University of Waterloo

Faculty of Mathematics

Global Food Crisis 2050 and Green Revolution 2.0

Natural Resources Group

Ontario Teachers Pension Plan

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Christopher Ng

20438815

3B Financial Analysis & Statistics

May 2015

May 1, 2015

Thierry Bdard

Portfolio Manager, Natural Resources Group

Ontario Teachers Pension Plan

5650 Yonge Street

Toronto, Ontario

Canada M2M 4H5

Dear Thierry,

I have prepared the enclosed report, Global Food Crisis 2050 and Green Revolution 2.0, as my

3B work report for Natural Resources Group at Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. This report, the

second of four work reports that the Co-operative Education Program requires that I

successfully complete as part of my BMath Co-op degree requirements, has not received

academic credit.

Natural Resources Group invests in resources-generating assets. My job as a Co-op required

that I assist with the investment and portfolio management process. This report is an in-depth

study of potential world food shortage in 2050 and technologys role in solving the problem.

The Faculty of Mathematics requests that you evaluate this report for command of topic and

technical content/analysis. Following your assessment, the report, together with your evaluation,

will be submitted to the Math Undergrad Office for evaluation on campus by qualified work

report markers. The combined marks determine whether the report will receive credit and

whether it will be considered for an award.

Sincerely,

Christopher Ng

Encl.

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. iv

1.0 Problem: Global Food Crisis 2050 ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Causes ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 Solution: Green Revolution 2.0 .....................................................................................................................7

2.1 History: Green Revolution................................................................................................................7

2.2 Future: Green Revolution 2.0........................................................................................................ 16

2.3 Risks ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

3.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

References ................................................................................................................................................................ 16

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Projected Population Growth (in billions) .................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Projection of Crop Yields due to Climate Change ...................................................................... 3

Figure 3. Water Stress Increase Due to Growing Water Use and Higher Temperatures ................ 16

Figure 4. International Land-Grabbing .............................................................................................................7

Figure 5. Crop Yield 1961-1980, World and Select Countries .................................................................... 9

Figure 6. Crop Production 1961-1980, World and Select Countries ........................................................ 9

Figure 7. Indonesia: Rice Yield and Fertilizer ............................................................................................... 16

Figure 8. India: Grain Yield and Fertilizer ...................................................................................................... 16

iv

Executive Summary

The world is facing a potential food shortage by 2050, due to factors such as population growth,

increasing food demand per capita, climate change and water stress. Historically, food crisis

caused drastic impacts, including famine, economic imbalance and social and political unrests.

One of the potential solutions is the Green Revolution 2.0, which involves the development of

high-yielding varieties of crops, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of

management techniques and application of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides.

This report investigates two of the latest technologies in agriculture, including intensifying

photosynthesis in crops and developing crop varieties that can grow in less ideal habitats.

While technology can help improve world crop production, there are several major drawbacks

that have caused controversy in the past. For example, health and environmental concerns were

raised against genetically modified crops.

As a result, rigorous examination of the potential drawbacks should be made. Alternative

methods, including market reform, agroecology and reducing food waste, should also be

considered.

1

1.0 Problem: Global Food Crisis 2050

There may not be enough food to feed the world population by 2050. According to Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012), global food demand is expected to

double between 2014 and 2050, while various challenges may hinder the required growth rate of

global food production. A similar research, conducted by Global Harvest Initiative (2014), also

points to a similar conclusion the global total factor production, a ratio of agricultural

productivity, is not accelerating fast enough to meet the expected global agricultural output

needs of 2050.

1.1 Causes

There are several drivers that raise concerns of the Global Food Crisis 2050, including

population growth, higher food demand per capita, climate change and water stress.

