Food and nutritional security in the context of climate change: eco-efficiency or agroecology?

24 Pages·2015·1.43 MB·English

Session 4. Which model(s) for agriculture?
Food and nutritional security in the
context of climate change:
eco-efficiency or agroecology?

Jean-François Soussana,
Scientific Director Environment,
INRA, Paris, France
Two Goals of Our Time
1. Achieving Food and Nutritional Security
– 800 million chronically undernourished, more with micronutrients deficits,
– Far reaching implications of obesity on chronical diseases,
– Food production to increase 50-70% by 2050,
– Adaptation to climate change is critical
2. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change
- The ’ 2°C railguard ’ requires major emission cuts,
- Agriculture and land use contribute to 24% of GHG emissions...
...and need to be part of the solution

Which model(s) for agriculture?
Outline
Global dimension
• Food supply and demand under climate
change by 2050
• GHG emissions and soil carbon sequestration
• Emerging risks of climatic variability
Which agricultural models?
• Eco-efficiency and sustainable intensification
• Agroecology and organic farming
• Climate smart agriculture
The global food system:
past and future

AgRIPE framework:

• Mass balance
of supply, demand
and GHG emissions

• Mathematical identities
to capture drivers of Supply
and Demand
Global food system dynamics over 1961-2011
L 
Supply  Demand : t  a  P
 
GHG  g. g.
 Supply   Demand
3.0 3.0
Population (P)
Agricultural land (L)
Food affluence (a.)
2.5 2.5
Technology (t.)
1 Carbon intensity (g., Direct emissions)
6
9 Indirect GHG (Land use change, Pre-chain)
1
2.0 2.0

o
t

d
e
z
i
d 1.5 1.5
r
a
d
n
a
t
s 1.0 1.0

a
t
a
D
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Years
(Soussana, Ben Ari et al., in prep.)
A more efficient global food system 0.20
Protein conversion efficiency
0.19
(1961-2011)
0.18
y
c
n
e 0.17
effici
e 0.16
s
• The conversion efficiency into plant and animal food of n u
ei 0.15
ot
total raw (arable and grassland) proteins has increased Pr
0.14
from 12 to 19%,
0.13

0.12
0.44
0.42 Fraction human edible livestock feed
d
e
e 0.40
k f
oc 0.38
st
ve 0.36
e li
• The fraction of feed which is edible by humans has bl 0.34
di
n e 0.32
increased from 24 to 42% (increased reliance on grains ma 0.30
u
h
of livestock systems) on 0.28
acti 0.26
Fr
0.24
n) 0.22
ei 120
-1 protn 100 Carbon intensity components gggCN PH2rOe4chain
o g. direct
• Since the 1990’s, direct GHG emissions per unit food s t gLUC
nt g.
have declined (i.e. lower carbon intensity of ale 80
v
ui
q
e
agricultural production) at a slow pace (0.75% per year) O 2 60
C
n
o
y (t 40
Note that global grassland and arable soil carbon stock sit
n
nte 20
changes since 1961 are not known n i
o
b
ar 0
C
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
(Soussana, Ben Ari et al., in prep.)
Years
Shared socio-economic pathways 1-3
SSP3 is a fragmented world
characterized by strongly growing
population and important regional
differences in wealth with pockets of
wealth and regions of high poverty.
Unmitigated emissions are high, low
adaptative capacity and large number of
people vulnerable to climate change.
Impact on ecosystems are severe.
SSP1 is the sustainable world with SSP2 is the continuation of current trends
strong development goals that include with some effort to reach development
reducing fossil fuel dependency and goals and reduction in resource and energy
rapid technological changes directed intensity. On the demand side, investments
towards environmentally friendly in education in not sufficient to slow rapid
processes including yield-enhancing population growth. In SSP2 there is only an
technologies. intermediate success in addressing
vulnerability to climate change.
Food protein supply:
3.6
Food protein supply
projections for 2050’s 3.4
Animal protein supply
3.2
Plant protein supply
(IIASA, GLOBIOM model & AgRipe 3.0
1.8
with CO effect)
a
2 t
a
d

Large variation across Shared Socioecon. d 1.6
e
z
di
Pathways (SSPs) r
a
d
an 1.4
t
S
• Plant food supply scales with population
1.2
• Animal food supply is more variable:

1.0
- Less demand of meat under SSP1
Past SSP1 SSP2 SSP3
- Higher prices under SSP3 (slow
productivity growth)
1.10
- Largest supply and demand under Relative effects of climate change on food protein supply
middle of the road scenario (SSP2) Animal proteins
1.05
Plant proteins

ata 1.00
d
Climate change impacts are stronger with ed
z 0.95
di
grain crops than with grasslands (Havlik et ar
d
n
a
al., FAO 2014) St 0.90

0.85
Plant proteins supply: -12 to -15%
Animal proteins: supply 0 to -10%
0.80
SSP1 SSP2 SSP3
Food security and land use change
projections for 2050
(IIASA, GLOBIOM model & AgRIPE)
1.4e+9 3e+9
2050, Land use change emissions (CO eq.)
2050, Chronic undernourishment 2
r 1.2e+9
e
b
m No climate change No climate change
u
shed n 1.0e+9 RCP 8.5 alents 2e+9 RCP 8.5
uri 8.0e+8 uiv
o q
n e
er 2
d 6.0e+8 O
n C
cally u 4.0e+8 Tons 1e+9
ni
o
r
h
C 2.0e+8
0.0 0
SSP1 SSP2 SSP3 SSP1 SSP2 SSP3
SSP2 and SSP3: SSP2 and SSP3:
ncreased undernourishment (SSA, S. Asia) ncreased deforestation (LAM and SSA)
Climate change exacerbates these trends
Global food system and land use emissions
may prevent climate stabilization (RCP2.6)
(IIASA, GLOBIOM model & AgRIPE)
60
Agriculture and LUC: 2050, % total GHG emissions
50
RCP2.5
s RCP 8.5
n
o
si 40
s
mi
e

G
H 30
G

al
t
o
t 20

f
o

%
10
0
SocioEconomic Pathways
SSP1 SSP2 SSP3