has increased since 1966, gives forecasts of production and demand to 2030 and discusses how demand can be met and the environmental impacts of this;

section 2 assesses the role of trade in achieving food security and the possibilities of increasing purchasing power through trade as well as other initiatives to improve food security;

section 3 presents further policy options and approaches; recommendations and conclusions are given in Section 4.

Each task is reported in detail in the respective Annex.

1. SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE BASE (FOR INCREASING PRODUCTION IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE WAY)

1.1. Characterisation of global production systems. [See Annex 1 for more detail].Farming systems were identified using the framework proposed by Dixon et al. (2001) who considered that to 'determine appropriate agricultural development strategies and interventions in developing countries, the definition of such broad farming systems inevitably results in a considerable degree of heterogeneity within any single system. However, the alternative of identifying discrete micro-level farming systems in each developing country – which could result in hundreds or even thousands of systems world-wide – would complicate the debate concerning appropriate regional and global strategic responses'. The main farming systems have, therefore, been grouped in order to estimate their productivity, use of resources and environmental burdens. Within each of the broad systems, we identified the typical development issues, enabling the identification of broad strategic approaches to agricultural development and improvement of food security.

We adopted the seven broad types of farming system identified by Dixon et al. (2001) in the developing regions and identified five types of farming found mainly in industrialized countries, to give the 11 categories listed below:

1. large-scale commercial farming systems, across a variety of ecologies and with diverse production patterns (1-6 in Table 1 below);

2. intensive irrigated farming systems, embracing a broad range of food and cash crops, and of farm sizes (7 in Table 1 below);

3. rainfed farming systems in humid high potential areas, with systems dominated by one or another crop activity (notably root crops, cereals, industrial tree crops – both small scale and plantation – and commercial horticulture) and mixed crop-livestock systems (8 in Table 1 below);

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 12 of 50

4. rainfed farming systems in steep and highland areas, often mixed crop and livestock systems (9 in Table 1 below);

5. rainfed small-scale farming systems in dry or cold low potential areas, with mixed crop-livestock and pastoral systems which grade into sparse, often dispersed, systems with very low current productivity or potential because of extreme aridity or cold (10 in Table 1 below);

6. coastal artisanal fishing and mixed farming systems (11, dualistic mixed, in Table 1 below);

7. urban-based farming systems, typically focused on horticultural and animal production (not included in Table 1).

The above criteria and farming system groups were applied to developing countries as well, and for all regions distinction was made with respect to:

water resource availability, e.g. irrigated, rainfed, dry; climate, e.g. tropical, temperate, Mediterranean; landscape relief/altitude, e.g. highlands, upland, lowland; farm scale and structure, e.g. small scale, large scale; production intensity, e.g. intensive, extensive, sparse.

We also include a summary of capture fisheries and aquaculture. In the table below we report only 'headline' characteristics. More information on other inputs is provided below the table and in Annex 1.

Table 1. Summary table of farm typesProduction system

Major crops Yields t/ha – herd size

Inputs of mineral N fertilizer

Occurrence/ Comments

1. Intensive arable

Wheat, grain maize

2-12 Up to 250 kg N/ha/yr NAFTA, EU, CIT, Oceania

2. Intensive dairy

Grass, forage maize

24-60 cows2200-8400 L per cow

Up to 400 kg N/ha/yr NAFTA, EU, CIT, Oceania

3. Intensive livestock

Grass, cereals Numbers may be small or very large

May be entirely housed with no crops grown

Global, includes feedlot systems

4. Intensive horticulture

Vegetables, fruit, protected crops

Depends on crop Up to 300 kg/N/year for some vegetables

Global

5. Extensive livestock

Grass, often unimproved

Numbers may be small or very large 500-1700 L/cow

Usually small, sometimes insufficient to maintain soil reserves

Extensive pastures may still be over-grazed leading to their degradation and need for new land

6. Wetland rice

Rice, wheat, also vegetables

2-10 t/ha/crop 115 kg/ha to 194 kg/ha/yr Some systems produce 2 crops per year

7. Intensive irrigated

Rice, cotton, fruit 2->20 haCereal yields can be large

71 kg/ha (NAME)130-170 kg/ha S Asia. SSA 5 kg/ha

Great variety of crops grown, often 2 crops per year

8. Smallholder rain-fed humid

Cereals, root and tree crops

From <1 to >100 ha Little used in some regions, can be c. 100 kg/ha/yr in E and SE Asia. Large variation within regions

Continual cultivation of cassava and land use changes has led to fertility decline

9. Smallholder rain-fed highland

Cereals, roots, legumes, vegetables

1 t/ha maize in Andes Can be up to 180 kg/ha in China, little in other areas

Soils erosion and decrease in fertility

10. Smallholder dry and cold

Cassava, cereals, maize

May be < 1 ha in Africa and Asia but much bigger in Latin America

Usually little used but great variation within regions

General problem of soil infertility, which make ecosystems less resilient to stress than diverse agricultural systems

11. Dualistic mixed

Cereals 2 ha in Africa to very large farms in CIT

130-170 kg N/ha in India Declining soil fertility in some regions.

12. Aquaculture

Carp accounts for c. 70% of production

NA NA Mainly in Asia and Africa

13. Capture fisheries

Anchovy, herring, tuna and cod

NA NA Many capture fisheries are fully- or over-exploited.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 13 of 50

Intensive livestock, a particular concern with the intensification of livestock production is the consequent increase in demand for cereal feeds as a result of increased herd sizes, thus potentially causing tension between supplies for human consumption and for livestock feed.

Wetland rice cultivation, the wetland rice system is particularly important for current and future food supplies, currently supporting an agricultural population of nearly 860 • 106. The major future changes in this farming system are expected to be increased intensification and diversification of crop production with little increase in cropped land area. Diversification could include focusing more on small-scale livestock production as well as the expansion of small-scale on-farm aquaculture (ponds or rice-fish culture). If average farm sizes increase, in addition to farm mechanization, household incomes may increase thus reducing poverty. However, there are potential environmental implications associated with increasing intensification.

The future of the wetland rice cultivation system is also likely to encounter challenges relating to declining paddy prices and increasing labour costs, thus making it less attractive to use large inputs. As a result, this could slow down the current increasing rice productivity. These low prices reflect declining global prices, but could also be a result of government attempts to keep rice prices low to satisfy urban consumers. The system is likely to be faced with challenges relating to population pressure, climate and land degradation particularly in South Asia. With an increasing population to support, natural resources will be under greater pressure. Great variability in rainfall as a result of climate change may put further stress on already arid areas, thus better water management and soil conservation are going to be necessary until population growth slows (Dixon et al., 2001).

Smallholder rain-fed humid, important mainly in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. In Latin America, arable land increased by c. 300 • 106 ha (from 919 • 106 to 1,200 • 106) between 1965 and 1994, and irrigated lands have more than doubled (FAO, 1998). As a result of this increase in land use, food production in this region has almost doubled in the period between 1965 and 1994, albeit in per capita terms the increase is less. This highlights a continuing shortage of food in this region, and perhaps unfair distribution/access to food. Future challenges for the smallholder rain-fed humid farming system are likely to include the sustainable management of natural resources in order to reverse and avoid further environmental degradation. In addition, greater means of accessing agricultural inputs are likely to be needed, as well as technological capital and information provision and education. Finally, increased capacity to react to globalisation and market development will be necessary in order for produce to be integrated into world markets (Dixon et al., 2001).

Much of Sub-Saharan Africa is covered by this farming system (FAO, 2003). Here, the WDR (2008) estimate that productivity losses are in the region of 1% or less each year; in areas of extensive production including Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda, this is greater.

Smallholder rain-fed highland, this system is typically located in steep, highland areas and supports an agricultural population of over 500 • 106. Systems tend to be diversified with mixed crops and livestock, and are traditionally oriented to subsistence and sustainable resource management. However, they tend to be characterised by intense population and resource pressure. An average of 3.5 persons per cultivated hectare is aggravated by intense grazing pressure on the four-fifths of uncultivated land. Given the poor infrastructure, produce is rarely integrated into the market (FAO, 2003).

Smallholder dry and cold, this farming system is typical of areas of limited agricultural potential, due to lack of rain or low temperatures either at night or for at least part of the year. It covers a vast land area - around 3.5 • 10 9 ha – including north and west Africa, Asia, particularly much of India, China and Indonesia, yet supports only a relatively modest agricultural population of around 500 • 106. Such systems are based on mixed farming systems or pastoral activities, merging eventually into sparse and often dispersed systems with low productivity due to environmental constraints including nutrient poor soils, low temperatures and lack of rainfall (FAO, 2003). The future of the smallholder dry and cold system is likely to continue to be affected by environmental degradation – soil infertility, poor water quality and monocropping, which make ecosystems less resilient to stress than diverse agricultural systems (FAO, 2003).

Dualistic mixed, this farming system features diverse production patterns including large commercial farms combined with smallholder farms. It is found in parts of Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Latin America, but also in Africa. An agricultural population of nearly 200 • 106 is supported by this type of system, which is found in over 400 • 106 ha of cultivated land. Most of these systems are rain-fed, with the exception being the irrigated farming system of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, dominated by medium and large farms (FAO, 2003).

1.2. Environmental impacts of these systems [See Annex 2 for more detail]All farming systems may have adverse impacts on the environment. These impacts begin with the reduction in ecosystem services and biodiversity following land use change (LUC) to agriculture, together with emissions, particularly of the GHG carbon dioxide (CO2) arising from breakdown of soil organic matter (SOM) in consequence of cultivations to establish crops. Breakdown of SOM, and release of CO2, may continue for decades after initial LUC. In recent years agricultural production has increased primarily through increased production per ha, reducing the pressure for LUC and consequent emissions of CO2. However, agricultural production continues to emit GHG by other mechanisms. Increased production of arable and forage crops, in

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 14 of 50

many parts of the world, has been made possible by increased use of mineral fertilizers, in particular nitrogen (N), and in the soil a proportion of that N is converted to the GHG nitrous oxide (N2O). The growing demand for livestock products and resulting increase in livestock numbers has led to increases in emissions of the GHG methane (CH4) which arises primarily from enteric fermentation by ruminants. Paddy rice production is a large source of CH4 and N2O.

Notwithstanding the broader contribution of agricultural land in providing environmental services such as water supply, landscape amenities and biodiversity, the environmental impacts of farming systems over the past 50 years and their long-term sustainability have been evaluated with respect primarily to their impact on GHG emissions; air and water quality; water resources; soil degradation; LUC; and consequent impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity. Sustainable agriculture has been defined as agriculture that:

ensures the basic nutritional requirements of present and future generations are met, qualitatively and quantitatively, to reduce food insecurity;

reduces livelihood vulnerability, generates sufficient income and ensures decent living and working conditions for all those engaged in agricultural production;

maintains and, where possible, enhances the productive capacity of the natural resource base as a whole, and the regenerative capacity of renewable resources through environmentally-friendly technological innovation and indigenous practices;

reduces the vulnerability of the agricultural sector to adverse climatic and socio-economic factors or risks and strengthens self-reliance.

The above criteria are consistent with the Millennium Development Goals for reducing hunger and achieving environmental sustainability, specifically through agricultural means.

We have evaluated production systems according to the following criteria:

1. Can production be maintained into the future without causing irreparable damage to the means of production? For example, is the rate of soil loss or salinisation likely to lead to degradation?

2. Can production be maintained into the future without reliance on inputs which will not be available in the foreseeable future? For example, the use of fossil water from aquifers which are being depleted faster than the rate of replenishment.

3. Can production be maintained within the existing cultivated area without the need for continual encroachment on uncultivated land?

4. Can production be maintained into the future without having a negative impact on the income generation capacity of the farmers?

The sustainability of production systems outlined in Annex 1 was assessed according to the extent to which they comply with the above criteria.

We summarize below, for each production system in turn, the main environmental impacts that have been identified from each farming system. In addition, we drew upon projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), in order to consider how each production system might be affected by a changing climate. For more detail see section 4.6.6 of Annex 4.

1.2.1. Note on uncertainty In reporting apparent differences among systems and trends, both historic and projected, the topic of uncertainty must be addressed. All scientific measurements and models contain some uncertainty (or error). The reports, reviews and scientific papers on which this work was based are no exception and some estimates are subject to greater uncertainty than others. Greenhouse gases from all agricultural systems are particularly uncertain with very large ones associated with N2O emissions (applying to virtually all soil N turnover) and large ones for enteric CH4. Because we are not reporting analysis of measured data it is not possible to make the kinds of error estimates that may be derived from statistical analysis of such data. Cranfield University has been addressing this general subject for Defra in an assessment of PAS 2050:2008 (Publicly Available Specification PAS 2050:2008, Specification for the assessment of the life cycle GHG emissions of goods and services, Defra project FO0404). Although PAS 2050 applies only to GHGs, the sources and types of errors and the ways in which these should be handled will be analogous. As a guide, in other similar studies the uncertainty (quantified as the coefficient of variance – standard deviation/mean) may lie in the region of 25% to 35% for agricultural emissions. All the text that follows should, therefore, be read with qualification that differences, particularly small ones, may not be statistically significant. However, the broad results and conclusions may be regarded as a robust summary of the findings of forecasts and projections reported in the studies reviewed (AEA, 2009). In Table 2 below we report only 'headline' characteristics. More detail of environmental impacts is provided below and in Annex 2.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 15 of 50

1.2.2. Summary of environmental impacts

Table 2. Summary of environmental impacts of the main farming types

Production system

Water use, rain-fed/ irrigated

Soil impacts Emissions to water

Emissions to air Impacts on biodiversity

Land use change

Intensive arable

Mainly rain-fed

Localised soil erosion, reduced SOM

Nitrate (NO3) and phosphate (P2O5) enrichment

N2O from fertilizer, also ammonia (NH3)

Declining abundance of farmland plants and animals

Conversion from grass/ woodland is now uncommon. Some countries are increasing wooded areas

Intensive dairy

Mainly rain-fed

Generally favourable, grass increases SOM. However, increasing trend to forage maize increases erosion

Diffuse (NO3 and P2O5) and point source pollution

Emissions of CH4, N2O and NH3.

Pastures cut for silage or grazed intensively are less biodiverse than traditional hay meadows.

Some conversion from woodland reported for NZ

Intensive livestock farming

Mainly rain-fed

Degradation of dryland pastures in NAFTA and Oceania

Diffuse (NO3 and P2O5) and point source pollution

Emissions of CH4, N2O and NH3.

Pastures cut for silage or grazed intensively are less biodiverse than traditional hay meadows.

Can lead to indirect loss of rainforest due to increased demand for soya

Intensive horticulture

Mainly rain-fed

Localised soil erosion and reduction of SOM

Diffuse (NO3 and P2O5) pollution

N2O from fertilizer, CO2 from heated greenhouse production

The variety of crops, including perennial, offers greater potential for biodiversity

Production of tropical fruits can lead to rainforest destruction

Extensive livestock

Mainly rain-fed

c. 20% of pastures degraded

Some water pollution

Emissions of CH4, N2O

Grazing of native pastures can reduce biodiversity

If pastures degraded may lead to further LUC

Wetland rice Rain-fed and irrigated

Erosion and salinisation in some areas


CH4, also N2O and NH3

Intensive irrigated

Irrigated Salinization Depletion of water resources

Loss of aquatic species

Smallholder rain-fed humid

Rain-fed Decreasing fertility

Reduced water quality

Loss of rainforest

Smallholder rain-fed highland

Rain-fed Soil erosion Reduced water quality from sediment

Smallholder dry and cold

Rain-fed some irrigation

Salinization Over-exploitation of water resources

Large emissions of NH3 in China

Dualistic mixed

Rain-fed, some irrigation

Nutrient depletion


Deforestation in S America from cattle ranching

Capture fisheries and Aquaculture

NA NA Marine aquaculture can pollute surrounding waters

NA Trawling has severe impacts

Destruction of mangrove swamps

Intensive arable, the major environmental impacts of intensive arable farming are a reduction in water quality and emissions of N2O arising from applications of fertilizer-N. However, in many EU countries inputs of fertilizer-N, the major source of emissions of N2O and NO3, have stabilised while yields of the major arable crops have continued to increase.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 16 of 50

Intensive dairy farming, intensive dairy production is a significant source of GHGs but emissions of GHGs per unit of output are less than from extensive systems. Large herd sizes and concentrations of livestock within small areas pose serious concerns for the impacts on water and air quality.

Intensive livestock, the intensive raising of livestock concentrates their excreta and gives rise to problems of disposal. Where the ratio of land available to livestock manure is small there are considerable problems with water quality: NO3 pollution; eutrophication; direct contamination by run-off. There are also both local and regional problems with respect to air quality, acidification and eutrophication arising from NH3 emissions. Examples of areas affected include the Flemish region of Belgium, much of the Netherlands and the Po valley in Italy. These problems are not simply related to the size of the enterprises. In densely populated areas where relatively few livestock are raised by each family farm, the overall burden of manure per ha may still exceed the amount that can be re-cycled effectively, and such problems are being encountered in Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam. Intensive livestock production may also give rise to indirect LUC by increasing the demand for ingredients such as soya or manioc for concentrated feeds (WDR, 2008).

Intensive horticulture, the impacts of horticulture arising from the two main types, vegetable and fruit production are contrasting. Vegetable production requires cultivation and often large inputs of fertilizer while fruit, usually being perennial, requires little cultivation and small to moderate amounts of fertilizer. Horticulture is predominantly rainfed, but often supplemented by irrigation and for some crops in some countries may depend on irrigation.

