2012 Global Food Policy Report

admin — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:27:59 +0000

IFPRI's flagship report examines the major food policy issues, developments, and decisions of 2012. By putting into perspective the year's food policy successes and disappointments, it suggests how to move forward those policies that improve the food situation for the poor.

More information

eBooks

iTunes | Kindle | Google Play | Google Books

Data

Reflecting the expertise and experience of IFPRI researchers and other leading food policy experts, the report considers sever crucial questions:

Where is agricultural productivity growing and why, and what are the implications for the global food supply?
How has sustainable development evolved and is a green economy far behind?
What is needed for gender considerations to become an integral part of agricultural and rural development?
How can agriculture offer meaningful jobs to the growing number of young people in Africa?
What directions are US and EU agricultural policies taking, and how do they diverge?
What are IFPRI's scenarios for how Brazil, China, and India will influence global food security to 2050?

The 2012 Global Food Policy Report features illustrative figures, tables, indicators and a food policy timeline.

Download by Chapter

Click to launch the full edition in a new window

PDF file:

gfpr2012.pdf(5.1MB)

Informe de políticas alimentarias mundiales 2011

admin — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:03:55 +0000

Bajar el texto completo (PDF 7.6M)

El Informe de políticas alimentarias mundiales para el año 2011 es una nueva publicación anual del IFPRI que proporciona un análisis exhaustivo, basado en investigaciones, de los principales retos de política alimentaria en los planos mundial, regional, nacional y local. Destaca los acontecimientos y sucesos importantes en seguridad alimentaria que se produjeron en 2011, analiza la experiencia adquirida, formula recomendaciones sobre políticas, presenta herramientas e indicadores de política alimentaria del IFPRI y observa las perspectivas para 2012.

eBook formats

El informe refleja las perspectivas alrededor del mundo. En sus nueve capítulos, escritos por investigadores del IFPRI y otros expertos en política alimentaria, proporciona un análisis actualizado sobre temas esenciales tales como:

niveles y volatilidad de los precios de los alimentos
desastres naturales y causados por el ser humano
cambio climático
biocombustibles
vínculos entre agricultura y nutrición, salud, agua y energía
gestión sostenible de la tierra
avances regionales
nuevos actores en política alimentaria mundial

El informe incluye numerosas tablas, figuras, infografías y mapas, así como una compilación de reflexiones de las partes interesadas sobre los factores que influyeron en la política alimentaria en 2011.

Click to launch the full edition in a new window

PDF file:

oc72es.pdf(7.4MB)

Rapport sur les politiques alimentaires mondiales en 2011

admin — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:03:45 +0000

Télécharger le Rapport (PDF 9.5M)

Le Rapport sur les politiques alimentaires mondiales pour l’année 2011 est une nouvelle publication annuelle de l’IFPRI qui livre une analyse complète, basée sur des recherches, des grands défis de la politique alimentaire aux niveaux mondial, régional, national et local. Il met en évidence les développements et événements importants intervenus en 2011 dans la politique alimentaire, en tire les enseignements, émet des recommandations pour les politiques, présente les outils et les indicateurs de politique alimentaire utilisés par l’IFPRI, et examine les perspectives pour 2012.

eBook formats

Ce Rapport rassemble des points de vue du monde entier. Ses neuf chapitres, rédigés par des chercheurs de l’IFPRI et d’autres spécialistes de la politique alimentaire, fournissent une analyse de pointe approfondie sur des sujets cruciaux tels que :

niveaux et volatilité des prix des produits alimentaires
catastrophes naturelles et d’origine humaine
changement climatique
biocarburants
liens entre agriculture et nutrition, santé, eau et énergie
gestion durable des terres
développements régionaux
nouveaux acteurs de la politique alimentaire mondiale

Le Rapport présente plusieurs tableaux, figures, illustrations infographiques et cartes, ainsi qu’un condensé des réflexions contenues dans les parties concernées sur ce qui a influencé la politique alimentaire en 2011.

Télécharger

Click to launch the full edition in a new window

PDF file:

oc72fr.pdf(9.5MB)

Agriculture Game Changers at Rio+20

Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:23:12 +0000

The world’s population is growing and its climate is changing—at the same time, its land and water resources are running out. Two recent events at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) put a spotlight on how agriculture can keep up with these challenges.

During an official, IFPRI-led side event on sustainable agriculture and innovation, experts from the U.S., Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico revealed what role agricultural technologies—from drought tolerance to water harvesting—can play in increasing crop yields while also reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint.

During the side event, IFPRI Senior Researcher Claudia Ringler discussed initial results from an ongoing IFPRI study that assesses the potential impacts of nine specific agricultural technologies and practices on crop yields, food security, and the environment globally—with an emphasis on developing countries. Unlike previous studies, this project models the impact of agricultural technologies at an unprecedented level of geographical disaggregation, or detail (a level of 10km by 10km). For the study, these modeling results were fed into a mathematical model of food supply and demand and food security to assess the overall impacts of the technologies on human well-being.

Preliminary results that Ringler presented at the side event indicate that one technology, Integrated Soil Fertility Management, which includes the combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers, zero tillage, and enhanced residue management, has large positive yield impacts for maize. Another technology, drip irrigation, reduces crop water use by an average of 29 percent, freeing up these resources for domestic, industrial, and environmental use. Ringler said that all nine of the technologies assessed in the study can increase the affordability of food in developing countries by reducing projected price increases for key staple grains.

