Public Sector Research Priorities for Sustainable Food Security

Perspectives from Plausible ScenariosGerald C. Nelson, IFPRI and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, FAO

Food Security Futures 1, Dublin, Ireland, 11 April 2013

Harry S TrumanGive me a one-handed economist! All my economists say, On the one hand… on the other. 

The future is an uncertain place. Plausible scenarios help to bound the uncertainty to guide investments and policy decisions.

After a steady decline, progress towards the MDG hunger target has stalled

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012).

1990-92

1995-97

2000-02

2004-06

2007-09

2010-12

2015800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1000

931922

898

867 868

980

909 905

885

852 852

World Developing world

Millions of hungry people

Regional disparities in progress in reducing undernourishment are large. Between 1990 and 2011,…

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1990/92 2010/12

Mil

lio

n u

nd

ern

ou

ris

he

d

Increase of 64 million in Sub-Saharan Africa

Decrease of 22 million in South Asia

What Might the Future Hold?Recent findings from FAO and the CGIAR

Participants who determine the future

▪ The private sector

▪ Ranging from the smallest of small holder to the largest of global agribusinesses, manages resources to meet their own internal imperatives of subsistence, survival and profitability.

▪ The public sector

▪ Provides ▪ A ‘level playing field’ – the set of formal institutions that all participants are legally obliged to adhere,

and enforcement

▪ Provision of various kinds of public goods that improve the workings of the private sector

▪ Civil society

▪ Watches over both the public and private sectors and uses its voice to improve the functioning of both.

The sources of food security challenges: drivers of change

▪ Demand

▪ The number of people

▪ Their command over financial and physical resources

▪ Their dietary desires

▪ Their location

▪ Supply

▪ The capacity of natural resources, augmented by human actions, to meet these demands over an extended period.

FAO AT2050: Cautious optimism for improved food security, but climate change effects not included

▪ Supply – agricultural production increases by 60 percent between 2006 and 2050

▪ Demand – population growth is more important than income growth

▪ Population growth – 39 percent

▪ Income growth – 21 percent

▪ Well-being outcome – caloric intake increases at the global level by 12.8 percent

▪ 2006 – 2,772 kcal/day/person

▪ 2050 – 3,070 kcal/day/person

▪ Significantly more in the poorest regions

▪ But including climate change nuances the good news, potentially significantly for some regions

Source: Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012), FAO.

Modest cereal yield improvements(kg/ha left-axis, growth percent per annum right-axis)

sub-Saharan Africa

South Asia Near East & N. Africa

Latin America Developing countries

World Developed countries

East Asia0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2006 2050 Growth

Kt/

ha

Pe

rce

nt

pe

r a

nn

um

Source: Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012).

0.65% p.a. vs. 2% p.a. 1960-2005

Land use change continues in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa(million hectares left-axis, percent change 2005/07 - 2050 right-axis)

Develo

ping

coun

tries

Latin

Am

erica

sub-

Sahar

an A

frica

Near E

ast &

N. A

frica

East A

sia

South

Asia

Develo

ped

coun

tries

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

Irrigated land change, million hectare (left-axis) Rain-fed land change, million hectare (left-axis) Percent change between 2005/07-2050 (right-axis)

Mil

lio

n h

ecta

res

Per

cen

t ch

ang

e 20

05/7

-205

0

Source: Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012).

Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Key Findings

▪ GDP and population growth result in price increases between 2010 and 2050

▪ Climate change hurts productivity and causes even greater price increases

▪ International trade flows are an important adaptation component

Source: Nelson et al, 2010.

Income and population growth drive prices higher(price increase (%), 2010 – 2050, Baseline economy and demography)

Nelson et al, 2010.

Climate change increases prices even more(price increase (%), 2010 – 2050, Baseline economy and demography)

Minimum and maximum effect from four climate

scenarios

Nelson et al, 2010.

Three main messages to policy makers

▪ In low-income countries, sustainable development is a more important priority than climate change adaptation today

▪ Prepare today for higher temperatures and changes in precipitation in all sectors tomorrow

▪ Invest more in capacity to adapt agriculture

▪ Keep international trade relatively free from barriers

▪ Collect better data today and tomorrow on existing situation and practices

▪ Weather, land cover, water availability, prices, practices

Parsing the future: Plausible scenarios in 2013

▪ What do we know?

▪ Population will grow

▪ Incomes will increase in many places

▪ Temperatures will rise, precipitation patterns will change

▪ But by how much?