Extensive livestock, while extensive livestock production gives rise to fewer impacts on water quality and produces less NH3 emissions, emissions of GHGs are as great, or greater from intensive production. This is because the consumption of unrefined forage tends to produce more CH4 per t of feed consumed and also because the longer time taken for animals to reach market weight increases lifetime CH4 emissions per animal. In addition, soil nutrient supplies can be depleted leading to a cycle of further extensification and demand for LUC to create new pastures.

Wetland rice cultivation, irrigated rice cultivation is a major source of CH4 but changes to production methods are forecast to lead to no net increase in CH4 emissions by 2030 despite forecasts of substantial increases in production. However, rice cultivation is likely to continue to be a major source of N2O and NH3.

Irrigated, without significant improvements in water use efficiency it will be difficult to greatly increase production from this farm type. In some regions maintaining current production may be difficult.

Smallholder rain-fed humid, this farming type is particularly vulnerable to soil erosion. Nevertheless, Dixon et al. (2001) suggest that this system has great potential for intensification, by using soil restoration methods and improved water management techniques. However this may compromise the sustainability of the system.

Smallholder rain-fed highland, uplands are more prone to water erosion where cultivated slopes are >10-30%, where soil conservation measures are absent and precipitation rates are high. Estimates of the severity on currently cropped land cannot be made. Due to soil type, slope and rainfall, soil erosion in the Loess Plateau, China is the greatest in the world at 3720 t km -2 year-1, (Liu, 1999). Land pressure in South East Asia, caused by increasing population, has encouraged the greater use of steep hill slopes for maize production. There is little choice in countries such as Bhutan and Nepal where there is little flat land left to cultivate. Erosion occurs at a rate of 2000-5000 tonnes t km-2 year-1 in agricultural fields and 20,000 t km-2 year-1 in highly degraded watersheds (Dixon et al., 2001). Unless inputs can be made available to improve productivity and management to avoid degradation, there will be pressure for LUC where uncultivated land is available.

Dualistic mixed, heavy demand for water in some areas is diminishing water resources while a combination of increased agrochemical inputs and decreased water flows is reducing water quality. In some areas soil reserves of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) are not being maintained.

Smallholder dry and cold, such systems often have low productivity due to environmental constraints including nutrient-poor soils, low temperatures and lack of rainfall, for instance in North Africa, parts of South Asia and Central Asia. Lack of precipitation explains the need for additional water abstraction in these areas, leading to water stress. Areas experiencing water stress in major river basins have been identified in recent research (WDR, 2008). Overexploited areas include areas which are covered largely by smallholder dry and cold farming systems. Soil erosion is the main cause of soil nutrient depletion, which may be aggravated by limited fertiliser application. This system tends to have a very high population pressure on natural resources, particularly in Turkey and Central Asia (Dixon et al., 2001).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 17 of 50

Capture fisheries and aquaculture, as a result of conversion for fish and shrimp farming, mangrove habitats have decreased. Asia lost more than 1.9 • 106 ha as a result of land use conversion whilst north and central America and Africa have lost in the region of 690 and 510 • 103 ha respectively in the past 25 years. Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea and Panama experienced the largest losses of mangroves during the 1980s. Around one million ha were lost in total in these five countries. Vietnam, Malaysia and Madagascar which all support coastal artisanal production systems, suffered major area losses in the 1990s and between 2000 and 2005 (FAO, 2008b).

Deep sea fishing in the high seas can threaten other vulnerable marine species including delicate cold water corals and sponges; sea-bottom seep and vent habitats that contain unique species, and features like underwater seamounts which support sensitive species. Moreover, since natural populations of fish provide the resource base for commercial fisheries, capture fisheries are themselves an ecosystem service.

1.2.3. The balance among emissions between intensive and extensive systems. While it might be assumed that intensive systems have the greatest adverse environmental impact this is not always the case. Intensive production tends to emit less GHG per t of produce, albeit total emissions may be substantial. This is mainly because intensive systems may use inputs more efficiently but also because intensive systems are not usually encroaching upon natural ecosystems and do not lead directly to emissions from LUC. Intensive farming is also less likely to lead to land degradation since greater crop yields return more organic matter to land, hence better maintaining SOM and soil structure. Inputs of manures and fertilizers maintain soil fertility. However, intensive farming has greater impacts on local water and air quality and also makes greater use of water resources, principally via the need for irrigation water and also as a consequence of abstraction leading to drainage of wetlands. The adverse impacts on air and water quality arise partly because these issues are primarily ones of concentration and intensive agriculture leads to emissions being concentrated in particular localities and not dispersed over a wider area. There is also the question of continued affordability of the inputs to these systems. Marked increases in oil prices may lead to significant increases in the costs of fertilizers and feeds which would lead to increases in the prices of livestock products, thus reducing demand and production and perhaps also competetiveness with extensive production. While such a change could increase GHG emissions per t of product, a significant decrease in demand for, and hence total production of, meat would be expected to lead to a reduction in total GHG emissions.

1.3. Means by which global food production has increased since 1966. [See Annex 3 for more detail]Food production may be increased by the following means:

Increased crop yields from the land already used by agriculture (increased productivity) through: increased nutrient and agrochemical inputs; increased nutrient-use efficiency; increased water-use and irrigation efficiency; increased cropping intensity (growing more crops per season, reducing the proportion of fallow in the

rotation); improved crop cultivars (which may be a means of achieving the means above).

Increased crop production through: increasing the land area used for agriculture.

In this report 'production' is defined as:

total amount of food produced per year.

While 'productivity' is defined as:

food produced per ha per year.

We have focussed on this definition of productivity, rather than on total factor productivity, as our emphasis was on identifying the physical factors which have allowed production to increase to meet changing demand and in particular to assess the interaction between increased yields per hectare of existing agricultural land and the need to increase demand by LUC.

Since the early 1960s, increases in crop yield per ha has been by far the largest source of increase in world crop production, accounting for approximately 78% of the increase in the world and 70% of the increase in developing countries (1961 –1999). A further 15% of the increase came from the expansion of arable area in the world (UNEP, 2009); while, it was 22% for the developing countries. The remaining 7% of the increase in world crop production came from increased cropping intensity; 5% for the developing countries. Yield increase provided the greatest production increase in most regions except for sub-Saharan Africa where only c. 35% of increased production came from greater yields.

Between the early 1960s and the mid 1990s, average global cereal yields increased 107% from 1.23 t/ha to 2.55 t/ha (FAO, 2003). Total cereal production grew 180% from 420 to 1,176 million tonnes per year

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 18 of 50

(UNCTAD-UNEP, 2008). In some countries, such as France (2.4 t/ha to 7.1 t/ha, 196%), yield increases have been significantly greater.

Between 1969 and 1999, global crop production increased by 126%; in developing countries over this period the increase was 191%. Livestock production has increased 236% since 1967/69 to 218 million tonnes in 1997/99, with the greatest increase in poultry meat production (479%). Global milk and egg production have also increased during the same period; milk by 145%, eggs by 276% (FAO, 2003). Over this period the human population increased by c. 70%.

1.3.1. Greater yieldsOver the past forty years public and private sector investments in agricultural research and development have led to numerous significant advances in animal and crop production. Improved fertilizers and pesticides, together with more efficient ways of applying them, have helped increase yields. Improved irrigation planning has helped make better use of scarce water resources and better selection has enabled isolation and exploitation of crop characteristics for different situations, climates and end uses.

Improved livestock selection and breeding techniques have produced greater yielding animals, and the use of artificial insemination has made it easier to cross breed animals in different parts of the world to make use of desirable characteristics. Improving diets and breeding animals to make better use of them has also helped improve efficiencies and increase production. Specialisation of farm businesses has also helped to drive improvements and increase efficiencies. Increases in ruminant and milk production during the past thirty years have been achieved by concentrating production in mixed and intensive production systems rather than in pastoral systems. Globally, ruminant production increased by 40% between 1970 and 1995 yet the global area of grassland increased by only 4% (Bouwman et al., 2006).

In developed countries, the area of arable land in crop production has not increased since the 1970s and has recently been in decline, due in part to the greater emphasis on environmental protection in the agricultural policies of the EU and US.

1.3.1.1. The 'Green Revolution'Two major factors that have led to significant improvements in crop productivity have been better management practices (including use of inputs and technology and increasing the intensity or frequency of production) and the development of new varieties through improvements in plant breeding. In many cases the two have developed hand-in-hand and quantifying the input of each is difficult, although this has been attempted for some countries. Even more difficult is to discriminate between improved nutrient use efficiency (NUE) by improved nutrient management and from the adoption of improved cultivars. Globally FAO (2005) concluded that 35% of the increase in cereal production between 1966 and 2000 arose from increased use of fertilizers. This infers that c. 40% of the increase arose from a combination of improved NUE achieved by better management and by improved cultivars.

Better crop varieties are able to respond to increased inputs (in particular fertilizers). For example, cereal varieties with shorter, stiffer straw are less prone to lodging (when the straw bends or breaks making harvesting difficult and in extreme cases reduces yield and grain quality) than traditional longer-strawed varieties and hence their yield potential can be increased by additional input of N fertilizer, without increasing lodging (some new varieties have also been shown to give better yields in low-input systems).

Alongside government financial intervention in agricultural production, technological developments have played a major role in stimulating improved production techniques and higher yields. One of the most well known developments in this arena was the Green Revolution (GR), which comprised three main elements: high yielding seed varieties, better fertilizers and improved irrigation. Mechanisation also helped increase production. This agricultural development was principally a feature of developing countries but reflected the developments which were also underway in developed countries. While the GR is generally associated with the 1960s and 70s, the late GR (1981 – 2000) saw further development but differed from the earlier period in several important respects.

The contribution of plant breeding through the cultivation of modern varieties to yield growth was greater in the late GR than during the earlier period. Research in the US, UK and N Africa and the Middle East (NAME) has concluded that between 50 and 90% of yield improvements since the 1960's have arisen from the breeding of improved cereal varieties. However, in sub-Saharan Africa, yield growth contributed only c. 35% to production growth during both the early and late phases of the revolution, and the contributions of modern varieties were also small. Production growth was achieved mainly by increasing cultivated land area.

More recently, investment into agricultural research and development has fallen. Agricultural policy in OECD countries has moved away from production support to targeting other policy objectives: in particular to avoid production from exceeding demand and leading to the accumulation of surpluses and also to reduce the environmental impacts of farming. Between 1986-88 and 2002-04 OECD countries reduced producer support from 37% of the value of total agricultural production to 30%. At the same time there has been steady reduction in the rate of increase in cereal yields worldwide (Peltonen-Sainio et al., 2007).

1.3.1.2. Lessons from the Green revolutionThe GR may be considered to have succeeded in significantly increasing food production but at the expense not only of the environment, through increasing pollution from the increased inputs of agrochemicals and in some localities depletion of water resources, but also by reducing food quality, some 'improved' grain varieties being

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 19 of 50

less nutritious due to a reduced concentration of total protein and a poorer quality of essential amino acids (EAA) within that protein (Evans, 2009). However, by increasing agricultural productivity, the GR enabled food production to increase significantly by means other than increasing the area of land needed for agriculture. Without the GR far more LUC might have taken place. The GR demonstrated that plant breeding had the potential to create much more productive crop cultivars. When the GR began the priority was to produce more food, the potential impact on the environment was not taken into account. However, as indicated in section 4.6.3. of Annex 4, there is potential to breed for cultivars which use nutrients more efficiently. It is also possible to breed for nutritional quality, not just bulk. As example of such a breeding programme is provided by the UK 'Green Grain' project (Defra LINK project LK0959). The rationale behind this work was to produce cereal grain, primarily for livestock feed, that combined large yields with an EAA spectrum within the grain protein appropriate to stock feed, hence reducing total N intake. The goal is to directly reduce N emissions from livestock production by producing feed better balanced to meet the nutritional requirements of the livestock, and indirectly by needing fewer inputs for production of the feed. We conclude that a programme of research directed toward increasing productivity and environmental sustainability, e.g. through breeding for crops with improved nutrient uptake efficiency (NUE) and water use efficiency (WUE), has the potential to achieve both the benefits of the GR (large increase in food production without commensurate LUC) while not repeating the problems of requiring such large agrochemical inputs and increasing polluting emissions. Such an initiative to increase WUE of crops may be particularly helpful in Africa where water resources are forecast to limit the scope for increasing yields by irrigation.

1.3. 2. Increased land useOverall expansion of agricultural area accounted for about 20% of the global production increase, although increased land was estimated to account for c. 65% of increased production in SS-Africa. Few studies have been reported which indicate how LUC has been achieved with minimal environmental impact. Instead work has concentrated on destruction of the most diverse habitats.

Available literature indicates that deforestation rates in the Amazon Basin of Brazil increased after the early 1960s due in large part to national policies supporting road building, tax and credit incentives to large corporations and ranches, and colonization projects for the rural poor. Changes in these policies have contributed to the declining rates of deforestation observed since the 1980's (Fujisaka et al., 1996).

The problem of forest conversion is considered most acute in Indonesia. In Indonesia, even though there are 20 • 106 ha of abandoned agricultural land appropriate for the establishment of oil palm plantations, this land is not being planted. Instead, in the 1990s concessions for plantations were granted mostly in forests. Planters consider it more expensive to plant in grasslands or in degraded areas because they will have to use more fertilizer. The cost of clearing forests is subsidised from the sale of timber from concession areas. Some oil palm production plantations were converted from other uses such as former rubber plantations whose production is now less valuable than in the past. There is a direct relationship between the growth of oil palm estates and deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia. In the Kinabatangan watershed area of Sabah, Malaysia, large areas of previously logged forests have been converted into oil palm estates WWF (2009).

1.4. Forecasts of production to 2030 and how required increases may be met. [See Annex 4 for more detail]Most agricultural scientists and ecologists agree on a number of issues regarding productivity and environmental requirements of future agroecosystems (Cassman et al., 2002):

i) food production, as defined at the beginning of section 1.3, must increase substantially to meet the needs of a much larger and wealthier human population;

ii) this increase should come from achieving greater yields on existing agricultural land rather than expanding production to marginal land or by further encroachment into natural ecosystems such as rainforests, wetlands, or estuaries;

iii) farmers must achieve significant improvements in the efficiency with which inputs, in particular N, are used to maintain acceptable standards of environmental quality; and

iv) farmers must make a profit to stay in business.

As indicated in Annex 2 (section 1.5) ecosystem services (defined as 'the benefits of nature to households, communities, and economies,' see Table 4 in Annex 2) provide direct physical benefits to local communities as well as broader benefits to the global environment. Hence the emphasis (point ii) given to increasing food production on land already used for agriculture in order to reduce the need for LUC. In addition, as discussed in section 4.3 of Annex 4, much of the land currently under natural ecosystems is vulnerable to degradation and incapable of sustaining productive agriculture. In order to ensure that food production is increased without the need to convert land from natural habitats providing ecosystem services, a number of globally-focussed policies will need to be considered, understood and acted upon to ensure that increases in food production arising from greater intensification and agricultural land area expansion do not have negative impacts on the environment. These are discussed in section 4.7.1 of Annex 4.

With respect to point iii above, increasing agrochemical inputs, of which the largest is usually N fertilizer, in order to increase yield will increase pollution. Hence using inputs more efficiently will reduce the amount of

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 20 of 50

additional inputs needed and avoid pro rata increases in emissions to water and air. While there may be some advantage in less economically efficient producers leaving agriculture, hence enabling the more efficient farmers to expand, the overall profitability of farming needs to be great enough to incentivise those remaining to increase total production in order to meet increasing demand. This aspect may be particularly important in the CIT, where substantial amounts of productive agricultural land are no longer being utilized.

Agreement on these issues provides common ground for examining research priorities and policies to meet the goals of food security, agricultural profitability, and environmental sustainability (Cassman et al., 2002). Here we assessed the extent to which global food production can be increased to meet the greater demand forecast for 2030 (Task 4). In the assessment we have considered the physical factors which have allowed production to increase to meet changing demand, as well as to consider projections for future increases in food production.

At the beginning of this century, the increase in crop production until 2030 was forecast at 55%; 67% in developing countries, with a forecast increase in the global population of c. 40% (FAO, 2003). The greatest forecast increases in livestock production are in developing countries where milk and poultry and pork production is set to double by 2030. The latest FAO outlook for agriculture (OECD-FAO, 2009) reports that global food production needs to increase more than 40% by 2030 compared with average 2005-07 levels, with food availability needing to increase by 60% in developing countries. Hence the forecast increases in production (of 55%), summarized here from earlier studies, appear adequate to meet the most recent estimate of needs in 2030 (+40% consumption). Cattle, sheep and goat production in the developing world is also projected to double while in industrialised and transitional countries all production is projected to increase at a far lesser rate. A major concern is over the sustainability of capture fisheries. FAO (2008) consider that the maximum wild capture fisheries potential from the world’s oceans has probably been reached, and a more closely controlled approach to fisheries management is required. FAO (2000) estimates that by 2030, over half of the fish consumed by the world’s people will be produced by aquaculture.

Overall, food production is forecast to increase at a greater rate than population, offering the opportunity for greater food security. However, as we make clear in this report, such an increase in not axiomatic and certain actions are needed to make it happen. There are also caveats to be made and the assumptions on which the forecasts are based need to be realised. In particular:

the impacts of climate change on agriculture at the global scale are forecast to bring benefits overall up to

2030. However, the benefits are forecast to accrue in the northern hemisphere with adverse impacts in tropical regions.

Water scarcity is not forecast to have an overall adverse impact on rain-fed production but the potential for increasing the area under irrigation will be limited.

Forecasts of food supplies to 2030 have not taken account of projected expansion in the area need to grow crops for first generation biofuels.

