Routledge Handbook of Food and Nutrition Security 9781138817197, 9781315745749

Citation preview

ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY

The concept of food and nutrition security has evolved and risen to the top of the international policy agenda over the last decade. Yet it is a complex and multi-faceted issue, requiring a broad and inter-disciplinary perspective for full understanding. This handbook represents the most comprehensive compilation of our current knowledge of food and nutrition security from a global perspective. It is organized to reflect the wide scope of the contents, its four sections corresponding to the accepted current definitional frameworks prevailing in the work of multilateral agencies and mainstream scholarship. The first section addresses the struggles and progression of ideas and debates about the subject in recent years. The other sections focus on three key themes: how food has been, is and should be made available, including by improvements in agricultural productivity; the ways in which politico-economic and social arenas have shaped access to food; and the effects of food and nutrition systems in addressing human health, known as food utilization. Overall, the volume synthesizes a vast field of information drawn from agriculture, soil science, climatology, economics, sociology, human and physical geography, the nutrition and health sciences, environmental science and development studies. Bill Pritchard is Professor in Human Geography at the School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Australia and International Visiting Professor, Global South Studies Center, University of Cologne, Germany. Rodomiro Ortiz is Professor of Genetics and Plant Breeding at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Meera Shekar is Global Lead for Nutrition, Health, Nutrition and Population Global Practice, World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

This page intentionally left blank

ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY

Edited by Bill Pritchard, Rodomiro Ortiz and Meera Shekar

First published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2016 Bill Pritchard, Rodomiro Ortiz and Meera Shekar, selection and editorial material; individual chapters, the contributors The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Pritchard, Bill, editor. | Ortiz, Rodomiro, editor. | Shekar, Meera, editor. Title: Routledge handbook of food and nutrition security / edited by Bill Pritchard, Rodomiro Ortiz and Meera Shekar. Description: London ; New York : Routledge, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015040323 | ISBN 9781138817197 (hbk) Subjects: LCSH: Food security. | Nutrition policy. | Food supply. Classification: LCC HD9000.5 .R678 2016 | DDC 338.1/9--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015040323 ISBN: 978-1-138-81719-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-74574-9 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Saxon Graphics Ltd, Derby

CONTENTS

List of illustrations Notes on contributors Preface

ix xiii xvii

1 Food and nutrition security: future priorities for research and policy Bill Pritchard

1

PART I

Food availability

25

2 Future prospects for cereal and legume production Jon Hellin 3 Fruits, vegetables and tubers: bountiful resources for achieving and sustaining food and nutrition security Norman E. Looney

27

38

4 The impacts of modern agriculture on plant genetic diversity M. Carmen de Vicente

59

5 Agriculture and micronutrient availability Dennis D. Miller

75

6 Sustainable intensification Tim G. Benton

95

v

Contents

7 The role of agro-ecological and organic food production in making the world feed itself in the twenty-first century Mette Vaarst, P. Panneerselvam and Niels Halberg

110

8 The meatification of diets Tony Weis

124

9 Livestock production systems: animal welfare and environmental quality John Webster

137

10 Fisheries and aquaculture Richard Grainger

153

11 Food losses and waste and the debate on food and nutrition security Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Vincent Gitz and Alexandre Meybeck

169

12 How is climate change affecting the global food system? Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata

185

13 The sustainability of the world’s soils Stefan Hauser and Lindsey Norgrove

201

14 Water resources for food and nutrition security Alain Vidal and Larry Harrington

214

PART II

Economic and social access to food

225

15 Famines: causes and impact Eric Vanhaute

227

16 Nutrition sensitive economic growth: what it is, why it matters and how to encourage it Lawrence Haddad

240

17 The transformation of food supply chains: implications for food and nutrition security C. Peter Timmer

251

18 International trade, food security and nutrition Sophia Murphy

vi

268

Contents

19 Food value chains and nutrition: exploring the opportunities for improving nutrition Aulo Gelli, Corinna Hawkes and Jason Donovan 20 Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems Jessica Fanzo, Roseline Remans and Celine Termote 21 The implications of land grabs and biofuel expansion for food and nutrition security in developing countries Anna Locke and Giles Henley

283

299

319

22 Food sovereignty Philip McMichael

335

23 Localism and food and nutrition security Steven M. Schnell

349

24 Food and nutrition security within the household: gender and access Anu Rammohan

368

25 The socio-economic and socio-cultural determinants of food and nutrition security in developed countries Jane Dixon

379

PART III

Food utilization

391

26 Food and nutrition surveillance Geoffrey C. Marks

393

27 Addressing maternal and child undernutrition in low-income and middle-income countries: a review of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions Víctor M. Aguayo and Kajali Paintal 28 The agriculture–nutrition disconnect Yurie Tanimichi Hoberg

409

425

29 Water, sanitation and hygiene: a missing link to food and nutrition security? Oliver Cumming, Louise Watson and Alan Dangour 30 Nutrition, health and early childhood development Quentin Wodon and Meera Shekar vii

442

455

Contents

31 Nutrition policies and programs in low- and middle-income countries: progress and challenges to achieving impact at scale Lynnette M. Neufeld, Ellen G. Piwoz and Florencia C. Vasta

466

32 Costing and financing nutrition programs in the developing world: what will they cost and how can they be financed? Meera Shekar, Julia Dayton and Jakub Kakietek

482

33 Food social safety net and dietary guidance programs in developed countries Ann L. Yaktine

498

Index

510

viii

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures 5.1 6.1

8.1 8.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1 14.1 14.2

Factors affecting concentrations and bioavailabilities of micronutrients in human diets This figure comes from a meta-analysis of the literature on agriculture’s environmental impacts. The outer ring of white is what has been measured in studies, the inner ring of grey are groupings of what was measured into 13 major ‘aspects of sustainability’ The ‘meatification’ of diets (kg/person) The industrial grain–oilseed–livestock complex: biophysical contradictions and overrides World capture fisheries and aquaculture production World fish utilization and supply Status of fishery resources 2011 World per capita meat and fish food supply Schematic representation of the definition of food losses and waste along the food chain FLW per capita in the different world regions (top), and distribution of FLW along the food chain in the different world regions (bottom) Losses along the food chain and organization of causes of FLW A food-use-not-waste hierarchy to minimize FLW The way forward to food losses and waste reduction strategies Food system activities and their relationships Forecasted decrease in capture fish production under different scenarios of hydropower dam construction on the Mekong mainstream One-year evolution of water salinity in the Ganges Delta’s Polder 3 and the possible time slots for growing rice (water salinity below 2 ppt), allowing for up to two or three cycles with short-cycle cultivars, adapted to the different polders, and for producing shrimp (water salinity above 4 ppt) ix

76

100 125 129 156 161 161 163 171 173 177 181 181 185 217

219

Illustrations

14.3

16.1

16.2

16.3 16.4 16.5 17.1 19.1 19.2 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4

