Siwa Msangi

Smart Investments in Sustainable Food Production: Revisiting Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems

Farmers in mixed crop-livestock systems produce about half of the world’s food. In small holdings around the world, livestock are reared mostly on grass, browse, and nonfood biomass from maize, millet, rice, and sorghum crops and in their turn supply manure and traction for future crops. Animals act as insurance against hard times and supply farmers with a source of regular income from sales of milk, eggs, and other products. Thus, faced with population growth and climate change, small-holder farmers should be the first target for policies to intensify production by carefully managed inputs of fertilizer, water, and feed to minimize waste and environmental impact, supported by improved access to markets, new varieties, and technologies.

Food security, farming, and climate change to 2050: Scenarios, results, policy options

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

Fish to 2030: The Role and Opportunity for Aquaculture

Seafood sector can contribute to the global food supply in an important way, and provide an important source of animal protein. Based on observed regional trends in seafood production and consumption and using a global, partial-equilibrium, multi-market model, this study investigates what the global seafood market may look like in 2030. The model projects that the total fish supply will increase from 154 million tons in 2011 to 186 million tons in 2030, with aquaculture entirely responsible for the increase. The fastest aquaculture growth is expected for tilapia and shrimp, while the largest expansion is expected in India, Latin America and Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Fast-growing seafood demand in China and elsewhere represents a critical opportunity for global fisheries and aquaculture to improve their management and achieve sustainable seafood economy.

Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: scientific basis for action

BackgroundClimate-smart agriculture (CSA) addresses the challenge of meeting the growing demand for food, fibre and fuel, despite the changing climate and fewer opportunities for agricultural expansion on additional lands. CSA focuses on contributing to economic development, poverty reduction and food security; maintaining and enhancing the productivity and resilience of natural and agricultural ecosystem functions, thus building natural capital; and reducing trade-offs involved in meeting these goals. Current gaps in knowledge, work within CSA, and agendas for interdisciplinary research and science-based actions identified at the 2013 Global Science Conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture (Davis, CA, USA) are described here within three themes: (1) farm and food systems, (2) landscape and regional issues and (3) institutional and policy aspects. The first two themes comprise crop physiology and genetics, mitigation and adaptation for livestock and agriculture, barriers to adoption of CSA practices, climate risk management and energy and biofuels (theme 1); and modelling adaptation and uncertainty, achieving multifunctionality, food and fishery systems, forest biodiversity and ecosystem services, rural migration from climate change and metrics (theme 2). Theme 3 comprises designing research that bridges disciplines, integrating stakeholder input to directly link science, action and governance.OutcomesIn addition to interdisciplinary research among these themes, imperatives include developing (1) models that include adaptation and transformation at either the farm or landscape level; (2) capacity approaches to examine multifunctional solutions for agronomic, ecological and socioeconomic challenges; (3) scenarios that are validated by direct evidence and metrics to support behaviours that foster resilience and natural capital; (4) reductions in the risk that can present formidable barriers for farmers during adoption of new technology and practices; and (5) an understanding of how climate affects the rural labour force, land tenure and cultural integrity, and thus the stability of food production. Effective work in CSA will involve stakeholders, address governance issues, examine uncertainties, incorporate social benefits with technological change, and establish climate finance within a green development framework. Here, the socioecological approach is intended to reduce development controversies associated with CSA and to identify technologies, policies and approaches leading to sustainable food production and consumption patterns in a changing climate.

