Click for next page ( 38


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF 3 APPROACHES TO ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY The second segment of the workshop focused on the approaches to achieving sustainable food availability at affordable prices: the road to sustainable food security for all for the foreseeable future. Several potential approaches to achieving sustainable food availability were discussed. The session began with discussions on farm-level sustainable intensification, food value chains for smallholders leading to sustainable intensification, and sustainable ecosystem management while expanding food production. Subsequent speakers talked about barriers to sustainably increasing the productivity of crop yields and the need for increased energy efficiency in production systems. There were also sessions examining private investment and farm size issues, the losses and wastes in supply chain, global governance of natural resources, and international consensus on food safety issues. Most of these already have champions, and many have undergone some pilot testing, providing some information on strengths and weaknesses. Presenters took this learning and experience into account and provided subjective assessments as to scalability and broad impact, impact on affordability of food, and relative contributions to sustainability. Each session was followed by a brief question and answer period. FARM-LEVEL SUSTAINABLE INTENSIFICATION23 Mike Bushell, Syngenta Global R&D Mike Bushell discussed farm-level sustainable intensification from the private sector perspective, reiterating the challenge to find sustainable ways to feed a population now forecast to grow beyond 10 billion (United Nations, 2011). Substantial efforts have gone into considering this grand challenge since the 2008 food price crisis (UK Foresight Report, 2011). It is recognized that production of food must substantially increase but that environmental impacts from intensive agriculture must be reduced as well. Extensification of agriculture, bringing more land into production under lower yielding systems, is widely seen as an unacceptable solution given the limited land bank available, the large greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from land use conversion, and the associated catastrophic impacts on biodiversity, particularly from deforestation. Sustainable intensification of agriculture requires that both agricultural productivity and environmental outcomes are preeminent (Pretty, 2011). It is clear that this challenge, to “grow more from less” (Syngenta) must be met by increasing productivity of land use. One opportunity is the “yield gap,” where high performing farmers can achieve yields several times greater than their neighbors; yields for rice in Asia and wheat in Europe can vary between less than 1 t/ha and greater than 10 t/ha. By understanding the limitations on yield, which are often related to lack 23 The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564, presentation by Mike Bushell (May 3, 2011). 37

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF of agronomic skills, knowledge and technology access, productivity of all the major crops can be substantially increased even using basic technology available today. Advances in developing world agriculture require inter alia investments in infrastructure, development of local markets, financial instruments such as availability of credit and insurance, effective national social policies on land rights and gender issues. Public private partnerships will be an important part of developing local solutions. Modern technologies will be important but will not be the only limiting factor. Technologies are available today to accelerate the development of new seeds with higher genetic potential based on advances in genetic knowledge, phenotyping and marker assisted breeding. Genetically modified (GM) crops, which have been a central part of the yield gains in United States and Latin American agriculture, offer significant yield growth potential in many areas, such as India and China. Their true potential may be limited in Europe and Africa if effective and proportionate regulatory frameworks remain elusive. Modern approaches to the development of new agrochemicals that set even higher standards of efficacy and safety in use are underpinned by sophisticated technologies for design, synthesis and analysis, and also by advances in formulation science and application technology. There is still huge demand for innovation in developing products with new modes of action, particularly to counter the threat of resistance development. Integrated solutions are attractive, since creating genetic potential in a seed is only part of the story. Yield potential depends on seed genetics and favorable soil fertility through effective fertilization and water availability. Without effective crop protection, 40-50 percent of the food today simply would not exist; it would be lost to weed competition, insect and disease damage (Oerke, 2006). All technologies must be used responsibly, and the regulatory requirements for modern crop protection chemicals are the most stringent of any technology area. The largest component of the $250 million research and development (R&D) investment needed to bring a new active ingredient to market, is the mammalian and environmental safety profiling, which ensures that products can be manufactured and used safely. Water is a particular concern and may be the limiting factor in agricultural productivity in many regions where groundwater reserves are being used unsustainably (see Figure 3-1). There will not be any magic solutions, but better systems for water use efficiency (WUE) can certainly be developed. Almost all aspects of the farm system can affect WUE. A lot of irrigation water is wasted (as much as 40 percent in some cases) through inefficient application. Crop enhancement chemicals (Bushell, 2009) can increase “crop per drop” by enhancing yield and reducing irrigation requirements. Seed treatment chemicals, such as Cruiser™, activate biochemical cascades within plants protecting against stress, creating vigorous, more extensive root systems that contribute to higher yields under water- or nutrient-stress situations. Crop genetics improvements also are an important area of research. The first drought tolerant corn varieties have been launched in the United States in 2011. In high value crops such as fruit, nuts and vines, drip irrigation holds a lot of promise for reducing total water usage and increasing WUE, as well as enabling better nutrient use efficiency through fertigation. Drip irrigation can also be effective in crops like rice, but may be too expensive an investment for widespread use in field crops. The tools do not have to be complex. For example, the PaniPipe project in Bangladesh involves locating short plastic pipes in paddy fields that allow farmers to easily see the water level and optimize their use of irrigation water—avoiding overuse in situations where perfect leveling is not possible. This led to a 46 percent reduction in water used and a large profit increase for the farmers. 38

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF FIGURE 3-1 Areas of physical and economic water scarcity. SOURCE: Bushell 2011; IMWI Report, Insights from the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, 2006, p. 8. The biggest negative externality of intensive farming is arguably the diffuse contamination of water bodies with run-off from agricultural fields. Intense rainfall events can physically wash soil particles off fields, carrying fertilizer and pesticide residues into ditches and streams. The downstream effects of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) pollution can result in creation of algal blooms, eutrophication and even “dead zones.” Landscape planning can help minimize these effects, using high-resolution GIS to identify high risk areas at a regional, watershed and farm level. Areas of particular risk are those where the principal risk factors are found together (i.e., areas where crops are planted on shallow soils on an impervious base, with a slope greater than 2°. Fields can be identified where run-off risk is highest and effective mitigation measures can be discussed with the farmer (could be enhanced watercourse protection through buffer strips or woodland, use of no-till or cover crop practices, or in some cases not using particular products or growing crops at all). A 10 meter margin can reduce run off by 90 percent (Reichenberger et al., 2007), but in practice these benefits may not always be fully delivered. By understanding the specific farm environment and the elements that favor the flow of water (paths, ditches, slope) and elements that limit or channel the flow (hedges, woodland, grass strips, wet meadows and reed beds) better environmental outcomes can be delivered through smarter design of buffer zones. Integrated approaches involving responsible use of technology and better planning at a systems level on the farm show a lot of promise; indeed they will enable more of the benefits of intensification to be delivered with less of the negative externalities. This can happen on any scale, from megafarms in Brazil to smallholders in Asia or Africa. More sophisticated, sustainable intensification of agriculture approaches will be enabled by improvements in extension services and use of modern information systems for knowledge transfer to farmers. Yet 39