Although not specifically addressed the assumption appears to have been made in the forecasts cited that public and private investment in R&D and extension services will be made.

1.4.1. Increased inputsAbout 80% of the projected growth in crop production in developing countries is expected to come from intensification giving rise to yield increases (67%) and greater cropping intensities (12%). In land-scarce regions of the Near East/North Africa and South Asia the role of intensification will be greater, accounting for 90% of the growth in crop production. Intensification will arise from better management as well as better utilisation of inputs, improved crop cultivars and livestock breeds and reduced post-harvest losses as well as from increased inputs. However, information available does not allow the apportioning of yield increases among those factors, except for studies which have evaluated the roles of improved breeding and increased inputs (see section 1.3.1.1). As indicated below in section 3.1 while the role of breeding is likely to remain crucial to future development emphasis also needs to be given to developing crops and livestock, and management techniques, that use inputs more efficiently.

Currently 40% of world crop production comes from the 16% of agricultural land that is irrigated. However, the global rate of increase in irrigated area is declining mainly because of increased costs of infrastructure building (Faures et al., 2007); per capita irrigated area has declined by 5% since 1978; and new dam construction may allow only a 10% increase in water for irrigation over the next 30 years.

Considering specific crops, different factors will drive their increased production in developing countries. More than 80% of the growth in wheat and rice production will come from yield gains, while for maize, expansion of harvested land will continue to be a major factor in production increases. These differences arise from the fact that much of the wheat and rice produced is grown in land-scarce regions of Asia, Near East and North Africa while maize is the major cereal crop of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America which in many cases have room for expansion. For sub-Saharan Africa fertilizer consumption per ha is expected to remain small, and probably reflects large areas with no fertilizer use at all, combined with small areas of commercial farming with high levels of fertilizer use, and could be seen as a sign of nutrient mining (Henao and Baanante, 1999). In order to reduce

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 21 of 50

depletion of nutrient reserves in existing agricultural soils, and creating a driver for further LUC, and to reduce LUC arising from increased maize production breeding of greater-yielding maize cultivars and increasing access to crop nutrients should be encouraged.

1.4.2. Land availabilityFischer et al. (2002) reported a slightly negative land balance (i.e., land actually in crop cultivation exceeds the potential for rain-fed wheat, rice, or grain maize) for NAME (c. 6%), South Asia (almost 10%), Southeast Asia (c. 3%) and East Asia (c. 2%). But, considerable positive land balances were found for CIT (almost 20%), South America (c. 23%), and Eastern and Middle sub-Saharan Africa (c. 24%).

Table 5 in Annex 4 provides an estimate of the land needed, in each region, to meet predicted food demands in 2030. The estimate was obtained as follows. We obtained data on current and forecast population by region. Current and forecast food intakes, expressed as kcal per person per day, for 1997/9 and 2030 were multiplied by population to calculate total food requirement by region. Total land requirements are a product of food requirement divided by forecast average yield per ha. In simple terms the land area needed in 2030 can be calculated as follows:

(Land area 1997/9 • population 2030/population 1997-9 • food intake 2030)/food intake 1997-9 • average yield 1997-9/average yield 2030.

This means that land area will need to increase in response to increasing demand, but the size of the increase is mitigated by increased productivity.

The definition for adequate level of food security used by FAO is as follows:

'At the national level, a per capita food intake of less than 2,200 kcal/day is taken as indicative of a very poor level of food security, with a large proportion of the population affected by malnutrition. A level of more than 2,700 kcal/day indicates that only a small proportion of people will be affected by undernourishment. As people are enabled to access food, per capita food intake increases rapidly but levels off around 3,500 kcal/day. It must be stressed that per capita food intake in terms of kilocalories is only an indicator of food security: adequate nutrition requires, in addition to calories, a balanced diversity of food including all necessary nutrients'.

Hence we made two calculations of the land needed for food security in sub-Saharan Africa. The first using the forecast consumption by 2030, the second using the requirement estimated by FAO. There is little difference between the forecast consumption in 2030 and the consumption considered necessary (Table 3).

Table 3. Land with rain fed crop production potential (Source: FAO, 2003). These estimates include land currently under forest and wetlands. The FAO estimates take account of forecast impacts of climate change to 2030.

Region Land needed to meet demand**ha • 109

Very suitable land availableha • 109

Suitable land availableha • 109

Moderatelysuitable land availableha • 109

Marginal land availableha • 109

Total land available (very suitable, suitable and moderately suitable land)

NAFTA 406 155 313 232 174 700EU 98CIT 312 67 182 159 88 408N Africa/m East

129 4 22 41 32 67

S Asia 218 116 77 17 10 210E Asia 185 146 119 53 48 318SS Africa 360 421 352 156 103 929Oceania 547S America 278 421 431 133 80 985

Total 2521 535 3617Note that the source used provided totals for NAFTA, Oceania and the EU as industrialized countries.Land reported as being in agricultural use sometimes exceeds the areas considered suitable for rainfed crop production, e.g. where steep slopes have been terraced or small yields are accepted.The total estimate of land available (3617 ha • 109) is c. 50% greater than the area currently estimated to be in use for agriculture ( 2375 ha • 109, Table 5, Annex 4).

While increased land area is likely to be required in six of the ten regions, and overall, forecast increases in production suggest decreases in the areas needed in the EU, CIT, S and E Asia, and only a small increase in NAME with a global increase of 146 • 109 ha, an increase of c. 6% from 1997/9.

Hence, based on our calculations most regions in theory have enough land available in total, to meet food demands in 2030, and usually do not require the use of marginal land, although some such land may already be used for extensive grazing and this is the case for Oceania. However, considerable use of marginal land already is implied for NAME, since the area currently estimated to be in use (116 • 109 ha) exceeds the total area of

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 22 of 50

suitable land (67 • 109 ha) and is slightly greater than the total even when marginal land is taken into account (99 • 109 ha).

However, a number of factors need further consideration before accepting these results. One is the potential demand for biofuels, discussed in section 1.4.6.3 below. A second is the suitability of soils currently under natural plant cover for sustainable agriculture, and these are discussed in section 1.4.5.1 below.

1.4.3. Increased land useThe factors which determine how increased crop production will be achieved are land, labour and capital, and the combination of these three (which will influence crop production growth in a specific region or country) will be determined by their relative prices. So, where land is available and its price is low, an expansion of cropped area will be the likely means by which crop production will increase. Hence due to a combination of considerable availability of land and limited income for investment to increase productivity of land currently under cultivation, expansion of agricultural land is forecast to remain an important factor in increasing crop production in many countries within sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and some countries in East Asia, although to a lesser extent than in the past. The overall result for the developing countries is a projected net increase in the arable area of 120 • 106 ha (from 956 in the base year to 1076 in 2030), which is an increase of 12.6% (Annex 4, Table 6).

Expansion of the agricultural area is predicted to account for 33 and 27% of increased production in Latin America and SS-Africa respectively, the regions with the greatest potential for increasing the agricultural area. Some 90% of the remaining 1.8 • 109 ha of land with potential for agriculture is in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, and more than half of the total is concentrated in just seven countries (Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Sudan, Angola, Argentina, Colombia and Bolivia). However, Alexandratos (1995) showed that over 70% of the land with rainfed crop production potential in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America suffers from one or more soil and terrain constraints. Hence this evaluation of potential suitability for agriculture may contain elements of overestimation (see also Bot et al., 2000) and much of the land balance cannot be considered to be a resource that is readily usable for food production on demand. Moreover, forest cover, protected areas and land used for human settlements and economic infrastructure are not taken into account. Alexandratos (1995) estimated that forests cover at least 45%, protected areas some 12% and human settlements some 3% of the land balance, with wide regional differences.

The projected average annual increase in the developing countries’ arable area is 3.75 • 106 ha, compared with 4.8 • 106 in the previous period. An unknown part of the new land to be brought into agriculture will come from land currently under forests. If all the additional land came from forested areas, this would imply an annual deforestation rate of 0.2%, compared with the 0.8% (or 15.4 • 106 p.a.) for the 1980s and 0.6% (or 12.0 • 106 p.a.) for the 1990s (FAO, 2001). Hence the importance of REDD+ (the UNFCCC Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries and wilderness conservation) in providing financial disincentives to deforest. An increase in the value of forests to the owner communities will be effective in shifting the balance to increasing production by intensification of existing agricultural land. While this may have some adverse effects on local air and water quality we consider this to be preferable to the increased GHG emissions and reduced ecosystem services that would arise from increased deforestation. Conversely, where land is scarce or policies preclude expansion (such as in the EU) using capital (such as to purchase new technology) will be the most cost-effective means of increasing production.

1.4.4. The role of mechanisationRegional estimates of the relative contributions of different power sources to land cultivation, taken as a proxy for overall mechanisation, were developed by the FAO (2003). Individual countries were classified into one of six farm power categories according to the proportion of area cultivated by different power sources, in 1997/9 and projected to 2030. The categories ranged from those where human labour predominates, through those where draught animals are the main source of power, to those where most land is cultivated by tractors. The figures were subsequently aggregated to estimate the harvested area cultivated by different power sources for each region.

It was estimated that in 1997/99, in developing countries as a whole, the proportion of land cultivated by each of the three power sources was broadly similar. Of the total harvested area in developing countries (excluding China), 35% was cultivated by hand, 30% by draught animals and 35% by tractors. By 2030, 55% of the harvested area was expected to be tilled by tractors, human power will account for c. 25% and draught animal power (DAP) for c. 20%.

There are marked regional differences in the relative contributions of the power sources, both at present and in the future. Around half of the harvested area is currently cultivated by tractor in NAME and in Latin America and the Caribbean. This is expected to increase to at least 70% of harvested area by 2030. Draught animals are at present relatively important sources of power in the rice and mixed farming systems of S and E Asia, accounting for >30% of the harvested area. However, the shift to motorized power by 2030 is forecast to be substantial. The area cultivated by tractors will rise in S Asia from 35% of harvested area to 70%, and in E Asia from 20% to > 50%. This increase in area cultivated by tractor arises from two factors: an increase in total harvested area at the country level, combined with a reduction in the area cultivated by humans and draught animals as a result of substitution among power sources. In contrast, humans are and will continue to be the main power source in sub-Saharan Africa. Almost two-thirds of the harvested area is prepared by hand at present and although this will fall to 50% by 2030, the physical area involved will remain broadly constant. The area cultivated

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 23 of 50

by draught animals and tractors is expected to increase (both in physical area and proportional terms) but they will not offset the dominance of hand power.

An aspect of the transition from draught animals to mechanised farming that tends to be overlooked is the freeing-up of land formerly cultivated for forages to feed the draught animals for other purposes. This land may continue to produce forage, but for meat-producing livestock, be an additional source of human food or, in the case of very extensive grazing, be allowed to revert to the provision of ecosystem services.

Changing patterns of agriculture to meet production requirements necessitate changes in the agricultural economy including workforce, wages and size of farms. Efficient land, labour and capital markets are needed to ensure timely agricultural adjustment. Where these markets are inefficient adjustment will be slower with the likelihood of significant macroeconomic implications.

Information technology (IT) is expected to contribute to the dissemination of information, in particular in linking production to markets. By 2030 it is to be expected that greater use of IT should contribute to greater output and reduced waste.

1.4.5. Fishery and aquacultureWhile only 10% of animal protein consumed in North America and Europe comes from fish, 17% of animal protein consumed in Africa, 26% in Asia and 22% in China is supplied by fish. The FAO estimates that about one billion people worldwide rely on fish as their primary source of animal protein.

Global fish consumption has increased from an average of 9.9 kg per capita in the 1960s, to 16.4 kg in 2005. However, this increase has not been evenly distributed across regions and it has mainly been due to increased consumption in China and in the Near East/North Africa region. The supply comes from three sources:

Marine (capture) fish Inland (capture) fish Aquaculture

Historically, marine fish accounted for 80% of the world’s fish supply. More recently, however, capture fisheries have not been able to keep pace with growing demand, and many marine fisheries have been over-exploited. In the period 1990–1997, while total fish consumption increased by 31% the supply from marine capture fisheries increased by only 9% (FAO, 1999). To meet the ever-increasing demand for fish, aquaculture has expanded very rapidly and is now the fastest growing food-producing industry in the world. FAO (2000) estimates that by 2030, over half of fish consumed will be produced by aquaculture. Total aquaculture production increased from 10 • 106

t of fish in 1984 to 38 • 106 t in 1998 (FAO, 2000), and a growth rate of 11% per year has aquaculture on a course to surpass beef production by 2010.

1.4.6. Physical constraints

1.4.6.1. Water resourcesThe proportion of people living in countries experiencing water stress (using more than 20% of their available resources) is forecast to increase from c. 34 to c. 63% by 2030. This large increase will be driven by increased population and affluence (greater water use by capita), not by climate change. Nevertheless, Parry et al. (2004) concluded that water resources will remain adequate for the world to continue to feed itself during the rest of this century. However, this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which broadly benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations (but see section 3.2 below).

It is forecast by many authors that water scarcity will be one of the prime reasons for slowing of the yield growth rate of irrigated land especially in the developing countries (Tilman et al., 2002). Groundwater is currently withdrawn in excess of natural recharge rates in a number of countries including the US, China, India, and Egypt. If extraction continues to increase at recent rates then after 2010 key aquifers in northern China, northern and northwestern India, and West Asia and North Africa may begin to fail. With declining water tables, farmers will find the cost of extracting water too high, and a big drop in groundwater extraction from these regions will further reduce water availability for all uses.

Hence there is a consensus that the majority of increased production will need to arise from rain-fed agriculture. The reduced rate of growth of irrigated agriculture is partly a consequence of the decreasing potential for increase in this sector and partly a recognition of the increasing demand for water for other uses, e.g. domestic and industrial. However, increased production of rain-fed agriculture by means of increased inputs has potentially adverse impacts on local water quality. Measures have been developed, mainly in the EU and NAFTA, to reconcile intensive agriculture with maintaining satisfactory water quality and appropriately modified for local conditions these measures may be adopted in other regions. In addition, the export of staples produced in the northern hemisphere to the tropics in addition to having the potential to reduce global emissions of GHGs also has the potential to reduce the demand on water resources in tropical regions – the import of virtual water. The environmental aspects of food trade are discussed further in Annex 6.

1.4.6.2. Soil constraintsThe FAO (2000a) study identified the following major (i.e with populations > 30 M) countries with the greatest soil constraints: Saudi Arabia; Iran; Pakistan. Egypt and South Africa were in the next most vulnerable category. Out of the 30 highest-ranked countries, 28 fall into four regional groups:

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 24 of 50

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/#kve236c8

9 relatively land-rich countries of South and Central America, including the highest-ranked, Uruguay and Guyana;

9 European countries, extending from Ireland in the west to Poland and Hungary in the east; 5 countries of the CIS and Baltic States, including the Russian Federation; 5 countries in the humid zone of Central Africa; Outside these groups, Japan and Canada.

A notable feature of the country-level results is that 22 of the 36 countries with over 40% of soils without major constraints lie in Europe, particularly in CIT but also in the EU. Of the potentially major producers, Ukraine (75%), France (55%), Belarus (50%), Romania (50%), Russia (50%) have the greatest proportions of soils without major constraints. Outside of Europe the only major producers or potential producers with > 40% of soils without major constraints are India and Mozambique.

Europe and Latin America are the only regions with <50% at risk of desertification. There is a large potential for increased use of currently idle land that has formerly been in agricultural use. In the last 15 years almost 23 • 106 ha of arable land became idle as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union, mainly in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Moreover, climate change is forecast to increase agricultural production in these countries.

1.4.6.3. BiofuelsThe results presented have usually been taken from studies which have not specifically taken into account the demand for agricultural land from biofuels. There is evidence that these have become a significant driver for land use change. There are concerns that intensive biofuel production may also lead to expropriation of small-scale landowners from productive land further increasing pressure for LUC and degradation of less resilient soils.

A recent AEA review of the environmental impacts of biofuel production (Howes et al., 2008) concluded that the level of biofuels expansion proposed to meet the targets being set is likely to have major consequences for land use (and biodiversity), food production, the development of intensive agriculture (with the use of agrochemicals) and trade. Widely different estimates have been made of the total land requirement for the EU and NAFTA biofuel targets of between 5 and 38% of current cropland. For the US estimates are as great as 43% (Fulton et al., 2004). However, it is not clear that those estimates took account of the potential should agricultural efficiency improvements be made. In addition there is evidence that the increase in demand for OSR for biofuels has had an impact on Europe’s import of commodities such as palm oil for food production, which is increasing to compensate for the diversion of OSR to biodiesel. It is not clear whether or not these imports will raise pressure on resources in the exporting countries such that they will exacerbate potential food shortages in these regions or encourage land use change, but this is a possibility that should be considered. That productivity improvements are required in order to avoid competition with food appears to be the consensus amongst many authors (Howes et al., 2007).

While biofuels crops can usefully be cultivated on marginal or degraded land, there is concern that the push to meet biofuels targets rapidly will result in planting on good quality land or the use of significant agrochemical inputs to achieve high yields, with the loss of the opportunity to improve marginal or degraded land. It was clear from a number of analyses that the targets in the US, the EU and the Far East will have important demand-side influence and the potential to grow cheap biofuels crops in South America, sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia will be important for the supply of first generation biofuels. Many organisations have expressed concern about the impact of biofuels crops such as oil palm, sugar cane or soybeans on forests and wetlands (summarised in AEA, 2008). Hence the sanguine conclusions summarized here, that the increase in food production needed to meet the forecast increase in demand by 2030 without the need for major LUC, may be compromised by the additional demand for agricultural crops as feedstocks for first generation biofuels.