She concluded that national governments should invest in these agricultural technologies because they are “a game changer in terms of yield improvements and national and global food security.” Before these technologies can be successfully adopted, she added, the obstacles created by “institutions, governance systems, political will, and poor rural infrastructure” must be addressed. View her presentation here.

Building on Ringler’s observations, Lindiwe Majele Sibanda of the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resource Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) and Elisio Contini of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) discussed the need to tailor these technologies to the specific needs of farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and Brazil, respectively. Adrian Fernández of the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change discussed specific policies that governments could adopt to ensure that these technologies also deliver on important climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives.

Ringler, as well as Sibanda, Contini, and Fernández, also brought their insights on how to boost farmers’ productivity to a major gathering of agriculture and rural development experts convened during Rio+20. In a Huffington Post op-ed, Bruce Campbell, the Director of the CGIAR Research Progamme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), said that a total of nearly one thousand people turned out—in person and digitally—for the fourth Agriculture and Rural Development Day. Read his summary of the event here.

More Information:

Farming First and others live tweeted the IFPRI side event. Read their coverage.
Read a summary of the IFPRI side event by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
View Claudia Ringler's Agriculture & Rural Development Day presentation.

A Tribute to Elinor Ostrom

Ruth Meinzen-Dick — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:48:14 +0000

Elinor Ostrom’s death on 12 June, just days before the Rio+20 conference, is an enormous loss. But her life’s work offers many lessons for the deliberations, decisions and path to progress at and after Rio.

Many of the most crucial resources for a sustainable future are related, in one way or another, to the commons – the subject of much of Ostrom’s work, which earned her the 2009 Nobel prize in economic sciences and led one academic to describe her as “the mother of field work in development economics”. Water, forests, fisheries, biodiversity, oceans and the atmosphere are all, in important ways, common pool resources; it is difficult to exclude people from using them, but some of that usage depletes their availability to others. To be sustainable, usage must be co-ordinated and regulated – but that does not mean government management or privatisation are the only options. Ostrom’s work demonstrated in meticulous detail that people can and do work together to manage shared resources sustainably, and have been doing so for hundreds of years.

With the focus of Rio+20 on the “green economy”, it is time to recognise the often uncounted values the commons produce. In India, for example, although the commons are often officially designated “wastelands”, rural households depend on them for fodder, fuel, water, medicinal plants and a range of non-timber forest products. Although most of these are not directly marketed, and are therefore ignored in conventional calculations of output, their contributions to livestock production and overall household welfare are high. These lands are important sources of biodiversity and environmental services; their effective management results in more reliable and cleaner water supplies for those downstream.

The commons are not only a rural phenomenon: communal gardens and neighbourhood parks improve the quality of life in cities as well. Unless the values of the commons are recognised, there will be pressure to enclose or capture them for private or state uses that may produce more revenue for a few, but not necessarily greater value – especially for the poor.

Working with colleagues from various disciplines, Ostrom studied what makes collective action work in irrigation systems, pastures, forests and fisheries all over the world. Co-operation to manage key resources is not automatic, but neither is the “tragedy of the commons”. Respect for collective property rights is crucial to providing the necessary incentives for people to maintain resources. Policies of nationalising or privatising the commons have too often eroded the incentives or authority of local users to manage their resources. Ostrom showed that giving communities scope to set their own rules (PDF), ones adapted to local conditions, is important. Outsiders’ technical and local knowledge plays a role, but people are more likely to monitor and enforce rules they have had a say in setting.

Rather than depending on a single, monolithic governance structure, Ostrom’s work shows the importance of drawing on the strengths of many different institutions working together – government agencies, user groups and private actors – and co-operating at multiple scales. When asked about lack of progress on climate change agreements, she replied that, rather than waiting for a grand global agreement, we need to look for action at all levels, from our own homes to our schools, cities and nations. As she emphasised throughout her career, and in the last piece she published, a solution to the problem of climate change will not arrive in a single-stroke panacea, but will require experimentation at multiple levels and diverse approaches.

The global effort to bring the Earth’s environment back into balance can be no more than the sum of local efforts, and collaboration at any level must be based on techniques we have learned through centuries of experience building co-operation at the local level. In effect, the institutions that generate local environmental co-operation are not merely helpful – they are essential components of any larger environmental achievement.

In a world where attention too often focuses solely on the state or private sector as the driving force, Ostrom helped us understand institutional diversity, and ways of governing the commons that build on people’s capacity for collective action. Her research offers valuable lessons on how to craft rules and provide incentives for co-operation at the many levels needed for a sustainable future.

This blog post first appeared June 14, 2012 on the Guardian Poverty Matters Blog.

Land and Rio+20

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:57:51 +0000

The planet’s most precious—and endangered—resources are under our feet. According to a new UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) report, soils are often overlooked in sustainable development discussions though they are essential to current and future water, energy, and food security.

Human reliance on the earth for food, fuel, settlements, roads, minerals, and more is a given. But population growth, climate change, and other factors are inhibiting land’s ability to meet these demands. Misguided or nonexistent land policies exacerbate the problem.

