Date post: | 01-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | daniella-oconnor |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Food security researchin the context of Global Environmental Change
Diana Liverman
Chair, GECAFS
Food security…
... exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
(World Food Summit 1996)
Much more than just agricultural production…. Food security is underpinned by food systems
Simulated maize yields:baseline and changes by 2055
(from Jones & Thornton, 2001)
present 2055™
Climate and livelihoods in the Mexican countrysideWhat determines crop yields?
– climate, water and soils – access to labour and inputs
(finance, seeds, fertilisers)– crop choice (environment,
food and feed preference, markets)
Determinants of Crop Choice
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Market Viability
Climate
Finances
Livestock
Crop Rotation
Subsistence
Percent of households
Nazareno
Plan de Ayala
Los Torres
‘Double Exposure’
Based on work by Liverman and Appendini and H.Eakin
Food security in the Mexican countryside
Food security depends on what can be grown, sold or purchased
• If selling for market food security also depends on – prices obtained for commercial crops– access to markets – debts
• Storage and processing of food (e.g. refrigeration, cooking fuel)
• Food security implies a diverse diet, some of which may need to be purchased
• Culture influences food security (e.g. maize preferences, advertising)
• Ability to purchase adequate food may also depend on funds needed for other household activities (education, health)
• Importance of government support programmes (e.g. crop and food subsidies, agricultural extension)
7
12
Multiple Exposure: Food insecurity arises from overlapping and interacting stressors
Misselhorn 2005 Global Environmental Change
Food Security
FOOD UTILISATION
FOOD ACCESS
• Affordability• Allocation• Preference
• Nutritional Value• Social Value• Food Safety
FOOD AVAILABILITY
• Production• Distribution• Exchange
Environmental Security /
Natural Capital• Land use• Ecosystems
stocks, flows and services
• Access to natural capital
Social Welfare• Income• Employment • Wealth• Social & political
capital• Human capital• Infrastructure• Peace• Insurance
Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to:
Food System ACTIVITIES Producing food: natural resources, inputs, technology
Processing & packaging food: raw materials, standards, consumer demandDistributing & retailing food: marketing, advertising, trade
Consuming food: preparation, consumption
Food Systems compriseActivities and Outcomes
Ericksen, P. 2006. Submitted to Global Environmental Change
Value of a Food Systems approachfor Global Environmental Change research (I)
• Identifies interactions of global change with the social system– multiple vulnerabilities within the food system– feedbacks to the Earth System from the food system– cross cutting issues such as embodied water and
carbon in food
• Allows analysis of multiple food system outcomes – food security– ecosystem services– social welfare
• Identifies possible intervention points for improving any desired outcome– Irrigation, crop improvements– Improve distribution, diversify incomes– reduce GHG emissions
• Analyses tradeoffs between outcomes of different management options for achieving desired outcome– Fairtrade food consumption vs. embodied carbon– Fisheries biodiversity vs. runoff from intensive
agriculture– Land for food vs land for biodiversity or biofuels
Value of a Food Systems approachfor Global Environmental Change research (II)
• Engages new stakeholders with global change– Development agencies and non-governmental
organizations– International institutions focusing on food and
agriculture (FAO, CGIAR, WB)– Regional inter-governmental agencies (SADC,
CARICOM)
Value of a Food Systems approachfor Global Environmental Change research (III)
Food System approach identifies key actorsExample from flood-prone Bangladesh
Environmental Issue
Food System Implication
Vulnerable Actors
Actors responsible for
reducing vulnerability
Increased monsoon river flows
Flooding of rivers and croplands lead to loss of crops and lives
Small, marginal farmers; women and children
Local government agencies; community; NGO workers
Increased urbanization
Increase in peri-urban intensive agriculture
Small, marginal farmers
National government bureaucrats and technicians
Vulnerability of the food system to GECis mediated by coping capacity
Source: Multi-authored analysis of IGP food system vulnerability to GEC. GECAFS Report. In prep.
