in-depth reportec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/...the contents and views...

IN-DEPTH REPORTSustainable Food A recipe for food security and environmental protection?

November 2013Issue 8

Environment

Science for Environment Policy

The contents and views included in Science for Environment Policy are based on independent research and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Commission.

This In-depth Report is written and edited by the Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England (UWE), BristolEmail: [email protected]

Executive summaryIntroduction1 Food production: drivers and pressures2 The solutions for a sustainable food future3 Policy and knowledge gaps4 Arguments for immediate actionReferences

Contents

Science for Environment PolicySustainable Food

About Science for Environment Policy

Science for Environment Policy is a free news and information service published by the European Commission’s Directorate-General Environment, which provides the latest environmental policy-relevant research findings.

In-depth Reports are a feature of the service which provide comprehensive overviews of scientific research relevant to a specific policy area. In addition to In-depth Reports, Science for Environment Policy also publishes a weekly News Alert which is delivered by email to subscribers and provides accessible summaries of key scientific studies.

http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy

Keep up-to-date

Subscribe to Science for Environment Policy’s weekly News Alert by emailing: [email protected]

Or sign up online at: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy

35513202324

ImagesPage 3: © istockphoto.com/Jasmina007

To cite this publication:Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol (2013). Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report: Sustainable food. Report produced for the European Commission DG Environment, November 2013. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy

Corrigenda

This version of the report, published in September 2015, replaces the earlier version published in November 2013. Following consideration of comments received, elements of the text have been modified as follows:

Section 1.2.6 Biofuel productionThe following references have been added to support information provided in the report: ECOFYS et al., (2012), JRC-IPTS (2010), Laborde (2011), Locke and Henley (2014), Searchinger et al. (2013).

Information on the European Commission’s proposal to limit the share of food-based biofuels has also been amended to detract the suggestion that this policy had been implemented.

The following references have been removed to refocus this section on more recent research findings:

Field, C., Campbell, J.E., & Lobell, D.B. (2008), Ogg, C.W. (2008)

3

S U S T A I N A B L E F O O D

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A wide range of drivers and pressures are placing a heavy burden on our current food production methods. For example, in less than 40 years’ time, it is predicted that the world’s population will have grown by over two billion people – taking the population from seven to nine billion by 2050. Food demand is therefore expected to rise by at least 70% worldwide. Increased urbanisation of the planet will also bring its own pressures on our food system, as the numbers of individuals working and living off the land will reduce and changes to consumption patterns will occur.

Changing dietary patterns, particularly in emerging economies, as a result of increased urbanisation, leads to an increase in demand for meat and dairy products and will have serious consequences for the competition for natural resources.

Agricultural practices deplete natural resources such as land, water and biodiversity at alarming rates and pose a threat to food production. Agriculture occupies nearly 40% of the Earth’s land surfaces and soil erosion and degradation are major concerns in both low- and high-income countries. It is estimated that 25-35% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced globally every year are associated with the food system and the heavy use of freshwater places a severe stress on water supplies.

Climate change, augmented by global warming, will also have dramatic effects on crops in the future as floods, temperature fluctuations and droughts threaten yields and are predicted to increase malnutrition figures. Added to this, future biofuel production will compete for land for food production, affecting the availability of food crops and food prices.

Sustainable food: a recipe for food security and environmental protection?The world is facing food security and nutrition challenges on an unprecedented scale. One in eight of the world’s population is undernourished, yet paradoxically, an even higher number are classified as overweight. Recent food price rises have pushed millions of the poorest people on the planet into famine, whilst causing civil unrest and poverty in a number of middle- and high-income countries. In addition, research has demonstrated the negative effect our current food production has on the environment. The adoption of ‘sustainable’ food systems, which can ensure ‘nutritional security’ without sacrificing the long-term health of the ecosystems, cultures and communities providing our food, may provide an answer.


4

The food we produce is wasted on an incredible level. Estimates are that a third to a half of all food produced is thrown away, which equates to 1.2-2 billion tonnes of food; in developing countries this is largely due to post-harvest losses, whilst in developed countries a large proportion of food is wasted in the home. Experts have called for a global initiative to reduce food waste, which is thought to be one of the areas that can be most easily tackled to improve the sustainability of our food system and may allow us to rethink our need for more intense production methods. Embedded in this is a need for a better understanding of consumer behaviour and a greater understanding of changing consumption patterns. As countries develop, there is a shift away from cereals and grains to the consumption of animal-based products. An increased consumption of meat is linked with significant health issues and negative environmental impacts; the livestock sector is responsible for large areas of land use, water contamination and GHG emissions.

Closing yield gaps, i.e. ensuring maximum yield on all available land, alongside ‘agro-ecological’ farming practices, which ensure soil health and water availability with reduced fertiliser use, are ways to improve the amount of food we produce in a more sustainable way. Conservation agriculture can also produce resilient systems that enhance productivity whilst contributing to the cultural and socio-economic viability of rural areas.

Due to depletion of fish stocks, capture fisheries are unlikely to be able to contribute to meeting the increasing demand for fish. Aquaculture expansion will therefore be necessary. Worldwide, 40% of fish production comes from aquaculture, compared with about 20% in Europe, but as this figure grows, there will be environmental consequences linked to energy use, pollution and feed requirements. Gains in sustainability could come from concentrating on lower–trophic level species, such as those that feed on plants, and by integrating aquatic and terrestrial food production.

Researchers are beginning to understand how science and technology can play an important role in helping to improve yields and agricultural productivity, particularly in developing countries. Satellite-based remote monitoring technologies, as well as mobile phone and wireless

communication used with the internet, can give useful information on weather patterns and market pricing to farmers. However, more integration of these technologies is needed, as well as an understanding of how these sustainable agriculture ‘decision support tools’ can be used to meet the needs of farmers.

The use of genetically modified (GM) organisms in agriculture is seen as a potential solution to helping feed the planet. However, global standards for cultivation and commercialisation of GM crops should be set to prevent trade disruptions and the use of GM crops requires public engagement and fully informed societal debates. Closing resource loops has also been suggested as an important way to reduce waste, as well as energy and resource use, by producing valuable products from food industry by-products through new scientific and technological methods.

Smallholders are key to tackling the problems of global food insecurity and investment in farming is therefore critical. Women in particular, who make up 43% of the agricultural labour force in developing countries, should be helped to close the ‘gender gap’ that is imposing high costs on the agricultural sector.

There is a general consensus that governments need to take a more active role in food and agriculture. Good governance should drive strategies to improve land degradation, water rights and food pricing, including extension services connecting scientists with farmers. New alliances need to be formed between business, civil society and governments to drive a sustainable food future. Within the EU there is still a lack of policy on the ‘demand’ side of food production. In addition, current waste policy does not address the rising level of food waste, in terms of both how to reduce waste and how to deal with current waste levels. Suggested policy options include changes to food date labels and targeted awareness campaigns. Success at the EU level will be of value to guide policy changes in emerging economies and experts in food policy have called for international efforts to clarify ‘sustainable’ diets and formulate policy measures. To address the unprecedented challenges that lie ahead, the food system needs radical change and action should occur on all levels.


5

Introduction

For the first time in history, the world is facing food security and nutrition challenges that stretch across the entire globe. Despite current food production levels being high enough to feed every person on the planet, the most recent estimates are that approximately 870 million people are undernourished, 825 million of whom live in developing countries. This figure represents 12.5% of the global population or one in eight people: levels that, although decreasing in recent years, are still unacceptably high (FAO, 2012).

Food price rises, in particular, are felt across the globe, hitting developing countries the hardest as millions of the poorest people on the planet are pushed into famine. However, civil unrest, rioting and poverty are also witnessed in middle- and high-income countries as a result of spikes in food prices. Obesity is now a major pandemic across the globe, with an estimated one billion of the world’s population overweight. This brings new challenges in keeping populations healthy, as they struggle with disease such as diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers linked to ‘westernised’ diets.

Global initiatives, such as the UN’s Millennium Development Goals and ‘Zero Hunger’ challenge launched at Rio+20 in 2012, are working towards achieving ‘nutritional security’ to significantly reduce the number of people suffering from hunger. However, to feed all the mouths on the planet, it is now recognised that we cannot continue

to produce food in the same way as we have done historically. Substantial scientific evidence has highlighted the negative effect our food production has on the environment. Added to this, between a third and a half of all food produced globally never reaches our plates, creating colossal levels of food waste, which signal that ‘business as usual’ is no longer a viable option (IME, 2013; IAASTD, 2009; UN, 2012). Therefore, embodied within the UN’s global initiatives are the ideas of ‘sustainable’ food systems, which can ensure ‘nutritional security’ without sacrificing the long-term health of ecosystems and the cultures and communities that provide our food.

In this Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report, we look at how ‘sustainable food’ production can offer new possibilities to meet the food security and nutritional challenges facing the global community. The report begins by analysing the drivers and pressures that challenge our current global food production system, such as population growth, environmental damage, resource depletion and climate change. It then summarises and collates the vast range of solutions that researchers and experts in the fields of agriculture and development have proposed to ensure that the nutritional needs of the world’s population are met, whilst making sure the environment and local communities are not harmed in the process. In order to inform future policy and research, any gaps in our knowledge are highlighted at the end of the report.

1.1 Population growth and increased demand for food

By the middle of this century, it is predicted that the global population will have grown by over two billion people. This means we will move from a planet that that is home to seven billion to one accommodating over nine billion by 2050 (UN, 2011). This giant leap in numbers in less than 40 years will place an enormous strain on the world’s resources. Most population increases will occur in low- and middle-income countries. For example, Africa’s population is expected to double from one to two billion by 2050 (UN, 2011) when the region will consume 31% of the world’s calories (compared to 9% today) (Searchinger, 2013). Exact figures of population growth are hard to predict, although by 2050 the population may begin to plateau. Future population figures depend on a range of factors that include gross domestic product (GDP) growth, educational attainment, access to contraception and gender equality. The extent of female education will also be a critical factor (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

Population growth will be combined with other societal changes as, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, people are expected to become wealthier, with three times more per capita income (FAO, 2011a). The knock-on effect of this is that people are expected to consume more than twice as much food as they do today (Clay, 2011). Thus, with population growth and a growing middle class, it has been estimated that by 2050 there could be an increase in demand for food

1. Food production: drivers and pressures

Figure 1: Estimated world population growth to 2100. Projected global totals (solid lines) and regional differences (coloured bands) for population size. Individual coloured bands indicate the contribution of each region to the difference between global scenarios. Source: O’Neill et al, (2010).

by 70% worldwide (FAO, 2009a). Other studies have estimated the figures to be much higher than this, with demand for food calories and protein both predicted to increase by 100–110% (IFAD, 2010). A more recent estimate is provided by Searchinger (2013), who suggests that global food production needs to increase by 63% from 2006–2050.

6S U S T A I N A B L E F O O D

Figure 2: Potential side effects of differing agricultural technologies and practices (Source: the Royal Society, 2009).

At present, the population of developing countries is more rural than urban (3.1 billion people or 55% of the population). However, the numbers of people moving from rural areas to cities will increase in the future. According to some predictions, between 2020 and 2025, the total rural population will peak and then start to decline with the developing world’s urban population overtaking its rural population (IFAD, 2010). This shift in living patterns will have important implications for future food production and demand as the numbers of individuals working and living directly off the land will be reduced and consumption patterns linked to urban, industrialised lifestyles will become more prevalent (Guyomard et al., 2012).

1.2 Threats to the environment and natural resourcesThe production and consumption of food uses more natural resources than any other human activity. The growing depletion of our natural resources, such as land, water and biodiversity, poses a serious threat to food production (OECD, 2011), especially if we were to increase production to reach the amounts in line with the demand scenarios set out in Section 1.1. In the next section, we therefore take a detailed look at the effects of agriculture on the environment.

1.2.1 Current and future land useThe large-scale conversion of existing land for agriculture is an unwise choice, due to its detrimental effects on the environment (The Government Office for Science, 2011). However, expansion of cultivated areas seems unlikely to slow. Conservative estimates reveal that globally, every year, approximately six million hectares of land are converted from natural state to crop land (Deininger et al., 2011), although recent estimates suggest that total arable land is projected to increase by only 69 million hectares (less than 5%) by 2050 (OECD-FAO, 2012). A large proportion of the world’s surface has now been affected by agriculture; cropland and permanent pasture cover an estimated 12% and 26% of ice-free land, respectively. Altogether, agriculture occupies about 38% of Earth’s terrestrial surface, the largest use of land on the planet (Foley et al., 2011). Furthermore, it is estimated that, worldwide, 70% of land suitable for growing food is already in use (40% in the EU) (Giovanucci et al., 2012).