As a result, an increasing percentage of the world’s finite land—croplands, ranges, pastures, forests, and woodlands—is too eroded or nutrient-drained to supply crucial services. Called land degradation and, in arid and semi-arid regions, desertification, this phenomenon leads to an annual loss of 75 billion tons of fertile soil.

“About 24 percent of global land area has been affected by land degradation,” writes IFPRI Senior Researcher Ephraim Nkonya in the 2011 Global Food Policy Report. “This area is equivalent to the annual loss of about 1 percent of global land area, which could produce 20 million tons of grain each year, or 1 percent of global annual grain production. Globally, 1.5 billion people and 42 percent of the very poor live on degraded lands.”

To address this dire situation, the UNCCD report A Sustainable Development Goal for Rio+20: Zero Net Land Degradation, calls on world leaders attending the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) to adopt a global goal: zero-net land and forest degradation by 2030. According to the report, this can be achieved through policies that avoid degradation or offset it through land restoration.

“That’s something that is quite ambitious, but it is achievable,” said Nkonya, who contributed to the report.

On June 17, World Day to Combat Desertification, Luc Gnacadja, UNCCD’s Executive Secretary and other leaders will gather at a day-long Rio+20 event to discuss solutions to land degradation and desertification. Informing this dialogue is Nkonya’s research on the economics of land degradation, a topic that he explored in a recent IFPRI brief.

Learn more about IFPRI’s work on land degradation here. This new IFPRI Insights article on conservation agriculture provides additional insight into solutions to the land degradation problem.

Ensuring food and nutrition security in a green economy

admin — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 20:48:46 +0000

As the population continues to grow and natural resources become scarcer, the need to shift toward an environmentally responsible, socially accountable, more equitable, and “greener” economy has become increasingly apparent. Despite differing perspectives and definitions among stakeholders, the “green economy” is often seen as an economy that pursues growth while also promoting sustainable development through more efficient use of resources. Thus aligned with concepts of sustainability, the objective of a green economy is to simultaneously work toward economic development, environmental protection, and greater social welfare, in particular by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and nonrenewable resources.

More information

At the same time food and nutrition security remains under stress. For the 900 million undernourished people in the world and the more than 2 billion people suffering from micronutrient deficiency, the poor management and increasing scarcity of natural resources like water, arable land, and energy make the production of and access to adequate, nutritious food difficult. Moreover, food insecurity is closely linked to limited access to sanitation and clean water as well as low use of energy, all of which is particularly apparent in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

This raises some important questions: What are the implications of a green economy for the poor and hungry? How can the poor benefit from and thrive under a green economy? What role can agriculture play? What are the possible trade-offs and synergies between different policy objectives, and how can each be measured?

PDF file:

bp21.pdf(696.7KB)

A Green Economy and the Poor

Shenggen Fan (樊胜根) — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:46:29 +0000

One of the pillars of discussion at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) will be the green economy—an economy that pursues growth while promoting sustainable development through efficient use of resources, in particular natural resources such as water, arable land, and energy.

The world’s population is expected to grow to more than 9 billion by 2050, with much of this growth in low-income countries. Demand for food will increase. In addition, limited natural resources, land degradation, pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change will further threaten food and nutrition security. A green economy is a must, but it should not be achieved at the cost of the food and nutrition security of the poor and vulnerable.

What are the implications of a green economy for the poor and hungry? What role can agriculture play? A new IFPRI brief seeks to answer these questions.

Smallholders, whose livelihoods are greatly affected by the management of natural resources, represent half of the world’s hungry. Intensifying food production is one way to boost food security (and protect land from conversion to agricultural use), but doing so can contribute to problems such as land degradation, water pollution, depletion of water resources, and new pest problems.

As the brief suggests, a “greener” agriculture has great potential to address the unsustainable use of natural resources for food production. And a pro-poor green economy strategy that explicitly integrates food and nutrition security and benefits the agriculture sector can also help smallholders. Such a strategy will require policy responses to address the challenge of increasing agricultural productivity without damaging the environment.

The brief recommends the following policy actions:

Integrate food and nutrition security into sustainable development;
Factor in full costs and benefits of natural resources in decisionmaking and establish social protection systems to protect the poor when food prices go up;
Ensure open trade to increase efficiency of natural resource use across countries;
Identify new indicators to evaluate impacts and policy implications of a green economy strategy across food, agriculture, and natural resource sectors;
Establish country-level capacities for strategy development in the relevant sectors; and
Engage multiple stakeholders including smallholders, and both the public and private sector

By giving agriculture a central role in a green economy, the international community can get closer to achieving the goal of eradicating hunger and ensuring food and nutrition security for all.

IFPRI Event at Rio+20 to Evaluate Farming Technologies

Thu, 31 May 2012 15:33:02 +0000

By 2050, the world’s population will reach nine billion. At the same time, climate change could decrease crop yields by 20 to 30 percent. The urgent need for farmers to sustainably feed more people in a changing climate is one reason why United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development organizers identified food as one of seven areas in need of priority attention at the upcoming Rio+20 conference.

As stated on the Rio+20 website: “It is time to rethink how we grow, share and consume our food. If done right, agriculture, forestry and fisheries can provide nutritious food for all and generate decent incomes, while supporting people-centered rural development and protecting the environment.”

In order to provide insight into how agriculture can be “done right,” IFPRI is leading an official Rio+20 side event that will include representatives of the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate, the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN), both of which are organizing partners of the side event, and the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa).

