From Food Production to Food Security - Global Environmental ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3 Outcomes for 10 variables that collectively determine food security for four plausiblefutures for Caribbean food systems (reproduced from (Ingram and Izac, 2010), with permission). Arating of (++) indicates a high increase (i.e. outermost ring in the chart) and a rating of (+) to someincrease (i.e. the second outermost ring in the chart). Conversely, a rating of (- -) implies highdecrease (i.e. the innermost ring of the chart) and a rating of (-) reads as some decrease (i.e. thesecond innermost ring of the chart). Finally, a rating of (o) translates to no changes versus the currentsituation and a rating of (+/-) shows mixed trends with some increase in some aspects alongsidedecreases in others (i.e. both are depicted by a value on the ‘heavy line’ centre ring) (GECAFS,2006b).This CCAFS example highlights an important point about the framework: it serves as basethat can be further developed to be more useful and specific in a dynamic context, which canlead to a number of valuable research avenues. The framework is qualitative and morequantified analyses will be needed for many discussion-making processes. For instance, arange of models aimed at quantifying (as far as possible) the four food security elements isbeing identified by the CCAFS group with a view to ‘driving’ the axes of the spidergramsexemplified in Figure 3 (CCAFS Scenarios Team, 2010). The aim is to model how eachvariable (axis) evolves over time for each scenario, noting changes both within and betweendifferent scenarios, with a view to including the impact of technical and/or policyinterventions over time.These scenario exercises deliver a number of related outputs related to Figure 3: they provide(i) an analysis of all elements of food system outcomes (multiple axes on graphs); (ii) anassessment of how each outcome determinant would change (change of position along axes);46
(iii) the ability for a policy interpretation of different future conditions (comparing graphs);and (iv) adaptation insights at the regional level for improving overall food security (where toconcentrate effort on enlarging the polygon areas of each graph). They also brought togethera wide range of specialists and representatives of the many stakeholders involved in foodsystems who hitherto had not interacted. It should be noted, however, that the purpose ofthese initial scenario exercises was to investigate food security outcomes of plausible futures.They were not designed to determine adaptation pathways, which should form the subject offollow up research.Example 4: Quantifying the contribution of food system activities to crossing ‘planetaryboundaries’Many human activities affect environmental conditions, degradation of which will underminethe natural resource base upon which food systems are founded. This example discusses howfood system activities affects environment (the ‘feedback’; Figure 2), and is based on thenotion of ‘planetary boundaries’. These define the safe operating space for humanity withrespect to the Earth system and are associated with the planet’s biophysical subsystems orprocesses. If these thresholds are crossed, then important subsystems, such as a monsoonsystem, could shift into a new state, often with deleterious or potentially even disastrousconsequences for humans (Rockström et al., 2009); Figure 4. Identifying and quantifying‘planetary boundaries’ that must not be transgressed therefore help prevent human activitiesfrom causing unacceptable environmental change.One of the most – perhaps the most – ubiquitous human activity relates to striving to attainfood security and from a ‘food’ perspective agriculture is usually thought of as the cause forconcern; 12-14% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributed to agriculture and afurther 18% attributed to land-use change and forestry (much of which related to clearingland for agriculture and pasture) (Foresight, 2011). However, all food system activities leadto GHG emissions and Edwards et al. (2009) estimated that in the US food system, only 60%of GHG emissions can be attributed to producing food; 40 % are due to the other food systemactivities. But GHG emission is not the only environmental consequence of food systems.Impacts on biodiversity, on biogeochemical cycles, on fresh water resources and on otherenvironmental parameters are all in part caused by food system activities (Figure 2).Table 2 shows a matrix of the four sets of food system activities against eight of the 10planetary boundaries (‘ocean acidification’ and ‘stratospheric ozone depletion’ are notincluded as they were not quantified).Rather than being confined to impacts of agriculture, Table 2 gives examples in almost allcells of the matrix; almost all food system activities contribute to ‘crossing the boundaries’.47
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 50 and 51: Box 1 Food system Activities and fo
Page 52 and 53: In addition to broadening the debat
Page 54 and 55: options. Examples already seen rang
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
show all

From Food Production to Food Security - Global Environmental ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?