It is now understood that one of the major ways that food production contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is through land conversion, particularly of forests. Forests and wetlands provide a range of what are known as ‘ecosystem services’, examples of which include climate and air quality regulation, water regulation, erosion regulation and water purification. While some biodiversity can be maintained on land that is used for food production, a very significant fraction, especially in the tropics, requires relatively undisturbed non-agricultural habitats. For these reasons the conversion of forests, natural grasslands and wetlands to agricultural land can be justified only in exceptional circumstances. (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

Agriculture also damages productive land through soil erosion and degradation (Verhulst et al., 2010). The use of conventional techniques that involve extensive tillage, especially when combined with removal or in situ burning of crop residues, means that up to half of the world’s topsoil, containing most of the carbon used for plant growth, has been

lost in the past 150 years. This problem is most intense in developing countries (Bai et al., 2008). Analysts suggest that Africa has been losing 1% of its soil organic matter every year since the 1960s, a decline that is the greatest in the world. This not only lowers productivity and yield, but causes an inefficient use of inputs, such as fertilisers and water (Verhulst et al., 2010).

However, severe land degradation is not limited to developing countries. In Europe, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that in the coming decades we may lose up to 25% of food production due to environmental breakdown (UNEP, 2009). The restoration of degraded agricultural land is therefore seen as an alternative to land conversion, which can boost food supply and target international investment development (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

1.2.2 Biodiversity lossThe use of land for food production affects the ecosystems and habitats supporting a range of species. For example, agriculture is by far the leading cause of deforestation in the tropics (Geist & Lambin, 2002) and has already replaced around 70% of the world’s grasslands, 50% of savannahs and 45% of temperate deciduous forest (Ramankutty et al., 2008). This mass destruction of habitats leads to the extinction of species and considerable biodiversity loss (Krebs et al., 1999; Green et al., 2005; FAO, 2010a). A study by Kleijn et al. (2009), which measured the relationship between biodiversity and land use intensity, found clear evidence that plant species richness declined with increasing land use intensity. In fact, it has been estimated that three quarters of the world’s plant genetic material has disappeared, mostly a result of


habitat destruction (FAO, 2004), in which food production plays a major part. The consequence is that many plants that may turn out to be useful to society (i.e. that can generate medicines or produce hardier species) are lost. Ironically, agriculture can destroy the very biodiversity it needs to increase and sustain food production levels and nutritional diversity. For example, it affects the genetic diversity of soil organisms that regulate the soil ecosystem, including decomposition of litter and cycling of nutrients, such as nitrogen. Loss of biodiversity is also correlated with a loss of pollinators and natural pest control agents (Nellemann et al., 2009).

Genetic variation in crops is vital for agricultural development; however, crop genetic diversity has declined steeply in recent decades. In India, for example, 30,000 rice varieties were once grown, yet now most acreage is covered by around ten high-yielding varieties (The Royal Society, 2009). This genetic uniformity may lead to decreased resilience in the face of environmental stress and leaves us with less variety to develop new breeding traits. The preservation of genetic diversity in ‘genebanks’ is therefore recognised as important, hence the work of independent organisations such as the Global Crop Diversity Trust.

1.2.3 The impacts of climate changeA substantial proportion of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are generated by global food production. It is estimated that 25-35% of the GHG emissions produced globally every year can be attributed to the food sector (three quarters of which stem from low- and middle-income countries). At least 31% of the EU’s GHG emissions are thought to be associated with the food system (EC, 2006).

The production and application of nitrogen fertilisers is the most important contributor of agriculture to GHG emissions. Livestock production is the second most important cause, and is responsible for around 12% of global GHG emissions stemming from animals and

manure. These arise from feed production and from land conversion, for example, where land is converted from forest into pasture and from pasture into arable land (Westhoek et al., 2011).

The amount of GHGs released during food production varies among food types and across regions. Within livestock, ruminants, such as cows, produce significant amounts of methane when compared with monogastrics, such as chickens, while crop production and distribution systems that involve growing under heated glass, air-freighting or refrigerated distribution are particularly energy intensive. Nitrous oxide (N2O) from soils is the main source of GHG emissions from industrialised nations, as well as in Africa and most of Asia, while methane (CH4) emissions from livestock dominate from Central and South America, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Pacific (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

The EU’s ambitious goal to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 (taking 1990 as the base level) will therefore not be achieved without changes to food production and consumption playing an important part. However, at the global level, substantial increases in GHG emissions from agriculture are highly likely in the decades ahead (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). Climate-related changes to agriculture are already being recorded around the world (Morton, 2007, Ringler et al., 2010).

Future predictions are that agriculture and human wellbeing will be negatively affected by climate change, particularly in developing countries. Uncertainties regarding the effects of climate change, such as floods, temperature fluctuation, and drought are a major threat to agricultural production and food security. According to a study by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), crop yields will decline in certain regions, production will be affected, crop and meat prices will increase, and consumption of cereals will fall, leading to reduced calorie intake and increased child malnutrition. In developing countries, climate change is likely to cause yield declines for the most

Figure 3: Allocation of cropland area to different uses in 2000 (Source: Foley et al., 2011).


important crops, so that by 2050 yields will be lower than 2000 levels (IFPRI, 2009).

Experts have predicted that climate change will threaten the availability of resources, such as water, soils and biodiversity, and will drive major spatial shifts in the production of important commercial crops (IPCC, 2007). The Middle East and North Africa will face drier winters, diminishing freshwater runoff and dwindling groundwater resources as the century progresses. Changing environmental conditions are likely to increase pressure on traditional livelihoods, such as farming and fishing, rendering them unsustainable in the worst-affected areas (IPCC, 2007). In China, the authorities estimate that 150 million people will eventually need to be relocated from agricultural areas that are being slowly engulfed by deserts. These ‘eco refugees’ (Watts, 2009) will face severe water shortages as a result of changes caused by future climate change and will no longer be able to use the land they live on to produce food. The adoption of ‘climate resistant’ agricultural practices, such as a mix of crops, may help to mitigate the effects of climate change. According to experts at IFPRI (2010a), the challenges

Figure 4: A photographic impression of the gradual changes in two ecosystem types (landscape level) from highly natural ecosystems (90–100% mean abundance of the original species) to highly cultivated or deteriorated ecosystems (around 10% mean abundance of the original species). Locally, this indicator can be perceived as a measure of naturalness, or conversely, of human-impact (Source: UNEP, 2009).

of climate change up until 2050 are ‘manageable’ if investments in land and water productivity enhancements are made.

1.2.4 The intensive use of fertilisersThe discovery of the ‘Haber–Bosch’ process for the mass production of fertilisers initiated ‘industrial’ agriculture at the turn of the 20th Century, with the synthesis of ammonia. This method provided a synthetic way of producing large quantities of nitrogen that could be taken up by plants to increase growth, which alongside phosphorus (phosphate) and potassium, is crucial to increasing global crop yields. Without the input of nitrogen fertilisers, it is estimated that only about half of the current global population can be supplied with sufficient food energy and protein (Erisman et al., 2008; Dawson & Hilton, 2011).

However, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphate are often unaffordable and/or unavailable in the developing world (The Royal Society, 2009). Fertiliser use would boost yields in some countries, but be counterproductive in others (particularly those, such as China, where fertiliser use is subsidised, but there is substantial runoff and subsequent environmental problems). Globally, however, there is little prospect of a big rise in fertiliser application owing to the expense: prices spiked even more dramatically than food prices in 2007-08. In particular, phosphorus prices have soared, as a consequence of reports that rock phosphate supplies are limited (Cordell, et al., 2009; The Economist, 2011).

In addition, there are serious environmental implications of heavy fertiliser use. High energy costs and use of fossil fuels for nitrogen fertiliser production (the Haber–Bosch process currently uses hydrogen from natural gas) means that synthetic nitrogen fixation could demand 2% of total global energy utilisation by 2050 (Glendining et al., 2009). Furthermore, the runoff of nitrogen rich compounds from the soil into water sources leads to a loss of terrestrial biodiversity, as well as the ‘eutrophication’ of inland and coastal surface waters, subsequently harming aquatic life. GHGs are also released as a result of fertiliser application in a process called ‘denitrification’, for example, methane is emitted by ammonium-based fertilisers and N2O by nitrogen-based fertilisers.

Achieving the same yield increases but with less added synthetic nitrogen is a an avenue of future research. Biological nitrogen fixation (primarily by Rhizobium species, such as peas) and recycling through green manures, composts and animal manure, have been suggested as ways to reduce our reliance on synthetic nitrogen and prevent nitrogen losses to water and non-agricultural ecosystems.

1.2.5 Threatened water suppliesIt is estimated that agriculture is responsible for around 70% of global freshwater withdrawals for irrigation and livestock production (Foley, 2011; Postel, 2011; The World Bank, 2013), with estimates that one litre of water is needed to produce one calorie of food (Clay, 2011). Agriculture uses most of our available freshwater, and, in many countries, the extraction rate is exceeding the natural replacement rate (The Economist, 2010). In some arid regions of the world, several major non-renewable aquifers are being depleted and cannot be replenished, i.e. in the Punjab, Egypt, Libya and Australia (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). A recent analysis of 405 river basins around the world (Hoekstra et al. 2012) found that there was severe water


scarcity (during at least one month of the year) in 201 basins serving 2.67 billion inhabitants. According to a study by Van den Berg et al., (2011), the increase in the numbers living in so-called ‘severely stressed water basins’ will increase from 1.6 billion to 3.9 billion by 2050.

Water scarcity and droughts are possibly the biggest cause of crop yield reduction. The effects on livestock can also be devastating: in the last 30 years, droughts have killed off around 60% of the national herds in six African countries, triggering mass migrations and starvation (Nellemann et al., 2009). According to some estimates, by 2030, it is estimated that 45% more water will be needed for agriculture (The Economist, 2011).

Experts also estimate that by 2050, 52% of the world’s population will be at risk of water stress (IFPRI, 2013). This prediction does not fit well alongside estimates of the substantial amounts of water it takes to produce some of the foods we take for granted every day. For example, according to the Water Footprint Network (2013), a single hamburger can take 2,240 litres of water to produce and serve.

1.2.6 Biofuel productionResearch shows that, to date, biofuel production has affected the availability of food crops and the price of foods, and this will continue in the future (The World Bank, 2008a; OECD-FAO, 2008). The rapid rise in demand and production for biofuels (Figure 6) has been

Figure 5: Projected impacts of climate change (Source: Nellemann et al., 2009).

fuelled by policies to support alternatives to fossil fuels to reduce the greenhouse gas impact of transport and reduce dependency on oil, which is increasingly scarce (FAO, 2008b).

The magnitude of the impacts on food security is subject to much debate: estimates vary according to methods used and assumptions made, and the published data on the amount of land allocated to biofuels projects display large discrepancies. Modelling research indicates that rising demand for biofuels increases global food prices, but evidence is not yet robust enough to say to what extent an increase in biofuel production threatens food security. Most studies agree that increasing biofuels production increases land conversion rates.

In an oft-cited study, Searchinger et al. (2008) calculated that US ethanol’s demand for crops would be at the expense of crops for food, and that new land would be needed to meet this demand. Their calculations at the time estimated that corn would be diverted from 12.8 million hectares of US cropland in order to reach the 2016 projected levels for ethanol (56 billion litres). This would encourage other countries to increase crop production and cause land, including rainforest and peatlands, to be converted for agricultural use. The GHG emissions from this conversion of land to agriculture could create a ‘biofuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual GHG reductions that these biofuels would provide by saving fossil fuels, the study estimated.


Laborde (2011) estimated that the increase in biofuels that would allow the EU to meet the EU 10% renewable energy target for transport fuel by 2020 would lead to an increase in global cropland area by 1.73-1.87 million hectares, compared to 2008. For comparison, this an area equivalent in size to one-tenth of the total amount of arable land in France or 60% of the total area of Belgium.

Laborde calculated that the GHG emissions produced by the associated land-use change to meet the 10% target would amount to 495 to 516 million tons of CO2 over 20 years. These would negate more than two thirds of the direct GHG emission savings made by using biofuels in place of fossil fuels in the EU. ECOFYS (2012) looked back at the impact of the increase in European demand for biofuels feedstock on food prices between 2007 and 2010. They concluded that world wheat and coarse grain prices increased by 1-2% and non-cereal food commodities, such as vegetable oil, by 4% in response to the EU’s expanding use of biofuels.

