Uploaded on

Public Sector Research Priorities for Sustainable Food Security by Gerald Nelson, IFPRI and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, FAO at the Food Security Futures I Conference, on 11 April 2013 in Dublin, …

Public Sector Research Priorities for Sustainable Food Security by Gerald Nelson, IFPRI and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, FAO at the Food Security Futures I Conference, on 11 April 2013 in Dublin, Ireland.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
829
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4

Actions

Shares
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Price increases with perfect mitigation and baseline areMaize – 52%Rice – 29%Wheat – 25%
  • Maize price mean increase is 101 % higher; max is 131, min is 83Rice price mean increase is 55; max is 57, min is 53Wheat price mean increase is 54; max is 66, min is 45All these are for the baseline overall scenario
  • Absolute changes in annual mean temperature [°C] (top) and annual mean precipitation [mm/day] (bottom) from 1980-2010 to 2035-2065 for the HadGEM-ES2 (left) and IPSL-CM5A-LR (right) models. Temperature changes above 8°C have been cut to facilitate better visibility of differences at lower temperature changes, which is more important for cultivated areas. Grey areas in the bottom depict regions with precipitation changes of less than 50mm/year (0.137mm/day).

Transcript

  • 1. Public Sector Research Prioritiesfor Sustainable Food SecurityPerspectives from PlausibleScenariosGerald C. Nelson, IFPRI and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, FAOFood Security Futures 1, Dublin, Ireland, 11 April 2013
  • 2. Harry S TrumanGive me a one-handed economist! All my economists say, On theone hand… on the other. The future is an uncertain place. Plausible scenarios help to bound the uncertainty to guide investments and policy decisions.
  • 3. After a steady decline, progress towards the MDG hunger target has stalled Millions of hungry people 1050 World Developing world 1000 1000 980 950 931 922 898 900 909 905 867 868 885 850 852 852 800 1995-97 2007-09 2015Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012).
  • 4. Regional disparities in progress in reducing undernourishment are large. Between 1990 and 2011,… 350 Increase of 64 Decrease of 22 300 Million undernourished million in Sub- million in South Asia 250 Saharan Africa 200 150 100 50 0 Sub-Saharan South East Asia South Asia East Asia Latin America Other developing Africa 1990/92 2010/12Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2012).
  • 5. What Might the FutureHold?Recent findings from FAO and the CGIAR
  • 6. 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.
  • 7. The sources of food security challenges: driversof 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.
  • 8. FAO AT2050: Cautious optimism for improved foodsecurity, 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 regionsSource: Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012), FAO.
  • 9. Modest cereal yield improvements (kg/ha left-axis, growth percent per annum right-axis) 5,000 2.5 4,500 4,000 2.0 3,500 Percent per annum 3,000 1.5 Kt/ha 2,500 2,000 1.0 1,500 1,000 0.5 500 0 0.0 sub-Saharan South Asia Near East & N. Latin America Developing World Developed East Asia Africa Africa countries countries 2006 2050 Growth 0.65% p.a. vs. 2% p.a. 1960-2005Source: Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012).
  • 10. Land use change continues in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa (million hectares left-axis, percent change 2005/07 - 2050 right-axis) 160 32 140 28 120 24 Percent change 2005/7-2050 100 20 Million hectares 80 16 60 12 40 8 20 4 0 0 Developing Latin America sub-Saharan Africa Near East & N. East Asia South Asia Developed countries Africa countries Irrigated land change, million hectare (left-axis) Rain-fed land change, million hectare (left-axis) Percent change between 2005/07-2050 (right-axis)Source: Alexandratos and Bruinsma (2012).
  • 11. Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to2050: 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 componentSource: Nelson et al, 2010.
  • 12. Income and population growth drive prices higher (price increase (%), 2010 – 2050, Baseline economy and demography)Nelson et al, 2010.