The goal of IFPRI’s side event, “Feeding the World: Sustainable Agriculture & Innovation,” is to highlight farming tools and methods that could help farmers in Latin America and other parts of the developing world boost agricultural production while protecting natural resources.

At the side event, IFPRI Senior Researcher Claudia Ringler will reveal initial results from an ongoing IFPRI study on the potential economic benefits and drawbacks of nine different agricultural technologies, including drip irrigation, laser land leveling, and conventional breeding.

Adrian Fernández, a member of the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change and the Advisor on Sustainability at Metropolitan Autonomous University, Mexico Lindiwe Majele Sibanda, the chief executive officer and head of the diplomatic mission at FANRPAN, South Africa, and Elisio Contini, deputy of the Strategic Studies and Training Center at Embrapa, Brazil will discuss policies that could deliver these agricultural technologies to farmers so that they can sustainably and effectively meet the challenges of population growth and climate change.

The side event, “Feeding the World: Sustainable Agriculture & Innovation,” will take place at the Riocentro Convention Center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on June 16 at 11:30 a.m. It is open to all registered Rio+20 attendees. Read about additional IFPRI participation in Rio+20 events here.

Sustainable Food Security and Climate Change

Simone Hill-Lee — Tue, 29 May 2012 19:39:38 +0000

Time:

12:30 pm to 2:00 pm EDT (Please join us for lunch beginning at 12:00 pm); Live webcast coming up at the scheduled time

Presenter(s):

Chair: Gerald Nelson, Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI; Speakers: William Hohenstein, Director, Global Change Program Office, USDA; David Waskow, Climate Change Program Manager at Oxfam America.

Contact/RSVP:

RSVP to Simone Hill-Lee - s.hill-lee@cgiar.org, 202-862-8107

Location:

International Food Policy Research Institute
2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC
Fourth Floor Conference Facility

During these informal presentations, Bill Hohenstein will report on the outcomes for agriculture at the recently concluded UNFCCC negotiations in Bonn, and David Waskow will talk about progress towards Sustainable Development Goals at Rio.

Podcasts

Opening Remarks, Gerald Nelson
William Hohenstein
David Waskow
Closing Remarks, Gerald Nelson

Subscribe to IFPRI Podcasts

Topics include:

What are the opportunities for synergy?
What are the risks for international negotiation fatigue?
What effect will the ongoing financial crisis and various national elections have on making progress?

Meeting the Green Economy Challenge in Africa

Ousmane Badiane — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:00:47 +0000

Ensuring access to safe, sufficient, nutritious, and sustainably grown food under a changing climate is a challenge for decisionmakers in Africa. Though adapting to climate change is only one of the issues that will be addressed by Rio+20 negotiators in June, it is a crucial issue facing Africa.

It is anticipated that extreme weather events will disrupt the availability of and access to food by the continent’s most vulnerable population groups. IFPRI researchers contribute evidence-based solutions to help policymakers design effective strategies for meeting the food security needs of these groups.

How can Africa increase its agriculture productivity in the context of a changing climate?

Climate change is expected to result in a decline in many crop yields, according to a few climate scenarios run by IFPRI researchers. For example, a farm-level analysis in Tunisia predicts that under climate change, land productivity would fall by 15 to 20 percent in the short term and 35 to 55 percent in the long run. A large-scale analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa finds that cereal production growth will decline by 5 percent and that foods such as wheat, sweet potato, and cassava are vulnerable to climate change.

To adapt to these changes, IFPRI research shows that farmers will likely expand their cultivation area and switch from more vulnerable crops such as hard wheat, fava beans, and chick peas to hardier crops such as soft wheat and barley. Increasing irrigation and fertilizer use and sowing at different dates may also mitigate their loss of productivity in the short run. However, increasing productivity over the long term will require mitigation efforts on a global scale.

According to IFPRI analysts, short run challenges are manageable under properly targeted investments. The long run impact, however, is more difficult to address and will require mitigation efforts at the global scale.

How can communities become more resilient to climate-induced global price shocks?

Over the next few decades, climate change is expected to reduce the global food supply, while growing incomes and population will increase demand. In addition, major food products will become more expensive: prices for rice, wheat, and maize are projected to increase by 48, 36, and 34 percent, respectively, by 2050. As a net importer of cereals, Africa is expected to be severely hit by these price increases. Trade restriction policies, such as those implemented by some export countries during the 2007-08 and 2010-2011 food crises, would exacerbate this effect. Implementing a global regulation platform would discourage such trade restriction practices.

How can farmers manage their land and water use already under pressure from increasing global demand?

The world’s cultivated area is predicted to fall by 0.7 percent by 2050, according to a moderate climate change scenario run by IFPRI. In Sub-Saharan Africa, both rainfed and irrigated areas will decrease, putting pressure on Africa’s land and water use. Although Africa has the potential to expand its cultivated land, IFPRI researchers note that increasing productivity would have a higher payoff. Investment programs that focus on productivity increases are needed to counteract the adverse impacts of climate change.

In order for farmers in Africa to be more meaningful contributors to a green economy, they must overcome the hurdle of adapting to climate change.