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF the principal limitations for smallholders may still be in poor infrastructure or in inability to link to input or output markets, and these require a national government approach, where again spatial planning for land use could be beneficial in synchronizing investments and avoiding conflicts over land use or competition for natural resources. Access to credit or instruments like crop input insurance will also be important to help increase financial resilience in the face of the risks and uncertainties of farming in the future. FOOD VALUE CHAINS LEADING TO SUSTAINABLE INTENSIFICATION24 Maximo Torero, IFPRI Maximo Torero discussed food value chains for smallholders leading to sustainable intensification, introducing the topic by describing the evolution of agriculture over time. There has been a decline in the agricultural importance of grains and other staple foods, with a move towards more consumption of high-value agricultural commodities. Additionally, where the Green Revolution was once supply-led, the current agricultural transformation is now largely demand-driven. These changes have had many implications, particularly for the markets. There is a need for more coordination and new roles for the government. The major drivers behind this transformation include rising income, urbanization and population growth, outward-oriented trade policy, and changes in foreign direct investment. This agricultural transformation has introduced new linkages for the farmer and buyer relationship, due to the increasing preference for high-value commodities, which are generally more perishable. If the appropriate infrastructure is not in place, this can create increasing costs and losses throughout the supply chain. Torero introduced the paradox of the smallholders due to changes in agricultural production discussed above. Two issues are central to this paradox: changes in production methods are not scale neutral as they were during the Green Revolution, and economies of scale in agriculture may apply in the input supply, processing of harvests, and in transport. Torero noted that there are several levels of problems that are faced by smallholders throughout the value chain. In production, primary concerns including the quality of inputs, low productivity, and non-demand linked production. In the supply chain, weak road infrastructure, lack of storage, and food waste and losses are of concern. Low processing, a lack of quality product, poor returns, and low capacity utilization are primary issues in the processing stages. Finally, in marketing, challenges include poor infrastructure, a lack of grading and linkages, and a lack of transparency in prices. Torero noted that the four key issues he planned to address in his presentation included (1) the heterogeneity of small holders, (2) access to infrastructure, (3) resolving of market failures and obtaining economies of scale, and (4) scaling up of solutions. Regarding the first issue of heterogeneity of small farmers, Torero noted that rural households in developing countries are extremely diverse in their economic characteristics. Rural development policies need to take this heterogeneity into account to be effective. Torero discussed the concept of the stochastic profit frontier and efficiency in terms of that frontier, which were used to develop a typology of development domains. This typology takes into 24 The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564, presentation by Maximo Torero (May 3, 2011). 40

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF consideration level of efficiency and potential, along with a poverty index that was used to assess policies that could improve productivity and efficiency. For example, for areas of low efficiency and high potential, with high levels of poverty, it is possible to identify policies that may improve efficiency throughout the value chain analysis. Torero noted that he has conducted research on ten countries using this type of analysis and is currently completing the empirical analysis. Torero discussed his research to address problems related to access to infrastructure. Utilizing the concept of isoprofits in economics, he was able to account for costs in an analysis of the effectiveness of infrastructure investments. He used the example of maize grown in South Africa, first examining the yield in terms of production potential and infrastructure access. In his analysis, he was able to assess areas where it would be possible to have the highest potential in terms of returns. Torero also discussed the lack of coordination of infrastructure services found in many countries. For example, in many developing countries, electricity may be managed by one ministry, while transportation issues may be overseen by another ministry, etc., with little coordination between these entities. Torero noted that examining the whole chain is imperative to understand how to improve coordination and infrastructure issues. Regarding market failures and obtaining economies of scale, Torero discussed research examined various ways private companies are working with small farmers, including contract farming arrangements. He noted that there are barriers to vertical integration that make it desirable to contract out (e.g., land laws and need for flexibility). Torero cautioned that exploitation is possible when firms have monopsonistic power. Torero noted that studies have found that regarding conventional contract farming arrangements, smallholders may be hesitant to enter into contract agreements, as the monitoring costs may be too high. Additionally small producers may not have resources to meet the quality specifications. There is also the risk of higher costs of production and contract defaults. For example, it has been shown that cash constrained farmers may break their contract because they may need cash sooner than is permitted by the contracts. To address these concerns, Torero discussed efforts to utilize microfinance options such as club formation, which could reduce costs for smallholders. Strengthening farmer association groups is another approach to improve contract arrangements with small farmers. Torero noted that IFPRI is now evaluating cases of contracts entered into with groups of farmer associations as compared with contracts with individual farmers to determine if there is any significant difference. Regarding the scaling up of solutions, Torero discussed the use of impact evaluation and typology. Evaluation in particular can be used to identify and measure project results, identify a causal link between an intervention and these results, provide a systematic and objective assessment of program impacts, and could assist in determining if interventions are relevant and cost effective. Finally, evaluation can be used to promote accountability, evidence-based policymaking, and learning. 41

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT25 Jeffrey Milder, EcoAgriculture Partners Jeffrey Milder discussed approaches to ensure sustainable management of natural resources while expanding food production. As previously discussed, in the 21st century, society will place increasing demands on the world’s rural land base. The challenge of “sustainable food security,” therefore, is not solely about increasing global food supplies by approximately 70 percent in the context of climate change and growing resource scarcity. It is about doing so while simultaneously meeting other societal needs from agricultural lands—needs that include the provision of clean water and other ecosystem services to urban areas and other downstream users, mitigation of climate change by sequestering carbon, protection of biological diversity, and provision of energy for local use and/or world markets. Recent empirical and modeling studies suggest that it will be impossible to meet all of these objectives at regional to global scales if each is pursued through separate, single-objective strategies. Instead, integrated approaches to landscape management are needed to increase synergies among these multiple objectives and thereby generate larger bundles of goods and ecosystem services from rural lands. Ecosystem management provides a theoretical and practical framework for the integrated management of agricultural landscapes. This framework seeks to balance resource conservation with resource use through a holistic approach that manages resources as systems rather than individual parts and that integrates scientific knowledge with social, economic, and political conditions and values. While ecosystem management is rooted in the field of biological conservation and natural resource management, its principles are useful for supporting sustainable approaches to food production. At the farm scale, ecosystem management approaches can be used to increase yields profitability and sustainability by managing agricultural biodiversity (e.g., through integration of diverse crop varieties and non-crop species), conducting integrated pest management, and managing soils in ways that increase beneficial nutrient and water cycling processes. These basic principles are applied in a variety of agroecological farming systems including organic agriculture, agroforestry, permaculture, conservation agriculture, and systems of rice intensification. Landscape scale applications of ecosystem management in agricultural areas (“ecoagriculture”) have historically been less widely used than farm-scale application, but are likely to be increasingly important for supporting sustainable food production in the future. Ecoagriculture approaches may be needed both to address challenges to agricultural production (e.g., adaptation to climate change, management of upstream-downstream water dynamics, and resolution of land-use conflicts) and to capitalize on new opportunities (e.g., sequestering carbon in agricultural landscapes). In ecoagriculture landscapes, synergies among multiple landscape outcomes are realized through improved spatial planning and organization of land use, and deliberate management of ecosystem services to agriculture (e.g., pollination and pest control), as well as ecosystem services provided by agricultural areas, economies of scale achieved through collective action, substitution of natural capital for financial capital, and several other mechanisms. 25 The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564, presentation by Jeffrey Milder (May 3, 2011). 42

