Transcript Diana Liverman ESSP OSC

Food security research
in 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 countryside
What 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
Subsistence
Nazareno
Plan de Ayala
Crop Rotation
Los Torres
Livestock
‘Double Exposure’
Finances
Climate
Market Viability
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percent of households
70
80
90
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)
Multiple Exposure: Food insecurity arises
from overlapping and interacting stressors
7
12
Misselhorn 2005 Global Environmental Change
Food Systems comprise
Activities and Outcomes
Food System ACTIVITIES
Producing food: natural resources, inputs, technology
Processing & packaging food: raw materials, standards, consumer demand
Distributing & retailing food: marketing, advertising, trade
Consuming food: preparation, consumption
Food System OUTCOMES Contributing to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social Welfare
Income
Employment
Wealth
Social & political
capital
Human capital
Infrastructure
Peace
Insurance
Food Security
FOOD
UTILISATION
• Nutritional Value
• Social Value
• Food Safety
FOOD
ACCESS
• Affordability
• Allocation
• Preference
FOOD
AVAILABILITY
• Production
• Distribution
• Exchange
Ericksen, P. 2006.
Submitted to Global Environmental Change
Environmental
Security /
Natural Capital
• Land use
• Ecosystems
stocks, flows
and services
• Access to
natural capital
Value of a Food Systems approach
for 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
Value of a Food Systems approach
for Global Environmental Change research (II)
• 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 approach
for Global Environmental Change research (III)
• 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)
Food System approach identifies key actors
Example 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
Increased
urbanization
Increase in
peri-urban
intensive
agriculture
Small, marginal National
farmers
government
bureaucrats
and technicians
Local
government
agencies;
community;
NGO workers
Vulnerability of the food system to GEC
is mediated by coping capacity
Example: Nutritional diversity (milk) in the Indo-Gangetic Plain
Milk production is sensitive to drought (it decreases)
Food security outcome
Weak coping capacity
Rural areas:
• weak markets
• poor infrastructure
• low income
• poor storage or processing
HIGH vulnerability
• access to milk decreases
• nutritional value decreases
Strong coping capacity
Urban areas:
• robust markets
• sufficient infrastructure
• higher income
• good storage and processing
LOW vulnerability
• access to milk maintained
• nutritional value maintained
Source: Multi-authored analysis of IGP food system vulnerability to GEC. GECAFS Report. In prep.
GECAFS integrates research
to support decision-making
Current Food Systems
Assess
Vulnerability
Identify
Adaptation
Establish
Agenda
Support
DecisionMaking
Adapted Food Systems
Build
Scenarios
Analyse
Feedbacks
Caribbean
Indo-Gangetic Plain
Key Policy Goals
GEC examples
Example Stakeholders
• Increasing food self• Increasing
National agriculture & environment ministries
sufficiency
extreme events
Regional Intergovernmental Organisations
• Changes in(CARICOM,
sea • Improving
IICA) trade policies
& competitiveness
currentsRegional
& level research
bodies
(FAO, MACC, CIMH, UWI, CARDI)
GEC examples
Key Policy Goals
Example Stakeholders
• Reduced glacier
• Increasing and
State & National agriculture & environment
and snow melt
diversifying ag
ministries
production
• NARES
Increasing
GHG NGOs
& CGIAR,
(NWCF, BUP)
emissions
•
Reducing
GEC Research Institutes (GCISC,seasonal
APN)
ag. labour migration
Southern Africa
GEC Examples Example Stakeholders
Key Policy Goals
• Increased
climate
variability
• Enhancedministries
rural infrastructure &
National
agriculture
& environment
& ENSO
market access
Regional universities
Regional
IGOs &and
NGOs (SADC,
NEPAD,
FANRPAN)
• Veld
degradation
• Better
disaster
response &
International
USAID,
biodiversity
lossagencies (e.g. WFP,
“safety
nets” FewsNet)
GECAFS Southern Africa Science Plan / FANRPAN Collaboration
Science
Agencies
Development
Agendas
Policy
Makers
Resource
Managers
e.g.
NRF &
UK-ESRC
vulnerability
research
e.g.
CGIAR, FAO,
DFID/IDRC
e.g.
national
agriculture &
environment
ministries; district
administrators.
e.g.
farmers, water
managers, range
conservation NGOs
How can Southern African food systems
be adapted to reduce vulnerability to GEC?
GECAFS Science Plan
Natural
Science
e.g.
technology development
to reduce GEC impact on
maize productivity
Social
Science
e.g.
comparative studies of
land tenure and crop
insurance schemes
Food System interactions with GEC
and socioeconomic contexts
Environmental feedbacks
e.g. water quality, GHGs
Food System ACTIVITIES
GEC DRIVERS
Changes in:
Land cover & soils, Atmospheric
Comp., Climate variability & means,
Water availability & quality,
Nutrient availability & cycling,
Biodiversity, Sea currents
& salinity, Sea level
Producing
Processing & Packaging
Distributing & Retailing
Consuming
‘Natural’
DRIVERS
e.g. Volcanoes
Solar cycles
Food System OUTCOMES
DRIVERS’
Interactions
Socioeconomic
DRIVERS
Changes in:
Demographics, Economics,
Socio-political context,
Cultural context
Science & Technology
Contributing to: Food Security, Environmental
Security, and other Societal Interests
Food
Food
Utilisation Availability
Social
Welfare
Food
Access
Environ
Capital
Socioeconomic feedbacks
e.g. livelihoods, social cohesion
Source: Zurek, M. & Ericksen, P. (2006) A Conceptual Framework Describing Food System – GEC Interactions. In prep.
Using scenarios to investigate
plausible 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
Source: GECAFS (2006) Prototype Scenarios for the Caribbean. GECAFS Rpt 2.
Scenario-based Food Security outcomes
for the Caribbean
per scenario
Global
Caribbean
_
Social Value
__
+
0
Decrease
Food Safety
Increase
Production
++
Distribution
Caribbean Order
From Strength
Inter-Regional
Exchange
Intra-Caribbean
Exchange
Nutritional
Value
Preference
Affordability
Caribbean
TechnoGarden
Caribbean
Adapting Mosaic
Allocation
Source: GECAFS (2006) Prototype Scenarios for the Caribbean. GECAFS Rpt 2.
High-priority research issues on
the 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