Looking to the future, JRC-IPTS (2010) estimated the impacts of EU biofuels policy on EU crop prices using several models. The size of the impact varies according to the model and assumptions used, but across all analyses conducted in the study, biofuels increased food commodity prices. For example, one analysis, which assumed a 7% share of biofuels in transport fuels in the EU in 2020, predicted that vegetable oils would cost 32.2% more than if biofuels only made up 3.7% of transport fuels. Sugar would be 21% more costly under the same scenario. A second analysis, which assumed an 8.5% share of biofuels by 2020, projected that vegetable oils and cereals would cost 27.1% and 10.2% more, respectively, compared to a scenario with only a 3% biofuel share.

In 2010, biofuel programmes were estimated to amount to £20 billion (€23 billion) a year worldwide and to double by 2020, heavily concentrated in Brazil, the US and the EU (IEA, 2010). In order for first generation biofuels to supply 10% of the global transport fuel demand by 2030, estimates were that approximately 118 to 508 million hectares of land would be required, which would equal an area of 8% to 36% of current global cropland (Nellemann et al., 2009).

Meeting such a 10 percent global goal in 2050 would generate less than 2 percent of the world’s delivered energy on a net basis but would require 32 percent of the energy contained in all global crops produced in 2010.

Furthermore, meeting a broader bioenergy goal endorsed by the International Energy Agency — to produce 20 percent of world energy from biomass — would require a level of biomass equivalent not merely to all global crop production in 2000, but to the total harvest of crops, grasses, crop residues, and trees as well. Some potential exists to use various forms of waste biomass for bioenergy, which would avoid some competition with food, carbon, and ecosystems. Giving up the use of crop-based biofuels for transportation — a strategy more in line with a sustainable food future —would close the crop calorie gap (between 2006 and 2050) by roughly 14 percent (Searchinger et al., 2013).

Since biofuels originate mainly from agricultural feedstock, they are expected to consume a growing share of the global production of sugarcane (34%), vegetable oil (16%), and coarse grains (14%) by 2021 (OECD-FAO, 2012). This raises the question of where the land for additional crop production will come from. According to Gurgel

et al. (2007), the expansion of crop production due to the increased use of food for biofuels will occur largely at the expense of natural forest and pastureland. Much of this land, will be found in Africa and Central and South America, and also, to a lesser extent, in the US, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand, reflecting the superior biomass productivity of tropical regions. China and India, on the other hand, due to their immense food demand and already lower availability of land suitable for agriculture, are not found to be regions supporting significant expansion of cropland.

The European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED) currently sets a target of 10% for the share of renewable energy in transport fuel. The large majority of this is expected to be in the form of biofuels. To encourage the development of so-called ‘second generation’ biofuels and help minimise the conversion of land for biofuel production, the European Commission has proposed a 5% limit on the share of food-based (‘first-generation’) biofuels that can be counted towards this target (EC, 2012).

Second-generation biofuels, produced using technologies that convert lignocellulosic biomass (e.g. non-edible parts of plants, like agricultural residues and wood) or are produced from microalgae, can help to reduce the pressure on the use of food crops for fuel. However, they still rely, in part, on productive land and water resources that are in limited supply (Timilsina & Strestha, 2010).

To avoid land use conflicts, degraded, ‘marginal’ and abandoned land may be used for biofuel production. However, many of these lands are ill-suited for agriculture by definition, typically lacking water and nutrients, and they often harbour considerable biodiversity. Nevertheless, some marginal lands can be improved and brought efficiently into production, including for perennial grasses and trees, which may serve as second generation biofuel feedstock (Timilsina & Strestha, 2010).

Figure 6: The increase in biodiesel and ethanol production. (Source: Nellemann et al., 2009).


1.3 Changing dietary patterns

A shift in dietary patterns as a result of increased urbanisation to foods based more heavily on meat, dairy and processed foods (high in sugar, salt and fats and low in fruit, vegetable and whole grains) are driving a reassessment of our current food systems (Kearney, 2010; Guyomard, et al., 2012). Eating patterns worldwide are evolving to follow the trends of so-called ‘westernised’ diets, as more people move to cities and less people live and work on the land. Food products in cities are increasingly sold in supermarkets and eaten away from home, driving the demand for more processed, sophisticated and ready-to-eat products. The result of these changing production and dietary habits is that obesity is prevalent in low- and middle-income families and is linked to a range of health issues. Globally, around 35% of adults, over the age of 20, are overweight and 12% are classified as obese: these conditions are linked to 44% of diabetes, 23% of ischaemic heart disease and 7–41% of certain cancers (WHO, 2013a).

One of the most significant future changes to dietary habits is the increased global consumption of meat and dairy products. Different studies predict increases in per capita meat consumption from 32kg to 52kg by 2050 (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). The total global consumption of meat is expected

to increase by almost 70% between 2000 and 2030 and by another 20% between 2030 and 2050. Total global consumption of milk is expected to increase by over 50% between 2000 and 2030, and by another 20% between 2030 and 2050. According to the FAO, for nine billion people to reach current western consumption levels, the global production of animal proteins would have to triple (FAO, 2006).

In high income countries, consumption is now reaching a plateau, but it is uncertain whether consumption of meat in major emerging economies, such as Brazil and China, will stabilise at UK or US levels. For example, in East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, annual per capita meat consumption by weight is projected to increase by 55% and 42% respectively through to 2030, whereas in fully-industrialised countries, including those in Europe and North America, the projected increase is only 14% (WHO, 2013b). Major increases in meat consumption, particularly grain fed meat, will have serious implications for competition for land, water and other resources and will affect the sustainability of future food production.

Around 10% of the EU’s GHG emissions are caused by livestock production (Westhoek et al., 2011) and the large areas of land needed for grassland and feed production are an important cause of biodiversity loss. In the EU, about two thirds of the total

Figure 7: FAO’s expected livestock consumption estimates by region (Sources: Searchinger, T. et al. 2013; Alexandratos and Bruinsma., 2012.).


agricultural area is used to rear livestock and approximately 75% of the protein-rich feed for livestock in the EU is imported, mainly from Brazil and Argentina, where large areas of land are needed for its production. It is often argued that livestock production is a very efficient way of transforming products not suitable for human consumption, such as grass and by-products, into high-value products such as dairy and meat. However, according to researchers at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, it can be argued that this is only true to a limited extent. It is estimated that only 4% of dairy production and around 20% of beef production is connected to feed that comes from ‘high nature value’ grasslands (i.e. grasslands of high conservation value that are minimally farmed). Most of the grass in the EU originates from intensively managed grasslands, with boosted yields from fertiliser application. Moreover, some of the grasslands are temporary grasslands, on land that could also be used for crop production (Westhoek et al., 2011).

The conversion of plant energy and proteins into edible animal products is generally an inefficient use of resources. This can be illustrated by the fact that for each EU citizen, almost three kilograms of feed is consumed by EU livestock every day, 0.8 kilograms of which is cereals and 0.8 kilograms is grass. This feed is converted into 0.1 kilograms of meat and 0.8 kilograms of milk (Westhoek et al., 2011). Animal husbandry is also associated with several ethical issues, but improving animal welfare generally leads to higher feed requirements and higher emission levels, thus implying a trade-off between animal welfare and environmental

issues. In developing countries, as demand for meat consumption rises, a transition is expected from traditional feeding systems to ‘confined animal feeding operations’ (agricultural operations where animals are kept in confined situations), which raise questions about resource use and manure management, as well as animal welfare.

1.4 Rising food prices and food security issues

Food security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2008a). Food security is not an issue for developing countries alone, however. Paradoxically, in the US, the majority of the population is overweight and a third is obese (Flegal et al., 2010), yet 15% of the US population is classed as food-insecure (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011). Higher food prices and increased volatility in our food supplies have threatened food security across the globe and this pattern seems to be set for the future. The 2007/8 food crisis, which saw the price of wheat and rice doubling in two months, gives us some indication of the pressures that affect food security (IFPRI, 2010b), which included rising oil prices, an increase in biofuels demand and trade anomalies, such as export restrictions and panic purchases.

Urgent actions needed to prevent a new crisis, according to IFPRI, include five steps:

Figure 8: The drivers and consequences of food consumption changes with economic development (Source: Kearney, 2010).


1. China and India, the large grain production countries, to release their strategic reserves (grains stored for strategic considerations i.e. to regulate prices and in anticipation of major interruptions in supply).

2. For governments to make sure that poorer citizens are protected if prices rise.

3. To improve smallholder productivity and link them to internal and external markets and technological inputs.

4. To set up global grain reserves that can be released in a crisis1.

5. To establish an international working group that can monitor trends in the markets and analyse data to plan strategies for the future.

(Adapted from Fan, 2010)

The benefits of global food price rises for farmers with access to markets are positive. However, for consumers, (particularly in low-income countries) the effects can be devastating. Many of those classed as being in extreme poverty spend nearly 70% of their income on food and those on the borderline of food insecurity are sensitive to even small food price increases, meaning the number of undernourished people, currently 1 billion, could double or even triple (Giovanucci et al., 2012). High food prices have led to destabilisation and civil unrest in a number of Middle Eastern and African countries, good examples of which are Syria and Libya (Femia & Werrell, 2013). Sternberg (2013) defines the idea of ‘hazard globalization’ where a once-in-a-century winter drought in China in 2010/2011 ‘reduced global wheat supply and contributed to global wheat shortages and skyrocketing bread prices in Egypt, the world’s largest wheat importer. Government legitimacy and civil society in Egypt were upset by protests that focused on poverty, bread, and political discontent’ (Sternberg, 2013). Increasing incomes and access to food are seen to be preferred solutions than keeping food prices artificially low with price controls and restrictions.

‘Sustainable food’ production is a way of producing a continuous supply of safe, nutritious food for future generations that ensures the environment is protected, alongside maintaining a reasonable income for the farmers and communities that produce our food. The following quote from the UK Government’s Foresight Report gives a

comprehensive account of the principles underlying sustainable food production:

“The principle of sustainability implies the use of resources at rates that do not exceed the capacity of the earth to replace them. Thus water is consumed in water basins at rates that can be replenished by inflows and rainfall, greenhouse gas emissions are balanced by carbon fixation and storage, soil degradation and biodiversity loss are halted, and pollutants do not accumulate in the environment. Capture fisheries and other renewable resources are not depleted beyond their capacity to recover. Sustainability also extends to financial and human capital; food production and economic growth must create sufficient wealth to maintain a viable and healthy workforce, and skills must be transmitted to future generations of producers. Sustainability also entails resilience, such that the food system, including its human and organisational components, is robust to transitory shocks and stresses. In the short to medium term non-renewable inputs will continue to be used, but to achieve sustainability the profits from their use should be invested in the development of renewable resources.”

(Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) threw the spotlight onto sustainable agricultural and food security, highlighting the many barriers still to be overcome to reach the goal of ‘sustainable food’. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012-2021 report (2012) predicts that, based on their greater potential to increase land devoted to agriculture and to improve productivity, developing countries will provide the main source of global food production growth to 2021. Annual production growth in developing countries is projected to average 1.9% per annum compared to 1.2% per annum in developed countries, so interventions to improve the sustainability of production in developing countries is critical. However, as we look at the possible solutions available to achieve food security, coupled with environmental protection, we begin to understand how food production is an interconnected system spanning countries and continents. The issues of food production are therefore global, requiring solutions at the global level.

1. Although there are costs involved, large international grain reserves controlled jointly by national governments to mitigate global food supply crises would economise on stocks and storage costs (Wright, 2009). However, building a resilient and effective grain reserve is not easy as reserves have to operate in varied social, political, geographical and economic contexts. Patterns of land distribution, dietary choices, transport and storage infrastructure within a country, as well its connection to neighbours and world markets, are all factors that need to be taken into account. Reserves depend on transparent and accountable governance and a good partnership with the private sector (Sampson, 2012).

2.1 Managing food wasteFood waste is defined by the UK Government’s Foresight report (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011) as “edible material intended for human consumption that is discarded, lost, degraded or consumed by pests as food travels from harvest to consumer. This includes food fit for human consumption but intentionally used as animal feed, and spans the entire food supply chain.”

A 2013 report from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers ‘Global Food; Waste Not, Want Not’ found that between 30% and 50% or

2. Solutions for a sustainable food future

1.2-2 billion tonnes of food produced around the world never makes it on to a plate (IME, 2013). In the UK, as much as 30% of vegetable crops are not harvested due to their failure to meet retailers’ exacting standards on physical appearance, according to the report, while up to half of the food that is bought in Europe and the US is thrown away by consumers.

An EU study identified the key causes of waste in the manufacturing, wholesale/retail, food service and households sectors (BIO Intelligence Service, 2010). In the manufacturing sector, waste is created from unavoidable sources, such as carcasses and bones, alongside technical


malfunctions, such as overproduction, misshapen products, product and packaging damage. In the retail/wholesale sector, waste is generated by supply chain inefficiencies and through stock management issues, including difficulties anticipating demand. In the household sector, food waste comes from meal preparation, leftovers and purchased food not used in time.