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF A recent survey of ecoagriculture landscape approaches for achieving food production, natural resource conservation, and Millennium Development Goals identified five salient characteristics of such approaches (Milder et al., 2011): 1) Management is conducted at the scale of landscapes—areas of hundreds to thousands of square kilometers defined by common biophysical, socioeconomic, cultural, and/or jurisdictional characteristics, and often defined around specific management problems or challenges. 2) Landscapes are understood and managed as systems, in which multiple components interact dynamically in feedback loops. 3) Landscapes are deliberately managed to achieve multiple outcomes. 4) Adaptive management processes are used to conduct evidence-based decision making and create a structured process by which to learn from experiences. 5) Landscape management is conducted by multi-stakeholder groups supported by social learning. Ecoagriculture-type approaches to managing agricultural mosaics have become more prevalent in recent years, driven by grassroots action, as well as new agency programs (e.g., investments in sustainable land management in Africa and elsewhere), new policy and governance platforms (e.g., various territorial development initiatives in Latin America), and new forms of investment. Hundreds of examples have been documented, representing all continents except Antarctica. Key barriers to the more effective and widespread use of ecoagriculture include the lack of supportive governance structures and institutions, which are frequently not conducive to cross-sectoral, landscape-scale action. In addition, knowledge and capacities needed to manage landscapes for multiple objectives are not widely held, and “landscape literacy” is not commonly a part of university or adult education for agriculture and environment professionals, farmers, and community leaders. With some notable exceptions, incentive structures do not adequately encourage farmers and land managers to consider the value of ecosystem services and the effects of environmental externalities in their decision making processes. Future research on the adoption, effectiveness, and functioning of ecoagriculture approaches to landscape management can help expand the contribution of such management solutions to food security at local, regional, and global scales. GENERAL DISCUSSION Workshop participants and speakers discussed evaluation efforts and data quality issues during the discussion session. One participant noted that Mike Bushell, Maximo Torero, and Jeffrey Milder each discussed different criteria for evaluating agricultural programs and policies and asked if the speakers could recommend any standard evaluation criteria. Torero noted that initiating evaluation efforts after a program has already been designed and is the process of being implemented can be costly. He added that the key to effective evaluation efforts is to design these in conjunction with implementation planning rather than at the back end. Milder stated that from the standpoint of landscape and ecosystem management approaches, controlled experiments or research on the outcomes of those systems are not currently available and may 43

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF not be appropriate due to the number of exogenous factors that cannot be controlled. Milder added that the goal of monitoring in these types of systems, rather, is to provide insight not only into food security issues but to understand the simultaneous implications for natural resources. Milder noted that in terms of designing projects effectively to address a community’s needs, it is important to examine all important factors up front so that these are accounted for in the initial planning stages. CARE, an international aid organization, recently developed frameworks for working with communities on climate change, adaptation and vulnerability and discussed these issues upfront with the community so that they could be integrated into the design of a project. Milder added that in thinking about the smallholder context where adaptations to environmental change are the cornerstone of sustainability, one method for evaluating efforts could be to assess the capacities the communities have to adapt to changing circumstances. Human capital should not be ignored as a legitimate outcome of programs and investments. Regarding data, one participant noted that data should be accurate, timely, objective, sustainable, comprehensive, flexible, and be able to measure change. The participant added that nonsampling errors are a significant issue, as is data objectivity. Torero noted that a significant challenge in collecting data is the reliance on census data that in some cases may be 10 to 15 years old. The funding to update these data is also lacking. One participant stated that the Gates Foundation is currently funding a project in Ethiopia that uses satellite imagery to collect census data. Pardey added that alternative technology can provide new and innovative approaches for obtaining much needed and accurate data. REDUCTION OF YIELD GAPS TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSTAINABILITY26 Judith L. Capper, Washington State University Judith Capper discussed barriers to sustainably increasing the productivity of crop yields to meet rapidly increasing global food demand. She noted that projections indicate that the average domestic income will increase, with the projected GDP of China and India being similar to that of the United States (Keyzer et al., 2005). Compounding the increased demand, the desire for a diet richer in animal-source proteins rises in tandem with increasing income, thus the global livestock sector will be charged with the challenge of producing more milk, meat and eggs using fewer resources. On a global basis, crops yields have increased over time as knowledge and understanding of plant nutrition and management has improved, innovative agronomical practices have been implemented, and technologies have been adopted. Between 1961 and 2010, the global corn yield increased from 1.94 t/ha to 5.98 t/ha. If the same trend continues until 2050, corn yield will reach 7.78 t/ha (extrapolated from FAO data [http://faostat.fao.org]). Malnutrition and hunger are significant issues across the globe, with 925 million people undernourished annually and 16,000 children dying from malnutrition each day (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010). Nonetheless, it has been suggested that the quantity of food produced is already sufficient to feed the population; therefore the issue is not one of production but of a combination of considerable food wastage and the lack of designated infrastructure to transport food to those 26 The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564, presentation by Judith Capper (May 3, 2011). 44

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF areas of the world where it is currently lacking (Rabobank Group, 2010). If this conflict was overcome by the year 2050 and crop yields continued to increase, food security might cease to be a significant issue. Capper discussed public perceptions on food choice related to organic and genetically modified foods. The demand for organic food products is increasing in developed countries where malnutrition is more often associated with obesity than undernourishment, and consumers have sufficient income to demand food choice. In the United States, organic food commands a small portion of total market share (3.7 percent; Organic Trade Association, 2010) with the greatest share being seen in the fruit and vegetable sector (~12 percent), compared with dairy (~ 6 percent; Organic Trade Association, 2011) or beef (2.5 percent; Clause, 2010). Recent data shows that almost 95 percent of U.S. consumers buy food according to economic, nutritional and taste aspects, with only 4 percent seeking food according to their specific lifestyle choices (e.g., vegetarian, organic or local), yet a majority of consumers will occasionally buy organic food (Simmons, 2011). A survey by Raab and Grobe (2005) reported that consumers associated organic foods with positive attributes including “chemical-free,” “healthier/more nutritious,” “clean/pure” and “earth-friendly,” whereas the main negative attributes were related to economic cost and a mistrust or lack of knowledge of the practices associated with organic production. Capper argued that although the generally positive consumer response to organic food production improves the social component of the sustainability triangle (economic viability, environmental impact and social acceptability), productivity is demonstrably less in organic systems. Crop yield data gathered from the 2008 U.S. organic production survey (USDA/NASS 2010a) documented reductions in major crop yields varying from 29 percent for corn grain to 34 percent for soy and 40 percent for winter wheat. In a world where arable land sufficiency is decreasing, this presents a significant concern if future food security is to be maintained. By contrast, the adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops led to a 12.3 million ha reduction in the amount of total land required for canola, cotton, soy and corn production in 2009 (Brookes and Barfoot, 2011). Public perception of organic food as being “chemical-free” and “clean/pure,” stated Capper, is supported to some extent by the prohibition of inorganic fertilizers and conventional pesticides in organic production; however, it should be noted that many naturally-derived chemicals are approved for use as organic pesticides. Organic production has greatly advanced the ability of producers to control pests through non-chemical means; however, this effect is not confined to alternative production systems. On the other hand, Capper noted that public perception of GM foods has generally been negative, which has impacted GM food production. However, using biotechnology to improve disease and pest resistance reduced pesticide spray use on GM crops by 8.7 percent between 1996 and 2009, thus reducing the environmental impact from pesticide use by 17.1 percent (Brookes and Barfoot, 2011). The global acreage devoted to GM crops is estimated at ~10 percent of cropland; therefore, the reductions in pesticide use resulting from biotechnology do not negate the concerns relating to widespread chemical use in conventional production. Nevertheless, the data indicate that both technological and organic approaches show promise in reducing pesticide inputs to crop production. In contrast to organic practices, which often require increased passes across the crop to mechanically control pests, use of GM crops has favored the adoption of reduced-tillage practices, which have a two-fold advantage with regards to the environmental impact of crop production. Fuel use decreases in reduced-tillage practices as a consequence of the lesser 45