Example: Nutritional diversity (milk) in the Indo-Gangetic Plain
Milk production is sensitive to drought (it decreases)
Rural areas:
Urban areas:
Weak coping capacity• weak markets• poor infrastructure• low income• poor storage or processing
HIGH vulnerability• access to milk decreases• nutritional value decreases
Strong coping capacity• robust markets• sufficient infrastructure• higher income• good storage and processing
LOW vulnerability• access to milk maintained• nutritional value maintained
Food security outcome
IdentifyAdaptation
Analyse Feedbacks
BuildScenarios
Assess Vulnerability
Adapted Food Systems
Current Food Systems
SupportDecision-Making
GECAFS integrates researchto support decision-making
EstablishAgenda
Key Policy Goals• Increasing food self-
sufficiency• Improving trade policies
& competitiveness
GEC examples• Increasing
extreme events• Changes in sea
currents & level
GEC examples• Reduced glacier
and snow melt• Increasing GHG
emissions
Key Policy Goals• Increasing and
diversifying ag production
• Reducing seasonal ag. labour migration
GEC Examples• Increased climate variability
& ENSO• Veld degradation and
biodiversity loss
Key Policy Goals• Enhanced rural infrastructure &
market access• Better disaster response &
“safety nets”
Caribbean Indo-Gangetic Plain
Southern Africa
Example StakeholdersNational agriculture & environment ministriesRegional Intergovernmental Organisations
(CARICOM, IICA)Regional research bodies
(FAO, MACC, CIMH, UWI, CARDI)
Example StakeholdersState & National agriculture & environment
ministriesNARES & CGIAR, NGOs (NWCF, BUP)GEC Research Institutes (GCISC, APN)
Example StakeholdersNational agriculture & environment ministries
Regional universitiesRegional IGOs & NGOs (SADC, NEPAD, FANRPAN)International agencies (e.g. WFP, USAID, FewsNet)
Science Agencies
Development Agendas
Policy Makers
Resource Managers
Natural Science
Social Science
e.g.NRF &
UK-ESRC vulnerability
research
e.g.CGIAR, FAO, DFID/IDRC
e.g.farmers, water
managers, range conservation NGOs
e.g.national
agriculture & environment
ministries; district administrators.
e.g.technology development to reduce GEC impact on
maize productivity
e.g.comparative studies of land tenure and crop insurance schemes
How can Southern African food systemsbe adapted to reduce vulnerability to GEC?
GECAFS Science Plan
GECAFS Southern Africa Science Plan / FANRPAN Collaboration
Food System interactions with GECand socioeconomic contexts
Source: Zurek, M. & Ericksen, P. (2006) A Conceptual Framework Describing Food System – GEC Interactions. In prep.
Food System ACTIVITIESProducing
Processing & PackagingDistributing & Retailing
Consuming
Food System OUTCOMESContributing to: Food Security, Environmental
Security, and other Societal Interests
FoodAvailability
FoodUtilisation
FoodAccess
EnvironCapital
Social Welfare
SocioeconomicDRIVERS
Changes in:Demographics, Economics,
Socio-political context, Cultural context
Science & Technology
DRIVERS’Interactions
GEC DRIVERSChanges in:
Land cover & soils, Atmospheric Comp., Climate variability & means,
Water availability & quality, Nutrient availability & cycling,
Biodiversity, Sea currents & salinity, Sea level
‘Natural’DRIVERS
e.g. VolcanoesSolar cycles
Environmental feedbackse.g. water quality, GHGs
Socioeconomic feedbackse.g. livelihoods, social cohesion
Source: GECAFS (2006) Prototype Scenarios for the Caribbean. GECAFS Rpt 2.
Using scenarios to investigateplausible futures for food security
Step 1: Convene diverse group of researchers and stakeholders
Step 2: Identify uncertainties (key questions)
Step 3: Identify global environmenmental changes and socioeconomic drivers
Step 4: Describe assumptions in scenarios (story lines)
Step 5: Assess qualitatively the implications for food system outcomes
Production
Distribution
Inter-RegionalExchange
Intra-Caribbean Exchange
Affordability
Allocation
Preference
Food SafetyIn
crea
se
Dec
reas
e
NutritionalValue
Social Value
Global Caribbean
Caribbean OrderFrom Strength
CaribbeanTechnoGarden
CaribbeanAdapting Mosaic
per scenario
Source: GECAFS (2006) Prototype Scenarios for the Caribbean. GECAFS Rpt 2.
++
+0
_
_ _
Scenario-based Food Security outcomesfor the Caribbean
High-priority research issues onthe 5-10 year horizon for GECAFS
• Stronger partnerships with key stakeholders (FAO, CGIAR etc.)
• Improved understanding of how Global Environmental Change (GEC) will additionally affect food security across different regions and among different socioeconomic groups
• Additional Partner Projects in other regions.
• Better assessments of how adaptation strategies designed to cope with GEC and changing demands for food will affect the environment, societies and economies.
• Enhanced communication methods to strengthen science-policy dialogue aimed at improving regional policy formulation capacity for food security and environmental governance.
• Contributions to innovative ESSP agendas