Global Food Policy Report 2012

7/28/2019 Global Food Policy Report 2012

1/142


2/142

About IFPRITe Inernaional Food Policy Research Insiue (IFPRI), esablished in 1975, provides evidence-basedpolicy soluions o susainably end hunger and malnuriion and reduce povery. Te Insiue conducsresearch, communicaes resuls, opimizes parnerships, and builds capaciy o ensure susainable oodproducion, promoe healhy ood sysems, improve markes and rade, ransorm agriculure, bui ld resil-ience, and srenghen ins iuions and governance. Gender is considered in al l o he Insiues work.IFPR I collaboraes wih parners around he world, including developmen implemeners, public insi-

uions, he privae secor, and armers organizaions, o ensure ha local, naional, regional, and globalood policies are based on evidence.

IFPRI is a member o he CGIAR Consorium.


3/142


4/142


5/142

Copyrigh 2013 Inernaional Food Policy Research Insiue. All r ighs reserved.

Conac [email protected] or permission o reprin.

Inernaional Food Policy Research I nsiue2033 K Sree, NWWashingon, DC 20006-1002, USAelephone: +1-202-862-5600ww w.ipri.org

ISBN: 978-0-89629-553-7

DOI: 10.2499/9780896295537

Cataloging-in-Publication Data is avai lable from the Library of Congress.

PHOTO CREDITS

Cover image: Bangkok, Tailand, 2007 Je Huchens/ Gety ImagesChaper images: page x, G20 Summ i a Los Cabos, Mexico, 2012 Andres Leighon/Associaed Press;page 14, Limeira, Brazil, 2012 Paulo Whiaker/Reuers; page 28, Bauko, Philippines, 2010 G. M. B.

Akash/Panos; page 38, Harjbook Ki Bhagal, Rajashan, India, 2011 Dieer elemans/Panos; page 48,Kamwosor Cenre Village, Kenya, 2011 Russell Powell, Couresy o Heier Inernaional; page 58,Fremon, Nebraska, Unied Saes, 2012 Nai Harnik/Associaed Press; page 68, Inner Mongolia,China, Georg Gerser/Panos; page 88, Chiang Mai, Tailand, Jean-Leo Dugas/Panos.

Cover design: Carolyn Hallowell / Book design and layou: Carolyn Hallowell, Lucy McCoy, and

David Popham.


6/142

Contents

Preface vii

Acknowledgmens ix

Chapter 1 Food Policy in 2012: Walk he alk 1

Shenggen Fan

Chapter 2 Agriculural Produciviy: A Changing Global Harves 15

Keih Fuglie and A lejandro Nin-Prat

Chapter 3 Green Economy: Susainable and Growing, bu Also Food Secure? 29

Niin Desai and Claudia Ringler

Chapter 4 Women in Agriculure: Closing he Gender Gap 39

Ruh Meinzen-Dick and Agnes Quisumbing

Chapter 5 Employmen in Agriculure: Jobs for Africas Youh 49

Karen Brooks, Sergiy Zorya, and A my Gauam

Chapter 6 US and EU Farm Policies: Te Subsidy Habi 59

Jean-Chrisophe Bureau, David Laborde, and David Orden

Chapter 7 Regional Developmens: Policy Choices on he Ground 69

Chapter 8 Looking Ahead: Scenarios for he Fuure of Food 89

Mark W. Rosegran, Simla okgoz, Prapi Bhandar y, and Siwa Msangi

Food Policy Indicaors: racking Change 102

Noes 121


7/142

FEATURES

Cuting Consumer Food Wase 16Jean C. Buzby

Reducing Posharves Losses 21Nancy Morgan, Adam Prakash, and Hansdeep Khaira

Wha Makes African Agriculure Grow? 24Peer Hazell

Agriculural R&D: Spending Speeds Up 26Nienke Beinema, Ger-Jan Sads, Keih Fuglie, and Paul Heisey

Rio+20: Did I Move Us Forward? 30Morgane Danielou

Green and Greener: oward Susainable Agriculure 33Sylvie Lemme

ies Ta Bind Energy, Food, and Agriculure 34Eugenio Daz-Bonilla

Geting Gender Roles Righ: A Success Sory in Mozambique 41Jemimah Njuk i and Elizabeh Waihanji

Indexing Womens Empowermen 42Emily Hogue and Caren Grown

Indias New Deal: Public Works and Rural Jobs 52P. K. Joshi

A Brazilian View of EU and US Agriculural Policy Reforms 60Andr Meloni Nassar

An African View of EU and US Agriculural Policy Reforms 63Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere

A Chinese View of EU and US Agriculural Policy Reforms 64Funing Zhong

Grain Drain: Agriculural Policies in he Pos-Sovie Saes 67Sergey Kiselev

Malawi: Macroeconomics, Small Farmers, and Shor Food Supplies 72Dyborn Chibonga

Vision 2021: Bangladesh Chars a Pah oward Food Securiy 80Muhammad Abdur Razzaque

Asia: Inernaional Goals Simulae Small-Scale Farmers Iniiaives 83Ma. Esrella A. Penunia

Honduras: Agriculural Exension and Beter echnologies forHigher-Value Crops 86Jeremas Vasquez

Modeling he Fuure: How Can We Improve Food Policy? 91Gerald Nelson

New Food Securiy Indexes 113Alex ander J. Sein

Knowledge Is Power: Open Access in 2012 120Gwendolyn Sansbury and Luz Marina Alvar


8/142

PrefaceTis 2012 Global Food Policy Reportis he second in an annual series ha provides an in-deph look a majorood policy developmens and evens. Iniiaed in response o resurgen ineres in ood securiy, he seriesoers a yearly overv iew o he ood policy developmens ha have conribued o or hindered progress inood and nuriion securiy. I reviews wha happened in ood policy and why, examines key challengesand opporuniies, shares new evidence and knowledge, and highlighs emerging issues.

In 2012, world ood securiy remained vulnerable. While alk abou hunger and malnuriion was plen-

iul, i remains o be seen wheher curren and pas commimens o inves in agriculure, ood securiy,and nuriion wil l be me. New daa rom he Food and Agriculure Organizaion o he Unied Naionssugges ha he world wil l all shor o achieving he rs Millennium Developmen Goal o halving heprevalence o undernuriion by 2015. ranslaing commimens ino acion is hus even more urgen.

Evidence poins o a number o seps ha would advance ood and nuriion securiy. Invesmens

designed o raise agriculural produciviyespecially invesmens in research and innovaionwouldaddress one imporan acor in ood securiy. Research is also needed o invesigae he emerging nexusamong agriculure, nuriion, and healh on he one hand, and ood, waer, and energy on he oher. Inaddiion, by opimizing he use o resources, innovaion can conribue o he push or a susainable greeneconomy. Boosing agriculural growh and urning arming ino a modern and orward-looking occupa-

ion can help give a uure o large young rural populaions in developing counries.Beyond invesing in research and innovaion, more can be done in oher areas o improve ood securiy.

Donors can pay more atenion o gender when designing developmen projecs. Policymakers can akeino accoun he global repercussions o heir domesic agriculural policies. Tis is rue no only or hedeveloped counries, bu also or Brazil, China, and Indiaemerging players in world agriculural mar-

kes whose acions wil l have a sizable impac on uure ood securiy. Building poor peoples resilience oshocks and sressors would help ensure ood securiy in a changing world. In any case, poor and hungrypeople mus be a he cener o he pos-2015 developmen agenda.

Te opics covered in he 2012 Global Food Policy Reportwere seleced ollowing a number o consula-ions designed o capure he deph, relevance, and breadh o ood policy issues in 2012. For inclusion in

he repor, a opic mus represen a new developmen in or a new way o looking a a ood policy issue; imus be inernaional in scope (i mus have aeced several counries or sakeholders); and high-qualiyresearch resuls or exper judgmen mus be available o allow or auhoriaive discussion o he opic.o add perspecives and deepen discussion, we supplemened chapers wih shorer conribuions romexpers and sakeholders, including armer represenaives rom Arica, Asia, and Lain America. I wouldlike o hank I FPRIs Board o rusees and Sraegic Advisory Council, as well as IFPR I sa, or heir

insighs on curren ood policy developmens and heir exper advice on he selecion o key issues.I hope ha his publicaion is me w ih ineres, inorms sakeholders and decisionmakers he world

over, helps se he research agenda or 2013 and beyond, and conribues o improving ood policies sohey bene he worlds poores and mos vulnerable people. I welcome your eedback, commens, and

suggesions a [email protected].

SHENGGEN FAN

Direcor General

vii


9/142


10/142

AcknowledgmentsTe 2012 Global Food Policy Reportwas prepared under he overall leadership o Shenggen Fan and a coreeam comprising Rajul Pandya-Lorch, Gwendolyn Sansbury, Alexander J. Sein, and Klaus von Greb-mer. Te repor beneed grealy rom he sraegic insighs o a commitee o advisers and oher expers,including Rober Bos, Bety Bugusu, Margare Caley-Carlson, Marion Guillou, Craig Hanson, MichielA. Keyzer, Will Marin, Kimberly Peier, Marin Pineiro, Prabhu Pingali, Florence Rolle, M. S. Swamina-han, Eric ollens, Joachim von Braun, and Emorn Wasanwisu.

