World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision - Fao

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PROOF COPY where yields are nearing ceilings obtained on research stations, the scope for raising yields is much more limited than in the past (Sinclair, 1998). Despite this, average yields have continued to increase, albeit at a decelerating rate. For example global wheat yields increased by some 40 kg p.a. over 1961 to 2007, and is projected to grow by 24 kg per year over the period 2005/07 to 2050 (Figure 4.11). Likewise maize yields grew by some 64 kg p.a. over the historical period and are expected to grow by 30 kg p.a. over 2005/07 to 2050. Figure 4.11 World wheat and maize land, yield and production World wheat production Production in million tonnes yield in 10 kg/ha land in million ha 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 y = 4.07 x - 7871 R² = 0.97 2020 production 2030 yield harvested land 2040 2050 World maize production Production in million tonnes Yield in 10 kg/ha land in million ha y = 6.36 x - 12286 R² = 0.96 The variation in yields among countries however remains very wide. Table 4.14 illustrates this for wheat, rice and maize in developing countries. Cereal yields in the ten percent of countries with the lowest yields (bottom decile, excluding countries with less than 50 000 ha under the crop), were in the early 1960s less than one-fifth of the yields of the best performers (top decile) and this ‘gap’ has been worsening over time so that at present they are less than 15 percent. If sub-national data were available, probably a similar pattern would be seen for intra-national differences as well. For wheat and maize this gap between worst and best performers is projected to narrow somewhat by 2050, while for rice this ‘closing of the gap’ would be more pronounced, with yields in the bottom decile reaching 25 percent of yields in the top decile by 2050. This may reflect the fact that the scope for raising yields of top rice performers is more limited than in the past. However, countries included in the bottom and top deciles account for only a minor share of the total production of these cereals, and it is therefore more important to examine what will happen to the yield levels obtained by the countries which account for the bulk of wheat, rice and maize production. Current (un-weighted) average yields of the largest 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 production 2020 2030 yield harvested land 2040 2050 129
PROOF COPY producers 81 are about half the yields (and 38 percent in the case of maize) achieved by the top performers (Table 4.14). In spite of continuing yield growth in these largest producing countries, this situation is expected to improve somewhat but not to change dramatically by 2050. Table 4.14 Top and bottom cereal yields in developing countries 1961/1963 2005/2007 2050 tonnes/ha % top decile tonnes/ha % top decile t/ha % top decile Wheat Number of countries included 32 34 36 Top decile 2.15 5.68 7.56 Bottom decile 0.40 18 0.87 15 1.43 19 Decile of largest producers 0.87 40 2.80 49 4.38 58 All countries included 0.97 45 2.42 43 3.78 50 World Rice (paddy) 1.14 2.77 3.82 Number of countries included 45 54 60 Top decile 4.34 7.54 9.19 Bottom decile 0.75 17 1.07 14 2.30 25 Decile of largest producers 1.80 42 4.10 54 5.50 60 All countries included 1.93 44 3.54 47 5.03 55 world Maize 1.94 4.07 5.34 Number of countries included 59 67 71 Top decile 2.15 7.30 10.94 Bottom decile 0.44 20 0.64 9 1.48 14 Decile of largest producers 1.21 56 2.79 38 4.99 46 All countries included 1.06 49 2.52 35 4.39 40 World 1.99 4.74 6.06 Notes: (i) only countries with over 50 000 harvested ha are included; (ii) countries included in the deciles are not necessarily the same for all years; (iii) average yields are simple averages, not weighted by area; (4) largest producers are the largest ones according to area. The preceding brief analysis suggests that there has been and still is, considerable slack in the crop yields of the different countries, which could be exploited if the economic incentives so dictate. However, the fact that yield differences among the major cereal producing countries are very wide, does not necessarily imply that the lagging countries have scope for yield increases equal to inter-country yield gaps. Part of these differences of course simply reflects differing agro-ecological conditions. However, not all, or perhaps not even the major part, of yield differences can be ascribed to such conditions as wide yield differences 81 Top ten percent of countries ranked according to area allocated to the crop examined. For 2005/07 these are China, India, and Turkey for wheat; India, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Thailand for rice; and China, Brazil, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Indonesia and Tanzania for maize. 130