1.4.6.4. Predicted impacts of climate change such as changes in growing season length and water stressWhen forecasts of climate change are taken into account the proportion of people living in countries experiencing water stress by 2030 increases by c. 1%. This small impact is because the c. 50% increase in population and greater per capita water consumption are forecast to have a far greater impact than climate change until 2030 at least. The most-affected countries are in the Middle East, around the Mediterranean, parts of Europe and southern Africa. By 2050, water stress is forecast to continue in countries in southern Africa, north Africa, around the Mediterranean, in the Middle East and parts of Europe, whilst countries in southern and eastern Asia (including China) are forecast to see a reduction in stress (Arnell, 1999). By 2085 climate change is forecast to further increase the number of people living in countries with water stress in southern Africa, the Middle East, and around the Mediterranean while southern and eastern Asia tend to show a reduction. Fischer et al. (2002) applied a set of temperature and rainfall sensitivity scenarios. These forecast a modest increase of land with rain-fed cultivation potential for temperature increases up to 2ºC on the global scale. With a higher temperature increase alone (i.e., without additional rainfall), extents of cultivable rain-fed land start to decrease. When both temperature and rainfall amounts increase, then the extents of cultivable rain-fed land increases steadily. For example, a temperature increase of 3ºC paired with a rainfall increase of 10%, would lead to about 4% more cultivable rain-fed land globally. In the developed countries this increase is even markedly higher where it exceeds 25%. However, for developing countries there would be a decrease of 11%. Hence within the sensitivity scenarios tested, the forecasts of increased global food production to 2030, which take account of forecast

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 25 of 50

climate change impacts, remain robust. However, the scenarios reported by Fischer et al. (2002) provide further evidence of the potentially adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture in the tropical regions.

After 2030 the disparity between N hemisphere and tropical regions is forecast to increase with forecasts of decreases in yields of crops such as maize of up to 30% in Africa. Moreover, as temperatures increase and crop water stress increases during the growing season, the forecast yield compensation from increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere may not be realized. Negation of the CO2 fertilizing effect could lead to world crop yields decreasing by between 9 and 22%. Furthermore, while sea level rises (SLR) of only c. 15 cm are forecast to 2030, SLR of 1-3 m are predicted by the end of this century (Dasgupta et al., 2007). This is likely to displace hundreds of millions of people in the developing world. For some countries (e.g., Vietnam, Egypt) the consequences of SLR are potentially catastrophic. The positive feedback role of GHG emissions also needs to be taken into account. Unless measures are taken to minimise the additional GHG emissions arising from the drive to meet food security needs to 2030 agricultural emissions may exacerbate warming trends making it more difficult to produce adequate food later in the century.

1.5. Estimated environmental impacts. [See Annex 4 for more detail].In this section we summarize the broad impacts of increasing food production on the environment. The priority areas are considered to be emissions of GHGs, air and water quality, water resources, soil degradation, ecosystem services and biodiversity. We have emphasized GHG emissions since these have a global impact. Other issues are more local and may be considered as primarily the concern of their region of origin.

1.5.1. GHG emissions1.5.1.1. Regional differencesExpressed as g CH4 emitted per L of milk produced (see table 1, Annex 2), GHG emissions in 2006 were much greater from production in Africa, S America and the middle East (c. 80 g CH4 L-1) than in EU and NAFTA regions (< 20 g CH4 L-1). To some extent these differences are not axiomatic, as production in the former regions is intensified so GHG emissions per L of milk should decrease. However, aside from the need for capital for investment, there may be limits to the degree of intensification. In regions where production forage may be seasonally limited due to drought it may be possible to achieve emissions per L similar to those currently reported for Oceania (c. 40 g CH4 L-1) rather than those reported for the EU/NAFTA.

So too for beef and sheep-meat production, emissions as g CH4 emitted per kg of meat produced are 3-4 times greater for production in S America and Africa than in the temperate regions. Such differences are likely to remain as production of beef and sheep-meat tends to be based on grazing of forage, production of which will be limited during the dry season. This means that liveweight gain may cease for part of the year. The consequence is that it takes longer for cattle to reach slaughter weight (e.g in Brazil beef cattle take c. 36 month compared with 18-22 months in the EU/NAFTA regions) and hence lifetime emissions of CH4 are much greater. A possible improvement to this situation may be to increase production on feedlots, as is common practice in the southern states of the USA on which beef are raised very efficiently, not only with respect to emissions of CH 4 but emissions of N in excreta and hence N2O are also moderate. However, such production requires adequate supplies of grain maize. Pastures in tropical countries such as Brazil are currently limited not just by lack of rain in dry seasons but also by lack of nutrients. This can be addressed by investment in fertilizers and conversion from forage pastures to production of grain maize may be feasible. However, such problems are related as much to soil and climate as to overall economic development as there is also evidence of pasture degradation in N Australia. In arid, semi-arid or seasonally arid climates the potential for intensification of agricultural production is constrained not just by water supply but also by soil fertility. Such areas may be inherently less efficient, and hence more polluting per unit of output, but also vulnerable to soil degradation.

With respect to emissions from pigs and poultry, which are usually raised in intensive indoor systems, there is less of a contrast among regions. Nitrogen excretion by pigs produced in South and East Asia is comparable to N excretion from pigs produced in the EU/NAFTA (Table 3, Annex 2), while N excretion from poultry production varies little among regions. However, intensive pig and poultry production can lead to pollution of water courses by NO3 and to increased emissions of NH3 While pigs and poultry production are not major sources of CH4 there are concerns that increased pig and poultry production may lead to increased GHG emissions via indirect land use change.

1.5.1.2. Forecast trends in GHG emissionsBouwman et al. (2006) estimated global emissions of CH4 from livestock production as 94 • 106 t in 1995 (75% of the total from agriculture), with a forecast increase in CH4 emissions from increased livestock production of c. 40% by 2030. This compares with a forecast increase in livestock production of 55% (Table 1, Annex 3). No increase in CH4 emissions from wetland rice production was forecast despite an expected increase in production of c. 40%. In total Bouwman et al. (2006) forecast an increase in global CH4 emissions of c. 30% by 2030, entirely from increased livestock production.

Nitrous oxide emissions from increasing fertilizer-N use were forecast to increase by c. 33%, compared with a forecast increase in crop production of c. 55%. The total global warming potential (GWP) arising from the major agricultural sources is estimated to increase by c. 29%, with the greatest part (c. 90%) of this increase resulting from increased livestock production.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 26 of 50

1.5.2. Water and Air Quality The input of agrochemicals and mineral fertilizers, especially nitrogen (N) can lead to further reductions in water quality due to increased NO3 leaching, phosphate (P2O5) enrichment and pesticides. Emissions to air may also be increased not only as N2O but also as ammonia (NH3). Increasing intensification in Asia is leading to water pollution by nitrogen, phosphorous, cadmium, copper and zinc. Indeed, environmental concerns have largely been in relation to emissions from manure storage and application to water. It is predicted that by the year 2020 N pollution from food production (fertilizer use and livestock manures) and consumption systems will increase by 1.3-1.6 times in East Asian countries from 2002 levels. While losses of K might also be expected to increase, releases of K to the wider environment are not considered polluting.

1.5.3. Soil degradationA UNEP survey (cited in Smeets et al., 2004) on soil degradation reported that the rate of soil erosion is 10 to 20 times the renewal rate in temperate regions and 20 to 40 times in the tropics. This results in an annual loss of cropland (worldwide) of between 5 and 12 million ha per year. Deforestation is thought to be responsible for 43% of the total erosion and overgrazing and mismanagement for 29 and 24% respectively (Smeets et al., 2004).

1.6. Technical mitigation of impacts

1.6.1. Reduction of GHG emissionsOptions for mitigation of CH4 and N2O emissions from agriculture include reduced or modified fertilizer applications, reducing emissions from livestock manures, e.g. by anaerobic digesters, modified livestock breeding and feeding technologies (AEA, 2009a). However, specific GHG abatement measures that do not compromise production, appear to have only a moderate potential for abatement. Recent estimates for potential abatement in the UK range from c. 12 (AEA, 2009a) to c. 25% (Moran et al., 2008) by 2022.

The most promising approaches involve increasing NUE, of both crops and livestock. Practices that maintain or increase productivity can reduce GHG emissions per t product. Improved NUE reduces N2O emission and by reducing energy use for fertilizer manufacture and reduce deleterious effects on water and air quality from N pollutants (Oenema et al., 2005).

Mitigation practices imposed on agricultural lands may influence other ecosystems elsewhere. For example, practices that diminish productivity in cropland (e.g. set-aside lands, bio-energy crops) may elsewhere induce conversion of forests by cultivation; conversely, increasing productivity on existing croplands may ‘spare’ some forest- or grasslands (Smith et al., 2007).

A low meat diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2 eq. target by about 50% compared with business as usual.

1.6.2. Land use change and biodiversitySmeets et al. (2002) concluded that ' If a type of agricultural management is applied similar to the best available technology in the industrialised regions, the world is capable of producing the demand for food projected for 2050 using only a fraction of the present agricultural land.'.

However, due to the lack of purchasing power of many smallholders the need for increased food production may lead to converting new lands to agriculture, but with the result that services from forests, grasslands and other areas of important biodiversity are lost. A requirement for a minimum of 10% of land area is a frequently used guideline for the protection of biodiversity (Soulé and Sanjayan 1998), originally proposed by the Union of the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in 1998.

Organic farming is considered to better maintain biodiversity on agricultural land, although this may be considered to be due to the greater diversity of crops in such systems providing a greater range of habitats rather than due to non-application of agrochemicals. Hence any low-input system with an equivalent range of crops would be expected to have similar benefits. However, the lesser productivity of organic faming may indirectly lead to a reduction of biodiversity due to the need for greater areas of agriculture and consequent LUC. In consequence, the greater biodiversity reported for organic farming systems might be better described as 'agricultural biodiversity'. In the debate concerning the merits of increasing production via increased inputs against less intensive approaches it needs to be acknowledged that a trade off may have to be accepted between reducing agro-diversity on existing agricultural land and maintaining natural (or semi-natural) biodiversity in key areas of species richness by using intensification to reduce the need for LUC.

1.6.2.1. The use of synthetic essential amino acids in livestock feeds to reduce the need for soya, and hence reduce pressure for LUC [Annex 4, section 4.6.4]In many regions soya is a significant element of pig and poultry diets, since it supplies essential amino acids (EAAs) that are lacking in other feeds. The demand for soya for livestock feeds has been identified as a major driver for LUC, especially in Latin America. An alternative to soya meal as a source of EEAs for pigs and poultry are synthetic EAA (SEAAs), which are now used in the vast majority (99%), if not all, of UK compound pig and poultry rations and they are used widely outside of the UK.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 27 of 50

The promotion and adoption of SEAAs could be an effective means of both reducing N excretion and hence N pollution from intensive pig and poultry production and also have the benefit of reducing the demand for soya meal and hence reduce pressure for land use change. A life cycle analysis (LCA) study looking at energy use of the entire life cycle of DL-methionine compared the provision of 1 kg methionine for supplementation of a methionine-deficient broiler ration versus the addition of additional protein from methionine-rich oilseeds. The main findings were that supplementation of 1 kg synthetic DL methionine requires less than one sixth of the energy needed to provide the equivalent amount of methionine from soybean meal or rapeseed meal. This reduced energy use also results in correspondingly fewer emissions (Binder, 2003). Additionally, the N bound in the excess crude protein in soybean or rapeseed meal is not utilised efficiently by the animal's body but excreted and emitted into the environment. As a result, supplementation with synthetic methionine has distinct advantages over using greater proportions of plant-derived protein from soybean meal or rapeseed meal (Binder, 2003). The degree of use of SEAAs is determined by economics, principally the cost of soya meal. 1.6.3. GHG emissions, water and air quality Avoiding excess or deficiency between N supply and crop demand is the key to optimizing trade-offs amongst yield, profit, and environmental protection in both large-scale systems in developed countries and small-scale systems in developing countries. Although advances in basic biology, ecology, and biogeochemistry can provide answers, the size of the scientific challenge should not be underestimated because it becomes increasingly difficult to continually reduce unwanted emissions of N from cropping systems that must sustain yield increases on the world’s limited supply of productive farm land.

Despite great variation in the indigenous N supply, most extension services in developing countries provide a single, standard fertilizer recommendation for an entire district or region. Farmers apparently have few guidelines for adjusting N-fertilizer applications to account for the large differences in the indigenous N supply, indicating the need for a ‘field-specific’ approach to N management. Better balanced nutrition is a practice that can immediately improve NUE. For example, it has been estimated that P and K use in India should be increased by 21% and 71%, respectively, to balance current N use (Fixen and West, 2002).

Concerns have been expressed that the availability of P may limit future agricultural production. It is therefore important that P in crop residues, livestock manures and sewage is effectively recycled to land to lessen the demands on mineral P reserves. Effective P recycling will also reduce the risk of pollution of watercourses.

Fixen and West (2002) reported that halting soil nutrient loss in Africa, by applying sufficient nutrients to balance those removed in crops, would require average fertilizer applications to increase from the current 10 kg ha–1 to 50 kg ha–1. This would be similar to current average fertilizer use in Canada but much less than the c. 250 kg/ha used in the EU. They also stated that increased fertilizer use alone would not adequately increase food production, but that use of manure and other organic materials as well as improvements in soil and crop-management practices would be required.

There should be potential to adapt mitigation policies developed in the EU and NAFTA to reduce the severity of these impacts in other regions. The promotion and adoption of SEAAs could be an effective means of both reducing N excretion and hence N pollution from intensive pig and poultry production as well as reducing the demand for soya meal and hence reduce pressure for LUC (see section 4.6.4 in Annex 4).

1.6.4. Soil degradationAn important mechanism in reducing, and ultimately avoiding, encroachment into natural ecosystems and land degradation brought about by poor agricultural management is by adopting sustainable land management (SLM) principles. The World Bank (2006) defined SLM as a knowledge-based procedure that helps integrate land, water, biodiversity, and environmental management (including input and output externalities) to meet rising food and fibre demands while sustaining ecosystem services and livelihoods. As the global population grows, SLM is increasingly necessary to avoid land degradation and a significant reduction in the productive and service (biodiversity niches, hydrology, carbon sequestration) functions of watersheds and landscapes caused by poor land management.

Lal (2009) identified the outcomes needed to ensure sustainable management of soil and water resources and to restore quality and productivity of degraded soils and ecosystems as:

enhancing the SOM pool; improving soil structure; conserving water in the root zone; creating positive C and nutrient budgets; strengthening nutrient cycling processes, and improving soil biology (e.g., earthworm activity).

Specific measures to be adopted for sustainable management of soil and water resources could include:

no-till farming based on use of crop residue mulch and cover crops for conserving soil and water and enhancing SOM through addition of biochar and other amendments;

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 28 of 50

water harvesting and recycling in conjunction with efficient irrigation methods and growing appropriate species/varieties that can tolerate drought stress;

including leguminous cover crops in the rotation cycle; using agroforestry where appropriate; adopting integrated nutrient management options based on use of compost and manure, biological

nitrogen fixation, use of biosolids, and nano-enhanced fertilizer sources with slow release formulation to improve soil fertility, and

promoting activity of soil biota.

2. TRADE AND OTHER MEANS OF ADDRESSING FOOD SECURITYSection 1 described food production systems and the potential for meeting the growing demand for food by producing more. One conclusion of that section was that some systems and regions can produce more food per ha, and with less environmental impact, than others. In this section we evaluate the extent to which trade among regions may enable overall optimization of global food production and its environmental impact and the means by which purchasing power may be increased in the currently poorer regions to facilitate such trade. We also consider the extent to which the need for increased food production can be mitigated by less wastage of food already produced.

2.1. The role of trade in achieving food securityAn assessment of current flows in food trade and food aid at the level of regions and food groups is given in Annex 5. This highlights areas of inter-regional food trade deficit and the importance of such trade in achieving food security. Key areas of food deficit and insecurity are then highlighted, using the reported data alongside other

The report recognises that there are many complexities to be considered in a full analysis of trade and food security. Food insecurity is highly linked to household poverty, income inequalities and entitlements; also, there are food security issues at global, national, local and household levels which need to be explored. However, the scope of this study means that these are not looked at in detail, but any conclusions are tempered by the fact that trade is only part of the story, and indeed, for food trade to be part of a valid strategy, the obstacles to economic growth, and poverty and inequality reduction also need to be addressed.

Some key conclusions on current trade flows are that: At present most regions are net importers of wheat, with only NAFTA, EU, CIT and Oceania as net exporters. East Asia, NAME and SS-Africa are also net importers of rice. The EU is the largest importer of forage. E Asia and NAME are also net importers. E Asia, the EU and NAME are net importer of oilseeds Most regions are net importers of bovine meat, with Latin America and Oceania the main net exporters. SS

Africa exports a very small amount. Asia, NAME, CIT and SSA are net importers of non-bovine meat, with NAFTA, Latin America and Oceania

being the largest net exporter. All regions except for EU and E Asia are net exporters of fish

From the supply perspective NAME appears to be the region most vulnerable to food insecurity, being the only region that is a net importer of all major commodities, except fish (and these exports are largely from one country, Morocco). In addition, in NAME agriculture already occupies >100% of all land deemed suitable for agriculture (thereby relying on marginal land to maintain current production). East Asia also appears vulnerable, being a net importer of most major commodities and also utilizing most land deemed suitable. However, the rapid economic growth of that region over the last 20 years suggests that money will be available both to invest in improving agricultural efficiency and to continue the import of goods. The economic forecasts for several countries in NAME are not so favourable. It is salutary to bear in mind that in 1966 per capita income in Egypt was greater than that in S Korea. While SS-Africa appears to have ample physical potential, including water availability prior to 2030 at least, to achieve food security the limitation of this region is the affordability of inputs to increase local production.