Reconciling food security and bioenergy: priorities for action

Understanding the complex interactions among food security, bioenergy sustainability, and resource management requires a focus on specific contextual problems and opportunities. The United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals place a high priority on food and energy security; bioenergy plays an important role in achieving both goals. Effective food security programs begin by clearly defining the problem and asking, ‘What can be done to assist people at high risk?’ Simplistic global analyses, headlines, and cartoons that blame biofuels for food insecurity may reflect good intentions but mislead the public and policymakers because they obscure the main drivers of local food insecurity and ignore opportunities for bioenergy to contribute to solutions. Applying sustainability guidelines to bioenergy will help achieve near‐ and long‐term goals to eradicate hunger. Priorities for achieving successful synergies between bioenergy and food security include the following: (1) clarifying communications with clear and consistent terms, (2) recognizing that food and bioenergy need not compete for land and, instead, should be integrated to improve resource management, (3) investing in technology, rural extension, and innovations to build capacity and infrastructure, (4) promoting stable prices that incentivize local production, (5) adopting flex crops that can provide food along with other products and services to society, and (6) engaging stakeholders to identify and assess specific opportunities for biofuels to improve food security. Systematic monitoring and analysis to support adaptive management and continual improvement are essential elements to build synergies and help society equitably meet growing demands for both food and energy.

Are Biofuels Good for African Development? An Analytical Framework with Evidence from Mozambique and Tanzania

Many low-income countries in Africa are optimistic that producing biofuels will both reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels and stimulate economic development, particularly in poorer rural areas. Conversely, skeptics view biofuels as a threat to food security in the region and as a ‘land-grabbing’ opportunity for foreign investors. As a result of this ongoing debate, national Biofuels Task Forces have been asked to evaluate both the viability of domestic biofuel production and its broader implications for economic development. To guide these complex evaluations, this article presents an analytical framework that prioritizes different aspects of a comprehensive national assessment and identifies suitable evaluation methods. The findings from recent assessments for Mozambique and Tanzania are used to illustrate the framework. While from these two countries studies found that biofuels investments could enhance development, their experiences highlight potential trade-offs, especially at the macroeconomic and environmental levels, where further research is needed.

National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Policy Design Recommendations

The abundance and low cost of petroleum over the past 150 years has enabled rapid economic growth and extraordinary mobility advancements. But dependence on petroleum fuels also has large downsides, including dependence on insecure supplies, volatile prices causing high economic costs, polluted and unhealthy air, climate change, and increasing threats to local environments as production moves into more fragile areas. The transition to low-carbon alternative transportation fuels is becoming more urgent. But their introduction is inhibited by a long list of market conditions and failures. These include sunk investments and technology lock-in by the automotive and energy industries, other forms of technological and market inertia impeding investments in deployment and R&D, cartel pricing, and the failure of markets to assign a price to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Various policies might be adopted to overcome these market conditions and barriers, ranging from pure market instruments such as carbon taxes to prescriptive mandates and voluntary actions. Each has different advantages and disadvantages. Some are easier to implement administratively, some are more economically efficient, and some are more effective in accelerating investments. None is perfect. One of the most compelling, assuming some level of urgency, is a broad, performance-based policy that targets greenhouse gas reduction — what we refer to as a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS). In this report, we integrate scientific knowledge of alternative fuels — including an assessment of economic, administrative, institutional, equity, political, and technological considerations — to aid us in proposing a policy design for an LCFS for the United States. We have aimed for a policy design that would be effective, economically efficient, and broadly acceptable. An LCFS is a policy designed to accelerate the transition to low-carbon alternative transportation fuels by stimulating innovation and investment in new fuels and technologies. The goal is to provide a durable policy framework that will stimulate innovation and technological development. Since 2007, variations of an LCFS policy have been adopted by California, the European Union (Fuel Quality Directive, FQD), and British Columbia (Renewable and Low-Carbon Fuel Requirement Regulation, RLCFRR). Other states in the United States have been exploring the adoption of an LCFS policy, including states in the Midwest and the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region, and the states of Oregon and Washington. The design of an LCFS is premised on the use of technology-neutral performance targets and credit trading, with the intent of harnessing market forces and providing industry with flexibility. It is also premised on the use of life-cycle measurements of GHG emissions, to assure that emissions are regulated effectively and scientifically. An LCFS is a hybrid of a regulatory and market policy instrument. It does not include mandates for any particular fuel or technology and as such does not attempt to pick winners or losers. Instead, it defines an average emissions intensity standard — measured in grams CO2 equivalent per mega-joule of fuel energy (gCO2e/MJ) — that all energy providers must achieve across all fuels they provide. Many options exist for meeting the standard. Regulated parties are free to employ any combination of strategies that suits their particular circumstances and perspectives — including the purchase of credits from other companies. The breadth and reach of an LCFS, and the challenge of implementing an innovative policy, means that adoption of a national LCFS will not be easy or straightforward and will require careful analysis and design. It is necessary to address the cost-effectiveness of the policy (compared with other similar GHG policies) and to analyze ease of administration, fairness, equity, market flexibility, and impacts on energy security and sustainability. We have done so in a companion report, National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Technical Analysis Report (TAR). This Policy Design Recommendations (PDR) report builds on insights and findings from the TAR. Below we recommend key policy design principles that chart a path toward developing a national LCFS policy.