Page 1 and 2:
WORLD AGRICULTURE TOWARDS 2030/2050
Page 3 and 4:
Acknowledgements PROOF COPY This pa
Page 5 and 6:
Boxes PROOF COPY Box 1.1 Measuring
Page 7 and 8:
PROOF COPY Figure A.2.1.6 India: fo
Page 9 and 10:
PROOF COPY producing countries rema
Page 11 and 12:
PROOF COPY may fall from 2.3 billio
Page 13 and 14:
PROOF COPY Minimum Dietary Energy R
Page 15 and 16:
PROOF COPY Concerning the main prod
Page 17 and 18:
PROOF COPY vegetable oil imports fo
Page 19 and 20:
PROOF COPY constraints can be signi
Page 21 and 22:
PROOF COPY Figure 1.8 Irrigated are
Page 23 and 24:
PROOF COPY Figure 1.9 World cereals
Page 25 and 26:
PROOF COPY for both food and non-fo
Page 27 and 28:
PROOF COPY 2050, reaching a peak of
Page 29 and 30:
PROOF COPY 436 million in the over
Page 31 and 32:
PROOF COPY CHAPTER 2 PROSPECTS FOR
Page 33 and 34:
PROOF COPY Figure 2.1 kcal/person/d
Page 35 and 36:
PROOF COPY The FAO estimates of und
Page 37 and 38:
PROOF COPY by people. In particular
Page 39 and 40:
PROOF COPY production potential. Th
Page 41 and 42:
PROOF COPY Table: Growth in Populat
Page 43 and 44:
PROOF COPY (Figure2.6), at 7.4 bill
Page 45 and 46:
PROOF COPY Table 2.4 GDP assumption
Page 47 and 48:
PROOF COPY Modest reductions in the
Page 49 and 50:
PROOF COPY Such optimism notwithsta
Page 51 and 52:
PROOF COPY in North Africa have hig
Page 53 and 54:
PROOF COPY (which in our data appea
Page 55 and 56:
PROOF COPY The other major commodit
Page 57 and 58:
PROOF COPY Table 2.6 Changes in the
Page 59 and 60:
PROOF COPY • Despite this slow pa
Page 61 and 62:
PROOF COPY undernourishment and the
Page 63 and 64:
PROOF COPY commodities and waste. F
Page 65 and 66:
PROOF COPY Where does this leave us
Page 67 and 68:
PROOF COPY Figure A.2.1.6 shows the
Page 69 and 70:
PROOF COPY cereals for ethanol 41 .
Page 71 and 72:
PROOF COPY consumption was heavily
Page 73 and 74:
PROOF COPY Figure 3.2 Net agricultu
Page 75 and 76:
PROOF COPY It is noted, however, th
Page 77 and 78:
PROOF COPY Figure 3.4 Per capita fo
Page 79 and 80:
PROOF COPY 2005/07. 45 Not all of t
Page 81 and 82:
PROOF COPY Table 3.3 Net trade bala
Page 83 and 84:
PROOF COPY growth in the ruminant s
Page 85 and 86: PROOF COPY Table 3.4 Meat: aggregat
Page 87 and 88: PROOF COPY countries in per capita
Page 89 and 90: PROOF COPY associated with such lar
Page 91 and 92: PROOF COPY Figure 3.8 World feed us
Page 93 and 94: PROOF COPY The production of biodie
Page 95 and 96: PROOF COPY the exports of the two m
Page 97 and 98: 3.5 Roots, tubers and plantains 3.5
Page 99 and 100: PROOF COPY the two factors that mak
Page 101 and 102: PROOF COPY Net exports from develop
Page 103 and 104: PROOF COPY Figure 3.14 Sugar net tr
Page 105 and 106: PROOF COPY Climate change In evalua
Page 107 and 108: PROOF COPY Table 4.1 Increases in p
Page 109 and 110: PROOF COPY involved are considerabl
Page 111 and 112: PROOF COPY cropping intensities (6
Page 113 and 114: PROOF COPY No data exist on total h
Page 115 and 116: PROOF COPY Box 4.2 Agro-ecological
Page 117 and 118: PROOF COPY under cultivation. It is
Page 119 and 120: PROOF COPY products facing finite n
Page 121 and 122: PROOF COPY place in sub-Saharan Afr
Page 123 and 124: PROOF COPY The bulk of arable land
Page 125 and 126: PROOF COPY Figure 4.7 Area equipped
Page 127 and 128: PROOF COPY The developed countries
Page 129 and 130: PROOF COPY 4.2.5 Irrigation water r
Page 131 and 132: PROOF COPY harvested irrigated area
Page 133 and 134: PROOF COPY Figure 4.10 Annual growt
Page 135: PROOF COPY million ha at an average
Page 139 and 140: PROOF COPY the often unfavourable a
Page 141 and 142: PROOF COPY Table 4.15 Fertilizer co
Page 143 and 144: PROOF COPY under way for some time,
Page 145 and 146: PROOF COPY Livestock production is
Page 147 and 148: Argentina Bolivia (Plurinational St
Page 149 and 150: Wheat Rice Maize Barley Millet Sorg
Page 151 and 152: PROOF COPY and yields by irrigated
Page 153 and 154: PROOF COPY References Alexandratos,
Page 155 and 156: PROOF COPY FAO (1996), Food, Agricu
Page 157 and 158: PROOF COPY Ma, Hengyun, Jikun Huang
Page 159 and 160: PROOF COPY van der Mensbrugghe, D.,
show all

World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision - Fao

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?