28.1 29.1 29.2 31.1 32.1 32.2

33.1

Schematic representation of how Gwanda district’s agro-ecosystems’ resilience declined under the effects of climate change and poor connection to markets, and how it was restored through the development of local goat markets, which are not only more profitable than rainfed maize cropping, but also more sustainable Prevalence of stunting in children aged 0–5 years and GDP per person (size of the circles represents estimates of the population of stunted children aged 0–5) Prevalence of women overweight and GDP per person, for low-income and middle-income countries (size of the circles represents estimates of the population of overweight women aged 15–49 years) Income and obesity: a complex relationship Elasticities (absolute values, vertical axis) for HAZ levels and PC HH expenditure by Gini coefficient in survey year (horizontal axis) Which policies can move the food system towards hunger and undernutrition reduction, control of overweight and obesity, and sustainable resource use? Five components of the agri-food system that are drivers of structural transformation Impact theory of supply and demand side value chain interventions Typology of value chain intervention contexts based on the supply and demand of nutritious foods Agricultural biodiversity Key aspects to the integrated crop–livestock farming system Integrated pig–fish–duck–vegetable system, very common in China and Vietnam Patterns of change over time for country case studies including Malaysia (a, b) and Ghana (c, d) showing Shannon entropy diversity (a, c) of food production and supply and relative changes in economic indicators compared to 1965 (b, d) Factors affecting concentrations and bioavailabilities of micronutrients in human diets The f-diagram Conceptual framework: how WASH can affect childhood undernutrition Program impact pathway from the franchise model of Alive & Thrive World stunting rates Annual gains in economic productivity (GDP) from scaling up ten nutrition-specific interventions (over lifetimes of children who would otherwise have died or become stunted) Timeline of the evolution of food assistance programs in the US

220

242

243 244 245 248 253 287 293 301 303 308

312 432 443 446 474 487

490 500

Tables 3.1 Temperate zone fruit and nut crops 3.2 The most significant Mediterranean and subtropical fruits and nuts 3.3 Tropical fruit and nut crops estimated by FAOSTAT 2012 3.4 Production of the vegetable fruits (including melons) monitored by FAOSTAT

x

41 43 46 48

Illustrations

3.5 3.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

9.1 9.2

9.3 9.4 9.5

12.1 15.1 15.2 16.1 17.1 21.1 21.2 21.3 24.1 24.2 24.3 25.1 26.1 28.1 28.2 28.3 30.1

World production of vegetable crops excluding tubers monitored by FAOSTAT 2012 World production of tuber crops monitored by FAOSTAT 2012 Energy values and concentrations of selected micronutrients in whole grain and refined wheat and rice. Data are means for 100 g of raw product Energy values and concentrations of selected micronutrients in cassava, potato and sweet potato. Data are means for 100 g of raw product Energy values and concentrations of selected micronutrients in selected legume seeds. Data are means for 100 g of raw mature seeds Micronutrient and calcium composition of selected fish species in Bangladesh. Values are per 100 g of raw, edible parts with corrections for plate waste (mainly bones). The Chanda and Mola are consumed whole whereas the bones, intestines and livers of the carp are discarded Allocation of metabolizable energy (ME) to the breeding and slaughter generations in broiler chickens, pigs, sheep and suckler beef cattle Efficiency of energy and protein conversion in meat, milk and egg production. For each system, efficiency is described by the ratio of output to input, where output is defined by energy and protein in food for humans; inputs are described in terms of total and ‘competitive’ intake of ME and protein, where ‘competitive’ describes energy and protein from feed sources that could be fed directly to humans Life-cycle assessment of inputs and emissions required to produce one tonne of meat in broiler, pig and beef production systems Categories of good welfare as described by the FAWC ‘Five Freedoms’ and the Welfare Quality® principles Origins of major problems of health and welfare for pigs, poultry and dairy cattle in intensive production systems. The most serious origins are indicated with an asterisk* (Br = broilers, LH = laying hens) Comparison and description of mechanized and non-mechanized food systems activities Collective risk management strategies in crisis situations Public actor interventions in crisis situations Ways to make sector investments more nutrition sensitive Dietary transformation in Southeast Asia Land availability in countries that have seen important investment (2008–2013) Biofuels and household food security – potential pathways Studies of recent biofuel plantation projects Household economic outcomes for various countries Women’s socio-economic outcomes Children’s health outcomes Food practices which have accompanied key moments in the post-1970s culinary culture of high-income nations Suite of food security indicators Five pathways linking agriculture to nutrition Potential nutrition sensitive agricultural interventions HarvestPlus biofortified crops (pipeline and released) Comparative progress towards the health MDGs by quintiles of wealth xi

50 53 77 78 78

80 139

140 142 145

146 186 233 233 247 254 322 324 325 370 371 374 385 397 429 434 435 457

Illustrations

31.1 31.2 31.3 32.1 32.2 32.3 33.1

World Health Assembly (WHA) nutrition targets, endorsed by member states in 2012 and actions identified to address them Critical factors for achieving impact at scale National nutrition surveillance systems identified Nutrition-specific interventions delivered primarily through the health sector Global and selected country costs and benefits Nutrition-sensitive interventions in selected countries, 2014 Comparison of monthly participation with annual expenditure for the top five nutrition and food assistance programs administered by the US Department of Agriculture in 2013

468 475 476 485 489 492

499

Boxes 6.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 20.1 26.1 30.1 32.1 32.2 32.3

Sustainable intensification of cassava production in southern Côte d’Ivoire Organic agriculture for improving food security of small farmers in India Food security in the Rwenzori Region of West Uganda Food security in Atamai Village, New Zealand Food species with nutritious and multiple uses Examples of policy questions that can be answered from a F&N surveillance system The returns to investments in young children are large Nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions Disability-adjusted life years Three cost-effective scale-up options in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

xii

104 115 116 117 304 395 459 483 486 488

CONTRIBUTORS

Victor M. Aguayo is UNICEF Regional Nutrition Advisor for South Asia and former Chief of UNICEF Nutrition program in India and Regional Nutrition Advisor in Africa. Tim G. Benton leads the UK’s Global Food Security Programme and is a Professor at the School of Biology, University of Leeds, UK. Molly E. Brown is Associate Research Professor at the Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, USA. Oliver Cumming is a Lecturer in the Department of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK. Alan Dangour is Reader at the Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK. Julia Dayton is a Consultant in the Health, Nutrition and Population Global Practice at the World Bank, Washington DC, USA. Jane Dixon is Associate Professor, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Australia; Honorary Research Fellow, The Centre for Food Policy, City University London, UK; and Visiting Research Fellow, International Institute for Global Health, United Nations University, Malaysia. Jason Donovan is Research Leader, Value Chains and Transformational Change, World Agroforestry Centre, Lima, Peru. Jessica Fanzo is Bloomberg Distinguished Professor for Global Food and Agriculture Policy and Ethics, School of Advanced International Studies and the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore MD, USA.

