Photo credit: flickr/Eduardo AmorimWe are on a collision course between ecosystems and food. How we resolve this issue over the coming years will be a key to preserving biodiversity and human well-being.
This piece originally appeared in Portuguese in the Brazilian newspaper Valor.
Looking around the world, global trends do not bode well for the Earth’s continued capacity to support improved human well-being. People are drawing down natural capital at an accelerating rate, and Nature doesn’t do bailouts.
As the head of an organization that focuses on the intersection of environment and human needs, I rely on analysis and data to guide policy recommendations and decision making. The message from the data is clear: we are not winning the fight for sustainability. One key indicator is the loss of biodiversity – in the oceans, grasslands, forests – everywhere in the world and in every kind of ecosystem. As these ecosystems decline, they produce less of the “services” – from clean water to carbon storage – on which human well-being depends.
We can, however, reverse this downward trend if we accept three key principles:
1. It’s About Food
What does food supply have to do with conserving natural systems? Everything. Growing or capturing food is a factor in all five leading pressures that cause the loss of the ecosystems upon which the world’s biodiversity depends: Habitat loss, overexploitation, pollution, invasive species, and climate change.
The findings of the United Nations’ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment bear this out.
Habitats: According the UN, approximately 43 percent of tropical and subtropical forests and 45 percent of temperate forests worldwide have been converted to croplands and rangelands. Even greater shares of natural grassland have been converted to grow food.
Overexploitation: 70 percent of global freshwater consumption is by agriculture. This constrains water supply for the 50 percent of the global population that lives in cities.
Invasive species: The introduction of non-native fish species for food has led to declines in native species in many parts of the world.
Pollution: Only a fraction of nitrogen applied as a fertilizer is typically used by plants; the rest ends up in inland waters and coastal systems, depleting oxygen and leaving dead zones where fish and shellfish cannot survive, and fisheries collapse.
Climate change: Agriculture directly contributes to around 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (using 2005 data) and drives additional emissions through its role in deforestation.
Food production is an urgent human necessity, but if we are to preserve species and maintain Nature’s productive capacity, we need to find ways to grow food in a manner that does not exacerbate these pressures.
Over the next 40 years, our natural and human systems will face a huge challenge caused by the convergence of several trends that are already underway. The world’s population is hurtling toward 9 billion by 2050. Per capita income is rising and leading to more consumption that is higher on the food chain (namely more meat). This, in turn, means that it will take more land to feed each person. And, finally, this means that more natural ecosystems —- such as forests, wetlands, and grasslands – will be converted to farms and ranches to grow food.
In fact, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Secretary General, Jacques Diouf, demand for food will double in the next 40 years. We are on a collision course between ecosystems and food. How we resolve this issue over the coming years will be a key to preserving biodiversity and human well-being.
2. “More With Less For More”
The late CK Prahalad, a world leader in innovation and business strategy, came up with the phrase “More for Less For More.” What he meant is that we need to provide food and employment opportunities for more people. But the 21st century will likely be the era of human history when we reach the boundaries of Earth’s capacity. Thus, it is a time for strategies that produce more well-being while using less of Earth’s capacity. We need more wealth with less material for more people. This will be the key business and political challenge of our generation.
As this dynamic plays out, agribusiness has a big role to play. Over the coming decades, the innovations and practices of agribusiness—both large and small—hold the key to whether people and business will rise to this challenge.
There are many ideas about how agribusiness can be part of the solution. Here are three strategies to consider: First, increase productivity on existing farmland with proven technologies and best practices. Second, restore and utilize abandoned or “degraded” lands to reduce pressure on our forests, wetlands, and other natural ecosystems. Third, manage demand for food so that we become more efficient in using our food, and increase our reliance on different sources of protein.
3. Government Must Set the Conditions
Certainly, business has an essential role to play, but it’s not the only role. There have to be local, national, and international governmental policies that set the conditions and market signals that align corporate and individual decisions with sustaining the world’s ecosystem. These signals involve tax policy reforms, new regulatory frameworks, and innovative incentives. Global climate change is a good example of how governments around the world will need to provide clear signals so business can adapt and innovate to work within the constraints of our natural systems.
If the earth were a business, we would be on the verge of bankruptcy. If we used the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as our audit, our credit rating would be so low that no sensible financier would invest in planet earth. And yet, we don’t even have a CEO to hold accountable.
Thankfully, there are enough well-informed and capable people in the world across business, academia, and government to craft and implement a winning strategy. Strong leaders, stronger institutions and aligning incentives with sustaining ecosystems and the services they provide will be the keys to carry us forward. Brazil’s strengths and innovations make it a natural leader in the search for solutions. The world would benefit from Brazil’s leadership by example in tackling the challenges of providing for human needs and economic growth, while preserving biodiversity, knowing that there’s no bailout from Mother Nature.
Jonathan Lash, PresidentJonathan Lash has led the World Resources Institute as its President since 1993.
4 Comments
Facts on food. There are
Facts on food.
There are many thoughts on the food (and food production) issue on the table.....but what about passing on to action? I would like to remind all and Mr. Jonathan Lash, that there is a very comprehensive series of reports "Agriculture at a Crossroads" prepared by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) published in 2009 that identifies the key issues in agriculture and food systems at global at five regional levels, provides options for action and was endorsed by 59 nations. So instead of reinventing the wheel, I think its time to act. The reports call for a change in the agricultural paradigm "business as usual is not an option", a transition towards an agroecological model, in line with agricultures multifunctionality.