Biofuels and a Green Economy

Siwa Msangi — Thu, 17 May 2012 18:58:53 +0000

The role of bioenergy in a green economy, a subject of heated debate and concern among members of the international community, will be a topic of discussion at the Rio+20 negotiations. As IFPRI’s Global Food Policy Report reveals, biofuels were once viewed as a means to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, whose carbon emissions contribute to climate change. Now, however, it appears that some biofuels have a damaging effect on the environment—and large impacts on agricultural markets.

Nonetheless, the challenge of reducing carbon emissions in the developed and developing world requires that bioenergy—in some form—becomes part of the renewable energy mix. Indeed, biofuels and other forms of bioenergy are among the only viable alternatives to harmful fossil-based fuels, especially in the transportation sector.

Biofuels can help reduce carbon emissions in every sector and region. In developing countries, for example, encouraging the rural poor to use biofuel instead of firewood, charcoal, and other crude energy forms for everyday domestic needs could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions and the destruction of forests. Given the significant amount of time spent in collecting fuel for the household, there is also an important gender dimensionto the use of biofuels in rural areas of developing countries that needs to be accounted for.

Because not all forms of bioenergy reduce carbon emissions—the emissions that contribute to climate change— it is essential to promote the most environmentally sound biofuels in production. The most promising of these, made from nonfood sources, are considered the next generation of biofuels, differing from their first generation counterparts that are derived from food crops. These newer biofuels don’t directly compete for land with food crops and avoid potential food security problems.

Efforts are already underway to craft biofuel policies that take the environmental implications of biofuels into account. IFPRI research has assessed policies by the European Union (EU) and the state of California to promote environmentally sound biofuels production.

The EU’s Renewable Energy Directive calls for a 10 percent increase in the use of renewable energy in road transport by 2020. Though it establishes environmental sustainability criteria for biofuels consumed in the EU, in order to meet this directive, it will likely require the use of biofuels made from feedstocks found in the tropics, such as palm oil, which have potential food uses and tend to expand into forested areas. Even though rapeseed, also a potential fuel source is widely grown within the EU region, the productivity of tropical palm oil is much higher, which makes its cost relatively low.

California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) similarly incentivizes carbon reduction through the promotion of biofuels. A recent study looks at the environmental implications of expanding this program on a national scale to supplement the current Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) policy. It reveals that adding an LCFS to the existing RFS policy in the US will significantly reduce the volume of ethanol produced from maize and lead to less land use change internationally through indirect effects. Reducing the volume of maize used for biofuels also reduces upward pressure on grain prices (for feed and food) and makes more maize available for export to the world market. This illustrates why such a change to US policy can be important for other countries around the world that are consumers of internationally traded grains like maize.

One of the largest concerns about biofuel policies in the developed and developing world is their direct and indirect impact on land use change. Land use change occurs when farmers replace one crop with another on the same area of cultivated land (such as replacing a crop used for food and feed with a biofuel crop), or when they expand the area under cultivation in order to accommodate a new crop, and thereby convert natural land to cropland (or use land that was previously fallow or idle). Switching crops on the same land has the least environmental impact, while converting natural land to cultivation results in the biggest release of carbon. Recultivating fallowed land lies in between in terms of its environmental effects, because the land was already cleared of its natural cover, but is releasing more carbon from the soil under production compared to its fallow state. One of the indirect impacts of biofuel policies currently in place is carbon “leakage”, which occurs when one country’s strict carbon emissions policies leads to an increase in emissions in another country. Efforts have been made by IFPRI researchers and others to measure these indirect impacts, but uncertainty about the magnitude and transmission pathways of indirect impacts remains.

Rio+20 negotiators will likely determine that bioenergy has a place in the biobased economy of the future. But they must keep in mind that careful design and deliberate effort are needed to create a green economy that integrates green bioenergy. To do so, they should support the production of those biofuels that actually reduce overall carbon emissions. The decreased used of maize ethanol in favor of sugar-based or next-generation ethanol within the US, for example, would have positive effects on the world food situation by freeing up more maize for export to the rest of the world, bringing down its price on world markets, and thereby increasing its access for food and feed consumption.

IFPRI research provides evidence that bioenergy needs to be part of any future strategy to stabilize climate change, but smarter energy policies than those that are already in place are needed for it to happen.

Greening Agriculture in South Asia

P. K. Joshi — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:11:07 +0000

South Asia is a paradox. The region enjoys high economic growth but suffers from extreme poverty, undernourishment, and the deterioration of its natural resources. It houses more than 42 percent of the world’s poor earning less than US$ 1.25 per day. Undernourishment is widespread, especially among women and children. Nearly 21 percent of the population is undernourished. Astonishingly, more than 41 percent of children are underweight and 8 percent die before reaching the age of 5.

The larger challenge of an increasing population and rising economic growth is putting tremendous pressure on both the agriculture sector and the natural resources that are needed to meet the present and future demand for food and nutritional security. Policymakers in South Asia are realizing that the solution to these problems lies in a green economy: that is, a thriving economy that reinforces sustainable development and poverty eradication while protecting natural resources.

Delegates are meeting in Rio de Janeiro this June for the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development to agree on the parameters of a green world economy. As part of this process, they must include ways to enhance agricultural growth while ensuring environmental protection. Achieving this goal in South Asia is complicated by the region’s numerous inherited challenges. Inefficient use of inputs such as water and fertilizer and deteriorating natural resources have led to stagnating crop yields and declining profitability. Rising food prices, inconsistent domestic and trade policies, and weakened agricultural institutions are further aggravating this agrarian crisis.