xiii

Contributors

Aulo Gelli is Senior Scientist at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA. Vincent Gitz is the former Coordinator of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Richard Grainger is a consultant based in Ireland and former Chief, Statistics and Information, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO, Italy. Lawrence Haddad is Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, USA and Co-Chair of the Global Nutrition Report’s Independent Expert Group. Niels Halberg is Director, International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, Aarhus University, Denmark. Larry Harrington is Adjunct Professor, Soil & Crop Sciences Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, USA. Stefan Hauser is Root and Tuber Agronomist, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria. Corinna Hawkes is Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Food Policy, City University London, UK. Jon Hellin is Senior Scientist, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico. Giles Henley is Research Fellow, Agricultural Development & Policy Programme, Overseas Development Institute, UK. Jakub Kakietek is Consultant in Health, Nutrition, and Population Global Practice at the World Bank, Washington DC, USA. Anna Locke is Director, Sustainable Natural Resource Management and Climate Change, Overseas Development Institute, UK. Norman E. Looney is Principal Scientist Emeritus, Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Summerland, BC, Canada. Geoffrey C. Marks is Associate Dean (Academic), Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences and Associate Professor in Public Health Nutrition, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Australia. Tawny M. Mata is a Science and Technology Policy Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, USA.

xiv

Contributors

Philip McMichael is Professor and Chair, Department of Development Sociology, Cornell University, USA and a member of the Civil Society Mechanism, Committee on World Food Security, FAO. Alexandre Meybeck is Senior Adviser, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO. Dennis D. Miller is Professor of Food Chemistry and Nutrition, Department of Food Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, USA. Sophia Murphy is a Senior Advisor on trade and global governance to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, USA and a PhD candidate at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Canada. Lynnette M. Neufeld is Director, Monitoring, Learning and Research, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, USA. Lindsey Norgrove is Marie Heim Vögtlin Research Fellow in Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Institute of Biogeography, University of Basel, Switzerland. Rodomiro Ortiz is Professor of Genetics and Plant Breeding at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. Kajali Paintal is UNICEF Nutrition Manager in Sierra Leone and former UNICEF Regional Nutrition Specialist in South Asia. P. Panneerselvam is a Research Specialist in Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. Per Pinstrup-Andersen is the former Chairperson of the Steering Committee of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS), and Professor, Cornell University, USA. Ellen G. Piwoz is Senior Program Officer, Global Development Program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA. Bill Pritchard is Professor in Human Geography, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Australia and International Visiting Professor, Global South Studies Center, University of Cologne, Germany. Anu Rammohan is Professor in Economics, Business School, University of Western Australia. Roseline Remans is Associate Research Scientist, Columbia University, USA and Bioversity International, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Steven M. Schnell is Professor of Geography, Department of Geography, Kutztown University, USA.

xv

Contributors

Meera Shekar is Global Lead for Nutrition, Health, Nutrition and Population Global Practice, World Bank, Washington DC, USA. Yurie Tanimichi Hoberg is an Independent Consultant. Celine Termote is Associate Scientist, Bioversity International sub-Saharan Africa office, Nairobi, Kenya. C. Peter Timmer is Cabot Professor of Development Studies, emeritus, Harvard University, USA and Non-Resident Fellow, Center for Global Development, Washington DC, USA. Mette Vaarst is Senior Researcher, International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems / Aarhus University, Denmark. Eric Vanhaute is Professor of Economic History and World History at the History Department of Ghent University, Belgium. Florencia C. Vasta is Technical Advisor, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, USA. M. Carmen de Vicente is a Consultant at Arcadia International, Belgium. Carmen is currently an employee of the European Commission, but contributes to this book in her private capacity. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein. Alain Vidal is Director of Strategic Partnerships, CGIAR Consortium, Montpellier, France. Louise Watson is Research Fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK. John Webster is Professor Emeritus, School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, UK. Tony Weis is Associate Professor, Department of Geography, The University of Western Ontario, Canada. Quentin Wodon is Lead Economist, Global Practice on Education, World Bank, Washington DC, USA. Ann L. Yaktine is Director, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, USA.

xvi

PREFACE

Food and nutrition security is a vast topic encompassing myriad disciplinary fields, perspectives and themes. This handbook strives to bring together this diversity and to produce an overarching compendium of the topic. Individual chapters address food availability, access and utilization. Part I (chapters 2–14) primarily addresses food availability and was lead edited by Rodomiro Ortiz. Part II (chapters 15–25) primarily addresses food access and was lead edited by Bill Pritchard. Part III (chapters 26–33) primarily addresses food utilization and was lead edited by Meera Shekar. The introductory chapter 1, written by Bill Pritchard, provides an overarching perspective across these themes. We thank Tim Hardwick, Senior Commissioning Editor of Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, who first approached us with the idea for this handbook, and who has supported the project ever since. Thanks go also to Melissa McCullough for editorial assistance. We are also extremely grateful for the assistance of the numerous referees who reviewed the chapters herein. All chapters in this book were subjected to double-blind peer review and subsequently reviewed by ourselves as editors. Although the refereeing process is anonymous, the following referees have given us permission to name and acknowledge their assistance. In alphabetical order, these referees are: Harold Alderman, Daniela Alfaro, Meike S. Andersson, Shawki Barghouti, Hugh Campbell, Charles Crissman, Teresa Davis, Jane Dixon, Dave Edwards, Wafai Fawzi, Patrizia Fricasi, Stuart Gillespie, Toby Hodgkin, Jackie Hughes, Lucy Jarosz, Amir Kassam, Rachel Kerr Benzen, Craig Kullman, Yayoi Lagerqvist, Geoff Lawrence, Ulf Magnusson, Alana Mann, Nkosinathi Mbuya, Linda Myers, Jeff Neilson, David Pelletier, Colin Thor West and Iain Wright.

xvii

This page intentionally left blank

1 FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY Future priorities for research and policy Bill Pritchard

Introduction Food and nutrition security (FNS) is a wicked problem. There is no universal consensus on its definitional parameters, and it has complex interdependencies with other problems including human health, poverty and environmental sustainability. It is plagued by dissonance between scholarly communities, between researcher, policy and advocacy communities, and between lay and professional understandings. As Simon Maxwell observed some two decades ago: ‘From its simple beginnings, food security has become, it seems, a cornucopia of ideas’ (Maxwell 1996: 155). In light of its widely diverse framings and usage, it might be tempting to abandon any quest to bring analytical coherence to this most complex of concepts. Yet the challenge of developing a comprehensive understanding of food and nutrition security needs pursuit. Whilst individual actors and stakeholders will inevitably proceed along specialist pathways, their separate efforts are best leveraged where there are broadly-accepted parameters that define the core dimensions of the issue. This handbook presents 33 chapters in pursuit of this goal. Readers can both glean the detail of an issue within the content of an individual chapter, and also appreciate its wider context by examining how it is positioned in relation to other chapters. We approach this task using the ‘pillars’ framework. This approach conceives FNS in terms of four intersecting themes: availability (the maintenance of sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis); access (the ability for individuals in a population to have sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet); utilization, sometimes labelled ‘absorption’ (the capacity for individuals to utilize the food that they can access to ensure good health); and stability (the robustness of food systems over time). The overarching purpose of the pillars approach is to emphasize FNS as the outcome of varied processes cutting across productive, economic, social and human health dimensions. This approach evolved in the context of the 1996 World Food Summit (WFS), where ‘food security’ (as it was then named) was specified as follows: Food security, at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels [is achieved] when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, 1

