Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Production systems for the future: balancing trade-offs between food production, livelihoods, efficiency and the environment. Mario Herrero
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Production systems for the future: balancing trade-offs between food production, livelihoods, efficiency and the environment. Mario Herrero

7,252
views

Published on

A presentation from the WCCA 2011 event held in Brisbane, Australia.

A presentation from the WCCA 2011 event held in Brisbane, Australia.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
7,252
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
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
  • Yield gap can be closed by improved cultivars combined with balanced nutrients
  • Transcript

    • 1. Production systems for the future:Balancing trade-offs betweenfor the future: Production systems food production,balancing trade-offs between environment livelihoods, efficiency and the food production, efficiency, livelihoods and the environment M. Herrero and P. K. Thornton and many others M. Herrero and P.K. Thornton WCCA/Nairobi Forum Presentation 5th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture | 3rd2010 | Systems Symposium 21st September Farming ILRI, Nairobi 26-29 September 2011, Brisbane, Australia
    • 2. Acknowledgements Many people involved: P. Havlik, A. Notenbaert, M. Obersteiner, S. Wood, S. Msangi, R. Kruska, J. Dixon, D. Bossio, J. van de Steeg, H. A. Freeman, X. Li, C. Sere, J. McDermott, M. Peters, P. Parthasarathy Rao, D. Enahoro, B. Gerard, G. Nelson, S. Robinson and M. Rosegrant
    • 3. The challenge ahead Need to feed 9-10 billion people by 2050 (1/3 more than now) At a lower environmental cost (roughly the same land, low emissions, water and nutrient use) In a socially and economically acceptable way (equitably, at the right prices, etc) Food systems have been changing and are likely to change even more! How does this translate locally and into an actionable research agenda
    • 4. Livelihoods in transition – the target is moving! Can we influence the next transition for the benefit of society and the environment?W. Africa 1966 – pastoral system 2004 – crop-livestock system Photos courtesy of B. Gerard
    • 5. Drivers and trends
    • 6. Population Growth in Developing andIndustrialized Countries: 1750 - 2050 6
    • 7. The Livestock Revolution: A strong increase in demand for meat and milk as income grows 5Log per capita consumption 4 China Trend 3 of meat 2 1 India 04 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Log per capita GNP Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution, a joint IFPRI, FAO, ILRI study. 7
    • 8. Urbanization 8
    • 9. The demand for livestock products to 2050 Annual per capita Total consumption consumption year Meat (kg) Milk (kg) Meat (Mt) Milk (Mt)Developing 2002 28 44 137 222 2050 44 78 326 585Developed 2002 78 202 102 265 2050 94 216 126 295 Rosegrant et al 2009
    • 10. Cereal yields Increasing….except in Sub-Saharan Africa World Bank 2007
    • 11. Area under cultivation and rates ofgrowth in cereal yields World Bank 2007
    • 12. 
    • 13. Climate change14 • 3/21/11 Crop suitability is changing Average projected % change in suitability for 50 crops, to 2050
    • 14. What are recent assessments tellingus about the future of food production
    • 15. Food production Cereals Production 4% 14% AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive 45% Mixed Intensive Other 35% Developed countries 2%Mixed systems in the developing world produce almost 50% ofthe cereals of the WorldMost production coming from intensive systems (irrigation, highpotential, relatively good market access)
    • 16. Mixed systems in the developing World producethe food of the poor Maize Production Millet Production 3% 13% 1% 6% 26% 19% 54% AgroPastoral 28% Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other 2% Developed countries 48% Rice Production Sorghum Production 6% 3% 3% 5% 20% 31% 44% 2% 66% 20%
    • 17. Mixed systems produce significant amounts of milk and meat beef milk lamb 9% 7% 13% 28% 28% 15%50% AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive 17% 59% 5% Mixed Intensive 19% Other 18% Developed countri 4% 7% 21% Developed countries dominate global milk production, significant exports …but… Mixed systems produce 65% beef, 75% milk and 55% of lamb in the developing World
    • 18. Mixed intensive systems in the developing Worldare under significant pressures 2.5 billion people…3.4 by 2030, predominantly in Asia 150 million cattle increasing to almost 200 million by 2030 Most pigs and significant numbers of poultry, increasing by 30-40% to 2030 Crop yields stagnating: wheat, rice Others increasing: maize (East Asia) All in the same land! Severe water constraints in some places Soil fertility problems, shrinking farm sizes in others
    • 19. Mixed intensive systems in the developing Worldare under significant pressures (2)Population density*(people/km2) 2000 2030agro-pastoral 8 14mixed extensive 79 112mixed intensive 273 371other 28 41* Baseline scenario
    • 20. Rates of cereal production diminishing in placesdue to water and other constraints Annual changes in Cereal Production 2000 - 2030 Rates lower than those of population Rates of growth of mixed intensive similar growth Catching up to developed countries 6 5 4 % 3 2 1 0 CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries Herrero et al 2009