  • 13. Climate change increases prices even more (price increase (%), 2010 – 2050, Baseline economy and demography) Minimum and maximum effect from four climate scenariosNelson et al, 2010.
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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
  • 16. The selected scenariosScenario SSP GCM Crop modelS1 SSP2 None Reference yieldsS2 SSP3 None Reference yieldsS3 SSP2 IPSL—RCP 8.5 LPJmlS4 SSP2 Hadley—RCP 8.5 LPJmlS5 SSP2 IPSL—RCP 8.5 DSSATS6 SSP2 Hadley—RCP 8.5 DSSAT
  • 17. The per capita income gap remains large in 2050but is reduced in some scenarios 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000$2007 per capita 30,000 25,000 2010 20,000 SSP2 SSP3 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 World Developing South Asia E. Europe & Middle East Sub-Saharan Latin High Income East Asia Central Asia & North Africa America & Africa Caribbean
  • 18. Temperatures and precipitation increase (Absolute changes in annual mean temperature [°C] (top) and annual mean precipitation [mm/day] (bottom), 2000-2050) HadGEM-ES2, RCP8.5 IPSL-CM5A-LR, RCP8.5 Temperature Increases of 6°C to 8°C in northern latitudes Precipitation Drying in southeast US and northern BrazilSource: Müller, C., & Robertson, R. D. (2013 submitted). Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling.Agricultural Economics.
  • 19. Rainfed maize yields decline (Relative changes in rain fed maize productivity climate scenarios for the RCP8.5 emission scenario, 2000-2050) HadGEM-ES2, RCP8.5 IPSL-CM5A-LR, RCP8.5 DSSAT DSSAT effects are greater than LPJmL LPJmLSource: Müller, C., & Robertson, R. D. (2013 submitted). Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling.Agricultural Economics.
  • 20. What are the consequences?▪ Prices▪ Calorie availability▪ Child malnutrition
  • 21. Climate change causes price increasesDifference in 2050 (SSP2), climate change to no climate change(percent)
  • 22. Consequences for Well-BeingAverage calorie availability and number of malnourished children
  • 23. In High income countries, neither income nor climate SSP3 with no change scenarios affect average calorie availability climate change 3,600 3,400Kcals per person per day 3,200 SSP2 with no 3,000 climate change SSP2 with climate change 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 SSP2, no climate change SSP3, no climate change SSP2, IPSL, LPJmL SSP2, Hadley, LPJmL SSP2, IPSL, DSSAT SSP2, Hadley, DSSAT
  • 24. In Middle income countries, income growth and climate change effects are both important SSP2 with no 3,600 climate change 3,400Kcals per person per day 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 SSP3 with no SSP2 with climate change climate change 2,400 2,200 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 SSP2, no climate change SSP3, no climate change SSP2, IPSL, LPJmL SSP2, Hadley, LPJmL SSP2, IPSL, DSSAT SSP2, Hadley, DSSAT
  • 25. In Low income countries, income growth and climate change effects are both important 3,600 3,400Kcals per person per day 3,200 SSP2 with 3,000 SSP2 with no climate change climate change 2,800 2,600 SSP3 with no climate change 2,400 2,200 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 SSP2, no climate change SSP3, no climate change SSP2, IPSL, LPJmL SSP2, Hadley, LPJmL SSP2, IPSL, DSSAT SSP2, Hadley, DSSAT
  • 26. in Middle income developing countries, income growth is most important in reducing the number of malnourished children (million)110105100 95 SSP3 with no 90 climate change 85 80 75 70 65 SSP2 with no SSP2 with 60 climate change climate change 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
  • 27. in Low income developing countries, income growth is most important in reducing the number of malnourished children (million)5045 SSP3 with no climate change4035 SSP2 with no climate change30 SSP2 with25 climate change 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
  • 28. Price outcomes differ by modelDifference in 2050 (SSP2), climate change to no climate change (percent) 110 Coarse grains Oil seeds Rice Sugar Wheat% change relative to Reference Scenario S1 in 2050 90 70 50 30 10 -10 S3S4S5S6S3S4S5S6S3S4S5S6S3S4S5S6S3S4S5S6S3S4S5S6S3S4S5S6S3S4S5S6S3S4S5S6 AIM ENVISAGE FARM GTEM MAGNET GCAM GLOBIOM IMPACT MAgPIE
  • 29. 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
  • 30. Priorities for CGIAR and FAO scenario developmentand 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