Excellen ex and daa conribuions were made by Luz Mar ina A lvar, Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere,Suresh Babu, Ousmane Badiane, Nienke Beinema, Samuel Benin, Prapi Bha ndary, Clemens Breis-inger, Karen Brooks, Jean-Chrisophe Bureau, Jean C. Buzby, Kevin Z. Chen, Dyborn Chibonga, Mor-gane Danielou, Niin Desai, Eugenio Daz-Bonilla, Paul Dorosh, Keih Fuglie, Amy Gauam, CarenGrown, Peer Hazell, Paul Heisey, Emily Hogue, P. K. Joshi, Hansdeep Khaira, Sergey Kiselev, David

Laborde, Sylvie Lemme, sisi Makombe, Ruh Meinzen-Dick, Nancy Morgan, Siwa Msangi, AndrMeloni Nassar, Gerald Nelson, Alejandro Nin-Prat, Jemimah Njuki, olulope Olonbiyi, David Orden,Ma. Esrella A. Penunia, Adam Prakash, Agnes Quisumbing, Muhammad Abdur R azzaque, ClaudiaRingler, Mark W. Rosegran, Ger-Jan Sads, Gwendolyn Sansbury, Alexander J. Sein, Simla ok-goz, Jeremas Vasquez, Klaus von Grebmer, Elizabeh Waihanji, Bingx in Yu, Funing Zhong, and Ser-

giy Zorya.Producion o he repor was led by IFPRIs Publicaions Uni under he guidance o Andrea Pedol-

sky; Heidi Frischel provided superb wriing suppor, and he overall producion o a high-qual iyrepor was made possible hrough he dedicaed work o Adrienne Chu, Carolyn Hallowell, PaFowlkes, Corinne Garber, Michael Go, Lucy McCoy, David Popham, Ashley S. Tomas, Julia Vivalo,

and John Wh iehead. In addiion, Chaper 1, which draws parial ly on oher chapers in his book, ben-eed rom valuable research and wriing a ssisance rom consulan Joanna Brzeska.

Imporanly, he repor also beneed rom he horough work by IFPRIs Publicaions ReviewCommitee, chaired by Gershon Feder, as well as rom he anonymous scholars and expers who peer-reviewed he research and provided insighul commens on he preliminary drafs.

ix


11/142


12/142

Chapter 1

he world ood sysem coninued o be in a vulnerablep 2012. A 2015 M Dp- G pp, pg g pp

pp g g k. G, p pg g - p, g

g p . F 2013, , p .

k g g 2012. I g R +20 pg -

p pp- g g g. gZ N L Dg Z Hg Cg g . M g Gp 20 (G20) Gp Eg (G8) g, p

g p , g- p. B p. N g p pk p k q g p g .

I p p, --g p x. O , p p, g

. A A pg -g g p . Ag-

pg, g g gg Bz, C, I, . Dpp g , p CGIAR, - g g 2011. T p

Shenggen Fan is the director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute

in Washington, DC.

FOOD POLICY IN 2012

Walk the TalkShenggen Fan


13/142

g - g gg B20 (B20) G8. Dpg U S Ag I Dp (USAID), U

Kg Dp I Dp- (DFID), G F M E Cp Dp (BMZ), I F Ag Dp- (IFAD), W Bk p

g, , .1 P B &M G F p g g p- 2012.

O , pg p-

. O A 10 p g gpg g. Eg-g A g pg zp p, g ;

z, , g; g p g p(R&D), g, . p- , -

xp , xg p . G g p, pp g g pp. T U S Ep U

pp g p p g k, g pg . Ig g D

ppg, g C,

Mx, 2011 g kpg g, J 2013.

THE GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM REMAINEDFRAGILE IN 2012

New Numbers, Same Problem

Dp g

F Ag Ogz U N (FAO), g pp p g p- p pp

(Fg 1). O pj g pk 2008 2009. T , , pg g pg g

2007 pg p g M-

Dp G g p 2015. S, pp g,

870 20102012.Ag g

p p g -p , - . T q pp (p,

k), q ( , ). I g

pp ( g), p .

Drought and Volatile Food Prices

T 2012 g C A, E Ep,

U S g pp, q, pk p.T 2012 t U S.2 Appx 80 p

U S g , z

.3 S, g -p p- A, Kzk, R, Uk, g p p xp . B g g p k p p,

g p g

2 Walk the talk


14/142

2013 g p p p. E pg p g S A g z p L, S

A, p M , Mzq, Z. Cp p S g A g 2011 g, p S gg -

g , g- - , - k g g 2011.4 T g k. Pp p

g 2011 g g.Dg , g

z , 25 p z p J

Ag, p g Ag.5 B z p, k , gz p g p -

p, p 2013. S , p 32 p J Ag 2012,g 2008 . T p p

p p p p, p C S A C A.

P g S g 2011 2012 g -

g, , -. I Bk F M, p 66 63 p, p, p 2011; g p, 52 43 p; z p, 21 44 p.6

FIGURE 1 Estimates and projections of undernourished people worldwide, 19902015

Millionsofundernourishedpeople

0

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,000

1,050

Old FAO estimates

New FAO estimates

675 million people willsuffer from hungerin 2015 even if MDG1is achieved

Progress needed toachieve MDG1 in 2015

Business as usual

More than 800 millionpeople may sufferfrom hunger in 2015if MDG1 is notacheived

Sources: Old estimates are rom Food and Agriculture Organization o the United Nations (FAO), The State of Food Insecurity in the World(Rome, various years); new estimates are rom FAO, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 (Rome, 2012); authors projections arebased on data rom FAO and the United Nations.

Food policy in 2012 3


15/142

VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES FOR LAND

TENURE ADOPTEDThe Committee on World Food Security endorses

voluntary guidelines for safeguarding the rights ofpeople to own or access land, forests, and fisheries.

May 11

G8 COMMITS TO FOOD AND

NUTRITION SECURITY IN AFRICA

G8 members, African countries, andprivate-sector leaders support the New

Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.May 19

JANUARY MARCH MAY

CHINA PRIORITIZES INVESTMENT

IN AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

The governments No. 1 Document for2012 chooses accelerating agricul-tural science and technological

innovation as its theme.February 1

FEBRUARY APRIL JUNE

NIGERIA SETS

AMBITIOUS 2030 GOAL

Working with the privatesector, the Ministry of

Agriculture mobilizes tocreate an agricultural

sector worth $256 billion.June 7

TOWARD RESILIENCE IN THE SAH

Stakeholders create a Global Alliance Resilience Initiative to help West Afric

nations better cope with future focrise

June


16/142

JULY SEPTEMBER NOVEMBERAUGUST OCTOBER DECEM

20 AGREES TO BOOSTGRICULTURAL

RODUCTIVITY

he G20 agrees to promoteeater public and privatevestment in agriculture

nd technology.une 19

USTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS

EFT WANTING AT RIO+20

e UNs Rio+20 Declaration offersrong vision but little direction on

ow to achieve food security in aeen economy.ne 22

DROP IN US RAINFALL, PEAK IN

GLOBAL FOOD PRICES

The worst drought in the UnitedStates since the 1950s severely

lowers its maize and soybeanproduction and drives up prices on

world markets.August 22

US FARM BILL EXPIRES

Congress recesses until afterthe November elections withoutpassing a new farm bill,leaving the agricultural sector

up in the air.September 30

NEW WAY TO CRUNCH THE

GLOBAL HUNGER NUMBERSThe Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations publishes

lower estimate of the number ofundernourished peoplewhich

remains unacceptably high.October 9

NEW LIMITS ON FOOD CROPBASED

BIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN THE EU

To stimulate development of alternativebiofuels from nonfood feedstock, the EUproposes to limit global land conversionfor food cropbased biofuel production.

October 17

NO WHEAT FROM

UKRAINE

Government limits grainexports informally,destabilizing markets.

November 15

UN CONFERENCE EXT

KYOTO PROTOCOL TO

Many believe the resultsthe UNs 18th conferencclimate change areinadequate to contain g

warming at 2 degrees CNovember 26


17/142

2012, g pp p -

p p - . N, p g g p-

g, g 19 pp.7 S,

z p SA 2012 k p - ppx 1.5 - pp g 2011.

I p g g p gp k, g Ag, M, Zp g xp. S g p-

g p g p, p k p . I- p g

R Uk p g xp p -, g j . S , g -

g , xp. Iz, z x p p g g,8 p , z g 2012.

Confict

V q p 2012. F C A p p p p pp

g g -. A M, - p p, p 400,000 pp (- gg ), pg

, ptg p

, g p- g- gg p - 2011.9 R DRp Cg p

ppx 2.2 pp - 70,000 pp gg .10 F, D- Rp Cg 100,000 g - g. Ogg p

S, p p .11 A g k p -, k, ,pg p g .

I A g, S g g p . I 2012, W F Pg 1.5 S g g .12 E g, A Akg,

p .F z, p p g g 2012, Y g Eg p

L.

Long-Term Drivers o the Global FoodSystem

A g g xgp p, p,

k. F xp, g p

z pg gg p . Egk g g p - k gg k

g g g . T p gR&D g p- g p .