The alarming statistics show that, every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net production of food in Sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes) (FAO, 2011c). The world’s nearly one billion hungry people could be fed on less than a quarter of the food that is wasted in the US and Europe (Stuart, 2009). According to Clay (2011), if we could eliminate current waste levels, we would halve the amount of extra food needed by 2050, thus allowing us to rethink the argument for more intense production methods and changes to land management. However, if no measures are taken to reduce food waste in the EU, based on anticipated EU population growth and increasing affluence only, food waste is expected to rise to approximately 126 million tonnes in 2020, compared to 89 million tonnes in 2006 (BIO Intelligence Service, 2010).

Experts have recommended that a global initiative should be launched to reduce food waste as it may be the single most important area that can be addressed with relative ease (Giovanucci et al., 2012). One way is to make the food chain more efficient through waste reduction measures at all stages, from loss at farms to transport, processing and retail and consumer levels. Good governance is needed to help with this, which will in turn contribute to other policy agendas, such as cutting the need for further space set aside for landfill, in turn reducing GHG emissions (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). Price signals that reflect the costs and benefits to society of different forms of agriculture have also been proposed as the best way to achieve the ‘seismic shifts’ needed to encourage consumers towards sustainable agriculture and food systems.

In fact, the UK’s Foresight report claims that there is evidence that halving the amount of food waste by 2050 is a realistic target. In wealthier countries, much of the losses occur at the retail and consumer levels, while in poorer countries this is due to inadequate post-harvesting technologies and lack of adequate infrastructure, including areas such as processing, storage and preservation. Different strategies are therefore required to tackle these two types of waste. In developing countries, public investment in transport infrastructure would reduce the opportunities for spoilage, whereas better-functioning markets and the availability of capital would increase the efficiency of the food chain, for example, by allowing the introduction of cold storage (although this does have implications for GHG emissions). Existing technologies and best practices need to be shared by education and extension services, and market and finance mechanisms are required to protect farmers from having to sell at peak supply, leading to gluts and wastage (Foresight. The future of food and farming, 2011).

There is also a need for continuing research in post-harvest storage technologies. For example, in India, it is estimated that 35 to 40% of fresh produce is lost because neither wholesale nor retail outlets have cold storage and even with rice grain, which can be stored more readily, as much as one-third of the harvest in Southeast Asia can

be lost after harvest to pests and spoilage (Nellemann et al., 2009). Traditional technologies, such as storage drums in Afghanistan have proven to substantially reduce post-harvest waste (Clay, 2011). According to Godfray (2010), “improved technology for small-scale food storage in poorer contexts is a prime candidate for the introduction of state incentives for private innovation, with the involvement of small-scale traders, millers, and producers.”

In high-income countries, reducing waste from the consumer and the food service sector are realistic strategies. According to research, 42% of all EU food waste comes from households and 60% of this is avoidable (BIO Intelligence Service, 2012). The ‘packaging paradox’ is that, in developing countries, food waste at production stage could be reduced by availability of packaging, whereas in the UK, over quarter of food wastes is still in its original packaging. More efforts to minimise food and packaging waste in the EU are therefore needed. Campaigns to highlight the extent of waste can be useful and there are a number of waste reduction schemes across the EU (BIO Intelligence Service, 2010). A good example of this is shown in the UK with the ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign, which since 2007, has reduced food waste by over 1.1 million tonnes a year, preventing over £2.5 billion worth of food being wasted (WRAP, 2013).

Companies in the food supply chain and institutions providing meals should all be involved in waste reduction schemes. Other strategies include the revision of best-before dates and the use of cheap sensor technology to measure foil spoilage. Consumers can play an important role in the success of these new technologies as they place high importance on the health and safety aspects of their food (Giovanucci et al., 2012). The recycling of surplus food in Europe is another option, a good example of which is ‘FareShare’, a national UK charity that helps to redistribute food surpluses.

Closing resource loops has also been suggested as an important way to reduce waste, as well as energy and resource use (BIO Intelligence Service, 2012), by producing valuable products from food industry by-products through new scientific and technological methods. The different ways of using by-products from food processing industry can be mainly classified into five categories: as a source of food/feed ingredients; a carbon source for growing useful microorganisms; as a fertiliser through composting; as a source for direct energy generation/biogas production; and as a source for high value-added products (BIO Intelligence Service, 2012).

2.2 Rethinking land management and agricultural techniquesAccording to estimates from the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, to keep prices stable and have enough food to meet demand, the growth in rice yields will have to increase by about half, from just under 1% a year to 1.5%. Maize yields will have to rise by the same amount; and wheat yields will have to more than double, to 2.3% a year (The Economist, 2011). Agricultural production in general needs to increase by 60% over the next 40 years to meet the rising demand for food. This translates into an additional one billion tonnes of cereals and 200 million tonnes of meat a year by 2050 compared with 2005/07 levels (OECD-FAO, 2012). Additional production will also be necessary to provide feedstock for expanding biofuel production. Achieving these levels will require us to embrace


“A gross estimate of the global losses, conversion and wastage at different stages of the food supply chain. As a global average, in the late 1990s farmers produced the equivalent of 4,600 kcal/capita/day (Smil, 2000), i.e. before conversion of food to feed. After discounting the losses, conversions and wastage at the various stages, roughly 2,800 kcal are available for supply (mixture of animal and vegetable foods) and, at the end of the chain, 2,000 kcal on average – only 43% of the potential edible crop harvest – are available for consumption.”

Source: Nellemann et al., 2009

new ways of working with the land to ensure a continuous supply of resources, whilst mitigating the effects of pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change. However, these increases will not be needed if we can reduce waste and change our consumption patterns in line with WHO recommendations.

As crop yields are already at very high levels in Europe, it is thought that most of the yield increases needed to match the rising demand for food will come from developing countries. Prioritising strategies to close the ‘yield gap’, the difference between actual productivity and the best that can be achieved using current genetic material and available technologies and management, is one way of achieving this (Godfray et al. 2010). According to Foley et al., (2011): “Better deployment of existing crop varieties with improved management should be able to close many yield gaps, while continued improvements in crop genetics will probably increase potential yields into the future.”

2.2.1 Agro-ecology

One solution to global food security is the adoption of ‘agro-ecological’ farming practices, which can improve yields and livelihoods whilst minimising cost and environmental impacts. These methods, which increase organic nutrient inputs, build soil organic matter, increase soil moisture retention, and reduce the need for synthetic fertilisers, have proven successful in developing countries. Experts in the field describe them as “one of the most robust pathways towards designing biodiverse, productive, and resilient agroecosystems available today” (Altieri et al., 2012).

The intensification and specialisation of agricultural production accomplished through the use of high-yielding crop varieties, chemical fertilisers and pesticides, irrigation, and mechanisation have had a negative impact on the environment and on ecosystem services (Corbeels, 2012). There are, however, according to experts, many ways to make agricultural systems ‘greener’ whilst, at the same time, increasing or maintaining productivity (Godfray et al., 2010). The concept of ‘intensification without simplification’ involves the re-diversification of simplified agro-ecosystems to restore ecosystem services. At the farm level, this means using crop diversification, poly-cultures, multiple varieties and the integration of livestock to enhance resilience, manage pests and diseases and cycle nutrients. According to researchers (Giovanucci et al., 2012; Khumairoh, 2012), these complex agricultural systems consisting of assemblages

of plant and animal species can lead to higher yields and reduced vulnerability to extreme weather conditions, as well as reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but more research is needed to understand how they can do this and how they can best be implemented.

Strengthening these ‘ecological-based approaches’ to farming to produce resilient food systems that can enhance agricultural productivity is essential to ensuring a sustainable food security and can also contribute to the cultural and socio-economic viability of rural areas (UNEP, 2013).

A good example of how measures to promote sustainability do not necessarily reduce yields or profits is a study by Pretty et al., (2006) of 286 agricultural sustainability projects in developing countries, involving 12.6 million (chiefly smallholder) farmers, covering 37 million hectares. The results found an average yield increase of 79% across a very wide variety of systems and crop types. One-quarter of the projects reported a doubling of yield. Other global projects have also investigated the effectiveness of agricultural innovations to improve productivity alongside sustainability (Liniger & Critchley, 2007; Worldwatch, 2013). Optimal agricultural techniques, such as the prevention of crop burning, can help to reduce carbon loss from soils. An emphasis on tree crops and deep rooted grasses can also build soil carbon and reduce erosion as well as increasing yields and the efficiency of inputs. Simple techniques such as increasing root mass and mulching can increase soil fertility and produce more organic matter, which can double production and halve water use. The mixing of crops also has the potential in both industrialised and non-industrialised agriculture as a strategy to mitigate stress, as plants are protected by adjacent species (Scherr & McNeely, 2008). The use of ‘vertical farms’, e.g. in Kibera in Africa (sacks filled with dirt to grow crops due to limited space), can improve nutrition, as well as income, from surplus sales and food security (Nierenberg, 2009).

Despite these findings, strategies designed to close the yield gap in the poorest countries face major socio-economic challenges, as discussed by Godfray (2010):

“Much production is dominated by small-holder agriculture with women often taking a dominant role in the workforce. Where viable, investment in the social and economic mechanisms to enable improved small-holder yields, especially where targeted at women, can be important means of increasing the income of both farm and rural nonfarm households. The lack of secure land rights can be a particular problem for many poor


communities, may act as a disincentive for small holders to invest in managing the land more productively, and may make it harder to raise investment capital.”

2.2.2 Conservation agriculture and ‘land sparing versus land sharing’ Conservation agriculture is a resource-saving agricultural system that aims to deliver high and sustained production levels while conserving the environment. Conservation agriculture is seen as a concept for resource-efficient crop production that is based on an integrated management of soil, water and biological resources combined with external inputs and is based on three principles that are believed to enhance biological processes above and below the ground. These are: (1) minimum or no mechanical soil disturbance; (2) permanent organic soil cover (consisting of a growing crop or a dead mulch of crop residues); and (3) diversified crop rotations and/or associations (Corbeels, 2012). Farmer education for production and pest management is also encompassed in conservation agriculture strategies. Case studies have shown that using the techniques of conservation agriculture there are substantial increases in production, soil health, food security and income for famers (FAO 2009c; CMMYT, 2011).

In Europe, agro-ecological approaches would mean increased benefits to the environment, however, in contrast to the ‘land sparing’ that is recommended in developing countries, much European agro-environment policy has adopted ‘land sharing’ strategies. These aim to make existing farmland as hospitable to wild species as possible, by reducing inputs of pesticides and fertilisers and retaining on-farm habitat elements, such as shade trees, hedgerows and ponds. However, land sharing and the ideals of ‘organic farming’ typically lower or limit farm yields so that more farmed area is required to produce a given amount of food. Researchers suggest that in Europe an intermediate approach, or a mixture of land sharing and sparing at different spatial scales, may be most appropriate in the future (Balmford, 2012).

More research is needed into solutions that can help to protect land and avoid more decreases in biodiversity. ‘Land rehabilitation’ can reclaim areas that have been previously eroded and depleted of their natural resources and a better global understanding of soil erosion and soil health is critical (FAO, 2011b). Degraded land and soil erosion can also be reversed through techniques such as the construction of terraces and the planting of trees and grasses (Clay, 2011). More traditional and sustainable methods, such as the use of cover crops and addition of green manure, also need support.

2.2.3 Replenishing water supplies

Historically, irrigated agriculture has been vital to meeting quickly rising food demand in developing countries. The high yields that irrigated agriculture produces are, on average, two to three times higher than yields on rain fed lands and crops that are mostly irrigated have seen production increasing since the early 1960s two- to fourfold. (The World Bank, 2006). Irrigated land, which to date makes up 17% of total cultivated land, produces over 40% of the world’s food (FAO, 1999). However, large quantities of water are needed to grow crops in this way; it has been estimated that 85% of water withdrawals in developing countries are used through irrigation. As demand for food increases, irrigated agriculture is projected to play an even larger part in

food production so there will be a need to look towards technological improvements such as drip-feed methods to help increase yield and reduce water use significantly (Ayars et al., 1999). Changing agricultural techniques, such as a move to no-till agriculture (no soil turning before re-planting crops) can preserve water in the soil. However, weeds and other issues need to be overcome (Derpsch et al., 2010).