Climate change is also exacerbating the problem, hindering efforts to raise agricultural production. IFPRI research shows that, in some cases, the probability of lower crop yields increases considerably with climate change—especially in South Asia, and that smallholders are the most vulnerable in the face of climate change, as their ability to bear risk is extremely low. It is therefore important for delegates in Rio to minimize the impact of climate change by including appropriate policies such as subsidies; technologies such as conservation agriculture and improved seed varieties; and institutional innovations such as farmer cooperatives and companies in their plans for a sustainable green economy that alleviates poverty.

Fortunately, they can tap into an array of technological and policy interventions that are already available for transforming unsustainable agriculture into a green economic sector through enhanced agricultural growth, improved social equity, and ensured environmental protection. Before these technologies can be implemented, however, policymakers must first develop an inventory of interventions, assess their technological and economic feasibility at different scales, and examine how they can be adopted or scaled up in a “green” way in different socioeconomic environments.

Since resources are limited, policymakers must prioritize interventions for their highest impact. Rio+20 leaders must consider options that are pro-poor and mitigate risk to vulnerable rural and smallholder farmers in a variety of agroecological and socioeconomic environments.

2011 Global Food Policy Report

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:40:52 +0000

2012 Global Food Policy Report launched

Download full report (PDF 7.6M)

The 2011 Global Food Policy Report is a new annual IFPRI publication that provides a comprehensive, research-based analysis of major food policy challenges at the global, regional, national, and local levels. It highlights important developments and events in food policy that occurred in 2011, discusses lessons learned, offers policy recommendations, presents IFPRI’s food policy tools and indicators, and takes a look forward into 2012. The Report reflects perspectives from across the globe. Its nine chapters, written by IFPRI researchers and other food policy experts, provide state-of-the-art analysis on such crucial topics as:

More information

eBook formats

food price levels and volatility
natural and human-caused disasters
climate change
biofuels
the links between agriculture and nutrition, health, water, and energy
sustainable land management
regional developments
new players in global food policy

The Report features numerous tables, figures, infographics, and maps, as well as a collection of stakeholders’ thoughts on what influenced food policy in 2011.

Download by Chapter

Click to launch the full edition in a new window

PDF file:

oc72.pdf(7.6MB)

2011 Politiques alimentaires mondiales rapport: Aperçu

admin — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:40:52 +0000

Synthèse : Principaux développements en matière de politique
alimentaire en 2011

Le Rapport sur les politiques alimentaires mondiales pour l’année 2011 est une nouvelle publication annuelle de l’IFPRI qui livre une analyse complète, basée sur des recherches, des grands défis de la politique alimentaire aux niveaux mondial, régional, national et local. Il met en évidence les développements et événements importants intervenus en 2011 dans la politique alimentaire, en tire les enseignements, émet des recommandations pour les politiques, présente les outils et les indicateurs de politique alimentaire utilisés par l’IFPRI, et examine les perspectives pour 2012.

niveaux et volatilité des prix des produits alimentaires
catastrophes naturelles et d’origine humaine
changement climatique
biocarburants
liens entre agriculture et nutrition, santé, eau et énergie
gestion durable des terres
développements régionaux
nouveaux acteurs de la politique alimentaire mondiale

PDF file:

oc72afr.pdf(953.6KB)

2011 Global Food Policy Report: Preview

admin — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:39:52 +0000

Overview chapter, “Major Food Policy Developments in 2011” from the 2011 Global Food Policy Report

PDF file:

oc72a.pdf(973.5KB)

Integrated, sustainable, and shared growth at Davos

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:12:42 +0000

This year’s World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos took place as the world faces slowed and uncertain economic growth and continuing shifts in economic power toward emerging and developing economies. Discussions focused on unemployment, increasing inequality, and the alarming speed at which we are approaching the limits of natural resource use. All of these issues will have significant impacts on the prospects for reducing global poverty and food and nutrition insecurity, and all of them call for new models of development.

More information

Visit DG Corner
Webpage of IFPRI Director General, Shenggen Fan

According to IFPRI Director General Shenggen Fan, who attended the meeting, global leaders are gradually coming to see agriculture in a more integrated way. Increasingly, agriculture and food security must be viewed alongside issues such as nutrition, health, natural resources, energy, and climate change. This year’s sessions showed more interaction between people from different sectors and featured agricultural experts addressing these wider but related topics.

Following the discussions in Davos, Fan emphasized the need for concrete actions:

Continue strengthening an integrated approach to agriculture that takes account of smallholder farming, nutrition and health, climate change, and natural resources. Because agriculture is at the nexus of all of these areas, it can be leveraged for broad development outcomes.
Base the price of natural resources on their full market value by including their social and environmental costs, such as impacts on climate change and health.
Set up a global system to measure, track, and monitor the cross-sectoral impacts among agriculture, food and nutrition security, energy, and natural resources.
Improve skills and knowledge at the country and local level through capacity building efforts.