Bill Pritchard

safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.1 (FAO 1996a) More recent iterations have embellished the definition in particular ways, as discussed below. However, the wording agreed at the 1996 Summit remains significant because it philosophically grounds the concept in three pivotal ways. First, it frames food security in people-centric terms. The definition specifies being ‘food secure’ as occurring only when people’s food needs are substantively satiated. It is not sufficient to have enough food stocks to potentially feed the population. What matters is actual achievement in meeting people’s needs. Analytically, this dislodged supply/demand factors from being the fulcrum of ‘food security’ discourse. Second, the definition is aspirational in orientation. The phrase ‘all people, at all times’ provides a specific, albeit perhaps utopian, target that connects food security to human rights, inferring that FNS is an obligation for the global community. Third, the 1996 definition makes explicit an appreciation of food security as being ‘more than calories’. Inclusion of the terms ‘nutritious’, ‘safe’, ‘food preferences’ and ‘active and heathy life’ attach the concept to social worlds and human health. This generous conception of the roles of food for human well-being has formed the basis for heightened multi-disciplinary attachments in this field, especially with social and nutrition scientists. These connections have become especially prominent during recent years as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (2000–2015) transitioned to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) (post-2015) framework. The MDG target of ‘reducing hunger by half from 1990 levels’ was monitored in line with narrowly calibrated, calorie-based conceptions of food adequacy – estimates of undernutrition defined in terms of whether national food supplies could meet estimated minimum daily energy requirements (MDER) for the population. Metrics attached to the SDGs address this problem in ways that are more consistent with wider notions of social context and human health (see later in this chapter). The shift from narrower to more complex conceptions of FNS, formalized by the pivotal 1996 WFS definition, provides a narrative theme that runs throughout this book. Its title – The Handbook of Food and Nutrition Security – is not accidental. At its thirty-ninth session in October 2012, the UN Committee of World Food Security endorsed the terminology of ‘food and nutrition security’ as the preferred descriptor for this field (CFS 2012). Implicit within this terminology are two positions; first, that food and nutrition need to be considered conjointly – food as nutrients, contributing towards nutrition, and second, that this is an issue of security, which we understand to mean human security – the capacity to meet individuals’ hunger and nutritional needs, consistent with their own preferences and aspirations. The remainder of this chapter explains the evolution of thinking in this field, as researchers and policy-makers have moved towards more sophisticated, albeit more complex, understandings of FNS. It first traces these ideas over time, and then uses insights from other chapters of this handbook to present an agenda of 11 themes which are critical staging posts for future research and policy in this field.

Contests of ideas about food security: from the 1940s to the 1990s Discussion of food adequacy and hunger has been part of the human conversation since our earliest times but, for the purposes of this chapter, the contemporary narrative about food security can be usefully said to have commenced with discussions in World War II amongst the Allied Powers about the composition of the post-war world. In 1942, the Australian public servant and economist Frank L. McDougall, whilst in Washington D.C., compiled arguments 2

Food and nutrition security

made in different forums over the previous few decades into a privately circulated document, the Draft Memorandum on a United Nations Programme for Freedom from Want of Food (Philips 1981: 4). The following year, at Hot Springs, Virginia, the Conference on Food and Agriculture was convened as the very first meeting of the putative United Nations (Gibson 2012: 202). It endorsed the creation of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as a body which, according to the Preamble of its Constitution, was to work ‘toward an expanding world economy and ensuring humanity’s freedom from hunger’ (Philips 1981: 9). From the very outset, at least on paper, the FAO’s remit was entwined with broader issues of economic and social justice. The Statement from the Hot Springs Conference stated: ‘the first cause of hunger and malnutrition is poverty’ (cited in Gibson 2012: 202). However, during the post-war years, its purpose and focus moved more squarely into questions of food availability. Through the 1950s–60s, FAO investment in its Field Programme activities expanded rapidly, and these were focused on seed improvement, field trials and, especially in Africa, locust plague management (Philips 1981: 69–77). Also in these years, the World Food Programme was established alongside the FAO, creating new arenas for cooperation in monitoring food supply and managing emergency relief activities. These supply-side foci crucially informed responses to the world food crisis of 1974, when world food prices doubled (Horton 2009). At the 1974 World Food Summit, the term food security was formally recognized and defined as: availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices. (cited in FAO 2003: 27 (italics added)) During the two decades after the 1974 Summit, successive FAO definitions of food security progressively broadened. By 1983, the centrality of food availability in the formal definition was displaced by food access, and in 1986, supplemented with the phrase ‘…for an active and healthy life’ (FAO 2003: 27). These embellishments were then concretized in the 1996 World Food Summit definition, discussed earlier in this chapter. These shifts in terminology were not mere window dressing. They reflected substantial changes both to theoretical advances in understandings of the relationship between food supplies and hunger, and to the construction of discourses about security and development. The contributions of Amartya Sen were pivotal in both these debates. With respect to the former, the publication of Poverty and Famines (Sen 1981) exerted an immediate and powerful effect on research and policy communities. The core idea at the heart of Sen’s work was that food insecurity is best explained by the social and political arrangements that dictate access to food, rather than the stock of available food per se. These ideas were not entirely new, but Sen effectively and succinctly ‘codif[ied] and theorize[d] the access question… [giving] it a new name, “food entitlement”’ (Maxwell 1996: 157). In Sen’s conception, entitlements are the broad attributes of the social ecosystem in which a person inhabits – their ‘totality of rights’ (Sen 1987: 64). They are fundaments of an expanded notion of justice constructed around the economics of power and property, and the cultural domains of norms and behaviour (Sen 2009).2 Via the notion of entitlements, essentialist explanations which held that food insecurity derived from nature, and hence were outside of human responsibility, were socialized (Watts 1991: 15). The debate on food security was rendered as an explicitly political subject, indivisible from issues of poverty and rights. With respect to debates on security and development, the 1974-era conception of food security understood food systems as being safeguarded, i.e., made secure, through supply 3

Bill Pritchard

management actions at national and international scales (Clay 1981: 1; cited in Maxwell 1990: 2). However, as the 1980s progressed, state-centric formulations of security were challenged by the notion of human security. This approach ‘takes its shape from the human being: the vital core that is to be protected’ (Alkire 2003: 2). The 1994 Human Development Report (UNDP 1994) seminally articulated it as resting on protection from seven threats, one of which was freedom from hunger. This recalibration of food security to the human scale represented a profoundly new way of thinking about the issue. Deriving in a general sense from cognate reformations of development ‘as freedom’ (Sen 1999), it approached the problem of food security by asking: ‘what happens when individuals experience a lack of food, and how does this deprivation shape the livelihood strategies they wish to pursue?’3 Analytically and methodologically, this approach creates an obligation to listen to the voices of food insecure people (Parasuraman et al. 2003), and incorporating their experiences and perceptions into the ways FNS is understood, reported and measured.

