Box 1 <strong>Food</strong> system Activities and food security Outcomes (Ericksen, 2008a; Ingram, 2009;Ericksen et al., 2010a)<strong>Food</strong> systems encompass a number of Activities which give rise <strong>to</strong> a number of food securityOutcomes.<strong>Food</strong> systems Activities include: (i) producing food; (ii) processing food; (iii) packaging anddistributing food; and (iv) retailing and consuming food. All these activities are determined by anumber of fac<strong>to</strong>rs (‘determinants’). The determinants of ‘packaging and distributing’ food, forinstance, include the desired appearance of the final product and other demands of the retailer,the shelf life needed, cold chain and/or other transportation infrastructure, road, rail and shippinginfrastructure, trade regulations, s<strong>to</strong>rage facilities, etc. (Figure 1).Undertaking these activities leads <strong>to</strong> a number of Outcomes, which not only contribute <strong>to</strong> foodsecurity, but also relate <strong>to</strong> environmental and other social welfare issues (Figure 1).<strong>Food</strong> security outcomes are grouped in<strong>to</strong> three components (Availability, Access andUtilisation), each of which comprises three elements (Figure 1). All nine elements are eitherexplicit or implicit in the FAO definition above (FAO, 1996b); all have <strong>to</strong> be satisfied and stableover time for food security <strong>to</strong> be met.Both the activities and their outcomes are influenced by the interacting GEC and socioeconomic‘drivers’; and the environmental, food security and other social outcomes of the activitiesfeedback <strong>to</strong> the drivers (Figure 2).While enhancing food security may often be the prime motive when planning adaptationstrategies for the additional stresses GEC is bringing, Figure 1 shows that the food systemactivities also give rise <strong>to</strong> other outcomes. These relate <strong>to</strong> other socioeconomic issues andconditions, and <strong>to</strong> the environment, and all have feedbacks <strong>to</strong> the food system drivers (Figure2); while many fac<strong>to</strong>rs not directly related <strong>to</strong> the food system (e.g. fossil fuel use generally,urbanisation) drive GEC, land-use change, intensified agricultural practices, overexploitationof fisheries, food processing and transport, etc. are all major drivers of GEC (see Example 4,below). What might be ‘good’ adaptation for food security might also be good for othersocioeconomic and/or environmental outcomes – but it might also be worse; synergies andtrade-offs need <strong>to</strong> be carefully considered, although the complexity of the food system makesanalyses difficult. However, the current evidence of food insecurity and environmentaldegradation suggests that mal-adaptation may already be occurring (Ericksen et al., 2010b).The key questions are (i) which activity(s) should we best seek <strong>to</strong> adapt <strong>to</strong> improve foodsecurity for given situations; (ii) what will be the consequences of such adaptation strategiesfor the full set of food security elements; and (iii) what will be the synergies and trade-offsamong the three food system outcomes and the feedbacks <strong>to</strong> food system drivers? Beinghighly aggregated the food system framework (Figure 2) cannot answer these questions perse, but it is useful for generating hypotheses that can be further explored using other morespecific methods.40
Figure 2 <strong>Food</strong> system drivers and feedbacks (adapted from www.gecafs.org)The GECAFS food systems approach was specifically designed <strong>to</strong> help GEC research, andanalyses of the impacts of changed biophysical environmental ‘drivers’ on food productionare increasingly important, especially now that evidence has emerged of reduced yieldsworldwide due <strong>to</strong> climate change (Lobell et al., 2011). The approach however also notes thatwhile a wide range of socioeconomic ‘drivers’ also need <strong>to</strong> be included in food securityanalyses, it is the interactive impact of these two sets of drivers that affects how the foodsystem operates and hence how the food security and other outcomes manifest (Figure 2).Both the GEC and socioeconomic drivers can be (and usually are) a combination of local andnon-local in origin. <strong>Global</strong>-level forces such as climate change, trade agreements, and worldprice for energy and food will affect local and regional food systems; land rights, localmarket policy, natural resource degradation and other local fac<strong>to</strong>rs will affect the resilience oflocal food systems <strong>to</strong> these external, and also internal, stresses.The food systems approach not only helps <strong>to</strong> engender discussion of adaptation optionsacross the full set of food system activities (i.e. along the length of the food chain) rather thanjust, say, in the agricultural domain, but also provides a framework for systematic analysis ofsynergies and trade-offs, balanced across a range of societal goals. Further, it serves as a‘checklist’ <strong>to</strong> ensure the range of outcomes (some hither<strong>to</strong> unforeseen) is being considered bythose planning and/or implementing adaptation.41
- Page 1 and 2: From Food Production to Food Securi
- Page 3 and 4: From Food Production to Food Securi
- Page 5 and 6: Table of ContentsAbstract .........