T p g

p

6 Walk the talk


18/142

pk k .IFPR I I M P A

Ag C (IMPAC) k - p . R k p pp

p g g p, xp gg p, . T p gg p k p g

. Ctg p p k p p pg . Ig g- p, , xpg p p p,

g g p, g . Cg pt, p g, g p gg Bz, C, I p g p g g

p (Cp 8 p).

DEVELOPMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN

2012

New Sources o Agricultural Growth

A g, 2012 pg g ,p, p . B 2001 2010,

g p g g 2.4 p, gg 2. 3 p 1970.

C p g p- p g 1995, g 20 g

g g . A , g k g . G p g pg p g

p, g p g.

T g g g p . G p, p g

p g, -

20012009 p g 19712009 ( Cp 2). U 1980, g g p , z, . T p

90 p g- g 1960, 80 p 1970, 75 p 1980. Sg 1990,, g p 20 p g g, 80 p g p-

, pg p.

g pg p,Bz C, g g p p

. S pg g, -g S A, W A N A, L A C, g- p gg . T j xp

A S, g- p g 1 p . Rp g A g g z. T p

g p A g g g g p.

I gp g

p p p -g g p, g -

p g , pg f- z p.

Pushing to a Green Economy

T g k p- p g UN C S Dp R J J. A , k



19/142

R+20, g p g g -

p p (Cp 3). T g , T FW W, p- g , g

g g p p g.13 Dp p, p p -p . T z kg.

Dg R+20 , U N-g Z Hg C-g g - p . T q

pp, g g , , 100 p p , z . S, g g z g 2030, z g-

2030, g pp p g-p 2020. W pp, p , , .

O p g g p - p -

p , , p g. T pg, q, , p, g g. I

2012, Ep C p g p j g g p - .14

Gender: From Attention to Action

T 2012 k g t- g q g

g . A - g g-

p,gg, p p g p ( Cp 4). T W Bk World

Development Report 2012 FAO State of Food

and Agriculture 20102011, xp, pz p g pg , ggg gp g p g g q. Ig

q p f g gp g,g , x, g, p- , .15

I p , pg k p

g q p g p - pg. U , -, g g ppg p f-. I 2012, p q g

p g q, IFPRI, USAID, Ox P H DpI W Ep Ag Ix.16 T x -g g p pg p g q

pg F F, USAID x US g g pg .

T g q

g p p ,

p . Ag g p-g p g

p , pg p t g gp . , g ggg g p - kp .

8 Walk the talk


20/142

. F xp, g- Ng p g p-

g YEp Pg k gp g Y Ep Ag Pg, g

kp, g g1 j 2015.

Y p g - k , g- k xg g,- g -

z , , g g pgp. pp p, pg - k g , p, k g pp k g-

p pg p . C p , g- k, p -g , x- g pg. A, g

pp , -g p ,, . Ag A, xp,

g p j p g gpp. Mkg g p, p, t g pp, g -

g g, pg -, pg g g . pp , pg k x g p - g p

p p p- g g.

Extending Support or Rich-CountryFarmers

Dp g - p Ep U S, g 2012( Cp 6). A US p

Where the Jobs Are

Up p g- p. Agp pg p p -

j. H, g pp p-g g , j g j . Y, g g-p

, x g ( Cp 5). I , p p- g p ppp gg pp g

pp p

. T gg g p-p g p p A, g -gg g pp g .

A gg g g p , p , p p gg p pp g pp

pg g

g.I 2012, g g

g g g g p-p p g. T Yg P-

p, Fg, F , G,x p gggg pp g . T 4 C- A U M Cg Y, Ep, gg

p A Ug pg g

- . T I F Ag Dp F F p g,

pp g p gz, g g g- pg g , pgg pp , -k, , kg.17 S

- pp g



21/142

2012; , US Cg x p- , g

2012 2013.T pp pp g pg x p

g p . G pp US p g - pp g, k f U S gpp g-

p.18T Ep C (EC) pp

k C Ag P. O p 20 C Ag- P pg p pp z xp p p . T

pp k p p g-, qg , g g, p, xg p p-,

g . I g (p US). T pp p p p , g U S, g

EC pp g z p .

Ag pp p k p , p - p

pg p p. I ppp p Ep U U S, p g p

k g p j .

T p g pp p, p g p.

A , , p p kp g p Ep. I

p gg p , EC

pp O 2012 p 5 p p Ep U 10 p g

g 2020. T pp p p - -g , g

g g -p g p. I U

S, p g 2012, p g, t g p.

Food Policy Developments acrossRegions and Countries: A Mixed Picture

A g p pk p j g 2012. Ag g t

g , p g (Cp 7).

A g g p 2012. F 2006 2011,

g g g A : ppx 1213 p Ag L; 7 p B,Ep, M; 5 p R; 4 p G z.19 T pg g g, z,

p g-g p , g p. P- , g g. A g x k

. T 20112012 A - S g -

. I p , G A R I S p g -

, pg,g , -g pp p . I g ,, kg g g q g g- p g p

10 Walk the talk


22/142

g , g,k , .

I S A , I g pk 2012 p pp- p

g p . Bp tg p-g g g p, p p - g t p k , pg I

. H, g gp, ptg -, p p . Ag , Bg

p g p g - p g-, p , g k g pp. T g p

g p 2021 p pp. T xp p 2012, z p.

A , p p g. I - Ex p Ct 10- g - p, pg

g ,, g g, ,, , .T Sp C - g

p p g p t.I Np, g p k

pg , g pp

z g g p R&D, g, - pg. T p

p g Np, g

.I E A, 2012 g p

C. A -f j g (, , z), C

p 23 , 45 - , 56 z 2012, g p 60 .T p p- p , p

g p p-g g g . A p p C 2012N. 1 D, gp g R&D

2012 . T p p-g g pg Bz I j ppg U S.

T xpT-

xp I V 2012. T p g-g p -k p p p p, g xp g

k. Ag p p p g g, p gz g p xp I Ig

p xp 2011.20 M k p g xp k-g g , g gk, pp g p p.

I g p p,

p j xp g.L A C p

g g p

2012 p p . Agx 2012 g p-, p pj .P g L A ,



23/142

k p j -. I , p

. I g L A- p g xp g p p g,

. I 2012, Bz

Az . Bz

p p gg g- p , g p Bz kg p p p-

p . T xp - p p p g .

T A g

g . E- g g p, g. , g - p p g 2008 g 20102011 pg,

p g p p g p g. Y A g- p- 2012 g p

, g (J, S, ), g g ( G Cp C21),

tg p t p (S A).

OUTLOOK FOR 2013

M -

2013. P p pp gg - k, , , gg p. G

k k, g g -

p pp. T pg g p p, , g, p k

, , -g. S - -, g. D p t

p g pp,

What to Watch for in 2013

X Where will agriculture, ood security, and nutrition be posi-

tioned in the post-2015 development agenda, and how will they

be accounted or i the green economy moves rom conceptto reality?

X How eective will the international development community be in

strengthening the resilience o the global ood system to shocks

and emergencies? Will we see improvements in the early-warning

and ood security inormation systems in developing countries?

X To what extent will climate change be taken more seriously at

intergovernmental orums? Will binding commitments come orth?

X How will economic uncertainties in the United States and the

European Union inuence the quantity and quality o their oreign

assistance policies? And what will be the impact o their new agri-

cultural policies on ood security in developing countries?

X Will China continue to increase its grain imports, or will there

be additional institutional innovations to transorm its agricul-

tural sector?

X Will Indias ood security bill and large-scale programs such as

direct cash transers improve its ood and nutrition security?

X Can the continued conicts in the Arab World and Arica be

contained, or will urther unrest shake the regions and aect

ood security?

X How will the private sector, in particular multinational ood com-

panies, engage in addressing malnutritionboth undernutrition

and obesityin developing countries?

X With major changes on the environmentalist ront regarding the

use o genetically modifed organisms in agriculture, will there be

a signifcant shit in Europes acceptance levels with potential pos-

itive outcomes or global ood security?

X How will increased inormation sharingthrough the open access

movement and the soaring use o mobile devicesaect agricul-

ture and rural development?

12 Walk the talk


24/142

g k .I g, W E-

F, G8, G20, p p p, pp p- p, p pp

p g- g.

T x g g, , , x g , , g p p p , g B 2011 C-

: T W, Eg, F SNx IFPRI 2011 LggAg Ipg N H.T g 2013 g g. Ag - x g g-

, , - , p xp p p- . M g - gg

p. E p p- g p k, p, . p p-, p

k p g g, p, -. M kp 2013 2014, J FAO/W H Ogz I C-

N. T k g pp kg g , g g g , pg g p p p , g

, pg , g g kg .

G pp g

g, p, -, pg, -, p. A x p p pp g, t

p pp

p . T g g k p pg pg, , p. T G8, p U Kg 2013, LAq-

, I, 20 09 pp p g g g p g - p.I p, I p gg g Ep U p-

g 2013.F, 2013 ,

M DpG . P pg, q , tg

p-. T p g - g p-2015p g. W p g , p

pp p-2015 -p g. T p tg g g p

g , ,

g g.T g p

k g g g - g g. N k k g p

.

Much was said during the G20 and G8

summits about the need to increase

investment in agriculture and ood

security. But there is a need or a

mechanism to ensure and monitor actual

implementation.