From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals era Shifts in the focus of attention from food availability to access, and from national security to human security paved the way for global target-setting, with parallel obligations for improved food and nutrition surveillance (see Marks, chapter 26). At the 1996 WFS, signatories made a commitment to work towards halving the world’s hungry within two decades, i.e., by the end of 2015. In 1996, the most current available estimates (from 1990–1992) suggested there were 839 million undernourished persons (FAO 1996b: Table 3). Subsequent revisions to this estimate now suggest that there were 1.011 billion people undernourished globally in 1990–1992 (FAO et al. 2015: 8). Based on this latest estimate, meeting the 1996 WFS target would have required the number of undernourished persons by 2015 to be reduced to approximately 505 million. But when MDG targets were settled in 1999–2000, the aspirational metrics were altered (Pritchard and Choithani 2014). Rather than seeking to halve the absolute number of undernourished people, the MDG hunger target specified a halving of the proportion of the global population living in hunger. Pegging this target to the inflating balloon of global population gave increased scope for its attainment. The world’s population in 1990–1992 was approximately 5.365 billion. If we assume that 1.011 billion of this population was undernourished (using the revised estimates from 2015) the Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU) was approximately 18.8 per cent of global population. Halving the PoU by 2015 implied a reduction to 9.4 per cent. Given that in 2015 the global population had increased to 7.33 billion, this amounted to a hunger target of 689 million. Thus, shifting the aspirational goalposts sanctioned the meeting of a hunger target that was, in human terms, around 184 million persons higher than its predecessor. Yet even with this loosening of the measurement belt, attainment of hunger goals has proven problematic. At the conclusion of the MDG period, 795 million people were estimated as being undernourished (FAO et al. 2015: 8), almost 100 million over the hunger target.4 This was because of highly uneven geographical trends. In sub-Saharan Africa, progress was inadequate, with the PoU falling from just 33.2 per cent in 1990–1992 to 23.2 per cent (estimated) in 2014–2016. Some 17 countries failed to meet the hunger targets – Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, D.R. Congo, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Namibia, Senegal, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia (FAO et al. 2015: 44–45). By contrast, in Latin America and the Caribbean, all countries readily met the MDG hunger target, excepting some smaller Central American countries (Belize, El 4

Food and nutrition security

Salvador and Guatemala) and disaster-wracked Haiti. Across Asia, with the notable exception of South Asia, discussed below, success at meeting the MDG hunger target was widespread. Failure to meet the target was restricted to countries torn by war (Afghanistan, Iraq), internal conflict (Yemen, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste) or political repression (North Korea). The experience of South Asia, and in particular, India, gives pause for deeper consideration of success and failure to meet MDG hunger targets. Following the shift to a more liberalized economy in 1991 there was a marked and sustained improvement in India’s annual rate of GDP growth. In East and Southeast Asia, comparable processes of economic take-off generated rapid and substantial improvement in nutrition outcomes – with China the poster-child, registering a fall in PoU from 23.9 per cent in 1990–1992 to 9.3 per cent by 2014–2016 (FAO et al. 2015: 46). China alone accounted fully for two-thirds of the global decline in undernourishment during the MDG era (FAO et al. 2015: 54). In India, however, the relationship between economic growth and improvements in undernourishment has been less clear. Initial expectations that India’s economic growth surge would deliver rapid reductions in levels of undernourishment (FAO 2000: 3) were dashed (Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food 2006: 15). This led to the ‘Indian enigma’ being coined to describe the apparent failure of rapid economic growth to deliver anticipated nutritional dividends (Headey et al. 2011; Gillespie et al. 2012; Pritchard et al. 2013). In the first 15 years after economic liberalization, India’s PoU declined only modestly, from 23.7 per cent to 20.5 per cent (FAO et al. 2015: 46). This stubbornness of economic growth to translate into improved nutritional outcomes rang alarms bells domestically. Pushed by parallel legal action in the Supreme Court of India over the Right to Food, the Government of India legislated the National Food Security Act of 2013, making it legally bound to provide food to poor households, within an expanded social safety net franchise – an initiative described by Haddad et al. (2012: 1) as ‘potentially the largest step toward food justice the world has ever seen’. Yet notwithstanding this delayed action, at the conclusion of the MDG period India missed its hunger target by a considerable margin (its PoU was 3.4 per cent higher than the target) which equated to approximately 43.5 million undernourished people. A core lesson coming out of the Indian experience was the importance of inclusive economic growth and the imperative to place nutrition objectives at the centre of poverty abatement. The peculiarities of India’s economic growth trajectory (in particular, the driving role of the advanced services sector) mitigated the strength of any trickle-down effect to poor households (cf. East and Southeast Asia) (Pritchard, Rammohan and Sekher 2013). Corrective government action to promote greater inclusiveness in the economy was generally too little, too late (Drèze and Sen 2011). Accelerated improvements in Indian nutrition indicators have come only two decades after economic liberalization, and notably, in contexts of sustained policy attention, such as in the state of Maharashtra where the government instigated a politically powerful Nutrition Mission to drive reforms, and within the space of just three budgets, from 2009–2010 to 2011–2012, almost doubled expenditure on nutrition programmes (Haddad et al. 2014: 15). What the South Asian experience suggests is that nutritional outcomes are shaped by the specific intersections between food systems and processes of social and economic change. This thinking – with its emphasis on intersectionality of process – has proven pivotal in the establishment of the SDGs, where development has been understood as ‘more than the sum of its parts. It is an outcome of positive synergies between multiple elements, and may be undermined by negative trade-offs between them’ (Waage et al. 2015: 80). Taking this perspective as a lead, the remainder of this chapter uses insights from following chapters of this handbook to set out an integrated agenda which asks ‘what needs to be done?’ 5

Bill Pritchard

in order to fulfil SDG ‘Goal 2’, namely to: ‘End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture’. Crucially, the wording of this goal explicitly connects hunger, nutrition and the environment, rather than house these in separate silos, as was done in the MDGs (Hawkes and Popkin 2015). Hence, the discussion that follows is both wide-ranging and integrative. It presents 11 themes which, taken together, represent a coherent and comprehensive roadmap for addressing SDG 2.