Perhaps the best way to reduce total water use in agriculture would be to encourage a shift in dietary patterns, for example, a decrease in meat consumption or a general reduction in calorie intake, as well as to reduce food waste and losses. Depending on climate, variety, agricultural practices, length of the growing season and degree of onward processing, between 500 and 4,000 litres of water are required to produce 1kg of wheat, whereas 5,000 and 20,000 litres are needed to produce 1kg of meat (IME, 2013). In Europe, the debate is now underway about how we can create a shift in consumer habits to diets that are less meat and dairy-intensive. However, any action at the European level is counterbalanced by the growing trend for increased meat and dairy consumption in developing countries.

More sustainable and community-led solutions are needed to achieve ‘more crop per drop’ (Postel, 2011) and incentives are needed to encourage greater efficiency of water use, such as more technological investment, water pricing and multi-stakeholder water resource management schemes, with more priority given to the development of integrated water management plans (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

Community rainwater harvesting systems are good examples of sustainable water use and the reuse of urban waste water for agricultural irrigation can conserve water whilst providing free nutrients to crops. The development and breeding of drought resistance crops, better crop diversity and better storage of water and aquifer recharging are also seen by many researchers as ways to preserve water (The Royal Society, 2009). Policies orientated towards consumers or retailers to decrease the water footprint of food products would be beneficial.

2.3 Ensuring long-term sustainability of fish stocksBesides farm production, capture fisheries and aquaculture are also important in providing nutrition and livelihoods: one billion people rely on fish as their main source of animal protein (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). This figure is set to rise in the future in line with other protein-based foods, particularly in eastern and south-eastern Asia.

Many marine fish populations are overexploited, currently, about 80% of global commercial fish populations, leading to large impacts on marine biodiversity (Westhoek et al., 2011). Capture fisheries, therefore, are unlikely to be able to contribute to meeting the increasing demand for fish and aquaculture expansion will be necessary. Worldwide, 40% of fish production comes from aquaculture, compared with about 20% in Europe (Westhoek et al., 2011), but as this figure grows, there will be environmental consequences linked to energy use, pollution and feed requirements.

The UK’s Foresight report highlights an urgent need to reform fisheries governance at national and international levels as many fish stocks will be more open to overexploitation to meet increasing demand, be less


resilient to climate change and therefore at greater risk of collapse. At the same time, aquaculture, which will have a major role to play in meeting the supply and resource challenges ahead, will need to produce more with increased sustainability (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

Whitmarsh & Palmieri (2008), suggest that gains in aquaculture sustainability could come from concentrating on lower–trophic level species, such as those that feed on plants, and by integrating aquatic and terrestrial food production, for example, by using waste from the land as food and nutrients. According to Westhoek et al. (2011), a sustainable option may be to create new ways to feed fish that do not rely on wild caught stocks and a switch to an increased consumption of herbivorous fish. This would involve only a small increase in agricultural land used in the production of the feed for these additional numbers of farmed herbivorous fish. In this way, wild fish stocks would be protected, could recover and would possibly provide higher catches in the future.

2.4 Reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate changeThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that farmers in developing countries, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, are the most likely to be affected by climate change (IPCC, 2007). One way to mitigate the effects of climate change is to provide funding for agricultural adaptation projects that include practices that will help pastoralists (those involved in raising livestock where herds are moved to fresh pastures and water sources) and smallholders to adjust to more extreme weather events, higher temperatures and increasing livestock and crop disease. There remains a lack of information about the potential effects of climate change on biodiversity and local living conditions, and more research is needed in these areas.

In terms of GHG emission reductions, there is a range of particularly promising options, using various agricultural innovations (Govern Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). The IMPRO study on food and dairy products carried out by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (EC, 2009) demonstrated that emissions can be reduced through a range of agricultural improvements, including optimised protein feeding to pigs and cattle, methane reducing diets for dairy cattle and tightening the rules of manure application. Interestingly, the report was in favour of an intensification of arable farming, but found that the negative effects of intensification of dairy farming outweigh the environmental benefits.

The UK Government’s Foresight report lists four main strategies that could be applied to the food system, particularly in developed countries:

1. The creation of market incentives to encourage emissions reductions (for example, grants, subsidies, levies, carbon taxes or carbon cap and trade schemes)

2. The introduction of mandatory emissions standards or limits by direct regulation

3. The adoption of low-emission strategies through market pressures driven by consumer choice. This requires active and informed

consumers, and sources of accurate and trusted information such as labelling for emissions or product certification

4. Voluntary (non-profit driven) measures taken by industry as part of corporate social responsibility (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011)

2.5 Efficiency through science and technologyThe industrialisation of agriculture and the ‘green revolution’ witnessed in the last half of the 20th century increased research, investment and innovation in agriculture, leading to increased yields and a reduction in hunger and poverty in many regions (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011), yet today’s technology seriously lags behind current levels of population growth and consumption (The Royal Society, 2009).

Helping to improve yields of the poorest performing producers is seen as the most efficient way of increasing food production, increasing volumes and reducing environmental impacts (Clay, 2011). The lowest crop yields per hectare are found in Sub-Saharan Africa, so there is a desperate need for smallholders to increase productivity in this area. We have seen previously in the report how the narrowing gap that exists between actual and potential crop yields has been identified as one of the priorities to secure food availability for the increasing global human population (IAASTD, 2009; Graham-Rowe, 2011). Insufficient or unbalanced supply of water and nutrients, damage due to weeds, pest and diseases, and losses caused by weather-related events, such as extreme temperatures, severe rainfall events, and prolonged periods of drought (Khumairoh et al., 2012), are all areas that can be tackled to tighten yield gaps.

Researchers are beginning to understand how technology can play an important role in helping to improve yields and agricultural productivity. Global Positioning Systems as a driver of ‘precision agriculture’ have allowed growers to produce more with less crop inputs and energy use. Satellite-based remote monitoring technologies allow monitoring of crop productivity and weather-related impacts. Mobile phone and wireless communication, used with the internet, can give information on market pricing, supply and demand trends and remote assistance to famers (UN, 2012). A better understanding of how these sustainable agriculture decision support tools can be used to meet the needs of farmers is needed.

GM crops are widely grown in countries, such as the US, Argentina, Brazil, India and Canada, but they are largely absent in Europe and Africa (except South Africa). Supporters of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) argue that, in certain countries, the use of GMOs can play a very real part in helping to feed the planet (Clay, 2011). For example, a study by Voesenek & Bailey-Serres (2009) identified the genes responsible for rice survival in flood waters. Genetic modification may make it possible to remodel the architecture of plants with radical effects on carbon capture and mineral uptake. It may even be possible to convert conventional annual production systems to those based on perennial types, thus improving soil quality energy efficiency (Glover et al., 2012). The reproductive biology of plants could also be modified, with major effects on the availability and production of seeds. These major challenges will most likely require a combination of both GM and conventional breeding techniques (The Royal Society, 2009).

The shorter-term targets of genetic improvement include production, quality and post-harvest traits. Traits affecting the ability of crops


to have high yields in conditions of water or temperature stress or to resist pests and diseases are particularly important for sustainable intensification. GMO adoption is, however, controversial. Domestic and international trade barriers, costs, and intellectual property concerns all limit access to the technology for many of the world’s farmers and cropland areas. According to researchers, global standards for cultivation and commercialisation of GM crops should be set to prevent trade disruptions (Giovanucci et al., 2012). GM crops need careful presentation and alongside novel technologies, such as meat grown from stem cells (Batholet, 2011), they require public engagement and fully informed societal debates.

Although synthetic chemicals are widely used to protect plants against weeds, pests and diseases, there is room for innovation for more natural solutions, such as biological control agents (Shafiq Ansari et al., 2012) and natural crop protection chemicals made from those that resemble the plants’ own defences. Integrated pest management techniques are proving very useful, as they emphasise the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourage natural pest control mechanisms. In push–pull agriculture, yields are increased by using companion crops grown within the main crop to repel pests (Khan, 2011). The lack of resilience in the food system has been caused by the reliance on monocultures and the selection of only a few varieties of high-yielding food crops, as well as the wide scale use of a narrow range of GM crops. This has left us with a loss of biodiversity and a reduced number of plant breeds means crops can be more susceptible to destruction by pests and extreme weather conditions.

2.6 Understanding consumption patternsThe average per capita EU consumption of animal proteins in the form of meat, fish and dairy produce is about twice the global average: meat makes up about 52 kg consumed per capita every year and the average annual dairy consumption in the EU is 300 kg. On average, only 10% of animal proteins consumed are from fish (Westhoek et al., 2011). However, emerging evidence suggests there is a substantial global

trend in developing nations for dietary preferences shifting away from cereals and grains to consumption of animal products (Pinghali, 2006). For example, in China, between 1981 and 2004, the annual per capita grain consumption declined from 145 kg to 78 kg in the cities, while over the same period, intake of meat products rose from 20 kg to 29 kg per year (IME, 2013). In the coming decade, for example, global meat consumption is expected to rise by 19%, according to the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012-2021, an increase of 50%, mainly in developing countries (OECD-FAO, 2012).

The effects of these dietary changes are twofold. Firstly, there are health implications linked to diets that are high in red meat and associated saturated fatty acids, which combine with a high demand for processed foods in developing countries (Popkin, 2009). In Europe, the average intake of saturated fatty acids, high levels of which are linked to cardiovascular disease, is about 40% higher than recommended. Researchers have suggested therefore that a reduction in the consumption of livestock products, notably those high in fat, would reduce the European disease burden significantly (Westhoek et al.,

Figure 9: How food security is affected by the application of ICT in different food system activities (Ingram, 2011).

Box 1. Appraising new technologies in the food system

● New technologies (such as the genetic modification of living organisms and the use of cloned livestock and nanotechnology) should not be excluded a priori on ethical or moral grounds, though there is a need to respect the opinions of people who take a contrary view

● Investment in research on modern technologies is essential in the light of the magnitude of the challenges for food security in the coming decades

● The human and environmental safety of any new technology needs to be rigorously established before its deployment, with open and transparent decision-making

● Decisions about the acceptability of new technologies need to be made in the context of competing risks (rather than by simplistic versions of the precautionary principle); the potential costs of not utilising new technology must be taken into account

● New technologies may alter the relationship between commercial interests and food producers, and this should be taken into account when designing governance of the food system

● There are multiple approaches to addressing food security, and much can be done today with existing knowledge. Research portfolios need to include all areas of science and technology that can make a valuable impact – any claims that a single or particular new technology is a panacea are foolish

● Appropriate new technology has the potential to be very valuable for the poorest people in low income countries. It is important to involve possible beneficiaries in decision-making at all stages of the development process

Reproduced with permission from: Foresight, The Future of Food and Farming

(2011). Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science, London.


2011). A study by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre compared the health and environmental impacts of different diets (one based on WHO recommendations, the same diet with reduced meat intake and the ‘Mediterranean’ diet). All three diets involved reduced intakes of meat and increased consumption of fruit and vegetables and were shown to reduce food-related diseases (EC, 2009).

The second effect of increasing meat intake is the impact on the environment (FAO, 2010b). Food products of animal origin cause more environmental impact than plant-based products. This is mainly due to inefficient conversions of feed protein and energy into animal protein and energy. Meat production is energetically very inefficient, as animals can only absorb a third of the nutrients from crops leading to considerable pollution, deforestation and land degradation (the highest environmental impact comes from beef production, followed by pork).

In the US, nearly one-third of the freshwater contamination from nitrogen and phosphorus comes from the livestock sector, the result of animal manure and pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers used to produce animal feed (FAO, 2006). Livestock is also responsible for more GHGs (ca. 18%) than the global transportation sector (Nelleman et al., 2009).

Grazing land, plus the land used to produce crops for animal feed, makes up 80% of all agricultural land: 3.4 billion hectares for grazing and 0.5 billion hectares for feed crops (FAO, 2009c) and significant deforestation has occurred to accommodate this. Approximately three million hectares of rainforest are lost every year as a result of livestock production and 70% of this loss occurs in Latin America. A 50% reduction in animal product has been estimated to yield significant land savings. In the EU, this amounts to one third of the area used for arable land, and outside the EU, 60 million hectares (the total EU grassland area) could be saved by reducing our meat intake by half (Westhoek et al., 2011). The IFPRI’s meat consumption models also explain that by reducing cereal prices, these scenarios would lead to shifts in dietary preferences, increases in food availability, and eventually better nutritional status, particularly in developing countries (IFPRI, 2012).

According to Nellemann et al., (2009) if current annual meat consumption were stabilised at year 2000 levels, (37 kg/capital), enough cereal would be available for human consumption by 2050 to feed about 1.2 million people (400 million tonnes). The EC study on diet changes also found that a reduced meat intake in the EU-27 would have environmental benefits at a global level (EC, 2009). Areas such as climate change, ozone depletion, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity and ecotoxicity were investigated and it was found that changes to diet can lead to a 2% reduction in these environmental impacts.