Assessing the land use change consequences of European biofuel policies

admin — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:37:01 +0000

Final Report

Download this report (PDF 2.3 MB)

Download executive summary (PDF 583 KB)

Background

On 23 April 2009, the European Union adopted the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) which included a 10 percent target for the use of renewable energy in road transport fuels by 2020. It also established the environmental sustainability criteria that biofuels consumed in the EU have to comply with. This includes a minimum rate of direct GHG emission savings (35 percent in 2009 and rising to 50 percent in 2017) and restrictions on the types of land that may be converted to production of biofuels feedstock crops. The latter criterion covers direct land use changes only. The revised Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), adopted at the same time as the RED, includes identical sustainability criteria and targets a reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuels consumed in the EU by 6 percent by 2020. Moreover, the Parliament and Council asked the Commission to examine the question of indirect land use change (ILUC), including possible measures to avoid this, and report back on this issue by the end of 2010.

More information

Download this report (PDF 2.3 MB)

Previous report on the topic: Global trade and environmental impact study of the EU biofuels mandate
March 2010. Perrihan Al-Riffai, Betina Dimaranan, and David Laborde.

The Commission launched four studies in 2009 to examine ILUC issues, including a first general equilibrium modeling study that aimed to analyse the impact of the EU biofuels mandate, and possible changes in EU biofuels trade policies, on global agricultural production and the environmental performance of the EU biofuel policy as concretised in the RED. That report was published in March 20101 (Al-Riffai, Dimaranan and Laborde, “Global Trade and Environmental Impact Study of the EU Biofuels Mandate”. It showed that indirect land use changes were a valid concern, but that the degree of uncertainty regarding their magnitude was large. Since then, this study has been widely cited and commented on in discussions with stakeholders and civil society on EU biofuels policy. Numerous suggestions for improvements in the study were received. Research on biofuels modeling also continued and made progress since then. In order to feed this new information and insights into the Commission's impact assessment on the land use change effects of biofuels, and into the report to the Parliament and Council, the European Commission requested IFPRI to carry out the present updated study.

The new study

This new study contains several important changes compared to the previous report. It uses an updated version of the global computable general equilibrium model (CGE), MIRAGE-Biof, as well as a revised scenario describing the EU mandate based on the National Renewable Energy Action Plans of the 27 member states. In addition, a stronger focus has been placed on specific feedstock Land Use Change (LUC) computation and the uncertainties surrounding these values. Systematic sensitivity analysis is used to measure the potential range of LUC coefficients. In the absence of empirical evidence on the impact of the direct land use change criteria in the RED this report revolves around total LUC, comprising both direct and indirect changes, instead of the narrower concept of indirect LUC only. There is a lack of data on the impact of the direct greenhouse gas savings thresholds on biofuel markets and LUC. However, the direct savings thresholds will ensure that all biofuels used in the EU in 2020 have at least 50 percent direct greenhouse gas emissions savings. We evaluate the impact of the EU mandate in accordance with the implementation scenarios in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) of the 27 Member States. In the mandate scenario, we introduce a biofuels policy shock that assumes that the EU will consume 27.2 Mtoe of first generation land-using ethanol and biodiesel by 2020, involving an additional consumption – called additional mandate in this report – of 15.5 Mtoe. Total biofuel consumption reaches 8.6 percent of the mandated target of 10 percent renewable energy in road transport fuels. The remaining is expected to come from other types of renewable energy including waste products. The action plans forecast that 72 percent of this will be biodiesel and 28 percent ethanol (expressed in energy content). We analyze the effects of the implementation of the EU biofuels additional mandate under two different trade policy scenarios: i) A status quo trade policy scenario that leaves all currently existing import tariffs on biofuels unchanged in 2020 and ii) a free trade scenario that eliminates all tariffs on all biofuel imports, except for the contingent anti-dumping levy on biodiesel imports from the US.

The most important change compared to the previous study (Al Riffai and al, 2010) is the definition of the scenario considered (size of the mandate, ratio biodiesel/ethanol). Several other modifications have been done involving the treatment of co-products (higher substitution), the peatland emissions (higher factor), the land reallocation among crops (better calibration) and the dynamics of food demand (less elastic).

Overall findings

Overall, EU biofuel production will increase from 10.1 Mtoe in the baseline to 20.9 Mtoe without trade liberalization and 17.8 Mtoe with trade liberalization. First, since the way in which Member States intend to implement the EU mandate is expected to result in an increase in the relative consumption of ethanol to biodiesel (from 17/83 in 2008 to 28/72 in 2020), the scenario under the trade policy status quo reinforces local production of ethanol. Under trade liberalization, EU ethanol production declines, with sugar beet- and wheat-based ethanol most affected. As a result, local production capacity and feedstock production are dominated by biodiesel production. With trade liberalization, biodiesel represents 92.5 percent of total EU biofuel production.

The report confirms that the extent to which additional demand for biofuels will be met by an increase in supply depends on the feedstock crop. For example, for sugar the additional supply will nearly match the additional demand; for soybean oil and rapeseed oil, this matching is partial, while for wheat, we expect a decrease in the absolute level of supply due to land competition from oilseeds when we assess the additional mandate. The latter case is explained by a stronger price increase for oilseeds and therefore for the land rents for this product compared to wheat (the substitution effects among crops dominating the direct demand increase for wheat). The analysis also shows an increase in price for the biofuels crops, especially for oilseed, due to the strong biodiesel component in the mandate. EU biofuels policy causes the relative prices to change and therefore relocates production. It provides a premium to fats and oils at the expense of other production for which relative value declines.