Theme 1: securing and moving beyond crop staples Approximately 40 per cent of the world population’s dietary energy comes from cereal crops (FAO 2014: 20), overwhelmingly rice, wheat and maize. The ability to supply the world’s population with such volumes of cereal crops represents the legacy of the Green Revolution, which substantially transformed the global dynamics of calorie provisioning. Yet as Hellin (chapter 2) reports, the endurance of this legacy remains unclear. On the one hand, cereal demand is slowing – growth in demand for wheat, for example, has been only 1 per cent per annum during the past decade. Yet even in these more restrained circumstances, supply challenges remain. Yield growth has generally slowed, arable land has become relatively more scarce (and expensive), and farmers have faced a cost-price squeeze for fertilizers and other key inputs. These challenges came into the open with the global food crisis of 2007–2008, when reduced global stocks of wheat and rice intersected with heightened speculative activity in derivative commodity markets and export bans to send prices skyrocketing (Clapp and Helleiner 2012). As Hellin argues, the sector is overdue for an injection of new innovation and extension systems to underpin its productive capabilities to face the demands of the current century. Yet even if these challenges are met, the rice, wheat and maize sectors will inevitably play a new and different role in addressing global FNS in coming decades. During the twentieth century, the cheapening of prices for these crops delivered improved calorific adequacy to much of the world’s population, but in the context where micronutrients often remained in deficit within diets. Most of the key micronutrients in rice and wheat are removed with milling (see Miller, chapter 5). The question, therefore, is what role can (and should) cereals play in the promotion of diverse, nutritious diets? Miller discusses three approaches towards this end: enhancing soil health as a deliverer of micronutrients (see also Hauser and Norgrove, chapter 13); biofortification using plant breeding techniques to produce nutrient-richer varieties; and biofortification using genetic modification technologies. The latter option carries great controversy, but as Miller notes, is able to generate bioavailability for nutrients not present at all in the edible parts of existing varieties – the seminal example being golden rice (rice biofortified with ß-carotene). At the end of the day, however, cereal grains can go only so far in meeting a population’s nutrition requirements – ‘humanity cannot live by bread alone’ so to speak. This brings into frame the importance of fruits, vegetables and tubers. As argued by Looney (chapter 3), horticulture ‘can both nourish and nurture humankind wherever they live’ because fruits, vegetables and tubers ‘play a special role in providing the dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients required for a healthy diet’. Over the past half-century, in general, agronomic advances in the fruit, vegetable and tuber sectors have lagged those for staple cereals, with the result that the prices of the latter have cheapened relative to the former, with implications for fruit, vegetable and tuber consumption, especially among poorer populations. Looney points to recent intensification of research efforts, in combination with innovative production practices including intensive, controlled environment systems, as strategies to potentially reverse these trends. 6

Food and nutrition security

Looming in the shadows of this debate, however, is the narrowing of genetic diversity within the world’s leading sources of plant-based foods. In chapter 4, De Vicente asks whether the fact that approximately 75 per cent of the crop genetic diversity used in global agriculture has been lost in the space of a single century (Schröder et al. 2007) poses a critical problem for future global food availability. Crucially, she suggests that the social and economic contexts of agriculture frame this question. This includes the extent to which plant genetic resources are maintained (either via gene banks, or in situ via wild plant relatives and landraces), and the extent of concentration in the global seed industry, issues relating to who controls the Intellectual Property of plant genetic resources, and the degree to which societies choose to cherish a wider diversity of crops and crop attributes.

Theme 2: matching animal-source foods with global nutrition needs and planetary resource limits Livestock and fisheries play an important and controversial role for global FNS attainment. These foods are nutrient-dense for human consumption, but also draw considerably on environmental resources. Hence, debate about their role in the global food system is entwined with wider economic, health and moral questions. It is impossible to consider the future role of these sectors without reference to the global politics of wealth and inequality, and humanity’s stewardship obligations to other sentient beings and the planet. An important starting point is the observation by Miller (chapter 5) that meat provides important sources of several B vitamins, iron, and zinc; dairy provides calcium, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, riboflavin, zinc and iodine; and fish are good sources of vitamin A, iron, zinc and, when eaten whole, calcium (see also Grainger, chapter 10). The bioavailability of these micronutrients has crucial global importance given that 33 per cent of the world’s population suffers from anemia (Kassebaum et al. 2014), 17 per cent are at risk from inadequate zinc intake (Wessels and Brown 2012), and vitamin B-12 deficiency is widespread within developing countries (Allen 2009). For infants and children, there are strong correlations between animal protein intake and reductions in stunting (low height-for-age) and wasting (weight-for-height) (Tangka et al. 1999). Yet from a public health perspective, the role of meat, dairy and fish in addressing protein energy malnutrition among poor populations is counter-posed by their glaring overconsumption among other population segments. According to Popkin: […] the consensus is not that we should all become vegans or vegetarians… Rather, the need is for a major reduction in total meat intake, an even larger reduction in processed meat and other highly processed and salted animal source food products, and a reduction in total saturated fat… [for prevention of cancer and heart disease] This requires higher-income countries to significantly cut their animal source food intake, shift to leaner meats, and shift to reduced-fat dairy products. (2009: 543–44) Overconsumption of animal source foods is intrinsic within the global obesity pandemic (Steinfeld et al. 2007; Sinha et al. 2009). Environmental and animal welfare concerns add layers to these arguments. Under current industrial-scale animal food-feed systems, the production of 1kg of animal protein requires approximately 6kg of plant protein as feed (Aiking 2014: 486S), as well as ancillary inputs attached to feed production, processing, storage and transport. Weis (chapter 8) sees these systems as ‘reverse protein factories’ which contrast to ‘the historic 7

Bill Pritchard

“protein factory” role that small numbers of animals had within agricultural landscapes, producing protein mainly from grazing on fallowed land, consuming crop residues and household wastes, and scavenging around farm households’. Industrial-scale animal production also magnifies moral questions about animal welfare. Webster (chapter 9) unpacks the ethical and regulatory components of this issue, providing a framework of ‘8 steps’ for the most beneficial intersection of livestock production, animal welfare and the living environment. At the end of the day, however, it is difficult to disagree with Sabaté and Soret (2014: 476S) that: ‘policies in favor of the global adoption of plant-based diets will simultaneously optimize the food supply, health, environmental, and social justice outcomes for the world’s population’.

Theme 3: encouraging farming systems that best complement food and nutrition security goals The world’s farming systems are diverse, and difficult to characterize. Family-based ownership prevails in agriculture at a much higher rate when compared to other economic sectors, but family farming is increasingly subsumed within the commercial and technological logics of industrialization. For the immediate concerns of this chapter, the question we pose is what types of farming best assist goals of food and nutrition security being attained? Or, as suggested by two questions posed by Tanimichi Hoberg in chapter 28: ‘why is agriculture important for nutrition?’ and ‘why is nutrition important for agriculture?’ On the surface, these questions are much more complex than they appear. The potential disconnect between agriculture and nutrition has been brought into focus with debate over large-scale agricultural land acquisitions (LSLAs). In commercial agriculture, there is an economic impetus towards larger-sized farms. Multinational food processing firms, trading houses and supermarkets tend to prefer procuring agricultural produce from larger-sized farms, because of their abilities to deliver mass volumes at standardized and credentialed quality (Collier 2008). Thus, from a supply–management perspective, ‘big is better’. However, these commercial attributes do not necessarily mean that large farms are the optimal entities for addressing FNS. People living on small farms (defined as less than two hectares each) in the developing world account for approximately 50 per cent of the world’s undernourished population (Hazell et al. 2010: 1349).5 Improving the viability of these small farms is a strong and direct mechanism for both FNS and poverty-reduction (Dorward et al. 2004; Hazell et al. 2010). This is because: 1 2

3

The subsistence or semi-subsistence status of small farms means that an improved ability to cultivate is translated directly into improved own-consumption. The small-scale farm sector tends to have strong local multiplier effects, because purchases and expenditure occur locally in shops and markets, so that benefits flow quickly and robustly into adjacent villages and towns (Singh 2008). The considerable agency of women in smallholder agriculture tends to lead towards household expenditure patterns that prioritize food consumption (see Rammohan, chapter 24).