25/142


26/142

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

A Changing Global HarvestKeith Fuglie and Alejandro Nin-Pratt

In 96 he world was eeding 3.5 billion people by culivaing.7 . A , - 7

2 . . H, , - ? B . B t m m x, , x . , , - 00 : -j , 20 (F ). B , ,m .

A 2002, , k m m . A mm k 2008, 200, 202. Dm- ( , m m, m-m ) - k (k 202 N Am) mj . B mm . , mj k , m 2 70 80 0. A, m - ( m ),

f k.1 A , mm , m , , . W q, m

Keith Fuglie is the chie o the Resource, Environmental, and Science Policy (RESP)

Branch at the US Department o Agricultures Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) in

Washington, DC. Alejandro Nin-Pratt is a research ellow in the Development Strategy

and Governance Division o the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington,

DC. The views expressed in this chapter are those o the authors and do not necessarily

refect those o the USDA-ERS.

Chapter 2


27/142

. T - f m k .

WHAT CHANGED?

W m -m . O m x . Cm m , m

m. Cmm m,mm m , m , m m -

m .G - - .

A mj m m - . W

Cutting Consumer Food WasteJEAN C. BUZBY

Industrialized countries waste more oodper capita than developing countries.For example, in 2007 North America andEurope wasted 95115 kilograms o ood

per capita, compared with 611 kilograms

per capita in Arica south o the Sahara

and South and Southeast Asia.1 Few

peer-reviewed, published studies provide

national ood waste estimates, particu-

larly or arm-level losses. Nevertheless,

the ood waste literature suggests that

most o the ood waste in industrialized

countries occurs at the consumer level

(not at the arm level, as in developing

countries). Waste also represents lostresources used to produce that ood.2 This

means that soil is eroded, water sources

depleted, and air possibly polluted or

ood that never even gets consumed.3

It would, o course, be ideal to just

generate less waste overall. As a supple-

mental strategy, the US Environmental

Protection Agencys4

ood recovery

hierarchy suggests that the top priority

is to recover or claim wholesome ood

beore it is wasted to eed hungry peo-

ple by, or example, donating it to localood banks. Using ood waste that meets

saety standards or livestock, zoo ani-

mals, and pets is next in the hierarchy,

ollowed by recycling ood and ood waste

or industrial purposes. Composting ood

to improve soil ertility is a relatively low

priority because the ocus is to rst make

the most o the resource material beore

returning it to the soil. The last resort

should be disposal through landlling

or incineration because o the negative

impacts on the environment.Food waste occurs or many reasons.

Many o these causes are similar across

industrialized countries (or example, ood

oten spoils when consumers buy more

than they need with amily-sized pack-

aging or buy 1, get 1 ree oers), but

some actors have greater variation and

are less understood (such as ood used

in cultural traditions). Regardless, ood

waste at the consumer level is so wide-

spreadoccurring every day in millions

o households, ood-service venues,schools, hospitals, and other institutions

worldwidethat interventions will be

challenging. Diverting uneaten ood to the

next best use involves resource and logis-

tical challenges, but perhaps the success

story o recycling can provide helpul

inormation.

Understanding where and how much

ood is wasted and the value o this waste

is important inormation that industries

and policymakers can use to raise aware-

ness, reduce ood waste, and increase theeciency o both the arm-to-ork system

and ood recovery eorts to eed the

growing population. Governments may be

able to work with the ood industry and

consumer groups to motivate reductions

in ood waste at every stage o the ood

chain.

Jean C. Buzby is an economist in the Food Economics Division o the US Depar tment o Agricultures Economic Research Service in

Washington, DC.

16 A ChAnging globAl hArvest


28/142

m -S,

-. A, m m m, - mm - . 202 m f- m m - . B , m m . , ,

, m-m k m , mk ,, .

A SHIFTING AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY

W 2.4 200 200, 70 2. . H, m , , , m 20 (F 2).

T x 0 m S ,

m -m , WE J.

T -m m m S mj - k (F ). ,

FIGURE 1 Agricultural price index and population trend, 19002010

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Worldpopulation(billions)

Falling by 1% per year

Agriculturalpriceindex(197779=100)

World population(billions)

Composite agricultural

price index (197779 = 100)

Source: K. O. Fuglie and S. L. Wang, New Evidence Points to Robust but Uneven Productivity Growth in Global Agriculture, Amber Waves 10(September 2012).

AgriCUltUrAl ProDUCtivit Y 17


29/142

m , m - m. D , , 7 -, j 44 . B 200, m -m - m 2

2 . D 8 , E,S, S A 44 ( m 2 -), L Am, A , W A m 24 ( m 27 ).

W , N A(m C) m 4 7 ( ). S A, WA N A, L Am C - , , A S (2.4 ).

80, m m E, S, S A, 70 0 0 2000. H-m 0 - 80, - z 0 ( ) 0 2000. T m- L Am C m, , 2000, 7 .

FIGURE 2 Evolution of the annual growth rate of global agriculture, 19702010

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Annualgrowthrate(%)

Source: Elaborated by authors using data rom FAOSTAT, accessed May 2012.

In addition to the shiting location o

agricultural production, changes have

occurred in its composition.



30/142

- , m (F 4). W -k (m, mk, , , ) m

( 7 m 70 200), (m 2 2 ). M,

, m - m 22 m 8 m . T - m

m m. W m, , m

FIGURE 3 Share of total agricultural production, by regions and groups of countries

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Shareintotaloutput(%)

High-income countries South Asia

East and Southeast Asia LAC, SSA, and WANA

Transiton countries

2010

Source: Elaborated by authors using data rom FAOSTAT, accessed May 2012.Notes: LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; SSA = Arica south o the Sahara; WANA = West Asia and North Arica.

TABLE 1 Average annual growth rates of agriculture, by region (%)

19711980 19811990 19912000 20012010 19712010

High-income countries 1.83 0.97 1.25 0.47 1.14

Transition countries 0.81 1.42 -4.03 2.28 0.04

Developing countries

LAC 2.93 2.35 3.09 3.21 2.89

Northeast Asia 3.23 5.04 5.04 3.39 4.19

South Asia 2.19 3.70 2.76 2.80 2.86

Southeast Asia 3.66 3.32 3.41 4.23 3.64

SSA 1.05 2.68 3.11 2.97 2.44

WANA 3.31 3.84 2.61 2.75 3.13

World 2.08 2.42 2.09 2.42 2.25




31/142

m m - , , m ( - m- m

- m ). C, , 7080 , m, m.

T - m m m- ., k

. A m m - - - m m ; mm , m m m - m.

DRIVERS OF GROWTH: THE ROLE OF

TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY

(FP) m mm ( m k ) -, , , , m. , mm FP. A FPm m m . FP , , k f -m m , , f

, m.Em, FP m- f . M m FP fm . F m - FP m. O m (FP- )

FIGURE 4 Composition of total global agricultural output

37 37 37

25 25 21

16 17 22

6 78

1614 12

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

8090

100

1970 1990 2009

Cereals Oil crops Other

Shareintotaloutput(%)

Livestock Fruits & vegetables

Source: Elaborated by authors using data rom FAOSTAT, accessed May 2012.



32/142

. T m Mmq x m

m (FP-DEA), - m-k .4 F m ,F - -. L FP k

m m m , k z, FP .

B m FP - FP - 7 200 ( m ), m 70 ( ) .8 200200 ( FP- m) 2. ( FP-DEA m).mm (

Reducing Postharvest LossesNANCY MORGAN, ADAM PRAKASH, AND HANSDEEP KHAIRA

As global eorts are underway toensure adequate and sustainablyproduced ood or more than 9 billionpeople by 2050, the issue o postharvest

losses has come to the oreront o the

policy arena. These losses can occur or

any number o reasons, including crop

damage, spillage during transport, and

biodeterioration during storage. Investing

in ways to reduce these losses is a

triple-win that would mean (1) improved

ood security, (2) greater ood availability

that alleviates pressure on prices, and

(3) conserved valuable land, water, and

labor resources.Postharvest losses are clearly wide-

spread, but quantiying total amounts is

challenging; estimatessome as high as

50 percentvary drastically rom product

to product, rom system to system, and

at dierent points along the supply chain.

Similarly, the identication o what caused

a lossor instance, poor harvesting,

inadequate storage, insucient remu-

neration, or poor transportis critical to

determining the appropriate entry points

or interventions.

The Arican Postharvest LossesInormation System indicates that grain

losses prior to processing in Arica south

o the Sahara average between 10 and 20

percent. These losses are highly signi-

cant: i extrapolated or 20052007, they

amount to nearly US$4 billion per year

out o the estimated US$27 billion aver-

aged overall production value.1 This is on

par with the US$37 billion in cereal that

Arica imported annually between 2000

and 2007. I these losses were recuper-

ated, they would allow 48 million peopleto consume the minimum 2,500 calories

per day or a year. Similarly, the Food and

Agriculture Organization o the United

Nations estimates that approximately 1.3

billion tons o ood are lost or wasted each

year worldwide. In developing countries,

per capita losses mainly occur at the

production-to-retail nexus at around

120 kilograms per person in South and

Southeast Asia and 200 kilograms per

person in Latin America.2

By better understanding the magni-

tude o consequences brought about by

postharvest losses along the ood chain,we can leverage policies to improve ood

security, alleviate poverty, and sustain

the environment. Filling in the data gap

should be strategically complemented

by interventions that range rom using

hermetically sealed bags and metallic

silos to organizing producer associations

that coordinate suppliers along the value

chain. While these technologies and

practices have proved useul, adoption

rates in developing countries remain low.

