Share

Climate Change: Food Supply Hangs in the Balance

by: Stephen Leahy  |  Inter Press Service

photo
Woman starving in streets of Dhaka, Bangladesh. (Photo: saberdhaka / flickr)

    Uxbridge, Canada - Rocketing food prices and hundreds of millions more starving people will be part of humanity's grim future without concerted action on climate change and new investments in agriculture, experts reported this week.

    The current devastating drought in East Africa, where millions of people are on the brink of starvation, is a window on our future, suggests a new study looking at the impacts of climate change.

    "Twenty-five million more children will be malnourished in 2050 due to effects of climate change," such as decreased crop yields, crop failures and higher food prices, concluded the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) study.

    "Of all human economic activities, agriculture is by far the most vulnerable to climate change," warned the report's author, Gerald Nelson, an agricultural economist with IFPRI, a Washington-based group focused on global hunger and poverty issues.

    The report, "Quantifying the Costs of Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change", may be the "most comprehensive assessment of the impact of climate change on agriculture to date", as IFPRI claims, but researchers concede that there is no current way to quantify all of the future repercussions of changing weather patterns on the food supply.

    A critical component of agriculture is knowing the best time to plant seeds, for example. Farmers rely on their past experience and weather records. But one of the most robust science findings is that climate change has and will produce significant increases in weather variability.

    This means extremes like droughts or floods will happen more often or last longer, and extreme temperature shifts are more likely. The past is no longer a reliable guide for farmers because the fundamental conditions in the atmosphere have been altered - far more heat is being trapped in the atmosphere today because of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than at any time since the dawn of agriculture.

    Nelson told IPS that the IFPRI report is a "conservative estimate" of the potential impacts and does not include impacts of pests and disease, loss of farmland due to rising sea levels or loss of water from melting glaciers.

    The enormous glacier system of the Himalayas-Hindu Kush and high-elevation Tibetan Plateau are the main source of water for 1.3 billion people in Asia. Recent studies as reported by IPS revealed that these glaciers are shrinking faster than anywhere on the planet and could melt away by 2035, according to the International Commission on Snow and Ice in Kathmandu, Nepal.

    "There's been a super-rapid decline in the glaciers of the region," Charles Kennel of the University of California San Diego Sustainability Solutions Institute told IPS previously.

    A similar situation is now evident in South America, where massive glaciers that provide water for tens if not hundreds of millions of people are melting away.

    Moreover, the IFPRI study does not look at future expansion of biofuel, bioenergy crops or tree plantations that will occupy some of existing food production land.

    Even without those additional and considerable pressures on global food production, the IFPRI report estimates that by 2050, irrigated wheat yield will have fallen by 30 percent and irrigated rice by 15 percent.

    Food prices would be normally be expected to rise over a period of 40 years, but with climate change, prices will skyrocket: wheat by 170 to 194 percent, rice 113 to 121 percent, and maize 148 to 153 percent higher.

    Developing countries will be hit hardest by climate change, and will face bigger declines in crop yields and production than industrialised countries, the study found. The negative effects of climate change are especially pronounced in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

    "Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change because farming is so weather-dependent. Small-scale farmers in developing countries will suffer the most," noted report co-author Mark Rosegrant, director of IFPRI's Environment and Production Technology Division.

    However, much of this scenario can be avoided with action on climate change and "seven billion U.S. dollars per year of additional investments in agricultural productivity to help farmers to adapt to the effects of climate change", Nelson said.

    These investments would be for agricultural research, improved irrigation, and rural roads to increase market access for poor farmers, he said. Public agricultural research has suffered serious declines in funding for the past decade and more, according to many experts.

    Currently, the entire global budget of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is less than half a billion dollars, said Nelson.

    Founded in 1971, CGIAR is a global alliance of researchers, governments and civil society groups that mobilises science to benefit the poor.

    "In the past, if investments in agricultural research are made they directly result in productivity boosts," Nelson noted.

    Government investment is needed to provide public goods like improved crops, more efficient irrigation systems and infrastructure, he said, cautioning against "one-size fits all" solutions.

    Agriculture is location-specific and it is "far more complicated than rocket science", he added.

    Nelson is a supporter of small-scale traditional agriculture, which was also the overall finding of the three-year International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) in 2008.

    "Traditional agriculture should be supported and its techniques widely shared when it works - not just because it's traditional," he said.