▪ Use combinations of plausible drivers to generate a range of plausible outcomes

▪ Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) from IPCC

▪ New IPCC socioeconomic scenarios – population, income, urbanization

▪ Add new IPCC climate scenario – RCP8.5 – most extreme in the new suite of GHG emission pathways

The selected scenarios

Scenario SSP GCM Crop model

S1 SSP2 None Reference yields

S2 SSP3 None Reference yields

S3 SSP2 IPSL—RCP 8.5 LPJml

S4 SSP2 Hadley—RCP 8.5 LPJml

S5 SSP2 IPSL—RCP 8.5 DSSAT

S6 SSP2 Hadley—RCP 8.5 DSSAT

The per capita income gap remains large in 2050 but is reduced in some scenarios

Wor

ld

Devel

opin

g Eas

t Asia

South

Asia

E. Eur

ope

& Cen

tral A

sia

Mid

dle

East &

Nor

th A

frica

Sub-S

ahar

an A

frica

Latin

Am

erica

& C

arib

bean

High

Inco

me

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2010SSP2SSP3

$2

00

7 p

er

ca

pit

a

Temperatures and precipitation increase(Absolute changes in annual mean temperature [°C] (top) and annual mean precipitation [mm/day] (bottom), 2000-2050)

Source: Müller, C., & Robertson, R. D. (2013 submitted). Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling. Agricultural Economics.

HadGEM-ES2, RCP8.5 IPSL-CM5A-LR, RCP8.5

Temperature

Precipitation

Increases of 6°C to 8°C in northern latitudes

Drying in southeast US and northern Brazil

Rainfed maize yields decline (Relative changes in rain fed maize productivity climate scenarios for the RCP8.5 emission scenario, 2000-2050)

Source: Müller, C., & Robertson, R. D. (2013 submitted). Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling. Agricultural Economics.

DSSAT

LPJmL

HadGEM-ES2, RCP8.5 IPSL-CM5A-LR, RCP8.5

DSSAT effects are greater than LPJmL

What are the consequences?

▪ Prices

▪ Calorie availability

▪ Child malnutrition

Climate change causes price increasesDifference in 2050 (SSP2), climate change to no climate change (percent)

Consequences for Well-BeingAverage calorie availability and number of malnourished children

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 20502,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

3,000

3,200

3,400

3,600

In High income countries, neither income nor climate change scenarios affect average calorie availability

SSP2, no climate change SSP3, no climate changeSSP2, IPSL, LPJmL SSP2, Hadley, LPJmLSSP2, IPSL, DSSAT SSP2, Hadley, DSSAT

Kca

ls p

er p

erso

n p

er d

ay

SSP3 with no climate change

SSP2 with no climate change

SSP2 with climate change

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

3,000

3,200

3,400

3,600

In Middle income countries, income growth and climate change effects are both important

SSP2, no climate change SSP3, no climate changeSSP2, IPSL, LPJmL SSP2, Hadley, LPJmLSSP2, IPSL, DSSAT SSP2, Hadley, DSSAT

Kca

ls p

er p

erso

n p

er d

ay

SSP2 with no climate change

SSP2 with climate change

SSP3 with no climate change

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

3,000

3,200

3,400

3,600

In Low income countries, income growth and climate change effects are both important

SSP2, no climate change SSP3, no climate changeSSP2, IPSL, LPJmL SSP2, Hadley, LPJmLSSP2, IPSL, DSSAT SSP2, Hadley, DSSAT

Kca

ls p

er p

erso

n p

er d

ay

SSP2 with no climate change

SSP2 with climate change

SSP3 with no climate change

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 205060

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

in Middle income developing countries, income growth is most important in reducing the number of malnourished children (mil-

lion)

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

SSP3 with no climate change

SSP2 with climate change

SSP2 with no climate change

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 205025

30

35

40

45

50

in Low income developing countries, income growth is most im-portant in reducing the number of malnourished children (million)

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

SSP2 with no climate change

SSP2 with climate change

SSP3 with no climate change

Price outcomes differ by modelDifference in 2050 (SSP2), climate change to no climate change (percent)

S3

S4

S5

S6

S3

S4

S5

S6

S3

S4

S5

S6

S3

S4

S5

S6

S3

S4

S5

S6

S3

S4

S5

S6

S3

S4

S5

S6

S3

S4

S5

S6

S3

S4

S5

S6

AIM EN-VIS-AGE

FARM GTEM MAGNET GCAM GLOBIOM IMPACT MAgPIE

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110Coarse grains Oil seeds Rice Sugar Wheat

% c

ha

ng

e r

ela

tive

to R

efe

ren

ce S

cen

ario

S1

in 2

05

0

What is missing in these scenarios?

▪ Climate change

▪ Increasing extreme events

▪ Effects of changes in pest pressure

▪ Malnutrition

▪ Calorie availability contribution to undernutrition

▪ Calorie (and other nutrient) distribution to different groups

▪ Modeling overnutrition

▪ Sustainability

▪ Definitions

▪ Metrics

Priorities for CGIAR and FAO scenario development and strategic foresight:Cooperation is key to address missing elements

▪ Cooperative quantitative modeling

▪ Linking (and enhancing) partial and general equilibrium modeling

▪ Linking (and enhancing) biophysical and socioeconomic modeling

▪ Cooperative use of institutional and outside substantive expertise

▪ Actively involve biological experts in scenario development

▪ Sustained cooperation with model intercomparison efforts