While richer food deficit countries are in a position to import sufficient quantities of food, a significant number of poorer countries require food aid to help bridge the deficit. The FAO’s classification of Low-Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDC) is a useful guide to the countries that have a food deficit and cannot afford enough imports. In general, they cover most of the Less Developed Countries outside Latin America (especially Sub Saharan Africa). However, the indicator itself does not address issues underlying why the countries are low income and food insecure; different countries are in the situation for a range of different reasons and so any attempted solutions should be geared to the particular context. Annex 5 also provides data for global food aid flows and concludes that:

1. there has been an overall downward trends in cereal aid receipts for Countries in Transition (CIT) (after the economic crises of the post independence period), South Asia and Latin America and

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 29 of 50

2. sub-Saharan Africa consistently remains the recipient of by far the largest quantities of food aid, while totals for East Asia and South Asia remain significant.

We examined future scenarios for trade and food security. Details are provided in Annex 6. The approach was to assess:

(i) how world food trade is predicted to develop over the medium-term future, to 2030; (ii) the likely implications for food security; (iii) report case-studies of possible policies; (iv) consider the sustainability considerations for world food trade.

The overview of major studies on how world trade in food is likely to develop up to 2030 found that most assumed a continuation of a liberalised, globalised economy under continuing development of WTO agreements. More recent studies, written since the 2008 slowdown, have been more cautious in their outlook, but free (or relatively free) trade assumptions still dominate.

The FAO (2006) World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050 study has the following general findings: Trade will increasingly be between Less Developed Countries (LDCs). Increased food deficit of poorest countries: exports will rise but imports rise quicker. However it is realistic to

assume that the poorest countries will in general continue to be dependent on aid to bridge the gap and that trade is only part of the picture in addressing food security in these countries.

Greater per capita food consumption overall, but with significant exceptions: There will still be c. 800 • 106

people living in countries with under a daily calorie consumption of 2500 kcal per day, mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa.

There will be large increases in livestock production, vegetable oils and sugar in developing countries, but cereals remain the most important crop.

Some developing countries become net food exporters, in particular for meat, palmoil, soybeans and sugar.

In the case of cereals there will be increased deficits in Sub-Saharan Africa, NAME, East Asia, and South Asia. The deficit in Latin America will decrease, and there will be an increased surplus in the EU, NAFTA and CIT. China and India are predicted to become net importers again. Imports will increase by 155 • 10 6 t by 2030. Exports will come from the CIT, Argentina, Thailand, Vietnam and North America, Australia and (decreasingly) the EU. In the case of livestock, the CIT will be in deficit. World exports will be increasingly supplied by certain developing countries, (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Thailand and India). Given the slower growth of ruminants in hotter countries this may be a cause for concern. From the emissions perspective it might be better if CIT countries were the exporters.

The World Bank forecast of 2007 on globalisation predicts that the importance of trade to almost every economy will increase, and developing countries’ agricultural trade will increase. However, the 2009 World Bank Global Economic Prospects: Commodities report forecasts that after short term increases, in the long term, agricultural prices are likely to decline. This is because whilst productivity is expected to continue to rise, demand will increase at a slower rate due to population growth slowing, and as the world becomes wealthier, a smaller share of income is spent on food. The report predicts a continued decline in agricultural prices of approximately 0.7% a year, relative to manufacturing prices based on 2.1% per year productivity growth. In this review we report forecast a production increase of 1.4% per year until 2030. Although the World Bank report assumptions are for productivity growth (using total factor productivity) and may not be strictly comparable with this production increase forecast, the 2.1% productivity growth assumptions seems largely based on a simple extrapolation of previous trends and thus may not take account of the detail of how productivity/production may change that is used in our 1.4% per year forecast. Thus there is reason to be cautious of the forecast for price reductions. Indeed, if the productivity growth is smaller than the World Bank assumptions (1.2% pa rather than 2.1% pa) then prices are likely to rise.

Agricultural price rises would be likely to have an adverse impact of food security, especially in LIFDCs. The World Bank’s simulations using a hypothetical 10% rise in food prices saw both urban and rural poverty indicators worsen, but the effect was lessened in rural areas (where increases in price can benefit rural incomes) and varied from country to country. However, it is difficult to make meaningful generalizations about impacts of food price rises on LIFDCs or elsewhere as specific impacts vary according to food products concerned, the country/region and rural/urban population. This underlines the importance of focusing on specific circumstances as illustrated in the country case studies given in Annex 6.

The methodology used in the above research relies upon the solidity of the research quoted. That is, most modelling studies use a combination of past data to calibrate the model and forecasting ‘expertise’ to adjust it for likely future developments. This therefore means that large shifts in any of the processes are unable to be studied in such a methodology, and so the underlying assumption is that the future will largely look like the past. Analysis of larger shifts (such as unexpected technological breakthroughs) is best carried out on a case-study/scenario analysis and relies on the foresight of the researchers; no such studies were found that were relevant to this research.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 30 of 50

An area of much current uncertainty is the impact of the expanding trade in biofuels and their feedstocks on food security. Current studies are limited but Hertel et al. (2008), for example, forecasts that by 2015 meeting the EU and US mandates for biofuels could result in large reductions in US exports of maize and other coarse grains, and large increases in imports to EU of biofuels feedstock, including oilseeds and coarse grains. Likely sources of such imports would be Latin America, Africa, Transition countries (and for oilseeds China and North America).

The effect of biofuel production on international prices for food and other agricultural commodities came into focus during increases in food prices in 2007/8. Most available studies suggested that biofuels production did contribute to the spike in food prices but were not necessarily the key factor. For the medium term, modelling studies suggest that expanded biofuels production to fulfil the EU and US mandates will increase prices of some agricultural commodities but the only significant increases will be for feedstock commodities such as maize, sugar cane and vegetable oils.

The effect of any such price increases on food security and incomes in developing countries remains uncertain and will vary by country and local circumstances. Higher prices of agricultural commodities may benefit developing countries if this leads to increased production in those countries. Also those developing countries with potential to produce feedstock and biofuels may see benefits through new jobs, increased export revenues and purchasing power. However, any increase in the price of imported food may be harmful for the most vulnerable if issues of affordability and purchasing power are not addressed. Additionally, the indirect effect of increased feedstock production and biofuels exports from developing countries may be to initiate land use change and worsen potential food shortages. One conclusion of the biofuels scoping study (AEA, 2009b) is that more precise modelling is required to understand the local impacts of expanded biofuels production and related trade on the poor in developing countries.

2.2. Approaches to increase purchasing power through tradeThe World Bank has, in recent years, promoted the idea that production of high-value products such as fruits and vegetables provides an opportunity for rural farmers in developing countries to participate in lucrative export markets (World Bank, 2003).

In theory, the horticulture sector in developing countries could increase its contribution to export earning through improved transport and refrigeration facilities, better integration between production and market channels and better access to credits for small farmers and improved tariff regimes. However, the developing countries prefer to promote improved productivity of horticultural products through intercropping with other types of crops, introduction of vegetables in crop rotations for diversification purposes rather than replacing cereal production with horticulture. This is because cereals are the main sources of food for the rural poor (who are the majority in developing countries), while horticulture meets the urban domestic demand. Hence smallholder producers need to maintain production of staples to meet their own requirements, using horticultural crops as a means of raising some cash but are reluctant to depend upon horticulture as their main venture.

There are however barriers to a policy of shifting to horticultural exports. Currently, there are larger tariffs on processed foods than on raw foods. Increased liberalism may lead to lower tariffs on all products, thereby encouraging processing industry in the developing countries and increasing the value of traded food. However, as seen in the case studies there are risks to this shift to greater value exports in developing countries. These case studies are presented in Annex 6 to show how different types of agricultural trade in developing countries can have different effects. Vietnamese coffee growers were able to benefit from entering a free global market but as other suppliers entered the market the price fell sharply and any global volatility had large impacts on local food security. This case illustrates the potential benefits for the rural poor of developing high value agricultural products for export markets but also highlights the risks associated with the development of production of the same product by a number of countries with low production costs. Markets for tropical agricultural products are particularly vulnerable to these risks. Thus, careful case-by-case assessment of risks and relative production advantages in comparison with competitor countries is necessary if pursuing this strategy. In Malawi, the government used financial trading instruments to protect against volatility of maize prices to maintain food security, and in Botswana, bilateral trade agreements affected price but not stock levels of beef. Comparing Viet Nam and Botswana, one country entered a new market with a crop that had no local value, only international value. This meant that farmers (and the whole local economy) are reliant upon favourable international conditions. On the other hand, in Botswana beef has an established place in the local culture and economy. The difficulties here are therefore in establishing the local good in a competitive global marketplace. Trade agreements can smooth out the problems that the global market can cause, for example by helping Botswana beef, or potentially Viet Nam could seek some stability in the coffee market through trade agreements. Alternatively, market tools could increasingly be used like the Malawian government did to reduce risk and volatility.

A general conclusion illustrated by the case studies is that it is not appropriate to make blanket policy option recommendations on how LIFDCs could address food security issues through development of agricultural trade. Policies specific to countries and products need to be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking account of policy regimes, production potentials and the position in the global marketplace.

In the current round of WTO negotiation, the Doha Development Agenda, agriculture has become a key issue of contention specifically on the issues of improvements in market access, phasing out of export subsidies and reduction of trade-distorting support. Negotiations have focused on the United States support for its

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 31 of 50

agriculture sector, and agricultural tariffs in the EU and developing countries, including the level of traded commodities defined as import sensitive and special products, and thus qualifying for lower tariff cuts or exemptions from cuts. Agreement on special products are of particular concern for developing countries as these would qualify to be free from tariff cuts and subsidy reductions on the basis of development, food security, or livelihood concerns. Moreover, the Special Safeguard Mechanism aims to protect farmers in developing countries by permitting import tariffs on some agricultural products when there is an import surge or price fall.

2.3. Reducing post-harvest lossesIn Annex 8 we report estimates of how much extra production could be avoided by better use of what is already produced. In addition to post-harvest losses, we considered losses during harvesting. Losses during harvesting can be large and can arise when crops are left in the field too long following ripening, as well as because of bad weather or insufficient labour or machinery for harvesting.

2.3.1. Estimates of total post-harvest food losses as a percentage of total productionThere are large variations in post-harvest losses according to crop, country and climate. In addition there is no established method for measuring food losses (Mazaud, 1997). Post-harvest losses have only been studied throughout the post-harvest food chain for a very few crops, and studies have often focussed upon high-value and perishable crops and not the staple foods. Other studies have compared losses among crop types at specific stages, e.g. during on-farm storage by smallholders. Hence it is not possible to make precise estimates of total post-harvest losses for the staple commodities. In general, estimates of post-harvest loss range from 10 to 40% (Satin, 1997; FAO, 1997) and that one-third of global fruit and vegetable production is never consumed (Kadar, 2005). But while much more research is needed to quantify accurately global post-harvest food losses, and hence the amounts of food that might be made available by reducing post-harvest losses, we consider it prudent to reduce such losses as a means of increasing the supply of food without the environmental burdens of increased food production.

Livestock products may also be subject to waste. In Uganda, 27% of milk produced is wasted: 6% at the farm; 11% to spillage; 10% to spoilage during transport.

2.3.2. Where in the food chain post-harvest losses occur The FAO (1997) estimate that in southeast Asia, 1-3% of rice is lost at the harvesting stage; between 2 and 7% during handling; 2-6% in storage and 2-10% in transport, giving total post-harvest losses of 11-26%. The only data uncovered by this study for wheat relate to losses during threshing and showed that % loss decreased as cultivation becomes more mechanised, decreasing from 3.1% when threshing is by bullock to 1.2% with a combine harvester.

Cassava is a staple root crop and its processing involves many stages which can increase the potential for losses to occur. The Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa (COSCA) suggest that 8.5% of the harvested crop is lost in handling and 23.2% during processing. The size and shape of the crop, as well as equipment used, all affect the efficiency of processing (FAO, 2009c).

Data on vegetables from Pakistan (see Annex 8) indicate that he greatest total losses occur at the retailer’s. Total post-harvest losses ranged from 10-44% with between 57 and 71% of losses occurring at the retailers.

It is estimated that c. 27% of total food available for human consumption in the United States, is lost during the retailing, food service and consumption stage alone – this excludes losses during harvesting and transportation (Kantor et al, 1997). In addition to losses during processing, consumers and retailers are largely responsible for food wastage. These qualitative factors are becoming increasingly important, with food quality standards growing (Bell, 1997).

2.3.3. The extent to which post-harvest losses can be reduced.Losses of wheat stored during on-farm storage by smallholders are typically caused by insects, moulds, birds and rats, as well as environmental factors such as temperature and humidity. Low temperatures are ideal for storing wheat whereas high temperatures speed up respiration, which produces CO2, heat and water to spoil the grain. One solution to these losses is the small metallic silo, which is useful for safe storage of crops, reducing post-harvest losses of wheat in Pakistan from between 2.2 and 6.6% to 2.1%. These receptacles have a capacity of between 0.5 and 2 tonnes and have been established to help reduce food losses (FAO, 2002).

While it is tempting to conclude that the greatest potential for reducing losses will be at the retailers, where the greatest losses of fruit and vegetables occur, these losses may reflect the cumulative impact of transport, storage and inevitable breakdown post-harvest rather than any shortcomings by the retail outlets.

In many tropical countries, roots and tubers such as sweet potato, cocoyam and cassava are vital in domestic food security. Cassava is very perishable and requires processing. Improved processing has been proposed to help meet food security in Africa to overcome perishability of cassava and other crops and to enhance their nutritional and economic value (AMCST, 2009). The key barrier to these crops having full nutritional and economic potential is the lack of appropriate technology. Thus, new processing technologies must be developed and introduced. Placing emphasis on food processing in the country of origin may help countries like Africa compete with major exporters, increasing local employment and foreign exchange. If export produce is processed in the country of origin, this can help to add value and help the farmer to reduce losses and spoilage,

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 32 of 50

thus generating more income for the country. Such products that fit into this category include peanut butter, flour meal, dairy products and semi-processed food.

In addition to technological advances, it is important that existing knowledge and best practice is shared amongst farmers. Knowledge transfer can improve the efficiency of post harvest handling in order to increase product quality. However it requires communication between researchers (post harvest horticulturalists), industry (agri-marketing economists, food technologists) and producers (production horticulturalists).

2.4. Potential role of low-input farming The fundamental concepts underlying low external input farming, such as using appropriate crop rotations, management of all available sources of organic matter to improve soil quality, and the recycling of nutrients from livestock and human wastes, should be important components of all well-managed agriculture. However, farming systems that have restricted inputs, or choose to exclude commercial fertilizers generally (organic systems) have one or more of the following key problems:

they produce less yield per unit area than conventional systems; less yield requires an expansion of land area in agriculture; the additional land brought into production would in most cases be marginal for farming, having high

capitalization costs and an elevated risk of negative impacts on the environment.

Hence, low input/organic agriculture is considered to have the productivity sufficient to feed only 3 – 4 • 10 9

people. However, low-input agriculture does not need the ability to feed the world to make a useful contribution to agricultural production. According to Hine et al. (2008) the majority of the world’s hungry are small farmers in developing countries who produce much of what they eat, are often too poor to purchase inputs and are marginalized from produce markets. Instead, sustainable agricultural development efforts in developing countries might be focused on the use of low-cost, locally available technologies and inputs (particularly in times of high oil prices) (Hine et al., 2008). Case studies which focussed on food production showed increases in per ha productivity of food crops. Furthermore, methods and technologies used in low-input and organic systems are ideally suited for many poor smallholder farmers in Africa due to the minimum external inputs required and the use of locally and naturally available materials to produce high quality food in a system which is more diverse and resistant to stress (Hine et al., 2008). The UN report makes the point that certified organic production of premium food for the export market can reduce rural poverty and thus contribute to improvements in food security. However, monocropping farming systems for the export market, whether conventional or organic, still leave farmers vulnerable to export price fluctuations and crop failure. The UN concludes that in spite of the uncertainty over whether low-input farming will produce enough food to meet current and future demand, considerable progress utilising organic principles to foster rural development and boost food security has been made in recent years. It argues that the present situation of widespread food insecurity means that conventional farming systems are clearly unable to fulfil the current food needs in Africa and that results observed so far seen in converting from conventional to systems such as organic are promising.

2.5. Initiatives to increase smallholder incomeBrummett et al. (2008) summarized current understanding of this issue by stating that 'negative pricing policies that keep agricultural products cheap have plagued African agriculture for many years and undermine growth in virtually all sectors.'

They view getting people out of poverty as a function of income growth, however the distribution of wealth is considered crucial to the rate at which income growth by investors is translated into national poverty reduction. A 1% increase in Gross National Income (GNI) in economies with high inequality (Gini coefficients of c. 0.6) reduces poverty by only 1.5% per annum. With more equitable distribution of wealth (Gini coefficients c. 0.2), the same increase can reduce poverty by twice as much (Lustig et al., 2002). Most analysts (e.g., Delgado et al., 1998; Winkelmann, 1998) agree that large-scale systems have relatively less economic impact and tend to concentrate wealth more than would a larger number of smaller-scale investments.