I am amazed that these reports were not cited, but rather the only Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which did not specialized on agriculture. The IAASTD reports are the result of a multistakeholder process that was agreed on at the UNCSD in Johannesburg in 2002. It was backed by 6 UN agencies, the world Bank, OECD and Developing countries. 400 authors worked 4 years to produce the reports, the IPCC for agriculture.They are available free on line at ww.agassessment.org or from Island Press.
The reports debunks the idea that (gene)technology, i.e., silver bullets and reductionistic approaches will fix the problems in agriculture. To the contrary, what is needed is a holistic approach, the am multifunctionality and also research that is done with the framers, with an emphasis on small scale and family farmers (these nourish already 70 % of the global population). Its time for government to take the responsibility in research and extension, food security as well as food sovereignty issues cannot be left to the private sector alone and certainly not to global agri-business, just like defense in any country is a matter for the government! The private sector has however roles to play in the wider food system, in particular when it comes to inputs, mechanization, processing and marketing.
I would also like to note that today we do produce enough food for 9 billion people. The problem is how, where and by whom. In OECD countries some 30 to 40 % of the food purchased is wasted....and pre and post harvest also are responsible for similar losses. So its quite clear where we need to apply better science and practices. Food is basically too cheap in industrialized countries, or people would not trow it down the sink or in the trash! In the developing countries, cheap food perpetuates poverty in rural areas, but higher prices would create hardship in urban areas, that have many poor people. A new paradigm includes a rethinking of the terms of trade, that would promote local production and marketing, thus creating jobs and lifting people out of poverty, starting with agriculture. This would revitalize the rural areas too. A study done by the Millennium Institute for the UNEP Green economy report shows clearly that investing in green agriculture and enabling conditions creates new jobs, reduces green house gases, uses less land and makes agriculture part of the CC solution while industrial and conventional agriculture are p[art of the problem. What are we waiting for to make the needed changes? The knowledge, science and technologies for such a transition are known, and we can start now. The problems are to be found in the link between politics and agri-business, and the unwillingness to prioritize sustainable agriculture as the way forward. Its unfortunate that no action is really undertaken along the lines suggested by the IAASTD reports now. As more crises come, the response will be quick fixes as usual, i.e., fertilizers, seeds (GMOs) and agrochemicals......all not sustainable and of increasing prices, making the inevitable transition more difficult, increasing the risks of future crises further instead of introducing sustainability and resilience into the agriculture and food system.
Population is not a glaring
Population is not a glaring omission, it is left out because it is a non issue. Which may be counter intuitive to americans. In fact, you can fit 7 billion people shoulder to shoulder in the city of Los Angeles. Overconsumption dwarfs the population issue. You'd be surprised by the gains if people just gave up hamburger.
Time to have some thought
Time to have some thought about food as wastes for it seems that most groups calling for composting those wastes don't recognize that the wastes quickly biodegrade to reemit carbon dioxide that narure so kindly traps for us in a renewable biomass supply system. Some such as J. Bloom in recent book bemoan the loss of energy from the handling of our food wastes apparently not recognizing that that gas is being reemitted in the way we presently handle much of our food wastes. And worse still may be the way we flush away another huge amount of renewable energy with again that gas being reemitted as the toilet paper and flushable diapers, almost all being cellulose, get biodegraded at sewage plants to reemit that gas. The fibers could be separated as they come into a sewage plant to be be used in a pyrolysis process to get inert charcoal and a renewable fuel. I have sent several WRI staff several e-mails on this and have commented especially on Green NYTimes blog about making our organic waste messes into a resource.
The mishandling of organic waste messes are what is going to overwhelm our descendants' futures as the germs, toxics and drugs in the messes are escaping more frequently every year as no one recognizes them for the increasing problems of pollution and contamination of oceans, drinking water and food. EPA a year ago set limits on several drugs now showing up in drinking water as if that will just stop the drugs from getting to the water or stop them from exceeding the limits. Of course that limit setting won't do a thing to stop levels from being exceeded or stop new hazards from getting out of mishandled organic waste messes and spreading in the environment.
For a New Year's resolution to generate many more happier New Years I urge WRI to take action on a resolution to make our massive ever-growing messes of organic wastes into a resource by using pyrolysis on them for many benefits. I sending Mr. Lash and other WRI staff a more detailed statement on using pyrolysis that will destroy the germs, most toxics and drugs, and also get some renewable fuel and energy. Instead of spending billions on mishandling those wastes to pollute the environment, we could be making billions of dollars from them without having polluting escapes possible
. Dr. J. Singmaster, Environmental Chemist, Ret., Fremont, CA
One option which is not
One option which is not addressed is glaring in its omission: population control.
Don't ask me the which why how it would be done, don't even expect me to support it. However it's obvious to any fule that this would be a very effective way to relieve pressure on agriculture.
At least, perhaps public information campaigns to request families to limit to two or even one child, before we get into the carrot and stick methods employed in China?
I would agree that telling people whether or not they can procreate is a fundamental invasion of privacy. However, if we're talking about the survival of our species as we know it (and we are) I think such an invasion is justified.
However, until the discussion gets underway it will just be the elephant in the room, getting bigger and bigger until no one can ignore it. And by then, it may be all too late.