Identiying why requires an evaluationo ailures and successes in the eld, and

an inclusive community o governments,

practitioners, and donors can make that

happen by sharing lessons and good

practices. We need a revitalized approach

or economically appropriate and socially

relevant postharvest innovations that can

be scaled up and used to inorm national

investment programs.

Nancy Morgan is a senior economist at the World Bank in Washington, DC. Adam Prakash and Hansdeep Khaira are statisticians at

the Food and Agriculture Organization o the United Nations in Rome.



33/142

) m 2 40 - m, m , m 2 0.

H m , m m ? A m - , m -

0(F ). B 200, 0 , m m-m FP 40 . B FP - m, 200 200 7 . T

( ) - m ( m , , m ) .

WHERE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

IS GROWING AND WHY

A - m , , m

2. A m, t .

. -m , m 80. FP f - k m .FP m

FIGURE 5 Productivity growth rates for global agriculture estimated using partial and total factorproductivity measures

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Annualgrowthrate(%)

Output TFP-DEA TFP-growth accounting

Land productivity Labor productivity

Source: Estimated by authors.Notes: TFP-DEA rates are obtained using a Malmquist index and data envelopment analysis approach. TFP-growth accounting is estimated byaggregating inputs based on estimates o their cost share in production.



34/142

2. , FP - 200200 m 7200. C Bz

FP , S A, W A N A, L Am C

m A U Km. L m

m z .

FIGURE 6 Sources of growth in global agricultural production

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

19612009 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Total factor productivity

Input intensification

Irrigation

Area expansion

Contribution togrowth from:R

ateofoutputgrowth(%p

eryear

)

Source: K. Fuglie, Productivity Growth and Technology Capital in the Global Agricultural Economy, in Productivity Growth in Agriculture: AnInternational Perspective, ed. K. Fuglie, S. L. Wang, and V. Eldon Ball (Oxordshire, England: CAB International, 2012).

TABLE 2 Annual growth rates for land, labor, and total factor productivity, by region (%)

Region Land Labor TFP Land Labor TFP

World 2.37 1.94 1.22 2.06 1.26 0.65

High income 0.97 3.93 1.14 1.44 4.25 1.36

Transition 2.41 4.58 1.15 0.14 1.15 -0.13

Developing 0.82 0.36 1.29 1.11 0.24 0.28

LAC 3.38 4.12 1.30 2.62 2.79 0.53

WANA 2.52 2.08 1.33 2.38 2.44 0.42

China & Northeast Asia 3.72 5.26 1.34 3.80 4.05 0.69

South Asia 2.69 1.34 0.85 2.82 1.34 0.20

Southeast Asia 3.76 4.00 1.43 2.74 2.24 0.45

SSA 2.34 0.77 0.85 2.27 0.62 0.50


20012009 19712009



35/142

m FP 2000. A S mjx, - FP .

. ,

S U m mj k . A m mk- -m, . S 200, , - x ,

mm .FP , x S , k f 200.

N m FP m ,

,m A, Bz , C, , U S. T k - m (F 7). C, FP

What Makes African Agriculture Grow?PETER HAZELL

Ater several decades o disappointingperormance, the agricultural sectorin Arica south o the Sahara has started

to grow more rapidly. Exactly why it has

begun to grow, however, and at what

pace are points o contention. Reported

agricultural growth rates vary depending

on the methods and data used and the

countries and time periods being evalu-ated. But generally they show that when

measured in constant prices, agricultural

gross domestic product (GDP) grew by

between 2 and 3 percent per year rom

1950 through 1999. This rate is consistent

with estimates o the growth rates in agri-

cultural production.

Since the late 1990s, Aricas agricul-

tural GDP growth rate has been estimated

to have increased by anywhere rom 3

to 12 percent per year. Why such a wide

variation? The global commodity priceboom and higher infation in the 2000s

(and the way analysts account or those

changes) had a big impact on estimates

o the underlying agricultural growth rate.

During 20002010, Aricas agricultural

GDP grew by 12 percent per year in actual

prices, 3.6 percent per year in constant

prices, and 7.7 percent per year using the

real increase in agricultural prices (that is,

actual prices defated by a cost-o-living

index).1 This higher estimate is closer to

the 6 percent growth in real agricultural

GDP reported during a similar period.2 The

lower estimate o 3.6 percent is consistentwith estimates o the growth in agricul-

tural production.

An increase rom 23 percent to 34

percent in the annual growth rate o real

agricultural GDP is not to be discounted,

however, especially given the long period

o neglect in agricultural investment

that preceded it. For Arica to slash pov-

erty and become ood secure, the New

Partnership or Aricas Development has

targeted a 6 percent annual growth rate,

so the aster the growth, the better. But,whats driving this aster growth?

In the past, most agricultural growth in

Arica came rom greater land and labor

use, but the productivity (or incremental

gain in production per unit o input used)

o these and other actors (or example,

ertilizers and improved seeds) remained

low or declined. This pattern has now

changed, with several studies reporting

that actor productivity growth began

to emerge as a more important driver o

agricultural growth ater the mid-1980s.

Many o these gains were brought about

by more ecient use o key actors ol-lowing policy reorms in the 1980s and

1990s, whereas gains rom improved

technologies remain modest. This pres-

ents a challenge or uture agricultural

growth since the policy reorms have now

run their course, and the opportunities

to bring new land into arming are more

limited, especially in many populous

countries. Future agricultural growth will

increasingly depend on technological

change, which will require greater invest-

ment in agricultural research and develop-ment, rural inrastructure, and education.

Peter Hazell is an independent researcher and ormer division director at the International Food Policy Research Institute.



36/142

. C Bz x . B k C, FP m Bzk M G C, m - t- . ,

Sm Km-, x mm k m m. , FP J . T m GR 70 80, -, m J. U S, m m C B G Lk

G P, A, mj - C F. A , () FP , m f .

F 7 m m m A S m-0. W FP

, ( A) m m . A S , -m . -,

j m .

PROSPECTS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

T m m m m m m .A m, m,

FIGURE 7 Average growth rate in agricultural productivity since the mid-1990s

> 3%13%< 1%

Average annualTFP growth

Source: K. Fuglie, Productivity Growth and Technology Capital in the Global Agricultural Economy, in Productivity Growth in Agriculture: An

International Perspective, ed. K. Fuglie, S. L. Wang, and V. Eldon Ball (Oxordshire, England: CAB International, 2012).Note: Growth rates are annual averages rom 1995 to 2007 or 2009, depending on data availability.

Arica south o the Sahara continues

to ace perhaps the biggest challenge

in achieving sustained, long-term

productivity growth in its

agricultural sector.



37/142

m . A m m - - m m m mm , m- mk , m -

. Lk , f m m m- .

S 0, -m - m : () m

,(2) m - m m , () m , - -, m mk, m mk .8 A

- - m , m x , - G R.

A , q m - . ,

Agricultural R&D: Spending Speeds UpNIENKE BEINTEMA, GERT-JAN STADS, KEITH FUGLIE, AND PAUL HEISEY

Systematic data on agricultural researchand development (R&D) spending aregreatly needed to identiy areas whereinvestment can lead to increased agricul-

tural productivity and, ultimately, greater

ood security. IFPRIs Agricultural Science

and Technology Indicators initiative col-

lects this type o data and reported in its

2012 Global Assessment of Agricultural

R&D Spendingthat between 2000 and

2008 (the latest year or which data are

available) these R&D investments were on

an upswing.1

Following a decade o slowing growth

in the 1990s, global public spendingon agricultural R&D increased steadily

rom $26.1 billion in 2000 to $31.7 bil-

lion in 2008.2 Most o this growth was

driven by developing countries while

growth in high-income countries stalled;

the increased spending in the ormer

was largely driven by positive trends

in a number o larger, more advanced

middle-income countries (see gure in this

box). China and India together accounted

or close to hal o the global increase o$5.6 billion. Other middle-income coun-

triesparticularly Argentina, Brazil, Iran,

Nigeria, and Russiaalso signicantly

increased their spending on public agricul-

tural R&D during this period. These trends

mask the negative developments that

have taken place in numerous smaller,

poorer, and more technologically chal-

lenged countries, which are oten highly

vulnerable to severe volatility in und-

ing and subsequently see the continuity

and viability o their research programsdeteriorate. Many R&D agencies in these

countries also lack the necessary human,

operating, and inrastructural resources to

successully develop, adapt, and dissemi-

nate science-and-technology innovations.

Private investment in agricultural R&D

also increased between 2000 and 2008

rom $14.4 billion to $18.2 billionand

most o this R&D was carried out by com-

panies in high-income countries. However,

many o these companies have exper-iment stations in developing countries

or the purpose o transerring new, pro-

prietary technologies to those markets.

Inormation on private-sector involvement

in developing countries remains limited,

but evidence suggests signicant growth

in large middle-income countries.