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF intensity of cultivation compared with conventional tillage. Furthermore, the quantity of carbon sequestered into the soil is increased under reduced-tillage systems. Brookes and Barfoot (2011) estimate the reduction in carbon emissions conferred by GM-crop adoption to be equal to removing 7.8 million cars from the road per year. The environmental impact mitigating effects of improved productivity are not restricted to crop production, but also offer opportunities for considerable gains within livestock production. Within the U.S., advances in nutrition, management and genetics between 1944 and 2007 conferred a four-fold increase in the average milk yield of dairy cattle and facilitated the production of considerably more milk (84.2 billion kg 2007 vs. 53.0 billion kg 1944) from a national herd containing 64 percent fewer animals (9.2 million cows vs. 25.6 million cows). Carbon emissions per unit of milk were reduced by 66 percent over the same period, with an industry-wide decrease of 41 percent in total emissions (Capper et al., 2009). The same trends can be seen on a global basis at a single time point. A recent FAO report modeled GHG emissions from dairy production using life cycle analysis, demonstrating that as production intensity increases and the average milk yield shifts from approximately 250 kg/cow for Sub- Saharan Africa to ~9,000 kg/cow for North America, the carbon footprint decreases from 7.6 kg CO2-eq/kg milk to 1.3 kg CO2-eq/kg milk. If we examine yield data for organic dairy production in the USA, conventional milk yields are significantly higher (10,062 kg/yr) compared with yields from organic (7,425 kg/yr) or grazing herds (7,213 kg/yr; USDA 2007). This decline in productivity has a significant effect upon resource use. Capper et al. (2008) modeled the effect of supplying the entire projected U.S. population in 2040 with the 0.71 liters of milk (or its low-fat equivalent) per day as recommended by USDA (2005). Assuming that current productivity trends continue for both crop and animal production, fulfilling dairy requirements via organic production would increase the national herd size by 3.5 million animals (20 percent) compared with conventional production and augment land requirements by 3.1 million ha (a 30 percent increase). The world record for dairy production is currently held by a Wisconsin dairy cow that produced 32,726 kg of milk over 365 days in 2010. Given that the average U.S. cow produced 9,593 kg of milk in 2010 (USDA, 2011), considerable progress can continue to be made in order to improve productivity and reduce environmental impact. Yield thresholds for meat production relate to the quantity of edible protein produced per animal (i.e., the slaughter weight and the proportion of the carcass that is meat vs. non-edible by- products). Anecdotal evidence from the beef processing industry indicates that a threshold for beef-animal slaughter weights has been reached and that slaughter weight cannot continue to increase without reorganization of the processing infrastructure, currently designed for an upper threshold of approximately 635 kg (average U.S. beef slaughter weight for 2010 was ~590 kg). Nevertheless, the beef industry has a considerable opportunity to improve productivity through improving both growth rate and lean muscle accretion through the use of technologies that improve feed efficiency and partition nutrients towards muscle growth. Such technologies include ionophores, steroid hormone implants, in-feed hormones and beta-agonists. These technologies are not permitted within organic production, leading to efficiency losses. Fernàndez and Woodward (1999) compared performance parameters for beef animals finished in organic or conventional feedlot systems and reported decreases in growth rate and feed efficiency (1.40 kg/d and 7.57 kg feed per kg gain for the organic system, 1.77 kg/d and 5.44 kg feed per kg gain for the conventional system), leading to a reduced slaughter weight 536 kg vs. 578 kg), increased days in the feedlot (226 d vs. 164 d) and an increase in total production costs of $0.51 per kg gain ($1.86/kg gain vs. $1.35/kg gain), a cost that would ultimately be 46

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF passed to the consumer. This comparison is somewhat disingenuous, as feedlot finishing is not routinely practiced within organic production--grass-fed finishing systems (without the use of productivity-enhancing technologies) are far more common. As a consequence of the reduced nutrient density of forage-based diets, productivity indices in grass-fed systems are reduced still further, with growth rates averaging 0.59 kg/d over the entire lifespan compared with 1.74 kg/d. If the quantity of U.S. beef produced in 2010 was supplied from a grass-fed system, an extra 64.6 million animals would need to be added to the national herd, the extra land needed would be equal to three-quarters of the land area of Texas (53.1 million ha), and the extra water required would be sufficient to supply 46.3 million U.S. households for a year (adapted from Capper, 2010). Despite the popular perception that organic systems are more environmentally-friendly, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions produced by changing to a grass-fed system would be equal to adding 26.6 million cars to the road per year. Nutritionally, studies show that grass-finished beef contains higher quantities of beneficial omega-3 and conjugated linoleic acids. The concentrations are extremely small, and their advantages may be outweighed by a higher concentration of saturated fatty acids, which have negative health effects (Leheska et al., 2008). Nonetheless, the social acceptability of a pasture-based system that is more akin to consumers’ perception of a “natural” environment and diet for cattle gains significant kudos when compared with the public image of a contemporary feedlot. Capper stated that one significant advantage of organic production from a consumer perspective is the prohibition of antibiotic use in livestock production. Despite the considerable debate as to whether antibiotic use in animals has significant implications for human health, evidence suggests that, when specifically asked, consumers consider it to be a concern (Wenderoff, 2011). Reviewing 31 published studies comparing organic and conventional systems reveals that there was no difference in the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) between systems in nine studies, whereas organic systems showed a lesser prevalence than conventional systems in the remaining 22 studies (Alali et al., 2010; Call et al., 2008; Jacob et al., 2008; Walid et al., 2010; Wilhelm et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2010). Removal of antibiotic technologies from livestock production certainly has the potential to mitigate AMR; however, it is important to note that none of the studies reported zero AMR in organic systems. Simmons (2011) showed that a small yet vocal proportion of consumers (1.7 percent) regard the majority of food purchasers as being naïve and regard it as their responsibility to educate them about the perceived dangers of contemporary large-scale food production. The preponderance of information that condemns technology use in food production is overwhelming and may mislead the consumer. For example, a recent editorial in the Washington Post mentioned GM corn and soy, cloned animals and McNuggets™ in the same sentence, conferring the message that cloned animals are as ubiquitous as fast food restaurants. However, Then and Tippe (2010) report that 600 cloned cattle exist in the USA and 120 in Europe. When compared with the 2010 U.S. cattle population of 93.7 million animals (USDA/NASS, 2010b), the numbers are extremely small, yet media reports play upon consumer fears and misconceptions to incite a climate of fear regarding the use of technology. Capper noted that the beauty of consumer choice lies in the fact that there is a market for every production system, intensive or extensive, large-scale or small-scale, contemporary or alternative, with or without technology use, providing that it continues to adapt to the economic, environmental and social issues that together confer sustainability. Although organic production systems confer positive advantages in terms of social sustainability, productivity losses lead to an 47

