03.07.2009
How can we feed the world?
The likelihood that demand for food will double by mid-century is well recognised. Neo-Malthusians doubt that we can sustain that sort of output. Others claim that we have no need to produce so much more; if everyone ate a vegetarian diet then the problem becomes easily manageable. And most mainstream agricultural scientists, together with the major supply companies in the sector, are confident that technology and improved farming practices will fill the gap.
Interestingly, a number of reports have recently been published, which bring different perspectives to the debate. First comes a report produced by Deutsche Bank and the University of Wisonsin-Madison. This comes to a somewhat pessimistic view, concluding that food and energy demands are set to outstrip production without well-planned investment in the sector.
Nevertheless, it also says that global production can be increased by, among other things, improving irrigation and fertilization, investing in agricultural research for the developing world, training farmers better, improving yield potential using the best available techniques (including genetic modification) and intensifying agriculture to avoid deforestation. This sounds like a fairly non-controversial list and is hardly novel; it is only the rather negative interpretation of the challenge which makes these findings different. But then, one man's problem is another man's opportunity.
The second report is the authoritative and heavyweight OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018. Much of the focus of this is on the short- to medium-term outlook for the farming economy in light of the current recession. However, the authors also look further ahead at the challenge presented by a need to produce 70% more food by 2050 (FAO estimate). In their analysis, this is not a major problem, since an additional 1.6bn hectares of arable land – over half of it in
Much of the land in these two regions would be suitable for use without irrigation, which is important given repeated concerns that water availability will become the limiting factor for farming in many parts of the world. In the OECD, about 40% of water use is for farming; some global estimates are significantly higher if developing countries are included. The report also sees considerable further potential for further increases in crop and livestock productivity. With the right investment, African farming could be transformed.
Putting all this together, the report is quite positive about future prospects, although it does rightly highlight the need to provide a basic healthy diet for the one billion people who are still malnourished. To a large extent, this is due to socio-economic and infrastructure problems. Subsistence farmers cannot reliably feed their families, the urban poor simply cannot afford food, and crop surpluses cannot easily be transported to market in many areas.
The Soil Association co-sponsored a report from the
The Soil Association, not surprisingly, puts a positive spin on the results, with the headline "Organic 'mainstream in waiting'" on its website. However, this is their somewhat selective and one-sided interpretation of the output. For example, the authors conclude that cereal production would decrease to 60% of current levels, while milk production would fall by 30%. With the end of intensive production, the pig and poultry industries would be decimated, but beef and lamb production would increase.
The SA interpret all of this positively, assuming that more of the (reduced) cereal crop would go to human food rather than animal feed. But in practice, this is only good news if the English and Welsh want to radically change their diet and, what is more, pay higher prices for the privilege. More likely, food imports would soar, giving the organic movement ethical concerns about the increase in food miles. Clearly, there are no black-and-white answers to such a big question, particularly given its highly hypothetical nature. But the report does serve as an objective assessment of the implications of large-scale organic farm management.
One final interesting and balanced paragraph from the report summary:
The notion of organic agriculture being 'low input' is shown to be a somewhat simplistic view. Rather, organic agriculture adopts a more rotational approach using different, more internally derived inputs, which may or may not make it more sustainable than conventional agriculture. For example, there would be very significant savings in inorganic agro-chemical use, but on-farm energy use may rise. However, accounting for the energy used in the manufacture of current agricultural inputs, total energy demands are likely to be lower. Over the whole industry, farm employment would be 70% higher, with associated spin-off benefits for the wider rural economy and society. Note: 70% more people to produce considerably less food.
The Unexplored Potential of Organic-Biotech Production is the rather controversial title for a new GAIN Report from the USDA Global Agriculture Information Network. Given the positive
Organic farming's low input philosophy (although note the caveat about this from the
Farming, arguably the most important invention ever, has progressed to the stage where (in Western societies) we take it for granted. Most people are distanced from the reality of crop and livestock production, and become squeamish when they learn more. This is what lies behind much of the (rather limited) success of the organic sector. Well-fed people can afford to indulge a concern about the supposed dangers of pesticides, in the belief that "natural" food is somehow better for them. But these four reports, in their different ways, highlight the fact that there is no one simple answer to the problems of feeding the world. Farming must continue to evolve.
The 5 most recent newsletters are listed below. To view all of our newsletters, please visit the newsletter archive by clicking here.
|
26.06.2009
|
|
|
19.06.2009
|
|
|
12.06.2009
|
|
|
05.06.2009
|
|
|
15.05.2009
|