In terms of trade effects of the EU additional mandate, EU import of rapeseed increases strongly (+ 6 million of tons). Imports of palm oil, and soybean (both oil and beans) also increase but to a much lower extent (+4.6 million of tons). Without trade liberalization, imports of wheat (+0.47 million of tons) and corn (+1.6 million of tons) increase due to greater domestic demand in the EU for ethanol. This ceases to be the case when trade liberalization is implemented. This scenario instead leads to higher sugar cane ethanol imports (+ 6.7 Mtoe). In addition, liberalization helps to release part of the feedstock used in the baseline for ethanol production. As a result, there is a decrease in maize imports...

Concluding remarks and policy issues

Overall, land use emissions for the entire EU biofuels additional mandate eliminate more than two-thirds of the direct emission savings when we apply the direct savings coefficients of improved production technology expected in 2020. This report indicates that emissions related to land use changes driven by biofuel policies are a serious concern. This finding is robust as more than 99 percent of crop LUC coefficients in the Monte Carlo analysis are positive. The LUC effect reduces the environmental gains of the biofuel policy and should not be neglected. Biofuel policies may also be designed to achieve other goals (energy diversification, farm support, etc.) that are not considered in this analysis. However, in terms of environmental benefits, they may not be the best tool to achieve initial targets; therefore, careful assessment is needed.
Considering LUC effects for biofuel policies is legitimate since a key objective of such policies is emissions reduction. However, introducing a LUC component into biofuel legislation will lead to the question of why LUC measurements are not introduced for other policies that can have larger land use impacts (e.g. CAP reform, trade negotiations). Overall, mitigation strategy requests need to be consistent across a wide range of policies, and there is no a priori reason to think that biofuel production-related emissions are more adverse than those generated by other agricultural production. Taking a discriminatory approach to agricultural production based on its use will be inefficient and potentially unsustainable in both political and legal (e.g. WTO) ways;
A differentiated LUC emission coefficient by crop can be difficult to use since these factors are sensitive to leakages across different markets. Increasing the threshold of direct savings for all crops by the same factor (possibly with a differentiated factor for ethanol and biodiesel) may be easier to implement. By increasing the required energy saving targets, this will force firms to use the most efficient processing technologies and may also lead to a downward revision in the ambition of the mandate if it appears that not enough biofuel pathways qualify;
Despite all uncertainties, our findings show the hierarchy between ethanol and biodiesel in terms of LUC emissions. Therefore, promoting a larger share of ethanol than the current projection will be meaningful. Trade liberalization of the ethanol market appears to be an effective tool to achieve this.
Alternative trade policy options may be developed to promote good practices in terms of land conservation at a national level by trade partners. Crop specific sustainability criteria could be avoided in favor of a combination of tariffs, tariff quotas, and conditional unilateral preferences that will maintain existing trading interests but will limit adverse consequences of new demand;
Using available technologies to increase yield e.g. biotech, and low carbon agricultural practices may be an important solution to mitigate the emissions linked to land use changes by reducing the requirement of additional land;
Due to the level of uncertainty, monitoring capacities (land use patterns) and research have to be improved and a regular “health check” of biofuel policies should be implemented. The mandate policy should be flexible enough to allow for a redirection of the policy when new information is made available.

PDF file:

biofuelsreportec2011.pdf(2.3MB)

Economics of land degradation

admin — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:25:35 +0000

The costs of action versus inaction

In recent years, prices of agricultural land have increased quickly, actually doubling and tripling in many parts of the world. This land value reassessment has been prompted by rising crop prices and perceived land scarcity. But even as the value of land rises, land degradation continues and investments to prevent it are lagging. Awareness of environmental risks has moved to the forefront of global consciousness during the past 25 years. However, this awareness has not translated into comprehensive action to address the problem of land degradation, which poses a serious threat to long-term food security. This inaction is primarily the result of limited knowledge of the costs related to land degradation and of insufficient institutional support. Policy action and research are needed to resolve this paradox of high-value land and low levels of investment.

PDF file:

ib68.pdf(1.4MB)

Food security, farming, and climate change to 2050

admin — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:00:08 +0000

Scenarios, results, policy options

As the global population grows and incomes in poor countries rise, so too, will the demand for food, placing additional pressure on sustainable food production. Climate change adds a further challenge, as changes in temperature and precipitation threaten agricultural productivity and the capacity to feed the world’s population. This study assesses how serious the danger to food security might be and suggests some steps policymakers can take to remedy the situation.

More information

Food Security CASE Maps
(data visualization tool)
CASE Maps Guide
Media materials
Related Issue Brief
Climate topic page

eBook formats

Kindle
iTunes

Using various modeling techniques, the authors project 15 different future scenarios for food security through 2050. Each scenario involves an alternative combination of potential population and income growth and climate change. The authors also examine the specific test case of a hypothetical extended drought in South Asia, to demonstrate the possible effects of increased climate variability on a particular world region. They conclude that the negative effects of climate change on food security can be counteracted by broad-based economic growth—particularly improved agricultural productivity—and robust international trade in agricultural products to offset regional shortages. In pursuit of these goals, policymakers should increase public investment in land, water, and nutrient use and maintain relatively free international trade. This inquiry into the future of food security should be of use to policymakers and others concerned with the impact of climate change on international development.

PDF file:

rr172.pdf(13.5MB)