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF western Brazil. Environmental concerns have also surfaced, especially where land expansion occurs at the expense of tropical forests, as with pastures in Latin America and oil palm in Southeast Asia. Finally, even economic benefits are often compromised by lack of technology and land speculation—especially where land is provided through government channels free or at very low prices. For all these reasons, investments in Africa often fail, with lasting damage to communities and the environment. Byerlee said that, to realize the benefits that could be attained, changes in land governance, policy, and institutional capacity will be needed. These changes include recognition of local rights, transparent mechanisms to transfer rights voluntarily instead of having them expropriated by the state, and public institutions with clear mandates and sufficient capacity to prevent negative social or environmental effects. Additional provisions for local employment content, training and technology transfer would help spread the benefits. Although this appears a daunting list, there are good examples to draw from that indicate that the benefits from implementing these reforms could be high. As expected, outcomes are best where investments are made in situations of good land governance where property rights are already well defined. Private investment in farming will be critical to ensuring agricultural supply response for world food security. A variety of institutional models that involve a range of farm sizes will be needed. The first priority is to level the playing field to ensure that commercially-oriented family farms can respond to improved incentives and tap new sources of private capital. Much greater attention to land rights and governance will be needed to ensure favorable outcomes in Sub- Saharan Africa. LOSSES AND WASTE IN THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN29 Adel Kader, University of California, Davis (Presented by James Gorny, U.S. Food and Drug Administration) James Gorny, presenting on behalf of Adel Kader, discussed the issue of waste in the food supply and strategies for reducing these losses. Postharvest losses and waste in foods of plant origin between the production and consumption sites are estimated to average about 33 percent and range from 5 percent to 50 percent, depending on the product’s perishability and handling conditions during domestic and export marketing. Reduction of these losses can increase food availability to the growing population, decrease the area needed for food production, and conserve natural resources. Strategies for loss reduction include use of cultivars with longer postharvest life, use of an integrated crop management system that maximizes yield and quality, and use of proper postharvest handling procedures to maintain quality and safety of the products. Although reducing postharvest losses of already-produced food is more sustainable than is increasing production to compensate for these losses, less than 5 percent of the funding of agricultural research, extension, and development internationally is allocated to reducing postharvest losses and waste in the food supply chain. Biological (internal) causes of deterioration include respiration and associated metabolic rate, ethylene production and action, rates of compositional changes (associated with color, 29 The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564, presentation by Adel Kader (May 3, 2011). 54

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF texture, flavor, and nutritive value), mechanical injuries, water stress, sprouting and rooting, physiological disorders, and pathological breakdown. The rate of biological deterioration depends on several environmental (external) factors, including temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, atmospheric composition (concentrations of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ethylene), and sanitation procedures. Insect infestation, birds, and rodents are also important factors in losses of agronomic food crops (cereals, grains, oil seeds, and other dried products). Although the biological and environmental factors that contribute to postharvest losses are well understood and many technologies have been developed to reduce these losses, they have not been implemented, in many cases, due to one or more of the following socioeconomic factors: (1) predominance of small-scale producers and handlers; (2) inadequate marketing systems; (3) inadequate storage and transportation facilities; (4) unavailability of needed materials, tools, and/or equipment; (5) lack of information; and (6) unintended consequences of some governmental regulations and legislations. Strategies for reducing losses and waste of agronomic food crops include (1) drying to reduce moisture content to below 8 percent, (2) effective insect disinfestation and protection against reinfestation, (3) storage temperature (storage potential doubles for every 5ºC reduction in temperature), (4) maintaining storage relative humidity in equilibrium with moisture content of the product, and (5) proper sanitation procedures to minimize microbial contamination and avoid mycotoxin formation. The presenter suggested that international development organizations and governments should give highest priority to improving storage facilities of agronomic food crops at the national, regional, village, and household levels in all developing countries. Availability and efficient use of the cold chain is much more evident in developed countries than in developing countries. Unreliability of the power supply, lack of proper maintenance, and inefficiency of utilization of cold storage and refrigerated transport facilities are among the reasons for failure of the cold chain in developing countries. Cost of providing the cold chain per ton of produce depends on energy costs plus utilization efficiency of the facilities throughout the year. Strategies reducing postharvest losses and waste of perishable foods in developing countries include (1) application of current knowledge to improve the food handling systems and assure food quality and safety; (2) removing the socioeconomic constraints, such as inadequacies of infrastructure, poor storage facilities and marketing systems, and weak research and development capacity; and (3) overcoming the limitations of small-scale operations by encouraging consolidation and vertical integration among producers and marketers of each commodity or group of commodities. Following are some examples of the recommended loss reduction interventions: (1) improved containers to better protect produce from damage; (2) providing shade to reduce temperature and provide a natural source of cooling; (3) improved curing of root and tuber crops; (4) use of water disinfection methods and other sanitation procedures; (5) use of cost-effective cooling methods, such as evaporative forced air cooling, hydro-cooling with well water, and small-scale cold rooms with CoolBot-controlled air conditioners30; (6) effective insect control (disinfestation and protection against reinfestation); and (7) improved small scale food processing methods. 30 The CoolBot works much like a cooler compressor and can be used with a window-type air conditioning unit to enhance its cooling capacity. It has proved particularly useful for farmers and florists. 55