Population growth

The worlds population is expanding at a rapid rate and is expected to increase from 7.18 billion

to 9.6 billion people, or a 33.7 percent growth, by 2050. (United Nations, Department of

Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2014) Figure 1 shows the projected population

growth from 2012 to 2050; more than half of this growth will occur in sub-Saharan Africa, a

region where one-quarter of the population is currently undernourished. (Ranganathan, 2013)

2

Figure 1. Projected Population Growth (in billions) (Ranganathan, 2013)

Food demand per capita

Not only the world population is growing at a fast pace, the average food intake per person is

also expected to increase significantly. With growing economies, particularly in China and India,

the two most populated countries in the world, the worlds middle class is expected to boom

from 50 to 70 percent of the population by mid-century. (Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations, 2009) Such trend will then enable more people to afford diets of larger

portion and higher quality protein. In fact, it was shown that, from 2013 to 2030, poultry and egg

demand will increase by 63 percent, milk by 55 percent, and ruminant meat by 44 percent, all of

these food source in turn require huge amount of crop input. (Havlika, Valina, Herrerob, et al,

2014)

3

Climate change

Natural disasters are occurring with increasing frequency and they are harming crop yields.

Climate scientists expect that changing rainfall patterns and rising temperatures will make

certain areas drier and other areas wetter, which will lower crop yields if farmers fail to adapt

with suitable agricultural practices and/or technologies. (Beddington, Asaduzzaman, Clark, et al,

2012) Moreover, shifting rainfall patterns can also lead to more frequent natural disasters, such

as storms, floods and droughts, and add an additional layer of uncertainty to crop production.

Figure 2 shows that climate change is expected to negatively impact crop yields, particularly in

the hungriest parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa.

Figure 2. Projection of Crop Yields due to Climate Change (Ranganathan, 2013)

4

Water stress

Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of extracted water worldwide and is expected to increase to

89 percent by 2050. (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme, 2014) The growth

in water use and an expected 3C rise in global temperature will lead to significant water stress

in many agricultural areas by 2025, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Water Stress Increase Due to Growing Water Use and Higher Temperatures

(Ranganathan, 2013)

5

Other drivers

Other factors, such as higher urbanization rate, decrease in agricultural land, increasing use of

biofuel and lack of technological breakthrough can also post obstacles to sufficient growth in

food production.

1.2 Impacts

The Global Food Crisis can lead to drastic consequences, including famine, economic imbalance

and social and political unrests.

Famine

The shortage of food supply to cover food demand causes, by definition, famine, which in turn

induces regional malnutrition, starvation, epidemic and increased mortality. Furthermore, the

phenomenon leads to negative consequences far longer-lasting than the duration of famine.

Research shows that in-utero and early childhood exposure to famine had significant negative

effects on adult height, weight, weight-for-height, educational attainment and labour supply,

which adversely impact a region in the decades following a famine. (Meng X. & Qian N., 2009)

Famine can also lead to higher crime rate, prostitution and trafficking.

Economic imbalance

Inevitable commodity price hikes in a food crisis will result in a worsened economic imbalance

at the national and international level. The poorest billion people typically are net food buyers

6

and spend 50 to 70 percent of their income on food. (Bourne, 2009) During a food crisis, these

people and countries will need to expend a larger proportion of their income to buy food from

the net food sellers, usually wealthier people and countries, and in the process form a vicious

cycle.

Social and political unrests

An economic imbalance could trigger a series of social and political unrests. In fact, the

commodity price shock in 2008 led to riots in countries such as Egypt, Bangladesh and Haiti.

(CNN, 2008) At the international level, wealthier nations and institutional investors have been

buying foreign farmlands, usually in poorer nations. Figure 4 shows the network of such trades,

sometimes known as land-grabbing. Big land-grabbers (red triangles) include Britain, the

United States, China and the United Arab Emirates while the most targeted lands (green circles)

are located in certain African and Asian countries, such as Congo, Sudan, Indonesia and

Tanzania. These trades show a similar vicious cycle of economic imbalance at a macro level and

can lead to wars in devastating circumstances.

7

Figure 4. International Land-Grabbing (Plumer, 2013)

2.0 Solution: Green Revolution 2.0

If the World Food Crisis is to occur in 2050, the consequences will be devastating and

prolonged. It is important to find ways to counter the problem, by both increasing supply and

lowering demand for food. An obvious source is technology. In fact, technological advancement

was the major contributor to solving the previous looming World Food Crisis between the

1940s and the late 1960s. The triumph was later dubbed the Green Revolution.