Consequently, to meet local, national and international objectives of food security and poverty alleviation, governments, donors and development agencies have taken many approaches. Some have focused on specific intervention, some on comprehensive strategic interventions. In recent years the comprehensive approach has been successful in some parts of Africa. For example, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) aims to reduce hunger through strategic interventions in agriculture by increasing agriculture growth to at least 6% per year, thereby enabling income growth and wealth creation sufficient to cut poverty in half by 2015. This is a comprehensive approach where increased food supply, increased use of land under sustainable land management, improved infrastructure and access to market, agricultural research are dealt under one strategic framework.

Under the comprehensive approach, it is recognised that the long-run ability of households to achieve food security depends fundamentally on their productivity at two levels: at the farm level, where the households produce food and non-food items, and at the market level, where they convert some of these items into cash and then use that cash to purchase other food and non-food items which they require to meet their basic needs.

At the farm level, the programme designers and/or donors should aim to invest in and support the improvement of the productive environment (e.g., land, water, and available technologies, the amount and quality

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 33 of 50

of its assets and on the efficiency and accessibility of markets). It is especially important to ensure that the ‘input market’ functions effectively, as the price and availability of the inputs are important factors that determine the productivity and total production level of the farmers’ households.

At the market level, a given quantity and mix of agricultural production will contribute more to food security. The donors and governments should provide support to the ‘output markets’ so that they function effectively to allow ready sale of food and nonfood items at remunerative prices, and ready purchase of a range of food and non-food items at affordable prices. This could be done through developing effective market institutions and timely information dissemination systems.

Following a comprehensive approach to improve the productive environment for small-scale farmers’ households at farm level and market level, governments, development agencies and donors should support the development of farmer-owned cooperatives that can manage the distribution and availability of inputs such as fertilizer through cost effective means and also make accessibility to the output market cost effective and easier. The extensive development of milk cooperatives in India supported by the donor- (EU) funded Operation Flood programme demonstrates how, support to the small-scale farmers (average ownership of two cows/buffalo and/or less than one ha of land) to manage their own productive environment and the input and output markets, has increased farmers income, rural employment, national milk production and household food security in India.

Apart from the support to market institutions and productive environment in the farming sector it is essential that the ownership of the productive environment is in the hands of entities who are directly responsible for enhancing food security and nutrition status of household members. Women play a major role in the developing countries in farming and in managing the food security and nutrition of families and children. The Governments and donors should ensure that comprehensive programmes empower women not just to contribute their labour into farming but also to gain income from their contribution. Under the Operation Flood programme in India such empowerment has demonstrated clear correlation between increased income of women and improved food security and nutrition at household level.

Consequently, to meet local, national and international objectives of food security and poverty alleviation, governments, donors and development agencies should:

1. support the development and implementation of Strategic Frameworks to clarify the roles of various stakeholders and establish the foundation for realistic and practicable legislation;

2. in light of the expense and low expectations for economic growth achievable by dispersed artisanal farmers, target extension and research at the growth of sub-sectors that can maximize the number of secondary economic opportunities created through adding value;

3. help make credit available to SME investments, e.g., through loan guarantees;4. include NGOs and farmers’ organisations as partners in the delivery of key services such as marketing;5. engage larger-scale farms through, for example, tax and or credit initiatives to participate actively in the

development of the sector and help create opportunities for other, smaller-scale, investors;6. invest in marketing infrastructure such as roads, retailing facilities and ice plants; 7. ensure the legal basis of commercial activities is upheld;8. establish standards for environmental impact assessment.

A number of commonalities among African countries in terms of development strategy have been identified (FAO, 2000; Moehl et al., 2005). The most important of these is the replacement of foreign donor priorities (e.g., poverty alleviation among the poorest of the poor; cheap food for low-income urban consumers) with those of local decision makers and farmers, particularly a supply-side emphasis on commercial ventures (at a variety of scales and intensities) that can serve to generate income and create secondary business opportunities and generalized economic growth (Delgado et al., 1998).

Donor country priorities have sometimes been viewed as supporting their home-country farmers through subsidies leading to surplus production, which are then disbursed as food aid to developing countries. There are concerns over the effects of food aid that might distort local markets and production in the developing countries. Indeed, the view has been put forward (Moyo, 2009) that large aid inputs have an adverse impact on governance by reducing government accountability. In contrast, if governments were required to raise money either in the financial markets or via taxation they would be directly accountable either to the lenders or the voters. Aid agencies have been reluctant to insist on accountability and in consequence some governments assume aid will continue to flow, from one donor if not another, regardless of the effectiveness with which previous aid has been used. However, the proposed alternatives of raising capital on the markets or increasing taxation may not be an option for the poorest countries with poor credit ratings and people with little disposable income. There is likely therefore to be a continued need for aid, but with clearly-defined goals and a will to hold recipient governments accountable for its effective disbursement.

Policy dialogue led by OECD (2009) over donor priorities in the food security sector in February 2009 summarised the following strategic donor priorities:

the downward trend of investment in agriculture needs to be inversed rapidly. Investment in agriculture needs to be continuous, with a clear long-term perspective;

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 34 of 50

donor countries should also invest in their own technical capacities rather than concentrate purely on food aid and programme support processes so that it could help developing countries improve their sustainable agriculture and food security conditions;

donors should promote priority-setting processes and make sure that they are country-driven and owned through inclusive consensus building;

At an operational level the consensus amongst donors is to identify entry points to food-security and pro-poor growth processes of developing countries through the Accra Action Agenda. They also agreed at the Madrid High Level Meeting on Food Security for All (January 2009) that the creation of a GPAFS (Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security) should be explored through an inclusive process which will lead to the establishment of a contact group that will feed into the inter-governmental negotiating process for developing solutions and mechanisms at country level. Efforts are now underway to operationalise GPAFS.

In section 4.4.6 of Annex 4 we cite a case study relating to the development of aquaculture in Africa. Although specific to that sector the recommendations made by FAO (2001) have a general applicability to the measures needed to promote security in a number of regions. These were that 'the policies needed include improved governance, measures to ensure political and policy stability, secure land rights and reduced corruption. Sectoral policies include the development of appropriate legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks, marketing strategies and encouraging pioneer associations. It was noted that effective extension services, the role of the government to put in place appropriate sector-specific policies, legislation and regulations, institutional support and appropriate land laws are necessary for the emergence and/or development of commercial aquaculture'.

For more detail see Annex 4, section 4.7.5.

2.5.1. L’Aquila Food Security InitiativeThe L’Aquila Food Security Initiative, launched at the recent G8 summit in Italy, is a response to the global challenges of hunger, insufficient investment in agriculture, high food prices and the increasing demand for food needed to meet a growing population. At the G8 summit, the 40 Leaders gathered signed a Joint Statement on Food Security and committed $20 • 109 to support agriculture and eradicate hunger in developing countries through the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative in support of sustainable agricultural development. In addition, the summit saw the promotion of a global partnership to keep agriculture at the core of the international agenda, re-launch investments and boost aid efficiency and international coordination, to be possibly launched at the FAO World Food Summit later in 2009 (G8 summit, 2009).

The Food Security Initiative focuses on developing sustainable agriculture through a ‘cross-cutting and inclusive approach, involving all relevant stakeholders’ and support for country-owned processes. The world leaders also pledged to ‘substantially increase sustained commitments of financial and technical assistance' through ‘sustained and predictable funding and increased targeted investments.' Preservation of the natural resource base would form an important element of the promotion of ‘sustainable production, productivity and rural economic growth.’ Another important aspect of the declaration was that ‘open trade flows and efficient markets have a positive role in strengthening food security,’ and that ‘markets must remain open, [and] protectionism rejected’ (G8 summit, 2009).

The declaration considered the issues of food security broadly and comprehensively and included references to addressing a number of environmental, social, economic and political issues affecting food security. The elements of the declaration listed above, however, relate closely to many of the findings and conclusions of this study without going into detail about the levels of projected food supply and demand over the coming twenty years.

3. POLICY OPTIONS/APPROACHES TO INCREASE PRODUCTION SUSTAINABLYIn this section we summarise key aspects of different types of policy directly or indirectly focused on food security by means of a framework (Table 4). The framework aims to summarise key aspects of different types of policy directly or indirectly focused on food security. A distinction is made between: (i) policies to promote food production (ii) policies to directly promote food security and (iii) policies to promote food production in ways which minimise the environmental impact. Not included here are more general national conditions that underpin agricultural growth and food security such as, macroeconomic policies, competent government administration, and political stability. Moreover, because of the need to present the issues succinctly notwithstanding the reality that the impact of policies often lies as much in the detail as in their general orientation, means that the contents of the table can be no more than a starting point for a policy discussion.

To explain the columns: Policy: Gives generic policy measures and where needed can give reference to where this is discussed further in report. Implementation actors: refers to key players according to level (international agency, regional, national and local) and type (Government, private sector, NGO, local community).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 35 of 50

Type/objective of policy refers to: (i) economic instruments (e.g. tariffs, taxes, subsidies), (ii) administrative/legal (e.g. WTO rules, health and safety standards) or (iii) voluntary and other schemes (e.g. extension services, investment programmes, fair trade initiatives). Policy style: how is it delivered and by whom? e.g. approach to extension services: top down/participatory approach, technology push/technology pull, large versus small scale investments. Examples: taken from the task reports and elsewhere. Advantages/disadvantages: could include distributional issues. Do benefits return to communities? Impacts on local resources. Risks of policy. A full policy appraisal (which we are not attempting here) would include such issues as: Administrative ease, equity/distributive issues, revenue impacts, public acceptability, political will, economic efficiency, environmental effectiveness, legality and complementarity with other policies.

Table 4. Framework for policies to promote food securityPolicy Key

implementation agency/actors

Type/objective of policy.

Policy style Examples Strengths Weaknesses/Risks

Policies to promote food productionPolicies to promote research to increase productivity,

International agencies, national governments.

Funding of research and extension programs to promulgate research outputs.

Should be interactive, using extension services to understand current limitations on productivity in order to help prioritise research

Improved breeding to increase nutrient and water use efficiency by crops and nutrient use efficiency by livestock

Increasing productivity will enhance food security of smallholders in particular, and reduce pressure for LUC and consequent environmental problems in all regions

Without careful management and setting of goals bottom-up approach to identifying research priorities may lead to unfocussed research efforts and less achievable goals. Increased productivity may lead to reduced air and water quality in some regions.

Policies to reduce post-harvest losses.

International agencies, national governments and food retailers

Funding of research and extension programs to reduce losses at all stages in supply chain.

Both direct promulgation of research findings to industry and also approaches to modify consumer behaviour

Ethiopian ADLI increases awareness of the need to improve post harvest technology

Reducing wastage reduces the need to increase production, which in turn will reduce environmental impacts.

In developed countries emphasis on unspoiled, unblemished produce, may compromise post harvest losses for consumer preference.

Access to credit

International agencies, national governments, private investors.

Public and private sector investment

Investment in large scale enterprise, micro-credit

Loan guarantees, micro-credit initiatives such as the Grameen bank in Bangladesh

May enable smallholders with little purchasing power to obtain improved cultivars and breeds and agrochemical inputs.

Recent evaluation has cast doubt on the effectiveness of micro-credit schemes

Tax incentives

National Governments

Economic instrument

Top-down More economically efficient mechanism than subsidies

May distort input use if tax incentives are for specific activities, and may lead to unnecessary increases in emissions arising from those inputs.

Production subsidies

National Governments, Recipients range from smallholders to agri-business

Economic instrument

Top-down. Common in India, EU CAP

Targeted intervention by governments which has direct impact on farmer incomes.

Indirect protection under WTO rules. Subsidies often distort production, increasing output of subsidized foods at the expense of others, and may lead to unnecessary increases in emissions arising from inputs.

Preferential National Economic Top-down Cotonou Preferential Subject to long term

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 36 of 50

trading agreements

Governments subject to WTO rules

instrument Agreement access to the developed county markets.

uncertainty under WTO rules

Tariffs on processed goods (tariff escalation)

National Governments in importing countries

Designed to protect domestic economies and therefore not a pro poor policy if applied by developed countries

Top-down Common in processedmeats, sweeteners, and vegetable oils.

Though against free trade, could be seen as pro poor if applied by developing countries to protect processing capacity.

Can limit development of high value exports from developing countries.Subject to long term uncertainty under WTO rules

Promotion of organic production

International agencies, national governments and food retailers

Variety of policies designed to promote organic farming including subsidies and marketing support

Top-down from Government policy, bottom-up from community initiatives.

Government support for organic farming in Austria. Inc subsidies for organic consulting services, education, research and marketing

Promotion of organic food may create a market for added-value exports by farmers who cannot afford agrochemical inputs. Organic production generally less damaging to local water and air quality

Dependence on export of luxury products will make producers vulnerable to volatile commodity prices.Organic production may need more land and increase LUC. GHG emissions per t of product tend to be greater.

Policies to directly promote food securityInternational Policies and programmes for food security

International agencies, national governments, rural communities

Range of programmes addressing poverty and food security management

Comprehensive strategic interventions

CAADP,EU Action Plan on Agricultural Commodity Chains, Dependence and Poverty

Long run comprehensive approach covering farm level and market level

Requires well coordinated action by stakeholders, including Government agencies, donors and community.

Investment in high value agricultural/ horticultural exports

International agencies, national governments, private investors.

Aimed to promote access to international markets and increase purchasing power for poor.

Large scale investment in capital and infrastructure. Are there examples of micro-credit I this context?

Cut flowers in Kenya, Coffee in Vietnam.

Increase purchasing power for rural communities.

Tariff regimes in the importing countries. Risks of crowded markets and price volatility. Political risks of depending on foreign staple imports.

Diversification of horticultural products through intercropping/crop rotations

National Governments, small producers

Promote rural income through diversification. Compare to larger scale investment in high value horticultural exports above.

Bottom up Lower risk than investment in high value exports as does not replace cereal production, the main sources of food for the rural poor.

Lower potential gains in purchasing power for poor compared to investment in high value exports.

Protection against volatility of agricultural prices/shortages

National Governments, international agencies

Financial trading instruments

Top down Malawi case study

Protection against food shortages and price increases

Fair Trade initiatives

Private sector, small producers, NGOs

Voluntary initiatives for market access.

Participatory Fair trade certificated scheme. e.g. bananas and chocolate

Aims to provide market access and higher returns to producers.

May be vulnerable to fluctuations in economy of importing countries

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 37 of 50

Safeguards on acquisition of agricultural land by foreign investors

National Governments, international agencies

Regulations to prevent harm to local food security, soil and water conditions.

Top down Would aim to prevent harm to local food security, soil and water conditions.

Need to investigate the scope for such regulation under WTO

Food Aid International agencies, NGOs, rural communities

Voluntary initiatives for emergency food security.

Top down Remain essential to address shortfalls in food supply

May distort local markets and government accountability

Doha Development Agenda

WTO, National Governments

Exemptions to WTO rules for special products due to development, food security and livelihood considerations.

Top down Special exemption should improve market access for developing countries

Stalled negotiation process

Policies to promote food production in ways which minimise the environmental impactPolicies to promote research to increase input utilization efficiency

International agencies, national governments.

Funding of research and extension programs to promulgate research outputs.

Should be interactive, using extension services to understand current limitations on productivity in order to help prioritise research

Increasing input use efficiency will reduce the environmental impact from increased food production

Without careful management and setting of goals bottom-up approach to identifying research priorities may lead to unfocussed research efforts and less achievable goals

International Policies and programmes for sustainable agriculture

International agencies, national governments, rural communities

Wide range of programmes addressing for example, Sustainable Land Management,Integrated Water Resources Management and coastal zone management

Participatory approach

REDD Reduces environmental impact of food production

Policies which focus on 'sustainable' agriculture may often lead to reductions in total food production

Support for sustainable production certification schemes

Private sector, small producers, NGOs

Initiative for reducing the environmental and social impacts of production. See also fair trade initiatives

Participatory Fair trade certification schemes generally have a sustainability requirement

Aims to develop consumer market for more sustainable products

May be vulnerable to fluctuations in economy of importing countries

Safeguards on acquisition of agricultural land by foreign investors

See above

Safeguards for food security due to biofuels expansion

International agencies, national governments

Address pressure for LUC and degradation of soils

Top down Growing awareness of potential biofuels impact on food security creates environment for

Uncertain impact on food security of biofuels presents uncertainty for policy decisions..

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 38 of 50

international cooperation on policy initiatives

In addition we describe below in more detail some key potential policy approaches to deliver the required increases in food production and supply while reducing the environmental impact.

3.1. Policies to improve NUE – to reduce costs and environmental impactsThe large yield increases in recent decades have led to decreasing world food prices. A consequence of these low prices, is decreased investment in research and development as they become less profitable (IFPRI 2001). The average expenditure growth rate for 32 high-income countries for 1990-2000 was 0.52%, down from 2.43% the previous decade (OECD-FAO, 2009). For Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, the growth rate was actually negative in the 1990s, and in about half of the 24 countries in the region for which time-series data are available. Another effect of low food prices is reduced use of inputs like fertilizer (Pinstrup-Andersen 1999), and the use of other productivity increasing factors (e.g machinery and agrochemicals) becomes less profitable. Since food prices are expected to remain stable or fall slightly at least to 2020, this will have an impact on yield increases on the long term. However, there is still considerable potential to increase productivity, even in the industrialised countries.

