Figure 5 <strong>Environmental</strong> change, food system, and food security outcome components and dynamics:highlighting concentration of issues and pathways addressed by assessments (reproduced from Woodet al., 2010 with permission).The food system concept provided a ‘checklist’ <strong>to</strong> help structure this analysis, revealing thatassessments have “fallen short, sometimes significantly, of providing comprehensive andbalanced evidence on the range and interdependence of environmental change phenomenaand on the consequences of change on the many facets of food systems and security” (Woodet al., 2010).ConclusionsUnderstanding the interactions between food security and global environmental change ishighly challenging. This is nevertheless increasingly important as 50% more food will beneeded by 2030 (Godfray et al., 2010b) and there are concerns that the risk of food insecuritywill likely grow. These concerns are compounded by the simultaneous need <strong>to</strong> reducenegative environmental feedbacks from the ways we meet these demands. A furtherchallenge therefore is developing food system adaptation pathways that are significantlymore environmentally benign than current approaches. Adapting our food system activities <strong>to</strong>meet these challenges will give rise <strong>to</strong> changes in all food security outcomes <strong>to</strong> some extent(Figure 1) but often researchers only consider one food security element, usually foodproduction. A meaningful adaptation discussion on food security needs consideration of howany intervention will affect all other eight elements of the food security outcomes; inprinciple, any intervention, even if only targeted at only one element will affect all nine.50
More effective policies, practices and governance are needed at a range of levels on spatial,temporal, jurisdictional and other scales (Cash et al., 2006; Termeer et al., 2010) and researchhas an important role <strong>to</strong> play in providing knowledge <strong>to</strong> assist these. Given the complexity offood security, especially in the context of GEC, this research has <strong>to</strong> develop systematically <strong>to</strong>be most effective. However, different research groups have differing interests and/or could beaddressing differing information need for policy formulation. The overall framework –albeitdepicted in general terms – helps <strong>to</strong> map where each effort contributes <strong>to</strong> the overall picture.The examples above show how this mapping can occur in practice, each relating <strong>to</strong> either thefood system activities or the food security outcomes, and dealing with different areas ofinterest (i.e. vulnerability/impacts or adaptation or feedbacks).When taken <strong>to</strong>gether (Figure 1) and considered within (i) the notion of interacting GEC andsocioeconomic drivers, and (ii) potentially positive and deleterious feedbacks <strong>to</strong>socioeconomic and/or environmental conditions (Figure 2), the framework can bring furtherbenefits. First, it provides a checklist <strong>to</strong> help ensure the necessary issues are included indialogues aimed at enhancing food security (especially in the context of other goals) andidentifies the range of ac<strong>to</strong>rs and other interested parties who should be involved. Second, ithelps assess the impacts of GEC on food systems by focussing on multiple vulnerabilities inthe context of socioeconomic stresses. Third, it helps in determining the most limiting fac<strong>to</strong>rswhich lead <strong>to</strong> food insecurity, thereby identifying intervention points for enhancing foodsecurity.Identifying which of the numerous interactions depicted in Figure 2 <strong>to</strong> research, and how <strong>to</strong>bring them <strong>to</strong>gether would be highly complex without a framework. Most importantly,therefore, it provides a conceptual model <strong>to</strong> help identify research avenues for (i) integratedanalyses of the full set of food system activities (i.e. producing, s<strong>to</strong>ring, processing,packaging, trading and consuming food) with those of the food security outcomes (i.e.stability of food access, utilisation and availability, and all their nine elements (rather thanjust food production); and (ii) analysing feedbacks <strong>to</strong> the earth system (e.g. GHG emissions,impacts on biodiversity) from food system activities, integrating the “what we do” with the“what we get”. By laying out an integrative socio-environmental approach for consideringsuch feedbacks, it thus helps design research <strong>to</strong> analyse synergies and trade-offs betweenfood security, ecosystem services and social welfare outcomes of different adaptationpathways.It is important <strong>to</strong> discuss one final aspect. As mentioned above, the framework is depicted ata general level and cannot, in itself, assess the consequences of specific interventions. Itsvalue is in helping <strong>to</strong> formulate plausible hypotheses that can and should be further exploredthrough other methods. So, while acting as a checklist of what needs <strong>to</strong> be discussed, it onlyidentifies a number of high-level issues; some specific issues, such as animal welfare (ESF,2009) or public attitudes <strong>to</strong> genetically modified foods, are of high priority in some parts ofthe world, and would need <strong>to</strong> be included or strengthened for specific studies. To this end,individual research projects need <strong>to</strong> establish detailed agendas in the context of the overallframework.51
- 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 56 and 57: Figure 3 Outcomes for 10 variables
- Page 58 and 59: Figure 4 Nine ‘planetary boundari
- 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