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF GENERAL DISCUSSION Emmy Simmons introduced the session by inquiring as to which of the low-cost methods described in James Gorny’s presentation would be most effective in reducing global food waste. Gorny responded that there is no “silver bullet,” but the methods he presented, including efforts to packaging materials, shading of produce, and transportation improvements, appear to be the simplest, least costly, and most easily implemented. Uzo Mokwunye added that little research is being conducted on postharvest losses, which is major issue in Africa, noting that for farmers with little income and small farms, building a silo, improving irrigation and refrigeration are not possible. Gorny agreed that it is not appropriate for small farmers to make a large investment in improving infrastructure, but noted that governments or individual companies could play a role in developing a cooperative approach to addressing some of these postharvest loss issues. One participant inquired as to what farm structures may look like 25 years from now in the three relevant geographies of China, India and Africa. Derek Byerlee speculated that in China, in particular, farm population is declining and there will likely be farm consolidation, but how this will occur is unclear. With more entrepreneurial farmers expanding through land rentals, he noted that there may be an increase in the number of professional farm managers including private companies. Byerlee noted that Africa is the least certain and that clearly “smallholders are going to be the way forward.” Regarding investment in small farms, one participant inquired if public and private investments will likely materialize. Byerlee noted that there is currently significant interest from the private sector in agriculture; however, it is unclear how these investments will be implemented and whether they will be concentrated in contract farming or in other approaches. Recent public private partnerships on irrigation have demonstrated that there can be innovative approaches from both sectors for investing in agriculture. Responsible investment issues were also discussed, as one participant noted, most governments are interested in attracting foreign investment. Kostas Stamoulis noted that country investment principles have been developed by the FAO, World Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. These principles, which provide a code of conduct for foreign investment, have been warmly received by the private sector, and there has been consultation with the private sector and the agencies that developed these principles. Although these agencies have offered to advise governments on the principles, there has not been interest from government agencies regarding how to handle negotiations on investments that respect land rights, the environment, etc. The private sector in this case is more eager to buy into these voluntary rules and principles than are some of the governments. GLOBAL GOVERNANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES: QUANTITY VS. QUALITY31 Nancy McCarthy, FAO Nancy McCarthy discussed global governance of natural resources. Preliminary research on existing international agreements concerning natural resources reveals the large quantity and 31 The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564, presentation by Nancy McCarthy (May 3, 2011). 56

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF large variety in instruments and resources covered. Considering bilateral and multilateral treaties, agreements, and conventions, the international community has created thousands of instruments covering every resource type. These instruments vary greatly in language and scope, requiring a more detailed look at factors that make each successful or not. McCarthy presented on her review of the nature of supra-national governance structures for natural resources important to food security. This review focused mainly on resources where externalities arise in resource use and management, in particular plant genetic resources, fisheries, water basins, forests, grasslands, and soil.32 Once countries decide to draft agreements to manage these externalities, they face a number of choices in the design of those agreements. Externalities give rise to the need for collective action--they determine the necessary membership in collective action agreements as well as the distribution of costs and benefits both from remaining at the status quo and from agreements to internalize externalities. The nature of externalities--positive and negative--strongly influences the costs of crafting and enforcing international agreements. For instance, ocean fisheries are an open-access resource with strong incentives for fleet owners to not comply with any agreements, especially with respect to species with high commercial value. Management of ocean fisheries implies all countries should be parties to agreements. Further, it is very difficult to monitor highly mobile ocean fish stocks, making determinations of non-compliance difficult. Fish stocks accessed by a smaller number of countries in seas, lake, and rivers are more akin to a common pool resource, but similarly, difficulty in monitoring means that countries face high costs of ensuring compliance by their own nationals, especially with respect to high value species. On the other hand, agreements to invest in public maintenance for navigation on rivers generally present a far less formidable incentive structure. First, such agreements generally entail few countries. Additionally, public investments do not imply restrictions on their own nationals, so countries do not have to enforce compliance against their own citizens. Agreements on forest resources often focus on mitigating negative externalities (reducing deforestation on riparian land to reduce erosion and siltation) and on providing positive externalities (afforestation and reforestation to improve water flow and quality, to preserve biodiversity corridors). These agreements are generally between relatively small numbers of countries, and monitoring is easier than it is with fisheries, especially with satellite imagery. However, countries must still be able to ensure compliance by their own nationals, which may be costly. These examples demonstrate that the management of different natural resources implies different incentive structures, with implications for the design of agreements and the potential costs of monitoring and enforcement. Once a set of countries has decided to enter into an agreement covering natural resources, several design elements come into play during negotiations. One issue is whether to craft a legally binding or non-binding agreement. Legally binding agreements are generally viewed as more credible than non-binding agreements, but non-binding agreements are seen as more flexible. Flexibility is often important when future costs and benefits are uncertain and where countries exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which can require flexibility in implementing the spirit of the agreement. Also important is the strength of domestic interest groups, which tend to strongly favor binding agreements and put less emphasis on the need for flexibility. On the other 32 Air pollution can affect food security both directly and indirectly through climate change. However, this differs from the other resources, since air quality is affected (mainly) by non-resource-based sources (e.g. industries, transportation, etc.). There are still lessons to be learned from agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Montreal Protocol, but these have been extensively studied elsewhere and so are not part of this paper. 57

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF hand, binding instruments can be made flexible through allowance of explicit ex-post adjustment mechanisms in the agreement or through the use of vague language, which is later interpreted by the countries themselves or in a central forum. The degree of precision in language is the second choice faced in crafting an agreement. As with non-binding instruments, vague language gives greater flexibility and more easily accommodates heterogeneous circumstances. It also allows for easier adjustment than treaties as uncertainties are resolved. However, vague language also makes compliance monitoring more difficult and detracts from the credibility of the commitment. Implementing the agreement requires certain functions, such as information sharing, monitoring, dispute resolution, and enforcement. Lessons learned from the literature on optimal devolution and principals of subsidiarity clearly stress the need to devolve responsibility to the lowest level possible. One can then use federated structures to improve monitoring and compliance. In terms of the four functions above, the issue is how best to harness “lower level” knowledge and capacity to implement and monitor agreements while simultaneously recognizing that greater centralization of certain functions provides greater credibility and overall compliance. For instance, centralized monitoring and/or dispute resolution mechanisms can address otherwise potential weaknesses arising from the use of non-binding agreements or of vague language. It is worth noting that these functions can be performed at more than one level in a federated structure. Finally, enforcement is almost never centralized. Rather, agreements are either enforced through national mechanisms or through reputation effects, the latter of which can often be very effective. As discussed above, international cooperation in the management of ocean fisheries is necessary because of the nature of the resource’s externalities and high difficulty in monitoring. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a legally binding international treaty, covering a variety of ocean uses through very specific language, including exclusive economic zones, navigation rights and obligations, and pollution prevention. In the area of living resources of the oceans, the convention is more vague and is left open to interpretation and enforcement by signatory nations. However, the strength of the convention lies in its establishment of strong international structures that include information platforms, monitoring mechanisms, and dispute resolution mechanisms, though their relation to fisheries was not well defined. The convention has been greatly effective in areas where its language is more precise but has had very limited effectiveness in managing the ocean’s living resources. Bringing more clarity and specificity to ocean fisheries, the UN FAO implemented the FAO Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries, a non-binding instrument with weak structures but more precise language. Though non-binding, this Code is able to utilize existing UNCLOS structures for monitoring and compliance. Combined with the development of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations under UNCLOS (following the principles of federated structures), there appear to have been some gains made vis-à-vis past performance, though certain stocks are still highly depleted. Further efforts to promote the sustainable management of living resources in the oceans are being made with the establishment of the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, a legally binding instrument with precise language specifying obligations for both flag and non-flag states. This agreement also has weak structures, utilizing instead existing UNCLOS structures, but there is great hope for its future success through specific requirements and enforcement. Forest management is an area where global agreement has been elusive, primarily because the global externalities of forest management are difficult to define. Demonstrative of 58