The contemporary contexts for these arguments are synthesized and further developed by Locke and Henley (chapter 21) with their assessment of LSLAs with particular reference to biofuels. Using a comparative assessment of five recent studies across eight project sites, they identify a diverse array of FNS impacts over the short- and long-terms, and conclude that the profitability of a LSLA scheme itself ‘does not guarantee an improvement or maintenance of local food security, and a profitable venture can have a negative impact on food security of those affected’. 8

Food and nutrition security

Contributions by Benton (chapter 6), Fanzo, Remans and Termote (chapter 20) and McMichael (chapter 22) in their separate ways provide important detail of how the world’s farming systems can better contribute to FNS. Benton alerts us to the dual challenge of sparing (even) more of the world’s land surface from being colonized by agriculture, and to ensure sustainable practices occur on land that is. To this end, he describes and critiques practices under the banner of Sustainable Intensification (SI), a mode of agriculture which aims to ‘grow more with lower impact’. SI can contribute towards FNS because it promotes local food production systems that are more seasonally and functionally diverse, and hence are capable of delivering a more varied range of outputs to local populations. Fanzo, Remans and Termote pursue similar themes through their focus on FNS within smallholder, agro-biodiverse and mixed cropping and livestock systems. Smallholder farming is often characterized by diverse crop and livestock arrangements that take advantage of ecological and dietary synergies and niches. As Fanzo et al. argue, these systems encourage the maintenance of a wider range of genetic resources within single localities, hence promoting ecological resilience and soil health, with important flow-on effects for the sustainability of local environments to feed local populations. McMichael (chapter 22) then enters this debate using the concept of food sovereignty, seminally defined as: ‘the right of each nation to maintain and develop its own capacity to produce its basic foods respective of cultural and productive diversity’ (Vía Campesina 1996). As McMichael suggests, it is a discourse and concept for our times, given the environmental and nutritional contradictions of globalized ‘food from nowhere’. Tanimichi Hoberg, in chapter 28, pulls together these arguments by framing them within the context of the agriculture–nutrition disconnect (see also Gillespie et al. 2012). She interprets this framework as consisting of five pathways through which agriculture intersects with nutrition: 1

2

3

4

5

When the agriculture sector grows, it tends to generate significant pro-poor outcomes (certainly more than the case for growth in other economic sectors) and this assists vulnerable rural populations to feed themselves. When agriculture grows it boosts food supplies, which ceteris paribus, should flow into lower food prices and assist poor households, who might spend up to 70–80 per cent of their income on food. However, this can be a ‘blunt tool’ for the goal of improved nutrition because ‘reduced prices of calories may not always correlate to increased consumption of foods that are nutritionally adequate’. When agricultural growth generates higher cash incomes for farmers, this may enable them to gain increased access to nutritious foods. Yet research analyzed by the World Bank (2007) concludes that cash cropping schemes are not necessarily associated with lower incidence of child stunting, compared with non-commercial farming, because cash may not be used to purchase food, and commercial agriculture may crowd out more diverse agro-ecologies designed for home consumption. Further to the above, if and when farm-based households can continue to maintain home food production, evidence suggests that this can produce greater dietary diversity and micronutrient status (Masset et al. 2012). When agricultural households increase their incomes, through whatever means, the extent to which this translates into better nutrition outcomes hinges on the role and status of women.

As Tanimichi Hoberg concludes, it is no longer appropriate for agriculture and nutrition to sit in different policy silos, and that agricultural policy makers ‘“own” the responsibility and role [agriculture] plays in determining what people eat’. 9

Bill Pritchard

Theme 4: governing food systems for waste minimization and sustainable natural resources management Current global food systems are profligate. They are premised on un-costed or under-costed depletions of natural resource inputs and the externalization of food loss. Failure to include these costs leads to partial renderings and understandings of the concept of ‘food system efficiency’. A system that delivers cheap foods to consumers, but without incurring the costs of waste, loss and long-term environmental damage implicit within its arrangements, is not efficient. Vaarst, Panneerselvam and Halberg (chapter 7) point to the potential for agro-ecological and organic agriculture to address these problems. These forms of farming are simultaneously a science, a practice and a movement concerned with ‘multi-functional and functionally integrated systems of complementary relations between living organisms and their environments’. Their implications for global FNS are often questioned, with critics suggesting that these systems do not produce sufficient yields to ‘feed the world’. But as Vaarst et al. counter-pose, from an agroecological and organic perspective, the right question to ask is: ‘can the world feed itself?’ Discussion of food system sustainability inescapably must address soil and water, the world’s two most crucial natural resources for agriculture. In chapter 13, Hauser and Norgrove identify four principles of soil sustainability: 1 2 3 4

Maintain or improve soil biological, chemical, and physical properties. Maintain an input–output (harvest) ratio greater than one for all macronutrients. Use nutrient inputs, preferably but not exclusively from renewable rather than nonrenewable sources. Permit the system to recover from the disturbances caused by cultivation and harvest.

Applying these principles to sub-Saharan Africa, the authors trace the connections between soil, food production and food and nutrition security. Then, in chapter 14, Vidal and Harrington address comparable issues with respect to water. Using evidence from the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food, they contest prevailing assumptions that water scarcity is a driver of food insecurity. They argue: 1 2 3 4

Water is usually not scarce; the issue is the way that it is managed. Research for development requires dedication to address the wicked problems of water, food, poverty and livelihoods. Technical and institutional innovation go together. The institutional environment for research for development – its leadership, mandates and power dynamics – is a major determinant of its success.

Finally, improved management of the inputs to food production systems needs to be complemented with overarching attention to the problems of food loss and waste. Until recently, this has been a neglected component of FNS. However, the High-level Panel of Experts (HLPE) established in 2010 by the UN Committee on World Food Security specifically prioritized and reported on this issue (HLPE 2014). Key insights from the HLPE’s work on this topic are synthesized in chapter 11, written by three participants in this process (PinstrupAndersen, Gitz and Meybeck). The overall incidence of food loss and waste is staggering – onethird of total global food production – and is driven by diverse factors. Similar products exhibit quite different trajectories of loss and waste in different countries, and losses at the same stage of a processing chain can be of a similar magnitude between countries, but caused by differing 10

Food and nutrition security

logics (for example, the major cause of post-harvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa could be poor transport, while in Europe it could be failure to meet buyers’ compliance standards). The economic and environmental costs of food loss and waste – let alone the moral paradox of this occurring amidst 800 million undernourished people – will ensure this issue is positioned centrally in FNS research and policy agendas for the twenty-first century. The issues of sustainability and food loss and waste call to attention the need for new food system governance. Pricing and/or access regimes need to be developed that incorporate food system impacts across a greater range of ecosystem services. If a particular food system practice unsustainably degrades the environment, why shouldn’t its negative externalities be addressed via management tools such as quota rights or user-pays arrangements? Key lessons can be learned from marine fisheries. Grainger (chapter 10) outlines the network of international and regional agreements and arrangements that shapes this industry. Global marine fish stocks are in sharp decline, but at least, governance systems exist as a basis for managing this problem, albeit with difficulty. Part of the response requires new metrics. Cassidy et al. (2013) propose redefining agricultural yield measurement from ‘tonnes/hectare’ to ‘people nourished/hectare’, a change that would take into account ‘reverse protein loss’ (Weis, chapter 8) when grains are used for animal feed. However, even wider metrics are required to incorporate the longer-term sustainability of production, including such negative externalities as greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental economics of such accounting would be complex and contentious, however as witnessed in the (somewhat comparable case of the) Stern Report into the economics of climate change, benchmarking the long-term consequences of present practices is a necessary precursor to policy action.