The combination o long-term sus-

tainable government unding and a sup-

portive policy environment has ueled

increased agricultural productivity, as well

as overall economic growth, in the worldsmore advanced developing countries,

such as Brazil and China. Governments

in the worlds poorest countries need to

make similar commitments or they will all

even arther behind.3



38/142

m m- m mt , , .R , m A S, m m . C xm - k Bz C,

0

5

10

15

20

25

58%

51%

46%

3%

39%

3%

30

35

2000 2008

Billion2

005P

PPd

ollar

s

Low-income countries

Middle-income countries

High-income countries

Overall spending increased 22% from 2000 to 2008

China

India

United States

Brazil, Argentina, Iran, Japan,Nigeria, Russia

$2.1 billion

$0.6 billion

$0.5 billion

+/- $0.2 billioneach

Main drivers of the $5.6 billion increase (2005 PPP $)

GLOBAL PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL R&D SPENDING, 20002008

, m m , - , , m -m . W m, mjm m -.

Nienke Beintema is the head o the International Food Policy Research Institutes Agricultural Science & Technology Indicators

(ASTI) initiative. Gert-Jan Stads is ASTIs program coordinator. Keith Fuglie is the chie o the Resource, Environmental, and

Science Policy (RESP) Branch at the US Department o Agricultures Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS) in Washington, DC.

Paul Heisey is a senior economist in the RESP Branch o the USDA-ERS.

Source: Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators,ASTI Global Assessment of Agricultural R&D Spending: Developing Countries AccelerateInvestment(Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2012).Note: PPP = purchasing power parity.



39/142


40/142

GREEN ECONOMY

Sustainable and Growing,but Also Food Secure?

Nitin Desai and Claudia R ingler

he Unied Naions Conerence on Susainable Develop-m, R J J, w 2012 m g g m. R +20, w

xy k w 1992 E mm R , m g y g.

W 1992 m, 2012 mz g -my. my, R+20 w gy mmm g g my, g g my g wy. T x

m R +20 m g my x 20 y.

FROM AGENDA 21 TO THE GREEN ECONOMY

T 1992 E mm g wk W mm Em m, my kw B m-

m, w w 1983. I 1987 mm Our Common Future, w my m m m w mmg y g m w .1 L, : x , m, g m, g

my m m

.

2

T E m m y, g - m Ag 21. O g m, Ag 213 wg:

Nitin Desai is the former deputy secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (1992) and former secretary-general of the World Summit

on Sustainable Development (2002). Claudia Ringler is the deputy division director

of the Environment and Production Technology Division at the International Food Policy

Research Institute in Washington, DC.

Chapter 3


41/142

X g, , ,X w ,

X g,

X g mgm g,

X ,

X m m m gy ,

X m m

mym,

X m,

X w g .

Rio+20: Did It Move Us Forward?MORGANE DANIELOU

For the agribusiness community orga-nized under the Business Action orSustainable Development, the 2012United Nations Conerence on Sustainable

Development in Rio de Janeiroknown

as Rio+20had positive outcomes: rec-

ognition o the importance o agriculture

or poverty reduction, acknowledgment

o the imperative to sustainably intensiy

agricultural production, and awareness

o the necessary mosaic o solutions. It

armed that, within the UN system, the

approach to the private sector is changing

as it plays an ever more important role in

delivering solutions.Despite this, the outcome document

adopted at the conerence, called The

Future We Want, ailed to instigate a

true turning point toward greater global

ood security because it did not deliver a

clear course o action. Rio+20 covered a

wide range o issues so, by nature, cannot

be considered an expert orum. For this

reason, it did notand perhaps could

not be expected todeliver the concrete

policy guidelines needed to achieve ood

security. Instead, it mostly noted the

eorts and developments that have taken

place elsewhere.

In addition, Rio+20 lacked explicit

entry points or leveraging the exper-

tise o the private sector in deliveringsolutions. The initial attempt to ocus on

implementation gaps was valuable but

did not nd its way into the structure o

the negotiations. It is a refection o the

nature o Rio+20 as a traditional inter-

governmental negotiating process, which

makes it valuable in its own right but

limited in its ability to draw on external

expertise or translate into multistake-

holder commitments.

In contrast, the G8 and G20 Summits

have been able to make infuential deci-sions that with concerted eort have

already led to action to increase ood

security. For example, the launch o

the New Alliance or Food Security and

Nutrition ater the 2012 G8 Summit rep-

resents a clear commitment to change

that benets rom the support o

partnerships.

WHAT DID WE MISS?

In Rio, decisions on how to address imple-

mentation gaps could have been made

and commitments reached on issues like

increasing research capacity in developing

countries or improving the delivery o

extension services. However, because o

its shape and nature, Rio+20 is not reallythe key orum on ood security. It is air

to say that such decisions and commit-

ments should be made elsewherein

venues where the necessary experts are

present and detailed principles and inter-

nationally accepted standards can be

established, such as the Committee on

World Food Security. These are the places

where turning points can happen, as

proven by the May 2012 adoption by this

committee o the Voluntary Guidelines on

the Responsible Governance o Tenure oLand, Fisheries and Forests in the Context

o National Food Security.

The most concrete outcome o Rio+20

or ood security will be the post-2015

agenda and the development o universal

sustainable development goals, which

aim to address the shortcomings o the

UN Millennium Development Goals by

ocusing on eradicating poverty while

protecting the environment. These goals

will likely shape the way sustainable

is dened in agriculture and draw on

the expertise o those directly involved,

including the private sector.

Morgane Danielou is the director of Communications at the International Fertilizer Industry Association in Paris, France.

30 SuStainable and GrowinG, but alSo Food Secure?


42/142

y, m

g m gww g m. A W Bk , g gw wy - m.6

WHY IS A NEW CONCEPT NEEDED?

A 1992, Ag 21 gg - w m m y m y, g, m m. T m

, m 1 - g 19901992, w, 870 m g y g g

m . Gwg y gwg g y w.7

T Mm Eym Am 15 24 ym ( 1).8 F xm, g -

E, , W A, y 20 y g, y L Am, m A, - A.9 T g w y m y qy q . T mm

m gy x, x,

k gm.

10

gy, y y w-g,11 g . W m g y, g g-

m m .12 T gm g wk g mgm. R

A green economy can be thought o as

one that is low carbon, resource ecient,

and socially inclusive.

Ag y, -m y m g

, w gy - y gy -y . Ag m-

m, y g m -g .

O, m m Ag21 w -y g g -

g, y, m ym, tg y mgm.

g 20 y 1992 E m-

m, m w g y -. , w gy k g mmg gm g mm. , , my - f y

. E w my x m m m , q w m-g m m g

.4I 2008,

t g m -

m y g-m, EmPgmm (EP) w g my xw y. EP g my

m m w-g qy w gy g -

m k g . I m- x, g my g w w , ,

y .5 A m m g-z, W Bk Og-

Em - m, ggw. G gw m j w m m

Green economy 31


43/142

g g , m g t mm-

g. g w m w g w g , g

m . Lk gm g -m m w-g -g w.13

W y g -g t m gw, w mgm,

m m g.14 W -

y m k g mgm m mm wg my mggw g y

y g.15

Lt mm m y m Ag 21. g- my m. T m-g g

.16 My g w g y gm w, gy, z, mgy y g g .17 O -, m k ,

R g k m w g- . T my g -q g m y,

m g gw w m y- g, ,

g.

18

A m m, GIAR , -m g -, ym-mg ym. m g -

m m m -m y GIAR g

TABLE 1 Global status of ecosystem servicesevaluated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Ecosystem service Status

Food

Crops Enhanced

Livestock Enhanced

Capture sheries Degraded

Aquaculture Enhanced

Wild oods Degraded

Fiber

Timber Both enhanced anddegraded

Cotton, hemp, silk Both enhanced anddegraded

Wood uel Degraded

Genetic resources Degraded

Biochemicals, natural medicines,pharmaceuticals

Degraded

Fresh water Degraded

Air quality regulation Degraded

Climate regulation

Global Enhanced

Regional and local Degraded

Water regulation Both enhanced anddegraded

Erosion regulation Degraded

Water purication and wastetreatment

Degraded

Disease regulation Both enhanced anddegraded

Pest regulation Degraded

Pollination Degraded

Natural hazard regulation Degraded

Spiritual and religious values Degraded

Aesthetic values Degraded

Recreation and tourism Both enhanced anddegraded

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and HumanWell-Being: Synthesis (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005), Table 1.Note: Status indicates whether the condition o the service globally

has been enhanced (i the productive capacity o the service has beenincreased, or example), degraded, or both.



44/142

wy , m,

m m.19 M, gm t y-m mm, w m x, , w my g q m

g.20

RIO+20 AND THE POTENTIAL FOR

ACTION

A R +20 , g mym j. m g -y g w w w

x gg

Green and Greener: Toward Sustainable AgricultureSYLVIE LEMMET

WHAT HAPPENED IN 2012?

Food security is a pressing global concern.At the 2012 United Nations Conerence

on Sustainable Development (Rio+20),

participants rearmed their commitment

to enhancing ood and nutrition secu-

rity or present and uture generations

by developing strategies at all levels

that align with the Five Rome Principles

or Sustainable Global Food Security.1

To revive agriculture, it was agreed

that investments are necessary in these

areas: sustainable agricultural practices,

rural inrastructure, storage capacities

and related technologies, research and

development on sustainable agricultural

technologies, strong agricultural cooper-

atives and value chains, and urban-rural

linkages.