A move to more sustainable livestock production, i.e. grazing, integrated farming systems and more efficient livestock may help. Westhoek et al., (2011) suggest that alongside shifts in consumption and reductions in food losses, points of intervention include changes in husbandry systems and animal breeds, feed conversion and feed composition, nutrient management, crop yields and land management. A study by Bellarby et al. (2013) also showed that a reduction in food waste and consumption of livestock products linked with reduced production are the most effective mitigation options for climate change, and, if encouraged, would also deliver environmental and human health benefits (Bellarby et al., 2013).

It has been suggested that the growing livestock industry will be one of the greatest challenges to global food security and the environment,

competing for cereals that could be used for human food and leaving a legacy of pollution. The challenge will be to engage new technologies and policies that will be able to contain and limit any environmental costs. Technical improvements in animal genetics and nutrition have improved their efficiency as food sources, however, if current meat consumption levels continue or increase it will be necessary to find alternative animal feed sources (i.e. waste matter, perennial shrubs, and grasses) that can be grown on lands not suitable for annual food crops. Environmental dilemmas are faced, since resources needed for meat production are substantially greater than for other foods (Kanaly et al., 2010; Wirsenius et al., 2010).

Ethical questions are raised about the treatment of animals, as meat production turns towards more intense methods of husbandry. In addition, the wide scale use of antibiotics in intensive animal farming, to prevent the spread of diseases, has led to serious concerns about the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and the implications for human health. Scientific evidence shows that for some major human bacterial infections, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter, farm animals are the most important source of antimicrobial resistance (EFSA, 2008; WHO, 2011). For certain other human infections, such as Escherichia coli and enterococci, there is strong evidence that farm animals are an important source of antibiotic resistance (EFSA, 2008; Hammerum & Heuer, 2009; Vieira et al., 2011).

Targeting consumers can be an effective way of shifting dietary preferences. Researchers have noted that changes in the values and ethical stances of consumers can have a major influence on policymakers, as well as patterns of consumption in individuals. Examples include issues of national interest and food sovereignty, the acceptance of modern technology (i.e. GM, nanotechnology and cloning of livestock), the importance given to regulated specific production methods, such as organic food, the value placed on animal welfare, the relative importance of environmental sustainability and biodiversity protection and issues of equity and fair trade (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). Retail companies in the food system also have great political and societal influence and can shape consumer preference.

2.7 Investment in agriculture: helping farmers and local communitiesChronic hunger is not just an issue of lack of food, but also an issue of access to supplies. For example, 47% of its children remain malnourished in India, which has millions of tonnes of grain in storage (Giovanucci et al., 2012). Reducing poverty and inequality are therefore key issues involved here. As the majority of people in developing countries rely on agriculture for their livelihoods and over 70% of the world’s poor live in rural areas (IAASTD, 2009), agricultural growth is seen as making a real contribution to reducing poverty. Cross-country economic analysis, reported in the 2008 World Development Report, shows that a 1% gain in GDP originating in agriculture generates a 6% increase in overall expenditure of the poorest 10% of the population, while the equivalent figure for GDP growth originating in non-agricultural sectors is zero growth (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

One way that government action can help eliminate hunger and meet future food demands is therefore to invest in agricultural growth, including the increase in productivity of smallholders and the integration of smallholders into markets (FAO, 2012), since the increasingly global


nature of markets and agribusiness presents a challenge for smaller-scale agriculture. Even in the case of EU farms, with previously high levels of subsidy protection, recent farm income volatility has been seen in smaller farms.

Indeed, many international organisations, including the FAO, claim that small farmers are the key to tackling the problems of food insecurity. Smallholder systems could readily double or triple agricultural output often with positive ecosystem consequences, according to some researchers (FAO, 2011d) and a focus on smallholders tackles problems of rural poverty and local food security directly (FAO, 2010a). Smallholders can benefit from agroecological practices; innovations by smallholders are seen as a good way of adapting to climate change and participation in markets can help increase income. Researchers, in particular, need to engage with and advise farmers (Balmford, 2012). According to IFAD (2010):

“This will require strengthening agricultural education, research and advisory services, and fostering greater collaboration, innovation and problem-solving among smallholders, researchers and service providers. It will also require

building coalitions, sharing responsibilities and creating synergies among governments, civil society, the private sector – and above all – farmers and their organizations”

Governance challenges also include areas of land use, traditional knowledge, and intellectual or cultural property rights to ensure they are involved in a democratic process, which embodies the ideals of food sovereignty. Some experts have called for an increase in land sovereignty, to give people titles to the lands they cultivate, which may incentivise people to protect the land while also providing them with a more secure income.

Women are often at the centre of decisions on food production and consumption around the world and make up 43% of the agricultural labour force in developing countries (UN, 2012). It is recognised that different needs and approaches may be necessary to target women, for example, in developing countries where women do not have access to land tenure or credit and often lack access to education and extension services, making it hard to implement new technologies. This gender gap imposes costs on the agricultural sector in terms of lower productivity, economy, society and women themselves and closing the gap is seen to be a high priority (UN, 2012).

3. Policy and knowledge gaps

3.1 Gaps in research and science 3.1.1 Population levels and food demand“It is among the 21st Centuries greatest challenges to eat within planetary limits yet giving health, pleasure and cultural identity.” (Lang, 2010).

Much of the work linked to sustainable food is based on future predictions that can have a range of outcomes and scenarios depending on the action that is taken over the next few years (FAO, 2011e). However, there are still a lot of uncertainties around future per capita consumption levels and whether diets in developing countries will converge to those in high-income countries. For example, to what extent will GDP be correlated to population growth and increased per capita demand for food? This is an important question for researchers, as the precise trade-off of these will have a major impact on gross demand.

A number of studies have presented scenarios for future agricultural and dietary changes (Westhoek et al., 2011; Van Vuuren et al., 2012), but much more research is needed in this area. There is also a lack of research investigating how these changes can come into effect. In developed countries, avenues for new research include understanding consumer ‘green’ behaviour and eating patterns (Kearney, 2010; Guyomard, et al., 2012), investigating the disconnect between consumers and the environment, and strategies to encourage consumers to support sustainable food systems. What will be the impact of the rise of supermarkets and out-of-home eating (i.e. in restaurants and fast food outlets), a trend in the US which is set to be mirrored throughout Europe and across developing nations? Researchers, such as Godfray (2010), have called for a better understanding of the effects of globalisation on the full food system and its externalities, for example, access to markets, environmental costs and the impact of global shifts in economy, such as the recent banking crisis. Even

if current consumer trends were to continue or even slow down, as the population continues to grow, the system remains unsustainable in terms of the burden being placed on the environment.

3.1.2 The benefits of different agricultural practices

This report has highlighted the need for more research into the sciences of agronomy, soil science and agro-ecology. Investment into the science of crop management and agricultural practice is also required. Better soil management techniques and an understanding of the importance of soil quality for sustainable production is needed (Verhulst et al., 2010), alongside a diversity of new scientific approaches that are specific to crops, localities and cultures, but which should be combined with social, economic and political perspectives (The Royal Society, 2009). In both developing and high-income countries, we need to improve our understanding of how to work with the land to achieve ‘sustainable intensification’ and create agricultural practices that will be resilient to future climate change.

3.1.3 Use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and biotechnologyMore investment is also needed into research that uses ICT and modern technology, such as the Internet and mobiles phones, to communicate with farmers in the field and help them improve their agricultural techniques. Most importantly, there needs to be an understanding of how new technologies or scientific methods will fit into global agriculture, and their feasibility at local levels needs to be addressed. A combination of both genetic improvements and crop management is seen as way forward (The Royal Society, 2009). However, public acceptance of GMOs is very important and genuine public engagement and discussion needs to play a critical role (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).


Figure 10: Causal diagram of effects of meat and dairy consumption and points of intervention (Source: Westhoek, et al., 2011).

Box 2. UNEP’s seven options for improving food security

Options with short-term effects:

1. To decrease the risk of highly volatile prices, price regulation on commodities and larger cereal stocks should be created to buffer the tight markets of food commodities and the subsequent risks of speculation in markets.

2. Encourage removal of subsidies and blending ratios of first generation biofuels, which would promote a shift to higher generation biofuels based on waste (if this does not compete with animal feed), thereby avoiding the capture of cropland by biofuels.

Options with mid-term effects:

3. Reduce the use of cereals and food fish in animal feed and develop alternatives to animal and fish feed.

4. Support farmers in developing diversified and resilient eco-agriculture systems that provide critical ecosystem services (water supply and regulation, habitat for wild plants and animals, genetic diversity, pollination, pest control, climate regulation), as well as adequate food to meet local and consumer needs.

5. Increased trade and improved market access can be achieved by improving infrastructure and reducing trade barriers.

Options with long-term effects:

6. Limit global warming, including the promotion of climate-friendly agricultural production systems and land-use policies at a scale to help mitigate climate change.

7. Raise awareness of the pressures of increasing population growth and consumption patterns on sustainable ecosystem functioning.

Adapted from: Nellemann, et al (Eds). (2009). The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal.


3.2 Policy gaps and governance challengesThe recent Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development produced a brief on Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture which stated “Global delivery of the food security and sustainable agriculture-related commitments has been disappointing.” There is a general consensus that governments need to take a more active role in food and agriculture (Van Vuuren et al., 2012), as to date, functional structures of the food and agriculture world (markets, inputs and extension) are now more frequently managed by the private sector (Giovanucci et al., 2012). Development assistance to agriculture in developing countries has decreased (from 20% in the 1980s to 3% in 2007) and the trend in food production over recent decades is of a general decline in investment in technological innovation (with some notable exceptions, such as in China and Brazil) (The World Bank, 2008b).

According to Godfray (2010), a sustainable food future that benefits low as well as high-income countries calls for “new alliances of businesses, civil society organizations, and governments”. The FAO (2012) champions policies that support an integrated ‘agriculture-nutrition-health framework’. According to the organisation, improved nutrition equals healthy children that grow up into stronger, healthier and better educated adults that can feed back into economic growth.

There needs to be more discussion about the role the EU and national governments should play in putting strategies into practice that improve land degradation, water rights and food pricing. Payments for carbon sequestration in soils and plants are also an option, whereby retailers or brand-named companies that purchase sugar, milk coffee or cocoa or palm oil can also buy the carbon that the famer sequestered or avoided releasing during production. Any legally binding agreements at the international level must not cause barriers to trade and must be acceptable to all countries.

The idea of a ‘green’ agricultural economy is being promoted by agencies, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) (OECD, 2011; UNEP, 2011) and multilaterals, such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and The World Bank, now consider these approaches more seriously in their agriculture portfolios. However, ‘green’ business models for the agricultural sector need to be developed that create public and private value in ways that also benefit farmers, communities and ecosystems (World Economic Forum, 2010).

The food and drink industry is the largest manufacturing sector in Europe with an annual turnover of €954 billion and, according to Rossi (2010), improvements in sustainability in the food chain have been shown to have long-term benefits in use of resources, increased efficiency and better governance. Leading food firms are committing to sustainable sourcing policies with measurable ecological, social standards and sustainability. However, there is little agreement or clarification on the definitions of what constitutes ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ food practices in the industry and clarity is needed on the definitions and approaches to take.

The promotion of voluntary standards, such as Fair Trade, Organic, Rainforest Alliance and UTZ Certified, aim to give a better understanding to the public on sustainable practices, but little is known about effects of certifications on consumers or the global effects of these initiatives. More accurate and lower cost methods of measuring sustainability benefits are needed, and some of these are already coming into place, such as carbon sequestration, social justice and soil quality. Work by the

Sustainable Commodity Initiative (SCI), a joint initiative managed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), is very important in this area. SCI aims to improve the sustainability of international trade and global commodity markets and helps to develop global tools that can compare and measure sustainability initiatives.

The revision of trade rules for agricultural commodities, to encourage sustainable production, equability and investment for long-term national food security, is also needed. By 2030, it is estimated that developing countries are likely to become more import-dependent with recent estimates of net grain imports accounting for some 235 million tonnes annually: three times present levels. Trade and markets will therefore play very important roles in future global food security (Godfray, 2010). Reinvesting in the agricultural sectors of poorer countries and a reduction of trade barriers, such as an end to the subsidies of wealthier countries that distort trade and the avoidance of uni-lateral and sudden national policy changes, such as export embargoes, will be key. However, according to Godfray (2010), reducing distorting agricultural support mechanisms in developed countries and liberalising world trade should stimulate overall food production in developing countries, but not everyone will gain. Better models, that can more accurately predict these complex interactions, are therefore urgently needed.