Because of the complex interactions of the NUE components, both the public and private sector must play a greater role in providing information to crop producers about how various management and technology options influence these components. Policies should support research and extension programs that develop this capacity, especially for cereal-cropping systems that are rapidly intensifying. Policies must also recognize the potential for interactions among different environmental goals. The outcomes of this research need to be made available not only to more intensive and large-scale producers but also to smallholders. A recent report by the Deutches Bank (DB, 2009) concluded that massive investment will be required to meet the challenge

Traditionally, agricultural extension was delivered in a top-down fashion, where farmers were told what to and how to do it in order to improve productivity. More recently, however, there has been a rise in the ‘participatory approach,’ which involves communities in setting and fulfilling their own development goals and solutions (Ponniah et al., 2008). Together with this, the focus of agricultural extension has been moving away from simply increasing production to an emphasis on food and nutrition security, poverty alleviation, entry of new actors such as the private sector and NGOs in the delivery of extension services, changed R&D paradigms and bottom–up approaches for end user involvement in decision-making. This has been accompanied with a change in the way that services are delivered as public spending on extension shrinks and other actors move onto the delivery stage (Ponniah et al, 2008).

Lobe (2008) refers to calls for an approach for Africa that reverses the technology- and market-based inputs approach and instead focuses on dialogues, including a greater emphasis on the participatory approach by extension workers: specifically, that new techniques and methods build on local knowledge. Extension advice and new practices must generate participation and inclusive dialogue with communities, be responsive to the needs of farmers, and fully factor in their knowledge of the land and the soil (Lobe, 2008). Navarro (2006) presents approaches by which agricultural and extension educators can contribute to a successful new green revolution. These include analysis of lessons learned in past development programmes and researching, educating, and improving extension systems. Additionally there is a renewed call for adopting a 'technology pull,' whereby the needs of poor farmers set their own technology demands instead of the 'technology push' approach which characterised the first green revolution, whereby farmers were encouraged to adopt new technologies which were well suited to developed countries but for which those in developing countries may have lacked the need, knowledge and inputs necessary to use them effectively (Navarro, 2006).

3.2. Water resourcesAs indicated earlier (section 1.4.5.1), Parry et al. (2004) concluded that, on a global basis, outputs from rain-fed agriculture would be able to meet food demands by 2030. Nevertheless, Rosegrant et al. (2002) concluded that if current policies with respect to abstracted water continue, farmers will find it difficult to meet the world’s food needs. This conclusion appears to be at variance with that of Parry et al. (2004). However, Rosegrant et al. (2002) were concentrating mainly on water resources needed to maintain irrigated production and were commenting on the potential for conflicting demands for abstracted water among agricultural, domestic and industrial users. Rosegrant et al. (2002) concluded that commitment to the sustainable use of water, through appropriate policies and investments, will lead to a more water- and food-secure world. They proposed that to stimulate water conservation and free up agricultural water for environmental, domestic, and industrial uses, the effective price of water to the agricultural sector would need to be gradually increased. Agricultural water price increases would need to be implemented through incentive programs that provide farmers with income for the water they save, such as charge-subsidy schemes that pay farmers for reducing water use, and through the establishment, purchase, and trading of water use rights. Governments could simultaneously transfer water rights and the responsibility for operation and management of irrigation systems to communities and water user associations in many countries and regions. The transfer of rights and systems would require an improved legal

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 39 of 50

and institutional environment for preventing and eliminating conflict and with technical and organizational training and support. As a result, farmers will increase their on-farm investments in irrigation and water management technology, and the efficiency of irrigation systems and basin water use could improve significantly.

Increasing water prices appears to have several advantages. Higher water prices not only encourage all users to use water more efficiently, but also could generate funds to maintain existing water infrastructure and to build new infrastructure. Yet because of perceived political risks and concern that higher prices would hurt poor farmers and consumers, there have been few attempts to implement higher water prices. In most instances the poor suffer from current subsidized water prices because water subsidies in most countries go disproportionately to the better off: urban water users connected to the public system and irrigated farmers.

Rainfed agriculture emerges from the analysis of Rosegrant et al. (2002) as a potential key to sustainable development of water and food. Rainfed agriculture still produces about 60% of total cereals. Improved water management and crop productivity in rainfed areas would relieve considerable pressure on irrigated agriculture and on water resources. Exploiting the full potential of rainfed agriculture, however, will require investing in water harvesting technologies, crop breeding targeted to rainfed environments, agricultural extension services, and access to markets, credit, and input supplies in rainfed areas.

Should all countries and regions will phase out unsustainable groundwater extraction over the next 25 years this could lead to a decrease in cereal production concentrated in the basins that currently experience large overdrafts, especially China and India (Rosegrant et al., 2002). As a result, the developing world as a whole will increase its net imports, with major increases concentrated in China and India, and developed countries will increase their net exports. These country-level shortfalls in demand and increases in imports could be serious, but they may be a worthwhile trade-off for restoring sustainable groundwater supplies.

Rosegrant et al. (2002) also point out that by substituting cereal and other food imports for irrigated agricultural production (so-called imports of virtual water), countries can effectively reduce their agricultural water use (Allen, 1996). Under a business as usual scenario, developing countries were forecast to increase their reliance on food imports from 107 million tons in 1995 to 245 million tons in 2025. This would be the equivalent of saving 147 km3 of water at 2025 water productivity levels, or 8% of total water consumption and 12% of irrigation water consumption in developing countries in 2025.

3.3. Reduction of post-harvest lossesReduction of post-harvest losses uses harvested food more efficiently and can hence limit the demand for increased production. Research on avoidance of food waste in developed countries has focussed on encouraging consumers to alter their individual consumption choices. However, it is suggested that too much emphasis is placed on the degree to which consumer preferences are malleable (Warde, 2005) and that rather they are constrained by the limited choices offered by suppliers. In order to encourage people to adopt less wasteful practices when selecting food, organisations must allow them to select less environmentally damaging products. This prompts the question ‘what is the malleability of retail preferences to adopting less wasteful modes of preparation, transport and presentation?’ But retailers will not supply products until they are confident that consumers will purchase them and consumers can only purchase what is available to them through the retailers. It may be necessary for national governments to facilitate these actions through changes in policy, infrastructure and financial support, as well as greater investment in research and development to establish the current malleability of mass suppliers to adopting less wasteful modes of preparation, transport and presentation.

To enable identification of the most wasteful stages in the food supply chain lifecycle analysis (LCA) is an appropriate tool. Few LCAs exist which would assist in identifying where in the food supply chain losses occur. In particular, studies have often focussed on energy-intensive of high-value foods such as tomatoes and strawberries and not staples.

In developing countries work is reported on losses during on-farm storage of grain by smallholders, showing improved storage has the potential to reduce such losses by c. 65% (c. 4% of total harvest). Promulgation of best storage practice by extension services should be a priority.

3.4. Consumption of livestock productsA recent UK study (Defra project AC0208) assessed the overall trend of meat consumption in the UK over the last century. It appears this will continue to increase, across all meat sectors, with some such as chicken and pork increasing faster than others as the prevalence of take-aways and ready meals continues. However this may be counteracted by the more recent advice to reduce meat consumption to reduce the risk of obesity. A more effective limiting factor to further meat consumption may be the increasing price of inputs – i.e. feed as it competes with biofuel demands. Again how this affects meat consumption as prices rise is difficult to predict. We have not attempted to predict future price trends.

Suggestions have been made that the adoption of a vegetarian diet could be an effective approach to reducing GHG emissions. However, it is likely that the increases in numbers of vegetarians will have only modest impacts on overall emissions as the majority still consume eggs and dairy products, and both sectors are major sources of gaseous emissions. There has been a long-term trend for increasing consumption of white meat (from pigs and poultry) accompanied by a long-term decrease in consumption of red meat, from ruminants. Since the great majority of CH4 emissions arise from enteric fermentation by ruminants, this trend, if continued, could lead to decreased emissions of GHGs from livestock production.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 40 of 50

Some studies have sought to compare the GHG emissions of vegetarian and meat-based whole meals, both balanced nutritionally. Carlsson-Kanyama (1998) reported that a pulse-based vegetarian meal offers the same nutrition as one based on pork at considerably less GHG expense. A later study (Davis and Sonesson, 2008) confirms this finding. However, while plant foods can provide adequate nutrition at lower GHG ‘cost,’ much depends on the overall diet. Among poor societies where meals are overwhelmingly grain- or tuber-based, where access to a nutritionally varied selection of foods is limited, and where there are serious problems of mal- and under-nutrition, keeping a goat, a pig or a few chickens can make a critical difference to the adequacy of the diet. In rich societies suffering from the consequences of over-nutrition, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, a diet high in fat-rich animal products, can be actively deleterious. In this case, a reduction in meat and dairy consumption may confer health benefits.

Garnett (2009) concludes that a certain level of livestock production can actively help tackle climate change, by contributing to soil carbon sequestration and by making use of otherwise unproductive land, so avoiding the need to plough alternative land. The ability of livestock to consume crop residues and by-products that are inedible to humans is resource efficient and leads to GHG avoidance, provided the advantages of substitute uses (such as biogas production) do not outweigh their benefits as an animal feed. Nevertheless at current levels of production and consumption – and even more so at projected future levels – the disbenefits of livestock with respect to GHG emissions far outweigh the benefits. Clearly ways of tackling the GHGs generated by livestock are urgently needed.

Much of the forecast increase in meat consumption is expected to occur in countries which have traditionally eaten little meat. We assessed the extent to which increasing consumption might be moderated to limit the increased overall demand, or whether forecast increases in consumption were likely to remain unrealised due to cultural considerations. We concluded that there are a number of reasons for which there is limited scope for reducing the consumption of meat and livestock products in developing countries. Some of the main reasons are as follows.

Firstly, as indicated above, protein and micronutrient deficiencies remain widespread in developing countries. Therefore, there is valid policy concern in developing countries to meet the nutritional deficiencies through increased milk and animal product consumption. India strongly promotes a national policy to support an extensive network of dairy cooperatives owned by small farmers. This policy has increased small farmers’ income and health of women and children in the country, a society that suffers from acute nutritional deficiencies with very low meat and protein intake otherwise.

Secondly, the rural poor and landless presently get a greater share of their income from livestock than better-off rural people. In most of the developing world, a goat, a pig, some chickens or a milking cow can provide a key income supplement for the landless and otherwise asset-poor. Even pig meat is produced through small scale/informal sector in China rather than commercial pig farms. Therefore, policies to curb livestock production are detrimental to the subsistence livelihood and income generation for the poor.

Thirdly, despite dramatic change in total consumption, per capita consumption in beef, pork and poultry meat is not great in developing countries, especially in contrast to the developed country standards such as the US. Moreover, the increase in meat production in developing regions, especially in Latin America, is also fuelled by demand in the developed countries. Therefore, dietary change in the developed world is the main policy measure that could have an impact on developing country meat production.

3.5. Development of UK and EU policyOver the past forty years public and private sector investments in agricultural research and development have led to numerous significant advances in animal and crop production. Improved fertilizers and pesticides, together with more efficient ways of applying them, have helped increase yields; improved irrigation planning has helped make better use of scarce water resources and better selection has helped to isolate and exploit crop characteristics for different situations, climates and end uses. As stated in section 2.5 above, donor countries should continue to invest to increase technical capacities within the donor countries rather than concentrate purely on food aid and programme support. By doing so agricultural productivity can continue to increase in the parts of the world that have an environmental comparative advantage in respect of greater NUE enabling emission of fewer GHGs per t of product. But developments in donor countries may also be more widely applicable.

Plant breeding that played such an important role in the GR tended to concentrate on greater yielding cultivars, frequently by producing cultivars that were able to respond to increased agrochemical inputs by producing increased yield. In that era primacy was given to increasing production without necessarily being concerned about the environmental impacts. However, if breeders were to be given different priorities, i.e increasing NUE, it is likely that cultivars could be produced that will make better use of nutrients and, to some extent at least, decouple the link between inputs, yield and polluting emissions. i.e. breeding needs to be directed toward increasing nutrient productivity rather than yield per se. To some extent this has already happened in some EU countries. For example, in the UK average fertilizer-N applications to cereals have decreased since their peak in 1984 (BSFP). However, average cereal yields have increased by a further c. 1 t/ha since that time (Spink et al., 2009).

A priority should therefore be given when considering either to intensify agriculture or to convert land to agricultural use, to categorising both the soil types and local climate and prioritising activities within areas with the

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 41 of 50

greatest yield potential. However, such an approach is likely to be constrained, particularly within countires with limited infrastructure for access to markets. A recent report by the Deutches bank (2009) concluded that 'It is the intelligent reallocation of our land to different uses that will allow our supply of agricultural production to both feed and fuel our populations'.

Furthermore, HGCA and RSPB argued (in AEA, 2009b) that it is important that countries like the UK, which have favourable climate and large yield potentials, do all they can to increase production. Such an argument may appear no more than thinly-veiled protectionism, but there is an important point here. Foster et al. (2006) proposed the concept of 'ecological comparative advantage' for some countries or regions in the production of foodstuffs. Such an advantage might arise through favourable climate, productive soils, or both. The UK, in common with many other countries in the west and centre of Europe, has resilient and productive soils and enough rainfall to produce large yields of crops. In many parts of the world potential yield is limited either by soil type, rainfall or short growing season, and in such countries there will be less scope to meet increasing demand by increasing productivity and hence more pressure for LUC. The recent DECC report (DECC, 2009) indicates that since world population will rise to more than 9 • 109 by 2050, the UK must play its role in ensuring safe, affordable food supplies, balanced by the need for the sector to adapt to the impacts of climate change and safeguard environmental resources such as biodiversity and water quality.

3.5.1. Feasibility of CIT Exports to tropicsSection 4.3.3 suggests that there is good scope for the CIT to expand agricultural output, both for domestic consumption and for trade. Whilst this may be possible, there are a number of aspects to such a development that need exploring in more detail. Firstly, the supply conditions need to be met. That is, even if there is sufficient land and water for increased crop production, the other infrastructure and inputs need to be available, such as access to markets and affordable labour. Access should be reasonably available, since many transition countries have in the past been net exporters of agricultural produce. Also, many of the countries are integrated into the world economy for other commodities and should be able to access inputs for food production. The labour costs could be significant however, in comparison to other food exporting regions (USDA, 2002). The relative impact of labour costs to the sale price is dependent on a range of other factors however, such as how labour-intensive farming methods are, the relative cost of other inputs, and how the crops are marketed. However, land rights differ across the CIT, and so it is expected that those countries with stronger land rights have more incentive to invest in restructuring, whereas Russia and the Central Asian states have had weaker rights and productivity has been lagging. (FAO 2003b, p.227).

3.6. Acquisition and leasing of agricultural land by foreign investors in developing countries for the purpose of food production and exportApproximately 2.5 • 106 ha of farmland in five sub-Saharan African countries has been bought or leased since 2004 with an investment of $920 • 106. The main investors in agri-land in developing countries are: China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Private investors from the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are also active in land investment.

To make such land acquisition contribute positively to increased food security and environmental sustainability, the developing country governments may want to introduce regulations that prevent harm to local food security, soil and water conditions. On the other hand, international trade agreements would need to address the terms and conditions of export of agricultural commodities from developing countries which would incentivise the foreign investors in land in these countries, apart from generating profit and food security for their home countries, to also contribute to sustainable income generation for local farmers and sustainable management of the acquired land. The success of setting new standards in regulations of developing countries and bilateral and international trade agreements would depend largely on the motivations of foreign agri-land investors.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS4.1. ConclusionsThere is potential to increase global food production to the amounts needed to achieve food security in 2030, without large-scale LUC and without commensurate increases in emissions of GHGs or demands for irrigation.

However, to achieve these production increases effective policies need to be put in place. Incentives need to be provided to breed crop cultivars that increase productivity while using inputs, especially of nutrients and water, more efficiently. A similar approach is needed for livestock production to increase the feed conversion ratio, again to enable more efficient use of inputs. The decisions needed to ensure the achievement of food security by sustainable means are summarised in the recommendations section below.

Because of the fertile and stable soils, equitable climate and large yield potentials and large areas of under-utilized former agricultural land in northern regions, there are advantages in increasing production in these regions. Increasing production in those regions which have the greatest production potential per ha not only improve prospects for food security but also are likely to lead to fewer GHG emissions per t of product, a 'comparative environmental advantage' for food production.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 42 of 50

Climate change is not predicted to have major impacts on food production until after 2030. Until that date the impacts are expected to potentially increase food production in the northern hemisphere but lead to some decreases in the tropics. After 2030 the disparity between N hemisphere and tropical regions is forecast to increase with forecasts of decreases in yields of crops such as maize of up to 30% in Africa. Moreover, as temperatures increase and crop water stress increases during the growing season, the forecast yield compensation from increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere may not be realized. The positive feedback role of GHG emissions also needs to be taken into account. Unless measures are taken to minimise the additional GHG emissions arising from the drive to meet food security needs to 2030 agricultural emissions may exacerbate warming trends making it more difficult to produce adequate food later in the century.

Water resources are forecast to remain adequate for the world to continue to feed itself during the rest of this century. However, this outcome assumes production in the developed countries (which broadly benefit from climate change) will compensate for declines projected, for the most part, for developing nations.

Measures which increase productivity by utilising inputs more efficiently also produce less emission of GHGs per t of product as well as avoiding CO2 emissions from LUC. Priority needs to be given to increasing production with minimal increase in GHG emissions since forecasts of climate change suggest that after 2030 the impacts on agricultural production are likely to begin to be negative overall. Hence any drive to increase production prior to 2030 that disregards GHG emissions may jeopardise the achievement of food security in later years. There has been a dearth of research in the linkages and/or trade-offs between food security policies and environmentally sustainable agricultural production in the developing countries. In particular, the extent to which increased agricultural production may be decoupled from increased emissions to air and water needs to be assessed. We consider these aspects to be important since emissions to air include gases which contribute to global warming, while reduced air and water quality may have direct adverse impacts on human health as well as on the sustainability of ecosystems. In addition, in some regions at least, forecast changes in climate are predicted to have adverse impacts on agricultural production and may undermine efforts to achieve food security.