A green economy is one that improves

human well-being and social equity while

signicantly reducing environmental risks

and ecological scarcities; the participants

o Rio+20 recognized that such an econ-

omy is necessary to achieve sustainabledevelopment and poverty reduction. In its

Towards a Green Economyreport, the UN

Environment Programme (UNEP) argued

that greening agriculture will require

investment in soil-ertility management,

sustainable water use, crop and livestockdiversication, biological plant and animal

health management, mechanization lev-

els, storage acilities (especially or small

arms), and supply chainsboth upstream

and downstreamor businesses and

trade.2 The aggregate global cost o these

and other investments and policy inter-

ventions required to transition to green

agriculture is estimated at US$198 billion

per year rom 2011 to 2050.

As a ollow-up to Rio+20, UNEP is

currently working with countries world-wide, responding to demands or technical

assistance and capacity building to enable

a green economy in various sectors,

including ood and agriculture. Through

its partnership with other agencies, UNEP

aims to strengthen the capacity o gov-

ernments and other stakeholders to man-

age the transition to socially inclusive,

resource-ecient, low-carbon economies

and to provide a springboard or action on

commitments made at the conerence.

WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?

With a greener agriculture sector,

UNEP stated that a growing and more

demanding world population could be

nourished with the estimated 3,200 kilo-calories per person per day made available

up through 2050. But additional research

to disaggregate this scenario at regional

and national levels is required. Similarly,

given the rapid depletion o ecosystems

and natural habitats resulting rom arm-

ing, there is a need to assess the value o

ecosystem services and their role in ood

production, conservation o vital pro-

cesses such as maintaining clean water,

and waste decomposition.

There is also a need to economicallyquantiy the value o diminishing natural

resources and environmental commodi-

ties as well as to explore the relationship

between changes in ecological actors and

ood price volatility. Finally, while current

research covers the economic value o

ood stocks that are either lost or wasted,

there is a lack o inormation on their true

value, which incorporates the value o the

natural resources, such as water, uel, and

ertile soil, embedded in producing these

ood stocks.

Sylvie Lemmet is the director of the United Nations Environment Programmes Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics, which is

based in Paris.

Green economy 33


45/142

. T w mgy w jk y -

g- - g.21

T g my R+20 m G Amy -

kw T F W Ww kwm. T 19 g g my m mz q

m :

w g my x - m y m g m ymk g g

.22 T mmm gg m g

gy .

Ties That Bind Energy, Food, and AgricultureEUGENIO DAZ-BONILLA

Agriculture and energy have alwaysbeen interrelated, but the current civ-ilizations dependence on ossil uels has

redened the relationship between them

to one ocused on agriculture and energy

costs, in terms o producing, processing,

transporting, and storing agricultural

and ood products. The Green Revolution

occured at a time when energy costs were

relatively lower and evolved in a context

where greenhouse gas emissions were not

considered a constraint. At a macroeco-nomic level, sharp increases in oil prices

have aected disposable incomes and

generated recessions, creating impacts on

agriculture.1 Recently, the links between

energy and agriculture have expanded

and become more complex.

First, biouel mandates increased the

demand or agricultural products as uel

inputs, and developments in the nonood

energy sector now clearly aect ood mar-

kets because o the dierence in the size

o the ood energy market versus the non-

ood energy market. I all the ood energy

needed or human beings to unction and

all the nonood energy used by the world

to operate is calculated in a common

measure (joules, or example), the latter

amount is about 16 to 18 times higher

than the ormer. Second, the correlation

o world prices o oil and agricultural com-

modities has become stronger in recent

years because o nancial investments

in commodities. Finally, another link

between agriculture and energy comes

rom climate change impacts attributed to

ossil uel use and emissions.These links need to be considered

in the current context o very high real

oil prices, which began climbing in the

rst hal o the 2000s. Although prices

declined rom their monthly peak in

March 2012, they were very high through-

out the year and are projected in the next

decades to be even higher than previous

peaks, according to estimates by the

International Energy Agency. The rst

period o high prices rom the mid-1970s

to the mid-1980s was sustained by strong

world growth and geopolitical events,

but it ended in the mid-1980s because

growth sotened, debt crises occurred

in developing countries, and energy saw

numerous technological innovations. The

current high prices make the uture sim-

ilarly uncertain. While global economic

prospects are again deteriorating, new

technologies like shale gas and tight oil

are reducing energy prices in some large

markets with important potential implica-

tions or agriculture, rom ertilizer pro-

duction to global emissions.

So, will we ace a scenario similar tothe one seen in the mid-1980s, when

technological developments in energy and

depressed global macroeconomic condi-

tions led to a collapse in energy prices?

Or, is the world moving toward a situation

o sustained real energy prices at levels

not yet experienced in history? To answer

these questions in a way that incorporates

and potentially benets agricultural pro-

duction, ood security, and poverty reduc-

tion, a more systematic and integral view

o the complex links between energy and

agriculture is required.

Eugenio Daz-Bonilla is a visiting senior research fellow in the Markets, Trade, and Institutions Division of the International Food Policy

Research Institute, Washington, DC.



46/142

g R+20 t w g

E mm 20 y , m wg m m T F W W:

W m y m,

m g,g , k, y,

q, m y, g my ,w g , w, mg , y ym g m g . W gz

m g - ym.23

, m m m

R+20 g w - m . F, g m-m m my. T F W W w. B ww

y g my - , , gz -x, , m, g xm, mg y .24

, m-

mm m m G (G). T Mmm G (MG), w mg m Mm mm, tgy q g -

, g y, gm my, g g. Ag g k - m g m, m -

m mgm g .w ym w m m-m MG w g g g y g w y Ag 21. A g-g G mg y, g-g m t, mg

m tm m, g -y , g w

, g y, m-g gy, g m w.25 T y m G m m R+20 mg g w w m y g g g g

y , , .T, w g- m my -

g gw. Ag

m m g

G Amy, T F WW w y w - mm ( , w mm ) m , mg g,g , g -g m

m, g ymw - .26

A w R w y-g Egy A , mk . I k m gy , g mm gy y,

g w gy g gy mx y 2030. I m wy g mg. E Igm P mg 1990 m -

m mg m mg m

.

27

B gy m m m y g w gy g m, w -m , m

g gw.A R+20 y, y

g my m w m

The commitment to agree on Sustainable

Development Goals may provide an

impetus or action.

Green economy 35


47/142

. m m

m y w -gm y w g-m, t m .28

L , m y m wy

kg, fy - y y Gmy g y29 y g . M-, m m yg g w

y. T ggm m -y y R+20.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

T g y w m,g w gw, m-gm w y .T mmm g -m G my m .T G y g

mgm y , k m gy g g-m g m y gm g y g. I m , w, w

G w y mk m . T -

w g w w x yAg 21:

W mgg y, -

m y my mk w . Ow m y

g-m m . Eq y, m y my g g wg y

w w

g y, w m y.30

E gm w k m y w ggw j ( G g), m j w ky j g m

gw m .A gz mm-

g gw g w

g mgg m m g g-. Ag, w -y y m

g, m g. I gm g-z ,y ww y -g g gw g. Ag ,

y-g Egy A t -w-gy x g

my.T g gm w w

gm g yg. O xm y .Ag y, j w , , , -

. m yg gwgg w y g mmm y gm g .

A m y y mm w x, , mg y w w g my y. I x g, w -xmg -

Advances in eciency must go hand in

hand with improvements in the lives o

poor and ood-insecure people.



48/142

w my.31 A wk w m y my

wy y gm.Ry g g my g y my y y , w

w w m y y , y, g gw.

y mg

gm.A w y. Wg -

y m w m y y m g

w mm - . Ay, m gw, y, w kym g my m y g

Green economy 37


49/142


50/142

WOMEN IN AGRICULTURE

Closing the Gender GapRuth Meinzen-Dick and Agnes Quisumbing

he role o gender in agriculure gained growing aen- m ss, s, pymks 2012. As k pvy

ms, pms s s k mpv ms.B m k bt ms p s vbs , pms m ss ps m s s m, m vs m msps s ps vpm.

SO FAR: GROWING ATTENTION TO GENDER IN AGRICULTURE

sp ps F A Ozs (FAOs)State of Food and Agriculture 20102011 W Bks World Develop-ment Report 2012 t sss . Emp-sz ms bs vp s, Te Stateof Food and Agriculture 20102011 s s p ss ss, , xs, svs, b mks; vs b-sv pvy- -s s ms m m pv v s; ms pp xb, , bmks.1

T World Development Report 2012 ssss qy pvy s, ms s s ss mpv ms x , mp m s

m, s, p s s m psv -smk.2 T p s s s py p s p: ss xss s s m; mpv s -; qz ss m pps pvy

Ruth Meinzen-Dick is a senior research fellow in the Environment and Production

Technology Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in

Washington, DC. Agnes Quisumbing is a senior research fellow in IFPRIs Poverty,

Health, and Nutrition Division.

Chapter 4


51/142

ps b m m; v m s v ss ss; m smss qyss s.