2.1 History: Green Revolution

Led by American scientist Norman Borlaug, who later received a Nobel Peace Prize for his effort

pioneering the initiative, the Green Revolution involved the development of high-yielding

8

varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management

techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers. In

the 1940s, Borlaug developed genetically modified varieties of wheat that had higher disease

resistance, higher yield and faster maturity. By combining Borlaugs wheat varieties with also

newly developed chemical fertilizers and synthetic herbicides and pesticides, Mexico, which

imported almost half of their wheat supply prior to the help of the technologies, became a net

wheat exporter. (Briney) The technologies of the Green Revolution spread and increased crop

yield worldwide. For example, India adopted, among other crop varieties, a rice variety named

IR-8. Compared with other rice varieties, IR-8 was more resistant to wind and rain, had quicker

maturity which allowed for two to three crops in a single year. Under favourable conditions,

each planting could yield four to six times as much as most traditional varieties. (Gaud, 1968)

Figure 5 shows that the US and China experienced significant improvement in crop yield from

1961 to 1980 while India and world average crop yield also saw steady growth. Figure 6 shows

that the US, China and India were able to increase crop production from 1961 to 1980, with

Chinas production more than doubled its output from 110 million tonnes to around 280 tonnes.

World crop production also experienced compelling growth, from 870 million tonnes to more

than 1.5 billion tonnes, in the same period.

9

Figure 5. Crop Yield 1961-1980, World and Select Countries

(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division, 2015)

Figure 6. Crop Production 1961-1980, World and Select Countries

(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division, 2015)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1961 1966 1971 1976

k H

g/H

a

China India US World

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1961 1966 1971 1976

mm

to

nn

es

mm

to

nn

es

China India US World (LHS)

10

2.2 Future: Green Revolution 2.0

The trend toward higher yields had flattened since, but scientists are finding new ways to

engineer new crop varieties and agricultural techniques, with technologies not available to

Borlaug during the first Green Revolution, to fuel a potential Green Revolution 2.0. For instance,

scientists now know the sequence of nearly all of the 50,000 or so genes in corn and soybean

plants, which are keys that enable them to genetically modify the crops in ways unimaginable

only four or five years ago, according to Robert Fraley, chief technology officer for the

agricultural giant Monsanto. (Bourne, 2009) The improvement in computing power of

supercomputers also allows for the keys to be run in more permutations in shorter time, further

speeding up the research process.

Supercharging photosynthesis

Stephen Long, a British-born plant scientist, and his colleagues aim to improve the ability of

plants to harness sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into starch in the process of photosynthesis.

(Clabby, 2012) According to Long, plants currently operate at about one third of their potential

photosynthetic efficiency climate-change experiments have shown that rising atmospheric

levels of carbon dioxide led to a 15 percent raise in yield in vital crops like wheat, rice and

soybean. With the help of supercomputers and data analytic algorithms, Longs team hopes to

identify the one or few proteins that serve as genetic switches that could mimic the action. On

the other hand, researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem experimented with adding a

gene from cyanobacteria, which have a talent for concentrating CO2 within their cells at levels

11

that make photosynthesis more efficient, into tobacco plants. The resultant crops achieved a 20

percent increase in yield. (Clabby, 2012)

Resilient crop varieties

Other researchers are developing crop varieties that flourish in less ideal environments. For

example, in 2006, researchers at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) cross-

pollinated a low-yielding but submergence-resistant rice variety with a high-yielding, flavorful

rice variety. The new flood-tolerant rice, called Swarna-Sub1, has been distributed to farmers

across flood-heavy regions in Asia. One recent study found that farmers in 128 villages in the

Indian state of Odisha increased their yields by more than 25 percent. (Folger)

The case of Swarna-Sub1 shows two implications on the fundamental challenges facing the Food

Crisis. Firstly, by developing more resilient crops, expanding and improving world arable land

area is made possible. Indeed, through appropriate treatments to the poorest arable land, global

food production can be increased by 58 percent. (Foley) Secondly, the breeding of Swarna-Sub1

indicates an alternative approach to develop new crop varieties that is much faster than the

traditional method. During the Green Revolution, scientists had to select plants with the

desired trait, cross-pollinate, wait for the offspring to reach maturity, select the best performers

and repeat the whole process again. Ever since researchers mapped the entire rice genome in

2004, they were able to utilize a technology called marker-assisted breeding to screen the DNA

to determine which seedlings had actually inherited the target gene. The technology, as used to

breed Swarna-Sub1, dramatically increased both the accuracy and efficiency of the process.