    • 21. …but rates of production of animal products are increasing at significantly faster rates…. Annual rates of change - beef production 2000-2030 8 7 6 5 Increased consumption% 4 3 Increased incomes 2 1 0 CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries Annual rates of change - milk production 2000-2030 9 8 7 6 …but increased pressure on 5 % 4 resources (land, feeds, etc) 3 2 1 Some industrialisation…. 0 CSA EA SA SEA SSA WANA Total AgroPastoral Mixed Extensive Mixed Intensive Other Developed countries
    • 22. The world will require 1 billion tonnes of additional cereal grains to 2050 to meet food and feed demands (IAASTD 2009) Grains 1048 million tonnes more to 2050 humanLivestock consumption430 million MTMonogastrics mostly 458 million MT biofuels 160 million MT
    • 23. Projected land use changes to 2050 in several integrated assessments (Smith et al 2010) Cropland Rangeland Natural habitats +10 to 20% avg = 10% 0 to -20%Cropland area increasing at a faster rate than rangelandsFaster expansion of monogastric production and intensification ofruminant production with grains
    • 24. Stover deficits likely to occur in the future Herrero et al. 2009
    • 25. Significant biomass flikely to increase prices of food feed crops groundnut energy pigeon pea Further chickpea sorghum millet sugar cane increases? cassava grains sweet potatos potatos soybeans oil grains maize human wheatlivestock riceMonogastrics mostly consumption milk eggs+ ruminants poultry lamb reference 2030 pork biofuels 2030 beef livestock -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 products % change from 2000
    • 26. ‘Moving megajoules’: fodder markets are likely toexpand in areas of feed deficits as demand for milkand meat increases India quotes from M Blummel ‘Stovers transported more than 400 km to be sold’ ‘Price has doubled in 5 years, now 2/3 of grain value of sorghum’ ‘Farmers paying for stover quality’ Herrero et al. 2009
    • 27. Some systems may need to de-intensify or stopgrowing to ensure the sustainability of agro-ecosystems Creation of incentives to protect the environment required Equitable, ‘smart’ schemes for payments for environmental services Need significant efficiency gains (in crops, in livestock, in other sectors) Need to understand better what sustainable intensification is
    • 28. Important productivity gains could be made in the more extensive mixed rainfed areas  Less pressure on the land Population density* (people/km2) 2000 2030 agro-pastoral 8 14 mixed extensive 79 112 mixed intensive 273 371 other 28 41Yield gaps still largePublic investment required to reduce transaction costs, increaseservice provision and improve risk managementThese systems could turn in ‘providers’ of agro-ecosystemsservices to other systems (i.e. fodder for the mixed intensivesystems)
    • 29. Yield gaps still high in more extensive systems Maize crop in Rajasthan, India during rainy season 2009District Rainfall Yield (kg ha-1) CD (mm) FP FP + IC BN + IC (5%)Tonk 288 1150 1930 3160 280Udaipur 570 2530 3090 6320 509Mean(5 districts) 1810 2550 (41%) 4340 (141%) FP=Farmers’ practice; IC=Improved cultivar; BN=Balanced nutrition Courtesy of Peter Craufurd
    • 30. How can we translate the results ofglobal assessments into actionablepoints at the farm level?
    • 31. complex !different oppotunities
    • 32. Integrated assessment of farming systemsessential Herrero et al, Science 2010
    • 33. Trade-offs and synergies income 1 0.5 external inputs food security 0 water use GHG mixed pastoral
    • 34. Concluding remarks
    • 35. Some conclusions Can we feed 9 billion people: yes, with different resource use implications and costs depending on the pathway/scenario to change investment paradigm and also start investing in the systems of the future (not only in the what were the high potential areas) Infrastructure and market development essential Incentives: Technology could play a key role but we need investment in provision of services
    • 36. Some conclusions Sustainable intensification: essential to bridge yield gaps Need to think of also bridging efficiency gaps (more crop per drop, etc), especially in resource-constrained systems Is there a role for payments for ecosystems services as a diversification option for smallholders?
    • 37. Some conclusions Need multi-scale assessments covering different dimensions (multiple currencies: income, nutrients, biomass, GHG, water, etc) Process is key: need to ensure adequate involvement of stakeholders in order to achieve desirable outcomes
    • 38. Contrasting agricultural developmentparadigms How much land is available for agricultural expansion?  Widely different estimates in the literature (300 – 800 million hectares)  What types of land are suitable? Rangeland vs forest? Opportunity costs?  What kinds of incentives will be required to develop them?  Can their development be pro-poor?  What is the magnitude of the investment required?
    • 39. Contrasting agricultural developmentparadigms Land consolidation vs growth of the smallholder sector  Large commercial farms pro-efficiency (foreign capital investment)  Smallholder development possibly more pro- poor  Smallholders: low opportunity cost of labour  Do diversified smallholder farms promote more biodiversity and better management of ecosystems services?
    • 40. Contrasting agricultural developmentparadigms Land consolidation vs growth of the smallholder sector  More diversified systems = Risk management  If smallholders where to disappear in places, are there sectors that can absorb the idling population?  Smallholder sector largely fragmented: who are the actors required for their fast development?
    • 41. Thank you!

    ×