At s ,

b ps s b m spz pms m m-sm fs mb t pms, t -.T sms b . A mb ky v-pm s s yss pmm, by -, b by. F xmp,FAOs 2012 sy mms - 30 p p bs v-s m s

FAO ss bss by sx. T B &M Gs Fs py --spsv pmm s smmzs K H, Ds H, B Ab H.

Smy, sy USAy I Dvpm s m-p by Wms Emp-m A Ix, b s

ms pss sv 19 s ys F F pm s p. B mmm vpm mmy, p s s CGIA , Csm B ss sy Nvmb 2011, s - yss Csm s pms.A s vs y ss

qy spz s m , b s by v- s mmms.

Dvpm pmm s mvm -b pms

fs, - pms -z f s m m, v -smv pjs sk pm m -qb sps. Asp G, A, Asss Pjspp by B & M Gs F-, IFPI ss sy pjs py m t fs s, ss, spsbs btb v vpm bjvs. Fxmp, s ps y v-

pm pj Mzmbq, y s sb ss, b y m m. Pmysy ss ss bs y mqs sbs ps ms b, pms s m s ss. Pj ss mpmsk m by sv sb by pj bs s bv pj m b z p. T pj s vy m

s mmbsypy m m t y m-m. T y s ps pj by p t - sss.

O pjs v k m -smv pp. I ss I, m y ,Ls (k I s DvpmIs) s sm ps -ss ss tmp s

m s. Fs, ps - - ss jy ms sb , m- ss -y ss v py . Mv, ss s s s -s v I, s sv ms sp.Wk Msy Wm C

Development programming is now

moving rom gender-blind programs that

ignore gender dierences, to gender-aware programs that recognize the

dierent needs o men and women.

40 Closing the gender gap


52/142

Dvpm, pj s s bysps p s m

s mmy vss, b m m, s s.I 2002 s ps,

U P pm BRC s-s vsk m -p ss,pv v sss m- vs. S 2007, CA EBss S D y V Cpj s vs mp m

bs ms pp y v . T pj s p

m vm bs mby by mvmk ps v s, s mb p sppy ps, m vsk ks. P-my sy ss ss psvs sms, my m v b b sv my by y . IFPIss k pj ss mpms ssss mp s pjs

Getting Gender Roles Right: A Success Story in MozambiqueJEMIMAH NJUKI AND ELIZABETH WAITHANJI

Although many smallholder armers are

women, women are rarely consultedduring the design phase o arm-ocused

development interventions. When pro-

grams do not take into consideration the

needs and concerns o 100 percent o

their beneciaries, they oten run into

problems. For example, in 2006, ater

years o civil confict had taken its toll

in Mozambique, the Smallholder Dairy

Development Program unded by the US

Department o Agriculture and imple-

mented by Land OLakes sought to rebuild

the countrys dairy industry to meet mar-ket demand, raise incomes, and increase

crop yields by using working animals. The

intervention saw mixed results in its early

years, and the positive outcomes were not

always beneting all members o a house-

hold. So, in an eort to engage both men

and women, the program started requir-

ing two household members to be trained

in dairy production instead o just one.

This did not always lead to the inclu-

sion o women, however, because oten

a man and his son would be trained in

exchange or the cows. Soon armersbegan returning some cows and others

died. Why? Because the women in those

households reused to eed them. Since

they did not co-own the cows or have

any control over the resulting income, the

women armers saw no reason to add to

their own workload.

Enter the Gender, Agriculture, and

Assets Project (GAAP). Led by IFPRI and

the International Livestock Research

Institute, GAAP works with agricultural

development practitioners to analyzegender roles and account or gender

dierences within interventions and

impacts. The GAAP team collected data

and acilitated ocus-group discussions

on gender roles in dairy production,

cattle ownership, labor, marketing, and

income management. Together with a

Mozambique program team, they devel-

oped interventions to address the gen-

der gaps and designed a monitoring and

evaluation system. Ultimately, a new

game plan emerged: (1) register the cows

given to each household in the name oat least one male and one emale adult,

(2) organize and train groups o armers

on gender relations and promote wom-

ens leadership, (3) register both male

and emale adults in the marketing coop-

erative, and (4) include women in the

cooperative management committee. The

results? More women own livestock. More

women are involved in making decisions

about managing that livestock. And more

women market milk and make use o

income rom its sale.These valuable lessons about gender

integration have led to wider discussions

between Land OLakes International

Developments managers about the role

o gender in their programming, and the

results have signicantly infuenced the

second phase o unding or the program,

which began in 2012.

Jemimah Njuki is the global coordinator for the Pathways program on women in agriculture at the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief

Everywhere (CARE), based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Elizabeth Waithanji is a postdoctoral scientist at the International Livestock

Research Institute in Nairobi, Kenya.

Women in agriCulture 41


53/142

ss p b vp-m bjvs.

G-ssv vpm pjs v s

s ss ss. A p ms ppm mpm by H K I- Bk Fs m 2009 2012 vv ms s ss v, v mp m . I U, f pp s p vs vp byHvsPs m 2007 2009 s

ks ms ps, xs ms-ss bs sm -s s ps by

m.A ps s t sss, s s m b -v pss: pjs py t fs s pjs m ky s.

Indexing Womens EmpowermentEMILY HOGUE AND CAREN GROWN

Something that can be measuredcan be changed.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,Former US Secretary of State

Agreat deal o international devel-opment goals can be tangibly mea-suredin crop yields or new jobs or

reductions in child mortality, or exam-

plewhile others prove much harder

to quantiy. Womens empowerment,

or example. How do you dene it, mea-

sure it, collect those measurements,

and analyze them? The US Agency or

International Development (USAID)recently had the opportunity to answer

these questions as it developed the

Womens Empowerment in Agriculture

Index (WEAI) with partners rom IFPRI

and the Oxord Poverty and Human

Development Initiative. The tool was

developed or the US governments Feed

the Future initiative to reduce poverty and

ood insecurity.

The index is a signicant innovation in

its eld that measures multiple indicators

o empowerment, and generates scores

that can be compared over time. It is

the rst tool o its kind. Piloted in 2011and launched in February 2012, the US

government is using the index to track

change in womens empowerment that

occurs as a direct or indirect result o

Feed the Future interventions in targeted

geographic zones within the initiatives 19

ocus countries.

Data or the WEAI will be collected

every two years in all 19 countries, and

baselines were collected in 2011 and

2012. USAID and partners will conduct

data analyses to understand the relation-ships among empowerment, livelihoods,

and ood security, as well as relationships

among the various components o the

index. Feed the Future will also use the

WEAI or impact evaluations o distinct

projects to examine the eectiveness o

dierent approaches and how they impact

women and men. Through IFPRI, Feed the

Future has selected and began unding

our dissertation grants or research that

will build evidence on womens empower-

ment through diverse methodologies and

substantive areas. All o this analysis willhelp project leaders rene the WEAI or

improved practicality and broad utility.

Many development partners have

expressed interest in using the index or

their programs, and USAID and IFPRI are

working to develop tools and guidance to

replicate it beyond the 19 ocus countries.

What started as a airly modest eort to

develop a monitoring tool or Feed the

Future has greatly exceeded expectations

and provided the development community

with a robust and accessible instrument totackle one o the most complicated devel-

opment challenges. While just a rst step

toward improving learning and program-

ming in this critical area, the creation o

the index signies the commitment o the

US government to prioritizing womens

empowerment as an essential develop-

ment outcome it will measure and strive

to achieve.

Emily Hogue is the team leader for Monitoring and Evaluation in the Bureau for Food Security at the US Agency for International

Development (USAID) in Washington, DC. Caren Grown is a senior gender adviser at USAID.

42 Closing the gender gap


54/142

WHAT NOW? MORE IS NEEDED

P pj vs ss s m b- qy s. Hv, fs k s s

s t bms p vpmmy vpm psss. Ms b b v bs , s ms sss, ms ps s ps vpm.

Build the Evidence Base

T v ms byTe State of Food andAgriculture 20102011 World DevelopmentReport 2012 s p b p ss . B xm ss ppxs Te State of Food and

Agriculture ss s v s s m-y, spy . N-v sss p ms bs m m. Ev ms svys ss s s s s- by sx. W psss y-ss s m mpss m- m- ss, mjy m v ss ms ky s fs p-vy.3 Fs x ms sp ss sss bs f ys m.Mv, v sm s bs m xmysm smps y .

Fy, ms bpp ms p sss. Os m s s sy bs ssy psv ss E,G, Kk S, I.4 T Wk- v Os EmC-p Dvpms DvpmC (.k.) WBk s G D P (tp://ps

.bk./) ps mp sps b sysm v bs pv ss pymks pmss sss. Ts k v s y sp s m

s s vy ss s, m, sm ss.

Wms mpm q-y ypy ms -y v, s vb s s s p m pm. Tss mp, b y y . I s, WmsEmpm A Ix s m by v m mmsvs b pp s-mk b , v pvss, m, sp, m. Ts m s s ss v ms mpm m, s s py b m m sm s (F 1).5 Ws x b s k pss v m, s s m mm s s s. I y ky s m

( m) k mpm s pms s s s. I s s t pms s msmpm, s s by b m-s sp p-bs pps, k , s s by xssv k-. O , xmp, ypm Mzmbq s

Documents

Global Food Policy Report 2012