12

(Folger) As stated by Ismail, a research at IRRI, This form of breeding used to take 6-15 years,

now we can have a tolerant variety in only 2-3 years. (Clabby, 2012) The shortened duration for

crop development can lead to a more targeted approach to increase yield in various types of land.

Other technologies

There are also other technologies that scientists think can be part of Green Revolution 2.0,

including mutating certain crops to produce vitamins and automating farming practices with

the help of data analytics and drones.

2.3 Risks

While modern technologies can undoubtedly raise global crop production, there are many

drawbacks and considerations that make Green Revolution, or a potential Green Revolution 2.0,

controversial.

Health concerns

The most common opposition of Green Revolution is its potential negative health impact.

Throughout the years, many scientific researches point to the conclusion that genetically

modified (GM) food has a casual association with adverse health effects. Experiments

conducted by Velimirov, Binter and Zentek (2008) concluded that negative reproductive effects

were observed in mice fed on a transgenic maize. Malatesta, Boraldi, Annovi, et al (2008), fed

female mice with a genetically modified soybean and concluded that GM soybean intake can

13

influence some liver features during ageing. Other animal studies also showed significant

immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and

inflammation. (Finamore, Roselli, Britti, et al, 2008; Kroghsbo, Madsen, Poulsen, et al, 2008)

On the other hand, other scientists stated that a lot of studies that portrayed the most dramatic

health effects of GM crops were deeply flawed. (Roxanne, 2013) Pamela Ronald, a University of

California at Davis professor, even wrote that there is a broad scientific consensus that

genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. (Ronald, 2011) However,

the disagreement did not give enough confidence to consumers.

Environment

Another major criticism of Green Revolution was its negative impact on the environment. Most

GM crops required, or still require, application of large quantities of fertilizer, pesticides and

water.

Genetically uniform monocultures were typical in Green Revolution farming. This practice led

to many side effects that increased farmers dependency on pesticides, including pest resistance

and outbreaks, disruption of the natural balance, and destruction of habitat for beneficial insects.

(Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific, 2007) Research by Fitzgerald-Moore and Parai

showed that, as shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, the application of fertilizer in rice production in

Indonesia between 1975 and 1990 rose from under 25 kg/ha to over 150 kg/ha, while the

application of fertilizer in grain production in the same period rose from approximately 15 kg/ha

to over 75 kg/ha. (Fitzgerald-Moore & Parai, 1996) Similarly, in India alone, annual application

14

of pesticides increased substantially from about 2000 tonnes in the mid-1950s to in excess of

80,000 tonnes in the mid-1980s. (Postel, 1987)

Figure 7. Indonesia: Rice Yield and Fertilizer

(Fitzgerald-Moore & Parai, 1996)

Figure 8. India: Grain Yield and Fertilizer

(Fitzgerald-Moore & Parai, 1996)

The heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides led to large numbers of diseases and deaths,

especially in poorer countries where farmers had less protective equipment and awareness. The

World Health Organization estimated that around 25 million farmers suffered from chemical

poisoning, where 200,000 people were killed annually; Oxfam found that about 375,000 people

in the third world being poisoned and 10,000 killed by pesticides each year. (Pesticide Action

Network Asia and the Pacific, 2007)

In addition, Green Revolution farming required a high level of irrigation, causing water

depletion and salinization. Over-exploitation of water had significantly lowered worlds

groundwater table. For example, Lakhbir Singh, 35, had to use a special submersible engine to

help haul the water to surface from his well, which was 60 feet deep in 1997, but down to 450

15

feet ten years later. (Barta, 2007) On the other hand, salinity was reported to affect more than 20

percent of the irrigated land in China and Pakistan. (Pesticide Action Network Asia and the

Pacific, 2007)

Others

While Green Revolution directly caused health and environmental disruptions, it also led to,

perhaps less obviously, other problems, such as economic disparity, deforestation and global

warming.