- Page 7 and 8: Paper 6: Undertaking Research at th
- Page 9: AbstractFood security is a conditio
- Page 12 and 13: 2010 about 925 million people had t
- Page 14 and 15: water) are used, and reduce negativ
- Page 16 and 17: While the flow of the argument abou
- Page 18 and 19: determine interactions along and be
- Page 20 and 21: Paper 3: A Food Systems Approach to
- Page 23: From Food Production to Food Securi
- Page 26 and 27: concerns and are now issues that mu
- Page 28 and 29: the relationships between GEC and f
- Page 30 and 31: Theme 2 aims to understand how comm
- Page 32 and 33: GEC and the Food System of the Indo
- Page 34 and 35: Paper 2: The role of agronomic rese
- Page 36 and 37: These advances have resulted from a
- Page 38 and 39: Crop selection to determine mechani
- Page 40 and 41: Agronomic science is central to imp
- Page 42 and 43: Agronomic research in relation to f
- Page 44 and 45: The discussion above identifies a n
- Page 46 and 47: interventions and political inertia
- Page 48 and 49: While research on producing food ha
- Page 52 and 53: In addition to broadening the debat
- Page 54 and 55: options. Examples already seen rang
- Page 56 and 57: Figure 3 Outcomes for 10 variables
- Page 58 and 59: Figure 4 Nine ‘planetary boundari
- Page 60 and 61: Figure 5 Environmental change, food
- Page 62 and 63: Table 1: Indicative analysis of the
- Page 65: From Food Production to Food Securi
- Page 68 and 69: Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Eur
- Page 70 and 71: Parry et al., 2005). Conducting foo
- Page 72 and 73: is provided in the ESF/COST Forward
- Page 74 and 75: Paper 5: Engaging Stakeholders at t
- Page 76 and 77: into actions (strategies, policies,
- Page 78 and 79: Box 2 Engaging with stakeholders in
- Page 80 and 81: Box 3 Setting the research agenda f
- Page 82 and 83: Third, and of considerable practica
- Page 84 and 85: Figure 2: Organizing and understand
- Page 86 and 87: organizations made up of numerous n
- Page 88 and 89: Elements of good practice in stakeh
- Page 90 and 91: Finally, it is worth noting that fo
- Page 92 and 93: development (Lee, 1999; Gunderson a
- Page 94 and 95: Box 7 The GECAFS stakeholder survey
- Page 96 and 97: ‘break down’ what might be a hi
- Page 98 and 99: Paper 6: Undertaking Research at th
- Page 100 and 101:
agriculture in many parts of the wo
- Page 102 and 103:
gaps. The presence of a strong tech
- Page 104 and 105:
an average of two years to coalesce
- Page 106 and 107:
Institute for Meteorology and Hydro
- Page 108 and 109:
Identifying case study sitesResearc
- Page 110 and 111:
can both benefit from and contribut
- Page 112 and 113:
Box 5 Mapping stakeholder interests
- Page 114 and 115:
Holding planning meetings in locati
- Page 116 and 117:
This reorientation of the debate fr
- Page 118 and 119:
Importance of this type of research
- Page 120 and 121:
Integrating the food system concept
- Page 122 and 123:
awareness of the GEC issues within
- Page 124 and 125:
pollutants were then introduced as
- Page 126 and 127:
communities operating in food syste
- Page 128 and 129:
Improving input-use efficiency acro
- Page 130 and 131:
governance focuses on the range of
- Page 132 and 133:
Developing research agendas in supp
- Page 134 and 135:
The renewed approach to interdiscip
- Page 136 and 137:
BIELAK, A., HOLMES, J., SAVGÅRD, J
- Page 138 and 139:
EAKIN, H. 2010. What is Vulnerable?
- Page 140 and 141:
GODFRAY, H. C. J., BEDDINGTON, J. R
- Page 142 and 143:
INGRAM, J. S. I. & FERNANDES, E. C.
- Page 144 and 145:
LYUTSE, S. 2010. The One Billion To
- Page 146 and 147:
RAYNER, S. & MALONE, E. L. 1998. Hu
- Page 148 and 149:
UNDP 2006. The 2006 Human Developme
- Page 150 and 151:
activities “from plough to plate
- Page 152 and 153:
contribution to the science agenda:
- Page 154 and 155:
urgently needed, and - given the gr
- Page 156 and 157:
GECAFS plannenmakerij stelde vast d
- Page 158 and 159:
ieder hun eigen groep van betrokken
- Page 160 and 161:
het gebied van beheer hebben betrek
- Page 162:
Curriculum VitaeFollowing a BSc in