Biofuels and Agricultural Growth: Challenges for Developing Agricultural Economies and Opportunities for Investment

Global projections for increasing food demand combined with increasing demand for energy from all sources – including crop-based biofuels – point toward greater stress on food systems and their supporting ecosystems. In many parts of the world, increasing household incomes has translated into increasing demands for energy, of which transportation fuel comprises a fast-growing share. Accompanying the world’s steady population growth is an increasing demand for food and the necessary feedstuffs to fuel the requisite increases in livestock production. The combination of these two trends will inevitably lead to greater stresses and demands on the natural resource base and eco-systems that underlie the world’s food and energy production systems – such as land and water. In this chapter, we examine the increasing demands on agricultural production systems, within the context of both biofuels and demographically driven demand for food and feed products, and the implied stresses that these drivers represent. By looking at the implied crop productivity improvements that are necessary to maintain adequate supplies of food and feed for a growing global population, we are able to infer the magnitude of investments in agricultural research, among other policy interventions (such as irrigation investments), that are needed to avoid worsening food security outcomes in the face of growing biofuel demands. From our analysis, clear policy implications will be drawn as to how to best avoid the deterioration in human well-being, and recommendations for strengthening food systems and their ability to deliver needed services will also be made. By illustrating the policy problem in this way, we hope to better clarify the key issues that connect biofuels growth to agricultural growth, human welfare, and policy-focused interventions and investments.

Biofuels, Food Security, and the Environment: A 2020/2050 Perspective

This chapter explores the impacts that rapid growth in biofuel demand has on agricultural prices, the consumption levels of key staple commodities, and the resulting impacts on food security and nutrition. The results clearly show a “food-versus-fuel” tradeoff that any national plan for biofuel expansion should take into account. Intensified biofuel production would likely increase the number of malnourished people. Rapid biofuel expansion also has a significant impact on international trade, particularly the global trade balance of maize. In addition, the results indicate that expansion of biofuels would increase the stress on regional water supplies only marginally; however, a significant expansion of biofuel production in areas facing water scarcity could exacerbate the problem. Aside from food security concerns, the expansion of biofuels entails additional tradeoffs with environmental sustainability, and the goals of overall economic growth and poverty reduction.

National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Technical Analysis Report

Petroleum fuels make up essentially all of the transportation fuels used today. But fossil fuel use has many economic and environmental downsides, including a weakening of our energy security due to reliance on imported energy sources, air pollution that impacts health, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. To reduce fossil fuel use and GHG emissions in the transportation sector and improve energy security requires a coordinated effort to reduce travel demand, improve vehicle efficiency, and switch to cleaner, lower-carbon fuels. Here we focus on switching to new fuels and examine the potential role a national low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) can play in bringing this about.This report analyzes the costs and benefits of a national LCFS policy, together with or in place of the existing national Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2). The companion report, National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Policy Design Recommendations (PDR), suggests how best to design an LCFS. Both consider the possibility of an LCFS replacing or being adopted alongside RFS2.