The improvements in NUE and WUE needed to increase production while reducing emissions per t of produce and reducing the need for additional water supplies are unlikely to happen without direction and funding by government agencies. Effective extension services are also needed to promulgate the developments.

However, there are risks that increasing food production in those regions with a comparative environmental advantage will increase developing countries’ reliance on food imports in order to meet their food needs, as outlined in Annex 6. Hence the need to increase incomes within poor countries so that food imports can be bought via open trade and not donated as aid.

The results presented have usually been taken from studies which have not specifically taken into account the demand for agricultural land from biofuels. There is evidence that these have become a significant driver for land use change. In consequence the sanguine conclusions summarized here, that the increase in food production needed to meet the forecast increase in demand by 2030 without the need for major LUC, may be compromised by the additional demand for agricultural crops as feedstocks for first generation biofuels. There are concerns that intensive biofuel production may also lead to expropriation of small-scale landowners from productive land further increasing pressure for LUC and degradation of less resilient soils.

To ensure future food supplies policies, both international and national, need to enable farming to be profitable, especially for the smallholder, in order to ensure food producers stay in business, invest in improved techniques and can afford to buy the necessary produce they cannot supply from their own farms. For example, pricing policies that keep agricultural products cheap have plagued African agriculture for many years and undermine growth in virtually all sectors.

Getting people out of poverty is a function of income growth. However the distribution of wealth is crucial to the rate at which income growth by investors is translated into national poverty reduction. With more equitable distribution of wealth the same increase can give greater reductions in poverty. Large-scale systems have relatively less economic impact and tend to concentrate wealth more than would a larger number of smaller-scale investments.

The specific constraints to rural development in Africa have been identified as: poor infrastructure lack, or volatile prices, of essential inputs, political instability, poor market development and lack of the necessary R&D.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 43 of 50

4.2. Recommendations4.2.1. GlobalAt the global level there needs to be integration between fundamental research which aims to produce crop cultivars that provide improved food quality as well as yield while using inputs, in particular N and water, more efficiently, and a need to respond to priorities identified by farmers themselves for tools and methods that are relevant to the specific agro-environment. These need to be enabled by extension services that can provide a dialogue between researcher and farmer.

4.2.2. RegionalThere is potential to increase production in developing countries, without LUC, and this can be assisted by appropriate research, effective extension services and access to capital. However, in some regions this may not be enough to provide food security by sustainable means and hence we should maintain investment in those developed countries with a large productive capacity to enable food to be produced with an efficient use of inputs and relatively few GHG emissions. Policies are needed in the vulnerable regions to increase spending power so that populations in those regions are able to better afford food produced domestically as well as imported food products in a free market. This may mean promoting the production of higher-value specialist crops in tropical countries, and adding value to those crops within-country, to generate revenue to import staples from temperate regions. Nevertheless, given the potential vulnerability of producers to fluctuations in commodity prices, there is also a need to take measures to increase the purchasing power of subsistence smallholders who rely on their own produce to feed themselves to enable them to invest in means to increase production. Aid may continue to be needed but with clearly-defined goals and a will to hold recipient governments accountable for its effective disbursement.

4.2.3. General sustainable technologiesIn developing countries work is reported on wastage during on-farm storage of grain by smallholders, showing improved storage has the potential to reduce such losses by c. 65% (c. 4% of total harvest). Promulgation of best storage practice by extension services should be a priority.

4.2.4. Research needsThe considerable improvements in agricultural productivity achieved over the last 50 years, in particular due to developing new crop cultivars and livestock breeds that produce greater outputs by using inputs more efficiently, highlight the need for continued substantial research to maintain rates of improvement in the coming years. This report indicates a number of areas where further research might be considered, for example plant breeding to further improve nutrient and water use efficiency and livestock breeding to convert feed more effciently. Research aimed at increasing agricultural output in developing countries, in order to achieve food security, also needs to ensure that agriculture is environmentally sustainable to minimise increases in GHG emissions, conserve water supplies and maintain or improve local water and air quality together with biodiversity. In addition, research to increase the amount of food produced also needs to ensure such food is of good nutritional quality.

Among other things, there is scope for research to better quantify post-harvest losses and identify the means to reduce such losses at all stages of the food chain. To meet this objective it may be useful to carry out more life cycle assessments. Such assessments could include a more detailed analysis of the impacts of food production in different regions on emissions of GHGs, soil and water resources and water and air quality. This could enable the identification of regions where food may be produced more efficiently and with a smaller impact on the environment. There is also a need for greater interaction between research and extension services in order not only to promulgate the results of research but to make researchers aware of the priorities perceived by producers.

The review and case studies reported in Annex 6 highlight the importance of taking into account sustainability of trade in the context of food security. While some research in this area outlines environmental impacts in source countries of traded commodities and links to livelihoods, poverty and food security, there is a need to establish a more comprehensive understanding of the impacts of trade. This includes development of assessments of embedded water and other resources in food trade.

References cited

AEA. (2008). Review of work on the environmental sustainability of international biofuels production and use. Final Report of Defra project CEOSA 0701, February 2008.

AEA. (2009a). Analysis of the SAC MACC report to inform discussions on setting contributions to Carbon budgets. Final report to Defra, May 2009.

AEA. (2009b). Biofuels Research Scoping Study Report, for Department for Transport (on behalf of the Biofuels Research Steering Group), unpublished.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 44 of 50

Alexandratos N. ed. (1995). World agriculture: towards 2010. An FAO study. Chichester, UK, John Wiley and Rome, FAO.

AMCST. (2009). African Ministerial Council on Science and Technology. Technologies to reduce post-harvest food loss. [Online at http://www.nepadst.org/platforms/foodloss.shtml]

Anon. (2009). Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Food Commodities Procured for UK Consumption through a Diversity of Supply Chains. Final report of Defra project FO0103.

Arnell NW. (1999). Climate change and global water resources Global Environmental Change 9, 31-49.

Bell M. (1998). International Rice Research Institute. 1997. Personal Communication. July. In WRI.

Binder M. (2003). Life cycle analysis of DL-methionine in broiler meat production. Amino News Volume 04, Number 02, June 2003.

Bot A, Nachtergaele F, Young A. (2000). Land resource potential and constraints at regional and country levels. World Soil Resources Report No. 90. Rome, FAO.

Bouwman L, Hoek K van der, Drecht G van, Eickhout B. (2006). World Livestock and Crop Production Systems, Land Use and Environment between 1970 and 2030. pp 75-89 In: Bouwman L, McCarl (B Eds), Agriculture and Climate Beyond 2015, Springer, Netherlands.

Brummett RE, J Lazard J, Moehl J. (2008). African aquaculture: Realizing the potential. Food Policy 33, 371–385.

Carlsson-Kanyama A. 1998. Climate change and dietary choices—how can emissions of greenhouse gases from food consumption be reduced? Food Policy 23 (3/4), 277–293.

Cassman KG, Dobermann A, Walters DT. (2002) Agroecosystems, Nitrogen-use Efficiency, and Nitrogen Management. Ambio 31, 132-140.

Dasgupta S, Laplante B, Meisner C, Wheeler D, Yan J. (2007). The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4136, February 2007, 51 pp.

Davis J, Sonesson U. 2008. Environmental potential of grain legumes in meals. Life cycle assessment of meals with varying content of peas. SIK Report 771. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Gothenburg, Sweden.

DB. (2009). Investing in Agriculture: Far-Reaching Challenge, Significant Opportunity. An Asset Management Perspective. Deutsche bank Group, June 2009, 82 pp.

DECC. (2009). The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan. National strategy for climate and energy. HMSO, 220pp.

Delgado CL, Hopkins J, Kelly VA. (1998). Agricultural Growth Linkages in Sub-Saharan Africa, Research Report 107. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Dixon J, Gulliver A, Gibbon D. (2001). Global farming systems study: Challenges and priorities to 2030. Synthesis and global overview. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy, 98 pp.

Evans A. (2009). The Feeding of the Nine Billion: Global Food Security for the 21st Century. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London.

FAO. (1997). Estimated Post-Harvest Losses of Rice in Southeast Asia.

FAO. (1998) Agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean. [http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tac/x5789e/x5789e02.htm]

FAO. (1999). Food and Agriculture Organization Yearbook 1999: Fishery Statistics - Aquaculture Production, FAO, Rome.

FAO. (2000). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture; FAO, Rome.FAO (2002). World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. FAO, Rome.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 45 of 50

http://www.nepadst.org/platforms/foodloss.shtml

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf

FAO. (2000a). Land Resource Potential and Constraints at Regional and Country Levels. World Soil Resources Reports 90. Land and Water Development Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2000.

FAO. (2001). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000: main report. FAO Forestry Paper No. 140. Rome.

FAO. (2002) Sustainable rice production for food security. Proceedings of the 20th Session of the International Rice Commission (Bangkok, Thailand, 23–26 July 2002). [Online at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4751E/y4751e0o.htm.

FAO. (2003). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e00.HTM [Accessed March 2009]

FAO. (2005). Current Fertilizer Trend and Outlook; FAO; ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/cwfto09.pdf

FAO (2008) Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations, New York and Geneva.

FAO. (2008b). Loss of mangroves alarming: 20 percent of mangrove area destroyed since 1980. 31 January 2008, Rome. [Online at:http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000776/index.html]

FAO. (2009c). Overall losses of wheat. [Online at: http://www.fao.org/inpho/content/compend/text/ch06-02.htm]

Faures et al. (2007). The FAO irrigated area forecast for 2030.FAO; Rome.

Foster C, Green K, Bleda M, Dewick P, Evans B, Flynn A, Mylan J. (2006). Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption: A report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School. Defra, London.

Fischer G, van Velthuizen H, Shah M, Nachtergaele F. (2002). Global Agro- Ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century, Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and Laxenburg, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/GAEZ/index.htm

Fixen PE, West FB. (2002). Nitrogen Fertilizers: Meeting Contemporary Challenges. Ambio 3, 169-176.

Fulton L, Howes T, Hardy J, et al. (2004). Biofuels for Transport – an International Perspective, published by IEA, OECD, Paris. www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004.pdf

Fujisaka S, Bell W, Thomas N, Hurtado L, Crawford E. (1996). Slash-and-burn agriculture, conversion to pasture, and deforestation in two Brazilian Amazon colonies Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 59, 115-130.

Garnett T. (2009). Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental Science & Policy (in press).

G8 summit. (2009). Food Security briefing note. http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/factsheetsfood%20EN.pdf [Accessed July 2009]

G8 summit (2009) “L’Aquila” Joint Statement on Global Food Security: L’Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI). http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/LAquila_Joint_Statement_on_Global_Food_Security[1],0.pdf [Accessed July 2009]

Henao J, Baanante C. (1999). Nutrient depletion in the agricultural soils of Africa. Vision 2020 Brief No. 62. Washington, DC, IFPRI.

Hertel et al. (2008). Biofuels and their By-Products: Global Economic and Environmental Implications, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 46 of 50

http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/LAquila_Joint_Statement_on_Global_Food_Security%5B1%5D,0.pdf

http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/factsheetsfood%20EN.pdf

http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/biofuels2004.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/cwfto09.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e00.HTM

http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4751E/y4751e0o.htm

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/y3557e/y3557e.pdf

Hine R, Twarog S, Pretty J. (2008). Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and United Nations Environment Programme, New York and Geneva.

Howes et al. (2007). Biomass and Biofuels: A European Competitive and Innovative Edge. (IP/A/ITRE/FWC/2006-087/Lot4/CS/SC1) www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/expert.eStudies/download,do?file=16695#search=%20biomass%20

IFPRI (2001). Sustainable food security for all by 2020. 2020 vision for food, agriculture, and theenvironment, Bonn, Germany, International Food Policy Research Institute.

IPCC. 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 [Online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm]

Kadar A. (2005). Increasing Food Availability by Reducing Postharvest Losses of Fresh Produce. Proc. 5th Int. Postharvest Symp. Acta Hort. 682. [Online at: http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/datastorefiles/234-528.pdf]

Kantor LS, Lipton K, Manchester A, Oliveira V. (1997). Estimating and addressing America’s food losses. Food Review 20:3-11. in Kadar (2005).

Lal R. (2009). Soils and world food security. Soil & Tillage Research 102, 1–4.

Lobe K. (2008). A Green Revolution for Africa: Hope for Hungry Farmers? LEISA Magazine Vol. 24 No. 2: Living Soils http://www.leisa.info/index.php?url=getblob.php&o_id=209255&a_id=70469&a_seq=0 [Accessed July 2009]

Liu, G. (1999). Soil conservation and sustainable agriculture on the Loess Plateau: challenges and prospects. Ambio 28, 663-668.

Lustig N, Arias O, Rigolini J. (2002). Poverty reduction and economic growth: a two-way causality. Sustainable Development Department Technical Paper POV-111, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.

Mazaud, F. 1997. Agro-Industries and Postharvest Management Service. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Personal Communication. July. In World Resources Institute (1998).

Moehl J, Halwart M, Brummett R. (2005). Report of the FAO World Fish Center workshop on small-scale aquaculture in sub- Saharan Africa: revisiting the aquaculture target group paradigm. CIFA Occasional Paper 25, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Moran D, MacLeod M, Wall E, Eory V, Pajot G, Matthews R, McVittie A, Barnes A, Rees B, Moxey A, Williams A, Smith P. (2008). UK Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for the Agriculture and Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Sectors out to 2022, with Qualitative Analysis of Options to 2050. Final Report to the Committee on Climate Change for project RMP4950. 152 pp.

Moyo D. (2009). Dead Aid. Allen Lane, UK, 188 pp.

Navarro M. (2006). How Can Agricultural and Extension Educators Contribute to a Successful New Green Revolution? The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, Volume 12, Issue 2 June 2006 , pages 83 – 96.

OECD-FAO. (2009). Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018, 95 pp.

OECD. (2009). Policy Dialogue on High Food Prices Outlook and Donor Mid-term Responses: Discussion Summary; 12-13 February; Paris.

Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G. (2004). Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change 14, 53–67.

Peltonen-Sainio P, Jauhiainen L, Laurila I. (2007). Cereal yield trends in northern European conditions: Changes in yield potential and its realisation. Elsevier Field Crops Research.

Pinstrup-Andersen P, Pandya-Lorch R, Rosegrant M. (1999). World food prospects: critical issues for the early twenty-first century. Food Policy Report. Washington, DC, IFPRI.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 47 of 50

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

Ponniah, A., Puskur, R., Workneh, S., and Hoekstra D. (2008) Concepts and practices in agricultural extension in developing countries: A source book. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). http://www.ilri.org/Infoserv/webpub/fulldocs/Source%20Book/Source_book.pdf [Accessed July 2009]

Rosegrant MW, Cai X, Cline SA. 2002. Global Water Outlook to 2025 - Averting an Impending Crisis. A 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Initiative. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,D.C., U.S.A; International Water Management Institute Colombo, Sri Lanka.http://www.greencrossitalia.it/ita/acqua/risorse_acqua/pdf/rapporto%20IWMI%202025.pdf

Satin M. (1997). Agro-Industries and Postharvest Management Service. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Personal Communication. July. In World Resources Institute (1998).

Smeets EMW, Faaij A, Lewandowski I. 2004. A quickscan of global bioenergy potentials to 2050- an analysis of the regional availability of biomass resources for export in relation to the underlying factors, Copernicus Institute - Department of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z.C., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O'Mara, F., Rice, C., Scholes, B., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G.X., Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U., Towprayoon, S., 2007a. Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 118, 6-28.

Soulé, M. E. and M. A. Sanjayan (1998). "Conservation Targets: Do They Help?" Science 279 (5359):2060.

Spink J, Street P, Sylvester-Bradley R, Berry P. (2009). The potential to increase productivity of wheat and oilseed rape in the UK. Report to the Government Chief Scientist, John Beddington.

Tilman D, et al. (2002). Agricultural Sustainability and Intensive Production Practices. Nature 418.

UNCTAD-UNEP. (2008). Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United nations, New York and Geneva. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf [Accessed March 2009]

UNEP (2009); The Environmental Food Crisis; A UNEP Response Assessment; UNEP; Geneva.

(USDA, 2002) “Could the NIS region become a major grain exporter?” United States Dept of Agriculture, Agricultural Outlook, May 2002. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/May2002/ao291g.pdfWarde A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5, 131-152.

WDR (World Development Report). (2008). Making agricultural systems more environmentally sustainable.[http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2008/0,,menuPK:2795178~pagePK:64167702~piPK:64167676~theSitePK:2795143,00.html]

Winkelmann DL. (1998). CGIAR Activities and goals: tracing the connections. Issues in Agriculture. The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

World Bank. (2003). Reaching the Rural Poor; Strategy and Business Plan.

World Bank. (2006). Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities, and Trade-offs. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Sustainable_Land_Management_ebook.pdf [Accessed July 2009].

World Bank (2007) Global Economic Prospects: Managing the Next Wave of Globalisation. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

World Bank (2009) Global Economic Prospects: Commodities at the Crossroads. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

World Food Summit. (1996). Technical background documents; Volume 1; FAO; http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm

WWF. (2009). Environmental Impacts: Habitat Destruction. Agriculture and Environment: Palm Oil. [Online at: http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/palm_oil/environmental_impacts/habitat_conversion/]

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 48 of 50

http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm

http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf

http://www.greencrossitalia.it/ita/acqua/risorse_acqua/pdf/rapporto%20IWMI%202025.pdf

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 49 of 50

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 50 of 50

Documents

General enquiries on this form should be made to:randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=FO0418_9076... · Web viewGeneral enquiries on this form should be made to: Defra, Science