Agriculture ‘extension services’ encapsulate a range of education, advice and consultancy activities to spread new research and technology into agriculture. Extension services that connect farmers with scientists and new innovations have been largely neglected, prompting a major need to review the support for and provision of these services, particularly in developing countries (The Royal Society, 2009). To ensure that new technology can provide benefits and is adopted by the developing countries where it may be of real advantage, the countries themselves must be involved in the framing, prioritisation, risk assessment, and regulation of innovations. However, this will often require new innovative institutional and governance mechanisms to be created that can take into account various sociocultural interactions (for example, the importance of women in food production) (Royal Society, 2009). The European Commission can also play a key role in enabling stakeholders to be involved in the debate at the European level. The introduction of new technologies and science to aid sustainable intensification will require public and stakeholder dialogue with NGOs, scientists and farmers, which requires both European and national governance frameworks.

3.2.1 EU policy gapsThrough the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, the EU has a large influence on the agriculture and fisheries sectors. Policies could include financial instruments, such as ‘getting the price right’, legislation (e.g. on environmental and/or animal welfare), and encourage innovations and institutional and behavioural changes, (Westhoek et al., 2011). There are many policies related to the production side of food in the EU, such as farm income-support, plant and animal protection and soil and water regulation, which have scope for a better coordination of resource efficiency objectives. On the demand side, however, there is a distinct lack of measures relating to the sustainable consumption of food and tackling food waste.

Experts in food policy have called for international efforts to clarify ‘sustainable diets’ (Lang, 2010) so that potential measures can be devised. According to an EC study (2009) policy strategies could include:


• Awareness-raisingandinformationcampaignsdirectedatconsumers

• ‘Choiceediting’regulatoryorvoluntaryactions,includingpurchasingguidelines by retailers and the food service sector to restrict choices by consumers or selectively enhance access to better foods

• Usingsustainablepublicprocurementtopromotehealthiereatinginworkplaces such as offices, schools and hospitals

• Promoting sustainability and health labelling and counteringadvertising for unhealthy food consumption patterns

• Actionsbyproactivebusiness,suchasdevelopinghealthierfoods;anddiffusing sustainability and health standards in supply and downstream chains (EC, 2009)

Economic interventions, including taxing non-preferred food types, have also been suggested as possible levers. (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). However, lessons should be learnt from real world examples. For example, Denmark’s tax on saturated fat, which was hailed as a world-leading public health policy when it was introduced in October 2011, was abandoned 15 months later when it was revealed that it had limited impact on the consumption of ‘unhealthy’ foods (Snowdon, 2013). A tax on soft drinks, which has been in place in Denmark since the 1930s, will be abolished by the start of 2014 in a bid to boost competitiveness and increase job losses through cross-border trade. Despite these cautionary tales, in the UK at the beginning of 2013, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges called for an experimental 20% tax on sugary soft drinks for at

least a year, like that in operation in France and parts of the US, in order to observe any effect on sales.

Current waste policy, such as the biodegradable waste diversion targets of the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) or the Water Framework Directive (Council Directive 2000/60/EC), do not address how to deal with the rising food and waste amounts that will occur by 2050. EU policy also needs to address how waste levels can be reduced. Suggested policy options include the clarification and standardisation of current EU food date labels, such as ‘best before’, ‘best before end’ and ‘use by’, as well as voluntary labels such ‘display until’ dates. There should also be improved dissemination of this information to the public, the food industry and enforcement agencies to increase awareness of ‘food edibility criteria’. This would reduce food waste as a result of date label confusion or perceived inedibility. Targeted awareness campaigns are also a possible policy option, largely geared towards the household sector and the general public, to raise awareness on food waste production and provide practical tips to encourage behaviour change and a long-term reduction in food waste production (EC, 2011). A comprehensive list of policy options to improve resource use and reduce waste is covered in the BIO Intelligence Service report ‘Assessment of Resource Efficiency in the Food Cycle’ (2012). The future success of policy changes made at the EU level will provide valuable insights for developing countries, attempting to devise their own strategies to tackle waste reduction and changing consumer patterns.

Alongside the unacceptable levels of hunger in the world, the other main arguments for why we should act immediately to devise a sustainable food system are (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011):

• Thelackofsustainabilityintheglobalfoodsystemisalreadycausingsignificant environmental harm, for example, through nitrogen pollution and the drying up of rivers and lakes. Many marine ecosystems are also damaged by unsustainable fishing.

• Thereisincreasedcompetitionfor,andscarcityof,inputsintofoodproduction. Of these, as discussed above, water is the most pressing, with significant effects on regional productivity likely to occur by 2030. Competition for land has also emerged as a significant factor in many countries.

• Someeffectsofclimatechangearenowinevitableandthefoodsystemmust prepare for them, and adapt.

• The food system is a significant producer of GHGs and mustcontribute to global mitigation efforts; immediate action on climate avoids the necessity of more radical measures in the future.

• Thereistheriskofnegativeirreversibleeventsifactionisnottaken;this includes the loss of biodiversity, the collapse of fisheries, and the loss of some ecosystem services (for example, the destruction of soils).

• There is substantial evidence for increasingglobaldemand for food(which probably contributed to the recent food price spike).

• Foodsecurityto2050willrequirenewknowledgeandtechnology,andthe basic and applied research underlying this should be funded now; there is evidence of a slowdown in productivity gains today correlated with a reduction in R&D investment in many countries over the last two decades.

• The absence of food security will also make it much harder orimpossible to pursue a broad range of other policy goals. It may also contribute to civil unrest or to failed states; it may stimulate economic migration or fuel international tensions.

• Actionstakeninthenearfuturecanaddressproblemsthatifallowedto develop will require much more difficult and expensive measures later on. (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011).

Agriculture provides a potential route to poverty alleviation for many people across the world, so if correct solutions are put in place, we can design food production systems that are environmentally-friendly and are able to improve lives through increases in social and economic, as well as health aspects. However, to address the unprecedented challenges that lie ahead, the food system needs to change more radically in the coming decades than ever before. Action needs to occur simultaneously on many fronts; more sustainable food production through investment in existing technology, innovation, and social infrastructure; containing the demand for the most resource-intensive types of food; minimising waste; improving the political and economic governance of the food system to increase productivity and sustainability (Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming, 2011). According to Foley et al., (2011), global food availability can be increased by 100-180%, meeting projected demands while lowering GHG emissions, biodiversity losses, water use and water pollution if all these strategies are put into place simultaneously.

The ‘revolutionary’ changes that will be required will mean a complete redesign of the whole food system to incorporate sustainability at every step of the way, from farm to fork.

4. Arguments for immediate action


ReferencesAltieri, M.A., Funes-Monzote, F.R. & Petersen, P. (2012) Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32: 1–13.

Ayars, J.E., Phene, C.J., Hutmacher, R.B., Davis, K.R., Schoneman, R.A., Vail, S.S. & Mead, R.M. (1999). Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: a review of 15 years of research at the Water Management Research Laboratory Review Article. Agricultural Water Management. 42(1): 1-27.

Bai, Z.G., Dent, D.L., Olsson, L. & Schaepman, M.E. (2008). Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use and Management 24(3): 223-234.

Balmford, A., Green, R. & Phalan, B. (2012) What conservationists need to know about farming. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 279: 2714-2724.

Batholet, J. (2011) Inside the meat lab. Scientific American. 304: 64-69.

Bellarby, J., Tirado, R., Leip, A., Weiss, F., Lesschen, J.P. & Smith, P. (2013) Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe. Global Change Biology. 19: 3–18.

BIO Intelligence Service (2010) Preparatory Study on Food Waste Across EU 27. Final Report Prepared for the European Commission (DG ENV) October 2010. Paris: BIO Intelligence Service.

BIO Intelligence Service (2012). Assessment of resource efficiency in the food cycle. Final report. Prepared for the European Commission (DG ENV) in collaboration with AEA, Dr Donal Murphy-Bokern, Institute of Social Ecology Vienna and Institute for Environmental Studies. Paris: BIO Intelligence Service.

Clay, J. (2011) Freeze the footprint of food. Nature 475: 287-289.

CIMMYT (2011) Farming for our grandchildren’s future: Maize and wheat agriculture and changing climates in developing countries. CIMMYT Annual Report 2008-2009. Mexico: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.

Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrew, M. & Carlson, S. (2011) Household Food Security in the United States in 2010. USDA Economic Research Report 1125. Washington, DC: USDA.

Corbeels. M. (2012) Agro-ecological attributes of Conservation Agriculture for sustainable land use. The International Symposium Agro Environ 2012 [online] Available at http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/AE2012/article/view/12448/12595 [Accessed 29th July 2013].

Cordell, D., Drangert, J.O., & White, S. (2009) The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change 19: 292.

Dawson, C.J. & Hilton, J. (2011) Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy 36(1): S14–S22.

Deinlinger, K. & Byerlee, D. (2011) Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits. Washington: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank.

Derpsch, D., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A. & Hongwen, L. (2010) Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. International Journal of Agriculture and Biological Engineering 3(1).

EC (2012) Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EC and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources [COM(2012) 595]. Brussels: European Commission.

EC (2006) Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO). Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. Main report. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxembourg: European Joint Research Centre.

EC (2009) Environmental impacts of diet changes in the EU. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Luxembourg: European Joint Research Centre.

ECOFYS, Fraunhofer, Becker Büttner Held, Energy Economics Group, Winrock International (2012). Renewable energy progress and biofuels sustainability. Report for the European Commission. Tender number: ENER/C1/463-2011-Lot2. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables /reports/doc/2013_renewable_energy_progress.pdf

EFSA (2008). Foodborne antimicrobial resistance as a biological hazard, Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Biological Hazards, Adopted on 9 July 2008. [online] Available at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/scdocs/doc/765.pdf [Accessed 13th June 2013].

Erisman, J.W., Sutton, M.A., Galloway, J., Klimont, Z. & Winiwarter, W. (2008) How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nature Geoscience 1(10): 636-639.

Fan (2010) Reflections on the global food crisis. Video comments by the authors [online] Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/reflections-global-food-crisis [Accessed 12 April 2013].

FAO (1999) Poverty reduction and irrigated agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2004) International plant genetic resources treaty enters into force [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/47027/index.html [Accessed 3 April 2013].

FAO (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2008a) An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security [online]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al936e/al936e00.pdf [Accessed 14 April 2013].


FAO (2008b): The state of food and agriculture 2008. FAO, Rome [online]. Available at: at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0100e/i0100e00.htm [Accessed on 10 March 2013].

FAO (2009a) How to feed the world in 2050. [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-background-documents/issues-briefs/en/ [Accessed 14 April 2013].

FAO (2009b) The resource outlook to 2050: By how much do land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050? FAO Expert Meeting 24-26th June 2009 on How to feed the World in 2050. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2009c) The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2010a) Biodiversity and Sustainable diets. Directions and solutions for policy, research and action. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets against Hunger 3–5 November 2010. FAO Headquarters, Rome. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2010b) Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector. A life cycle assessment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2011a) FAOSTAT Statistical databases. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2011b) Towards a Global Soil Partnership for Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Background paper [online] Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/down/GSP_Background_Paper.pdf [Accessed 31st July 2013].

FAO (2011c) Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2011d) Save and Grow. A policy makers guide to the sustainable intensification of small holder crop production. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2011e) Looking ahead in world food and agriculture: Perspectives to 2050. Edited by Piero Conforti. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2012) The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319 (5867): 1235-1238.

Femia F. & Werrell, C. (2013) Climate Change Before and After the Arab Awakening: The Cases of Syria and Libya. The Arab Spring and Climate Change . A Climate and Security Correlations Series. Stimson Centre for American Progress. The Centre for Climate and Security. (Eds. Werrell and Francesco Femia) USA:Washington.

Flegal, K.M, Carroll, M.D, Ogden, C.L, & Curtin, L.R. (2010) Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults. 1999-2008. Journal of the American Medical Association 303(3): 235-241.

Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M., S.R., Carpenter, Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J. Siebert, S., Tilman, D. & David Zaks, P.M. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478: 337-342.

Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming (2011) Final Project Report. The Government Office for Science: London.

Geist, H.J. & Lambin, E.F. (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52: 143–150.

Giovanucci, D., Scherr, S., Nierenberg, D., Hebebrand, C., Shapiro, J., Milder, J. & Wheeler, K. (2012) Food and Agriculture: the future of sustainability. A strategic input to the Sustainable Development in the 21st Century (SD21) project. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for sustainable Development.