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF the difficult progress in this area is the UN Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of Forests, an obviously non-binding agreement with vague language. This agreement has all of the signs of an ineffective agreement: non-binding nature; vague language; and no information sharing, joint monitoring, or dispute resolution structures. Assessing compliance with this agreement is nearly impossible, and its effectiveness in furthering sustainable management in the future is doubtful. A good contrast with the UN Forest Agreement is the Central African Forests Commission (COMIFAC), a regional body among 10 Central African nations created by a legally binding treaty. The establishing treaty is binding but explicitly makes the sustainable use of forests a voluntary commitment of members. Its fuzzy standards are left open for later refinement, but the structures created in COMIFAC include activity information, coordination platforms, and federated monitoring. The later COMIFAC Plan of Convergence represents a step toward narrowing the specific areas for future regional harmonization. The effectiveness of COMIFAC and its Plan are still difficult to assess, but they appear to have the proper elements to be a successful resource agreement. Through a combination of non-binding standards and a strong structure, COMIFAC is aiming to integrate and coordinate the regions forest management. Finally, McCarthy noted that there are other international mechanisms that affect natural resources, including voluntary private sector adoption of guidelines or participation in “payments for environmental services” markets, market-based certification/labeling, and within other development financing mechanisms (e.g., the CADDP process), of which environmental sustainability is one of four pillars that need to be addressed to secure financing. McCarthy concluded that, for the most part, natural resources with supra-national externalities are already generally covered by existing international agreements. However, there is scope to improve the efficacy of these agreements. First, a better understanding of how the design elements either complement or substitute for one another could be used to strengthen agreements. Second, these agreements could also better incorporate lessons learned from the principles of subsidiarity/federated structures literature in order to strengthen compliance. Preserving the natural resource base is critical for achieving and maintaining food security, and that this is even more important in the face of climate change. Improving design of governance instruments is key to preserving the natural resource base and ensuring food security. GLOBAL PUBLIC GOODS: FOOD SAFETY33 Laurian Unnevehr, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture34 Laurian Unnevehr discussed the international consensus on food safety issues, identifying four main conclusions. First, food safety is an important public health challenge in developing countries. WHO (2002) estimates that 2.2 million people die each year from food and waterborne disease in developing countries. However, there is substantial uncertainty surrounding such estimates, and the WHO is undertaking a more systematic assessment of the global burden of foodborne illness. Animal and human health management are linked through zoonoses such as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). Microbial pathogens are the most 33 The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564, presentation by Laurian Unnevehr (May 3, 2011). 34 The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker and are not intended to represent the views of USDA. 59

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF important risk, but mycotoxin exposure is also important in developing countries. The science of identifying, monitoring, and tracking foodborne risks is advancing, making better control more feasible. Climate change may alter risks or make risks more dynamic through changing the environmental conditions that foster pathogens or toxins or by increasing the incidence of weather-related emergencies. Secondly, Unnevehr noted that food safety is a global public good because risks are shared across borders and mechanisms of control require international coordination. Microbial pathogens can enter the supply chain at many points between farm and consumer, and mixing commodities from multiple sources increases the potential spread of risks. Growing trade in perishable products, changing consumption patterns, and increased preparation of food away from home all lead to greater need for coordinated management of food safety along the entire global supply chain. Externalities from hazard control and asymmetric information lead to incomplete market incentives for food safety improvement. Thirdly, there is an emerging international consensus regarding the best practices for food safety management and regulation. International institutions are emerging to support food safety in both public and private sectors. There is also an emerging international consensus that a preventative, risk analysis based approach to food safety, which addresses the entire supply chain from farm to table, is the best way to design management and regulation. Developed-country regulations increasingly follow this approach, which prioritizes risks according to their public health importance, addresses critical control points with preventive measures, and mandates traceability for identifying risk sources. Private sector certification schemes are increasing, and there are efforts to coordinate and benchmark different systems. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement under the WTO provides a framework for addressing the need for global “standards for standards.” Finally, increased investment in capacity and in institutions would strengthen the ability of the global food system to respond to emerging food safety challenges. Investments in surveillance, water and sanitation infrastructure, and “standards for standards” would enhance management capacity. Institutions are incomplete for carrying out the tasks of prioritizing risks on a global basis, sharing the benefits of control between winners and losers, and providing consistent information about the food safety performance. GENERAL DISCUSSION Emmy Simmons opened the discussion by posing a question to Nancy McCarthy related to solutions for encouraging collective action and voluntary compliance. Simmons inquired if these might not be limited solely to joint monitoring but would extend to joint science efforts as well, specifically inquiring about how often she identified global collaboration on science as part of her review of the global treaty process. McCarthy responded that in her review, she found that river basin organizations, as well as efforts by the United States and Canada to monitor certain fish stocks on the rivers, generated scientific data. She did not note a strong emphasis related to this issue in any of the forestry treaties that she reviewed. There is also great variability in the treaties and the way they are managed and enforced. Participants discussed challenges of the Rhine River Basin and Indus Basin treaties. McCarthy noted that regarding river basin treaties, she found that when these areas faced prior conflicts, the new treaties tended to be stronger and more effective. 60

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF Participants also discussed food safety perceptions related to GMOs, noting that despite evidence that these types of crops can increase productivity and reduce environmental damage, public perception in many places of the world is that GMOs are unsafe and unhealthy. One participant observed that obviously there is an international disagreement about GM food and GM food safety and it is not clear that there is an institution that is currently capable of resolving this issue. Per Pinstrup-Andersen reiterated Laurian Unnevehr’s point that international institutions for food safety should be strengthened, but inquired as to how specifically she would recommend this be done. Unnevehr stated that with regards to increasing CODEX35 enforcement capability, she believes that it is impossible to develop international standards for food safety, particularly as risk management activities are individual-country specific and cannot be predetermined. Rather, Unnevehr stated that when she discussed strengthening international institutions, she was in fact referring to giving these organizations more authority to take a broader assessment of prioritizing risks rather than focusing on standards for a specific crop or use of pesticide. She added that the World Health Organization’s efforts to assess the global burden of foodborne illness are a positive step but could also be strengthened. Simmons summarized the presentations noting several crosscutting themes identified throughout the day related to achieving food security, including the need for additional research, better use of science, improved documentation efforts, and the need for location-specific data in some cases. She added that although the goal is the same, to achieve global food security, the presentations had demonstrated that the approaches for meeting this challenge vary extensively. REFERENCES Bushell Bushell, M. 2009. Presentation at CGIAR workshop. Available at http://www.cgiar.org/pdf/pscnov2009/4.1%20Mike%20Bushell%20- %20Identifying%20research%20priorities%20and%20setting%20objectives.pdf IMWI (International Water Management Institute). 2006. Insights from the comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Stockholm World Water Week:8. Oerke, E. C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science 144:31-43. Pretty, J. 2011. Editorial: Sustainable intensification in Africa. Pp. 1-9 in Sustainable intensification: increasing productivity in African food and agricultural systems, J. Pretty, C. Toulmin, and S. Williams, eds. London, UK: Earthscan. Reichenberger S., M. Bach, A. Skitschak, and H.-G. Frede. 2007. Mitigation strategies to reduce pesticide inputs into ground- and surface water and their effectiveness: a review. The Science of the Total Environment 384:1-35. Syngenta. 2011. Contributing to food security. Available at http://www2.syngenta.com/en/grow-more- from-less. UK Foresight Programme. 2011. The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. Available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and- farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf. 35 The CODEX Alimentarius is a food code used by global consumers, food producers and processors, national food control agencies and the international food trade. It is designed to protect the health of consumer and ensure fair trade practices encouraging the coordinating of international food standards. 61