3.0 Conclusion

While technology provides an effective way to solve or mitigate the imminent food shortage,

rigorous examination of the potential drawbacks should be made. Alternative methods,

including market reform, agroecology and reducing food waste, should also be considered.

16

References

Barta, P. (2007, July 28). Feeding Billions, A Grain at a Time. Retrieved from The Wall Street Journal:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118556810848880619

Beddington J., A. M. (2012). Achieving food security in the face of climate change: Final report from the

Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. . Copenhagen, Denmark.: CGIAR

Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Beddington J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernandez, A., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda, L., Mamo,

T., Van Bo, N., Nobre, C.A., Scholes, R., Sharma, R. and Wakhungu, J. (2012) Achieving

food security in the face of climate change: Final report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture

and Climate Change. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food

Security (CCAFS). Copenhagen, Denmark.

Bourne, J. K. (2009, June). The Global Food Crisis: The End of Plenty. National Geographic

Magazine.

Briney, A. (n.d.). Green Revolution: History and Overview of the Green Revolution. Retrieved from

About.com:

http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/greenrevolution.htm

Clabby, C. (2012, February 22). How Science Aims to Feed Seven Billion People. Retrieved from BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120210-is-this-the-new-green-

revolution?ocid=twfut

CNN. (2008, April 14). Riots, Instability Spread as Food Prices Skyrocket. Retrieved from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/

17

Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize

ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.

Fitzgerald-Moore, P., & Parai, B. (1996). The Green Revolution. Calgary, Alberta, Canada:

University of Calgary.

Foley, J. (n.d.). A Five-Step Plan to Feed the World. Retrieved from National Geographic Magazine:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/

Folger, T. (n.d.). The Next Green Revolution. Retrieved from National Geographic Magazine:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/green-revolution/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). How to Feed the World in 2050.

Roma, Italy.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division. (2015). Production -

Crops, 1961-1980. Retrieved from FAOSTAT: http://faostat3.fao.org/

Gaud, W. (1968, March 8). The Green Revolution: Accomplishments and Apprehensions. Retrieved from

AgBioWorld: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/borlaug-

green.html

Global Harvest Initiative. (2014). The 2014 Global Agricultural Productivity Report. Washington, D.C.,

USA.

Havlka, P., Valina, H., Herrerob, M., Obersteinera, M., Schmid E., Rufino, M.C., Mosnier, A.,

Thornton, P.K., Bttche, H., Conant, R.T., Frank, S., Fritz, S., Fussa, S., Kraxner, F. and

18

Notenbaert, A. (2014) Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proceedings

of the National Academies of the United States. Volume 111 No. 10.

Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice

expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.

Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified

soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.

Meng, X., & Qian, N. (2009). The Long Term Consequences of Famine on Survivors: Evidence From a

Unique Natural Experiment Using China's Great Famine. Cambridge, MA, USA: National

Bureau of Economic Research.

OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014) OECD-FAO Agricultural

Outlook. OECD Publishing.

Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. (2007). The Great Rice Robbery - A Handbook on the

Impact of IRRI in Asia. Penang, Malaysia: Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific.

Postel, S., Defusing the Toxic Threat: Controlling Pesticides and Industrial Waste,

Worldwatch Paper 79, Worldwatch Institute (September, 1987), p. 10.

Plumer, B. (2013, January 26). Chinese firms and Gulf sheiks are snatching up farmland worldwide. Why?

Retrieved from The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/26/chinese-firms-and-

gulf-sheiks-are-grabbing-farmland-worldwide-why/

19

Ranganathan, J. (2013, December 3). The Global Food Challenge Explained in 18 Graphics. Retrieved

from World Resources Institute: http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/12/global-food-

challenge-explained-18-graphics

Ronald, P. (2011, August 11). Genetically Engineered CropsWhat, How and Why. Retrieved from

Scientific American: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-

blog/2011/08/11/genetically-engineered-crops/

Roxanne, P. (2013, March 30). GMO Health Risks: What the Scientific Evidence Says. Retrieved from

International Business Times: http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo-health-risks-what-

scientific-evidence-says-1161099

United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. (2014). The United Nations World Water

Development Report 2014: Water and Energy. Paris, France: UNESCO.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2014). World

Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. CD-ROM Edition.

Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term

reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.