Giovanucci, D., Scherr, S.J., Nierenberg, D., Hebebrand, C., Shapiro, J., Milder, J. & Wheeler, K. (2012) Food and Agriculture: The Future of Sustainability (March 1, 2012). The Sustainable Development in the 21st century (SD21) Report for Rio+20, New York: United Nations.

Glendining, M.J, Dailey, A.G, Williams, A.G, van Evert, F.K, Goulding, K.W.T & Whitmore, A.P (2009). Is it possible to increase the sustainability of arable and ruminant agriculture by reducing inputs? Agricultural Systems 99: 117–125.

Glover, J.D., J.P., Reganold & Cox, C.M. (2012) Agriculture: Plant perennials to save Africa’s soils. Nature 489: 359–361.

Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, L., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin C. (2010) Food Security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812–818.

Graham-Rowe, D. (2011) Agriculture: beyond food versus fuel. Nature 474: S6–S8.

Gurgel, A., Reilly, J.M., & Paltsev, S. (2007) Potential Land Use Implications of a Global Biofuels Industry. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 5(2): 9.

Guyomard, B., Darcy-Vrillon, B., Esnouf, C., Marin, M., Russel, M. & Guillou, M. (2012) Eating patterns and food systems: critical knowledge requirements for policy design and implementation. Agriculture & Food Security 1: 13 [online] Available at http://www.agricultureandfoodsecurity.com/content/pdf/2048-7010-1-13.pdf [Accessed 31st July 2013].

Hammerum A.M. & Heuer O.E. (2009) Human health hazards from antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli of animal origin. Clinical Infectious Diseases 48: 916-921.


Hoekstra, A.Y, Mekonnen, M.M, Chapagain, A.K, Mathews, R.E, Richter, B.D (2012) Global Monthly Water Scarcity: Blue Water Footprints versus Blue Water Availability. PLoS ONE 7(2): e32688. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032688.

IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads. Washington: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).

IEA (2010) World Energy Outlook. Paris: International Energy Agency.

IFAD (2010) Rural Poverty Report 2011. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

IFPRI (2009) Climate Change Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

IFPRI (2010a) Food security, farming, and climate change to 2050 Scenarios, results, policy options. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

IFPRI (2010b) Reflections on the global food crisis. How Did It Happen? How Has It Hurt? And How Can We Prevent the Next One? Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

IFPRI (2012) Global Food Policy Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

IFPRI (2013) The World in 2050. The future of agriculture and water laid out at Dublin conference [online] Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/blog/world-2050 ]Accessed 15 March 2013].

IME (2013) Global food: waste not want not. London: Institute of Mechanical Engineers.

IPCC (2007) Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [online]. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contnts.html [Accessed 16 March 2013].

JRC-IPTS (2010). Impacts of the EU biofuel target on agricultural markets and land use: a comparative modelling assessment. JRC Reference Report. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Available from: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC58484.pdf

Kanaly, R.A., Manzanero, L.I.O., Foley, G., Panneerselvam, S. & Macer, D. (2010) Energy Flow, Environment and Ethical Implications for Meat Production. Bangkok: Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific (RUSHSAP), UNESCO.

Kearney, J. (2010) Food consumption rends and drivers. Transactions of the Royal Society B 365 : 2793-2807.

Khan, Z., Midega, C., Pittchar, J., Pickett, J. & Bruce, T. (2011) Push–pull technology: a conservation agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa. International Journal of Agriculture Sustainability 9: 162-170.

Khumairoh, U., Groot, J.C.J., & Lantinga, E.A. (2012) Complex agro-ecosystems for food security in a changing climate. Ecology and Evolution 2(7): 1696–1704.

Kleijn,D., Kohler, F., Báldi, A., Batáry, P., Concepción, E.D., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., Gabriel, D., Holzschuh, A., Knop, E., Kovács, A., Marshall, E.J.P., Tscharntke, T. & Verhulst, J. (2009) On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceeding of the Royal Society 276(1658): 903-909.

Krebs, J.R., Wilson, J.D., Bradbury, R.B. & Siriwardena G.M. (1999) The second Silent Spring? The drive to squeeze ever more food from the land has sent Europe’s farmland wildlife into a precipitous decline. Nature 400: 611-612.

Laborde, D. (2011) Assessing the land use change consequences of European biofuels policies. International Food Policy and Research Institute (IFPRI) report for the European Commission. Specific Contract No: SI2. 580403. Available from: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148289.pdf

Lang, T. (2010) Keynote paper: Sustainable diets and biodiversity: the challenge for policy, evidence and behaviour change. Sustainable diets and biodiversity: Directions and solutions for policy, research and action.

Liniger, H. & Critchley, W. (eds.) (2007) Where the land is greener: case studies and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Berne: Word Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT).

Locke, A. and Henley, G. (2014) Biofuels and local food security: what does the evidence say? Briefing 86. London: ODI. Available from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8867.pdf

Morton, J.F. (2007) The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(50): 19680–19685.

Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A. G., Kaltenborn, B. P. (Eds). (2009) The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. GRID-Arendal: United Nations Environment Programme.

Nierenberg, D. (2009) Vertical Farms: Finding Creative Ways to Grow Food in Kibera. Worldwatch Institute: Nourishing the planet [online] Available at: http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishing.[Accessed 10 April 2013].

OECD-FAO (2008) Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2011) A Green Growth Strategy For Food And Agriculture. Paris: OECD.

OECD-FAO (2012) Agricultural Outlook 2012-2021. Paris: OECD.

Pinghali, P. (2006) Westernization of Asian Diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and Policy. Food Policy 32(3): 281-298.


Popkin B. M. (2009) Global nutrition dynamics: the world is shifting rapidly toward a diet linked with non-communicable diseases. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 84: 289–298.

Postel, S.L. (2011) Getting more crop per drop. State of the World 2011: Innovations that nourish the planet. New York: Worldwatch Institute pp. 39-48.

Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning De Vries, F.W. & Morison, J.L. (2006) Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology 40(4): 1114-9.

Ramankutty, N., Evan, A.T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J.A. (2008) Farming the planet. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22.

Ringler, C., Zhu, T., Cai, X., Koo, J. & Wang, D. (2010) Climate Change Impacts on Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from Comprehensive Climate Change Scenarios. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 1042. Washington DC: international Food Policy Research Institute.

Rossi (2010) Sustainability and Diversity along the food chain. Sustainable diets and biodiversity: Directions and solutions for policy, research and action. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Sampson, K. (2012) Grain Reserves and the Food Price Crisis: Selected Writings from 2008–2012. Washington DC: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Scherr, S.J. & McNeely, J.A. (2008). Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363, 1491: 477–494.

Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., Yu, T-H. (2008) Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change. Science 319(5867): 1238-1240.

Searchinger, T., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Lipinski, B., Waite, R., Winterbottom, R., Dinshaw, A. & Hemlich, R. (2013) Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A menu of solutions to sustainably feed more than 9 billion people by 2050. World Resources Report 2013–14: Interim Findings. Washington, US: World Resources Institute.

Searchinger, T. (2013) Sustainable food futures. A Menu of Solutions to Feed More than 9 Billion People by 2050. Collaborators: Princeton University, INRA, CIRAD Institutional collaborators: UNDP, UNEP, The World Bank. World Resources Institute Seminar. March 2013.

Shafiq Ansari, M., Ahmad, N. & Hasan, F. (2012) Environmental Protection Strategies for Sustainable Development. Strategies for Sustainability pp 529-595. Potential of Biopesticides in Sustainable Agriculture. Malik, A. & Grohmann, E. (Eds). Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Snowdon, C. (2012) IEA Current Controversies Paper No. 42. The Proof of the pudding: Denmark’s fat tax fiasco [online]. Available at http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/denmark%E2%80%99s-fat-tax-disaster-the-proof-of-the-pudding [Accessed 31 July 2013].

Sternberg, T. (2013) Chinese Drought, Wheat, and the Egyptian Uprising: How a Localized Hazard Became Globalized. The Arab Spring and Climate Change. A Climate and Security Correlations Series. Stimson Centre for American. The Centre for Climate and Security. Werrell, C.E. & Femia, F. (Eds). USA: Washington.

Stuart, T. (2009) Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. Penguin.

The Economist (2010) Special Report: Water. For Want of a Drink [online]. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/16136302 [Accessed 1 April 2013].

The Economist (2011) No Easy Fix [online]. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/18200678 [Accessed 1 April 2013].

The Global Crop Diversity Trust (2013) Who we are [online] Available at: http://www.croptrust.org/content/who-we-are [Accessed 2 April 2013].

The Royal Society (2009) Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. London: The Royal Society.

The World Bank (2006) Reengaging in Agricultural Water Management: Challenges and Options. Washington DC: The World Bank.

The World Bank (2008a) Rising Food and Fuel Prices: Addressing the risks to future generations. Washington DC: The World Bank.

The World Bank (2008b) World Development Report: Agriculture for Development. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

The World Bank (2013) Annual freshwater withdrawals, agriculture (% of total freshwater withdrawal) 2008-2012. [online] Available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.H2O.FWAG.ZS Accessed [4th June 2013]

Timilsina, G. & Strestha, A. (2010) Biofuels: Markets, Targets and Impacts. Policy Research Working Paper No. 5364. Washington DC: The World Bank.

UN (2011) United Nations Population Division World. Population prospects: the 2010 revision. New York: United Nations.

UN (2012) United Nations General Assembly. Sixty-Seventh Session. Item 26 of the provisional agenda. Agricultural Development and Food Security. Report of the Secretary-General, 10th August 2012. New York: United Nations.

UNEP (2009) Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing biofuels. Arendal: UNEP GRID-Arendal.

UNEP (2011) Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication. Arendal: UNEP GRID-Arendal.

UNEP (2013) The First Universal Session of the Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum. Side Event Session Title: Building the Ecological Foundation of Food Security. Arendal: UNEP GRID-Arendal.


Van den Berg, M., Bakkes, J., Bouwman, L., Jeuken, M., Kram, T., Neumann, K., van Vuuren, D. & Wilting, H. (2011) EU Resource efficiency perspectives in a global context. Bilthoven: PBL The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Van Vuuren, D. & Kok, M. (Eds)(2012) Roads from Rio+20. Pathways to achieve global sustainability goals by 2050. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Verhulst, N., Govaerts, B., Verachtert, E., Castellanos-Navarrete, A., Mezzalama, M., Wall, P., Deckers, J. & Sayre, K.D. (2010) Conservation Agriculture, Improving Soil Quality for Sustainable Production Systems? In: Lal, R., Stewart, B.A. (Eds), Advances in Soil Science: Food Security and Soil Quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 137-208.

Vieira A.R., Collignon P., Aarestrup F.M., McEwen S.A., Hendriksen R.S., Hald T. & Wegener H.C. (2011) Association Between Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Isolates from Food Animals and Blood Stream Isolates from Humans in Europe: An Ecological Study. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 8: 1295-301.

Voesenek, L. & Bailey-Serres, J. (2009). Genetics of high-rise rice. Nature 460: 959–960.

Water Footprint Network (2013) WaterStat Database [online] Available at: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home [Accessed 2 March 2013].

Watts, J. (2009). ‘We have taken every measure we can think of to stop the desert moving closer and submerging our crops and villages’ [online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/18/china-ecorefugees-farming [Accessed 12 September 2013].

Westhoek, H., Westhoek Rood, T., van den Berg, M., Janse, J., Nijdam, D., Reudink, M. & Stehfest, E. (2011) The Protein Puzzle The consumption and production of meat, dairy and fish in the European Union. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Whitmarsh, D. & Palmieri, N.G. (2008) in Aquaculture in the Ecosystem. Holmer, M., Black, K., Duarte, C.M., Marba, N. & Karakassis, I. (Eds). Berlin: Springer.

WHO (2011) Tackling antibiotic resistance from a food safety perspective in Europe, [online] Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/136454/e94889.pdf [Accessed 13th June 2013].

WHO (2013a) 10 facts on obesity [online] Available at: http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/obesity/en/ [Accessed 10 March 2013].

WHO (2013b) Global and regional food consumption patterns and trends [online]Available at: http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index.html [Accessed 5 March 2013].

Wirsenius, S., Azar, C. & Berndes, G. (2010) How much land is needed for global food production under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agricultural Systems 103(9): 621–638.

World Economic Forum (2010) Realizing a New Vision for Agriculture: A Roadmap for Stakeholders. Cologny/Geneva: World Economic Forum.

Worldwatch (2013) Nourishing the Planet [online] Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet [Accessed 15 April 2013].

Wrap (2013) Solutions around household food waste [online] Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/solutions-around-household-food-waste [Accessed 11 March 2013].

Wright, B (2009) International grain reserves and other instruments to address volatility in grain markets. Working Paper World Grain Forum 2009. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

in-depth reportec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/...the contents and views...

Documents