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF United Nations. 2011. World Population Prospects: 2010 Revision. The Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Milder Milder, J. C., L. E. Buck, F. A. J. DeClerck, and S. J. Scherr, eds. 2001. Landscape Approaches to Achieving Food Production, Natural Resource Conservation, and the Millennium Development Goals. Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction, F. A. DeClerck, J. C. Ingram, and C. Rumbaitis del Rio, eds. New York: Springer. Capper Alali, W. Q., S. Thakur, R. D. Berghaus, M. P. Martin, and W. A. Gebreyes. 2010. Prevalence and distribution of Salmonella in organic and conventional broiler poultry farms. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 7:363-371. Bauman, D. E., and J. L. Capper. 2011. Future Challenges and Opportunities in Animal Nutrition. 26th Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference. Tempe, AZ. Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2011. GM Crops: Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts 1996- 2009. Dorchester, UK: PG Economics Ltd. Call, D. R., M. A. Davis, and A. A. Sawant. 2008. Antimicrobial resistance in beef and dairy cattle production. Animal Health Research Reviews 9:159-167. Capper, J. L., E. Castañeda-Gutiérrez, R. A. Cady, and D. E. Bauman. 2008. The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:9668-9673. Capper, J. L., R. A. Cady, and D. E. Bauman. 2009. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87:2160-2167. Capper, J. L. 2010. The environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production systems. Proc. Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture Conference 2010. Banff, Canada. Clause, R. 2010. Organic Beef Profile. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center. http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/livestock/beef/organic_beef_profile.cfm. Accessed May 2011. FAO. 2009. How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome, Italy: FAO. FAO. 2010. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2010. Rome, Italy: FAO. Fernàndez, M. I., and B. W. Woodward. 1999. Comparison of conventional and organic beef production systems I. Feedlot performance and production costs. Livestock Production Science 61:213-225. Jacob, M. E., J. T. Fox, S. L. Reinstein, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2008. Antimicrobial susceptibility of foodborne pathogens in organic or natural production systems: An overview. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 5:721-730. Keyzer, M. A., M. D. Merbis, I. F. P. W. Pavel, and C. F. A. van Wesenbeeck. 2005. Diet shifts towards meat and the effects on cereal use: can we feed the animals in 2030? Ecological Economics 55:187-202. Leheska, J. M., L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J. C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, and M. F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. Journal of Animal Science 86:3575-3585. Organic Trade Association. 2010. U.S. Organic Product Sales Reach $26.6 Billion in 2009. Available at http://www.organicnewsroom.com/2010/04/us_organic_product_sales_reach_1.html. Accessed May 2011 Organic Trade Association. 2011. U.S. Organic Industry Valued at Nearly $29 billion in 2010. U.S. organic industry valued at nearly $29 billion in 2010. Accessed May 2011. Raab, C., and D. Grobe. 2005. Consumer knowledge and perceptions about organic food. Journal of Extension 43:online. 62

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF Rabobank Group. 2010. Sustainability and Security of the Global Food Supply Chain. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Rabobank Nederland. Simmons, J. 2011. Making Safe, Affordable and Abundant Food a Global Reality. Greenfield: Elanco Animal Health. Then, C., and R. Tippe. 2010. Agro-Biotechnology: Cloned Farm Animals - A ‘Killing Application’? Risks and Consequences of the Introduction of Cloned Animals for Food Production. Munich, Germany: Test Biotech Institute. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2005. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. Washington, DC: USDA. USDA. 2007. Dairy 2007, Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA-APHIS-VS. USDA/NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2010a. 2008 Organic Production Survey. Washington, DC: USDA. USDA/NASS. 2010b. Overview of the United States Cattle Industry. Washington, DC: USDA. USDA. 2011. Data and Statistics. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp. Accessed May 2011. Walid, W. Q., S. Thakur, R. D. Berghaus, M. P. Martin, and A. G. Wondwossen. 2010. Prevalence and distribution of Salmonella in organic and conventional broiler poultry farms. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 7:1363-1371. Wenderoff, J. 2011. Moms across America uniting to preserve effectiveness of antibiotics: poll of 800+ moms shows more than three out of four concerned about use of antibiotics in food animal production, support government action to limit such use. Available at http://www.saveantibiotics.org/newsroom/pr_3may2011.html. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Accessed May 2011. Wilhelm, B., A. Raji , L. Waddell, S. Parker, J. Harris, K. C. Roberts, R. Kydd, J. Greig, and A. Bayntonet. 2009. Prevalence of zoonotic or potentially zoonotic bacteria, antimicrobial resistance and somatic cell counts in organic dairy production: Current knowledge and research gaps. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 6:525-539. Zhang, J., S. K. Wall, L. Xu, and P. D. Ebner. 2010. Contamination rates and antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from “grass-fed” labeled beef products. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 7:1331-1336. Crane Flynn, H.C. and P. Smith. 2010. Greenhouse gas budgets of crop production – current and likely future trends. Paris, France: International Fertilizer Industry Association. Jenssen, T.K., and G. Kongshaug. 2003. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in fertilizer production. IFS (The International Fertiliser Society) Proceedings No: 509. York, UK: IFS. Byerlee Deininger, K., and D. Byerlee with J. Lindsay, A. Norton, H. Selod, and M. Stickler. 2011a. Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits? Washington, DC: The World Bank. Deininger, K., and D. Byerlee. 2011 The Rise of Large Farms in Land Abundant Countries: Do They Have a Future? World Development (forthcoming). Eastwood, R., M. Lipton, and A. Newell. 2010. Farm size. in Handbook of Agricultural Economics, P. L. Pingali and R.E. Evenson, eds. North Holland: Elsevier. Hertel, T. 2011. The Global Supply and Demand for Land in 2050: A Perfect Storm? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(1). 63

OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF Kader Kader, A. A. 2005. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce. Acta Horticulturae 682:2168-2175. Kitinoja, L., S. Saran, S. K. Roy, and A. A. Kader. 2011. Postharvest technology for developing countries: challenges and opportunities in research, outreach and advocacy. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91:597-603. Unnevehr Unnevehr, L. J. 2007. Food safety as a global public good: is there underinvestment? Contributions of Agricultural Economics to Critical Policy Issues, K. Otsuka and K. Kalirajan, eds. Malden: Blackwell. WHO (World Health Organization). 2002. WHO global strategy for food safety: safer food for better health. Available at: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/general/en/strategy_en.pdf 64