    Future food security is much more than seeds and yields. For 30 years, industrialised agricultural nations in Europe and North America have dumped heavily subsidised foods on poor countries with devastating impacts on local food systems, says Michel Pimbert, director of the agriculture and biodiversity programme at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

    Such national and international policies need to be changed to favour "food sovereignty", meaning diverse, local, autonomous food systems, Pimbert told IPS.

    IFPRI's call for a seven-billion-dollar investment will not guarantee that all negative impacts can be overcome, acknowledged Nelson, "But business as usual will guarantee disastrous consequences for the human race."

  

»


Ips_logo
Visit IPS news for fresh perspectives on development and globalization.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

So easy to see the dire

So easy to see the dire consequences of "staying the course"; it isn't too hard to see some first steps that ought to be taken now. But it is so difficult to see anywhere the political will to actually make meaningful changes. We are embedded in a system that glorifies short-term profits for those who make the decisions and usually manage to avoid the negative consequences of their policies that impact all the rest of us.

What is so heart breaking is

What is so heart breaking is that $7 billion is pocket change for the Pentagon. Probably elimination of one of our fighter-bombers would comfortably provide more than that sum. The "military payoff" in terms of enhanced security worldwide is incalculable. Is anybody in these admirable research organizations finding a way to address the Obama administration?

while attempting to consume

while attempting to consume this alphabet soup and digest this uncritical re-hash of IFPRI's "study" and Gerald Nelson's pronouncements and prognostications...I had a bit of trouble swallowing the "party line(?)" of the "devastating impact" of government-subsidized food being "dumped" on poor counties by industrialized agricultural nations in Europe and N. America--for 30 years!......Maybe this food is not the ultimate or even proximate cause of their systemic problems and poverty.....

"Anonymous" at 7:34 clearly

"Anonymous" at 7:34 clearly is not too familiar with the economics of agriculture in the Third World. I recommend the clear and incisive article by Lappé and Collins, "Why Can't People Feed Themselves?" When "foreign aid" in the form of subsidized foodstuffs is dumped on poor countries, OF COURSE it undercuts local food prices and puts local farmers out of business. What farmer can compete with stuff that's FREE? The film "Life and Debt" illustrates how Jamaica's dairy farmers were ruined in this way. Then, after local producers have been put out of business, the prices of industrialized food products from First World nations rise drastically. The causes of 3rd world poverty are multiple, but not so hard to figure out. Start with colonial govts. that destroyed the local economies and re-tooled them to serve the financial needs of the colonizing countries, rather than people's subsistence needs... from there it's a straight line to NAFTA (whose dumping of cheap subsidized US corn on Mexico quickly put 30,000 small farmers out of business).

You are perpetuating a fraud

You are perpetuating a fraud on the people of the world. The cost of your fraud will significantly detract from the funds available to combat the very hunger you are warning about. Your intent is not to combat the hunger, but, rather to use it as a scare tactic to further your fraudulent campaign. Be careful, you are so full of it that a single dose of a laxative will make you disappear.

What no commentators have

What no commentators have seemed to notice is how many important factors were left out of the study, the sum of which make the problem MUCH worse than the study indicates. Links to the full report and methodology are here: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/climate-change-impact-agriculture-and-costs-adaptation. In addition to the items listed in the article, the study also leaves out the affects of drought, extreme weather, and direct effects of climate changes on livestock. I wish I knew what it DID take into account! Did they include the predictions that fish will be practically gone from the oceans in a few decades, or the devastation of plankton and other sea life from ocean acidification? Another very important point is that the report only goes to 2050. The bad effects of global warming will continue to get worse for decades after that point. What the report left out is enough on its own to easily cause worldwide famine. Even the U.S. will lose the vast majority of its food producing capability when California is suffering mega-droughts and the MidWest has reverted to desert. Both of those are predicted happen with as little as 1 degree C further temperature rise (which is already "in the pipeline"). The 25 million children figure seems more like what will happen just in our own country.

Tell me... As Major Nations

Tell me... As Major Nations line up at what's left of the Arctic Ice and wait with oil drilling gear and happy faces for the rest of it to melt, and as our global population grows by another 3 plus million Human Beings every 10 days or so and Consumerism remains the primary Global Economic-Corporate-Ideology--- When in all of Human History has all of Humanity come together for ANY common purpose..?.... Brace yourselves and prepare your children...