Theme 5: managing economic growth and global trade systems for nutrition As a general rule, the more affluent a country is, the better its human development indicators. However, the strength of this relationship varies considerably between countries and over time. What matters is the character and composition of economic change. This point has been accepted widely by development economists and geographers in the post-Washington consensus period via the concept of pro-poor growth – namely, growth that is labour absorbing, spreads benefits widely, and is accompanied by social protection policies (Kakwani and Pernia 2000). And what is true for the relationship between human development indicators and economic growth more generally is particularly apposite for nutrition. Recognition of the contextual sensitivity of nutrition indicators to economic growth has come to the foreground in international food security research. The 2012 State of Food Insecurity (SoFI) report (FAO et al. 2012) specifically focused on this issue, presenting a five-point manifesto for government policy: 1 2 3 4 5

The poor must participate in the growth process and its benefits. Agricultural growth is particularly effective in reducing hunger and malnutrition. Economic and agricultural growth should be ‘nutrition-sensitive’ (see below). Social protection is crucial for accelerating hunger reduction. To accelerate hunger reduction, economic growth needs to be accompanied by purposeful and decisive public action.

Haddad (chapter 16) advances these arguments. He argues the relationship between stunting (as a measure of undernutrition) and GDP per capita has a long run elasticity of approximately 0.6 (Smith and Haddad 2015). (That is, an increase in GDP per capita of 1.0 per cent reduces 11

Bill Pritchard

stunting by 0.6 per cent.) The relationship with obesity works in the opposite direction – an increase in GDP per capita of 1.0 per cent will increase the prevalence of obesity by 0.5 per cent. However, the experiences of individual countries vary considerably (Figure 16.1 and Figure 16.2). Nutrition-sensitive economic growth implies a national economic trajectory that produces an increased elasticity for stunting; and a reduced elasticity for obesity. There is no silver bullet for this goal, but knowledge about these issues is expanding quickly. One evidently important factor relates to investment in food marketing and distribution, embodied in the ‘supermarket revolution’ (Reardon and Hopkins 2006). The replacement of wet markets, informal trade and more localized market channels by supermarkets has important and varied implications for FNS. According to Timmer (chapter 17), these processes: 1 2 3

radically change domestic market channels for agricultural produce, potentially excluding or marginalizing small farmers, with major implications for livelihoods and FNS; make available to consumers an array of new foods, potentially at lower prices, but not always consistent with healthier diets; and replace/displace public for private quality and regulatory standards, raising key questions about national food policy governance.

Timmer’s contributions pave the wave for a broader assessment of the ways in which national food systems are being restructured within the global economy. Dependence on trade is increasingly central to patterns of food consumption. The volume of calories traded in the international market doubled between 1986 and 2009, and internationally traded food now accounts for 23 per cent of global consumption (D’Odorico et al. 2014). In chapter 18, Murphy assesses how this increased dependence on international trade intersects with FNS. Her analysis points to tensions in how the potential benefits of trade, via the principle of comparative advantage, are realized. One key tension relates to food staples. Modelling by Fader et al. (2013) suggests that by 2050, 51 per cent of humanity could be dependent on food staples made available through import. Such dependence potentially places the populations of smaller, import-dependent countries in situations of heightened vulnerability and triggers protectionist backlashes (Timmer 2014; 2015). These issues highlight how the disruptions of international trade can be either for good (when they challenge local monopolies/oligopolies and deliver cheaper prices to consumers) or ill (when they lead to volatile, subsidized import flows that destroy local industries). Importantly, as Murphy emphasizes, the global regulatory architecture for food trade does not sit consistently with goals of FNS. The complex connections between economic growth and international trade on the one hand, and FNS on the other, point to the merit of research agendas bringing these issues to centre stage. Exemplars of such foci are Thow, Annan et al. (2014); Thow, Downs et al. (2014); Downs, Thow et al. (2014) and Hawkes (2005; 2006; 2008). These researchers specifically scrutinize the nutritional implications of economic policy settings, and through so doing, impel policy-makers to think differently, in more interlinked ways, about economic and trade system governance.

Theme 6: understanding how social practices, cultural norms and economic circumstances shape malnutrition The ‘top-down’ national- and international-scale foci in chapters from Timmer and Murphy are vitally complemented by ‘bottom-up’ appreciation of the behavioural dynamics that shape food choices, and therefore, dietary composition and nutrition outcomes. Although economic 12

Food and nutrition security

and trade policies may be imposed upon populations, it is through the interplay of how populations respond to those impositions in which food landscapes are shaped. In chapter 25, Dixon turns her attention to these questions with a primary focus on the experiences of developed western countries. She argues that eating needs to be understood through the sociology of practices – value-laden, or meaningful, activity sets ‘comprising meal ingredient decisions, cost and preparation time considerations, food safety concerns and cooking techniques’. These practices are embedded within, and navigated via, broader socio-cultural knowledge and behaviour patterns enmeshed with socio-economic circumstances. In Dixon’s analysis, recent socio-economic changes in developed western countries have collided with food system shifts to produce poor nutritional practices. Significant and increasing proportions of western world populations are working-poor and/or time-poor. They juggle commitments and obligations to best mitigate household and personal economic risk in contexts of heightened employment and welfare insecurity. These social arrangements encourage dietary practices giving favour to convenient and cheap foods, notably fat-laden cereals, soft drinks, sugar saturated snacks, and junk-food meals – ‘calorie rich foods provide a greater “bang for the buck” in terms of satiety’, providing a much larger amount of calories per dollar expended (Sturm 2009: 458). The massive growth of the franchised food service sector during recent decades has provided a vehicle for delivering these food ‘solutions’ within easy reach of consumers. She concludes: For sub-populations who are income and time poor, and who have more pressing practice sets, like labour market engagement and family care, ‘good nutrition’ is particularly elusive. In the face of social, cultural and economic forces, which are widely accepted as leading to a particular form of national development, nutrition health education campaigns can have little influence on food and nutrition security. In this regard, understanding the drivers of food demand beyond price elasticities remains weak. Although Dixon’s insights are constructed mainly from evidence in developed western countries, they have global relevance in light of the internationalization of obesity. Attention to social practices, cultural norms and economic circumstances brings gender into frame. All aspects of the world’s food systems have highly gendered manifestations. In chapter 24, Rammohan broaches these themes with particular emphasis to their manifestations in developing countries. Cross-national data paints a picture in which countries with the highest prevalence of undernutrition often also figure highest in measures of gender inequality (see Table 24.2). Women’s disadvantaged status in terms of FNS is propelled via three mechanisms. First, because of customary economic practices, women tend to have inferior access to the productive resources for growing food, especially title over land. This flows into males dominating decision-making about agriculture, and evidence suggests this may prioritize the earning of cash over household food self-provisioning (Quisumbing et al. 2014). Second, male control over cash can strengthen their power within households, with implications for expenditure prioritization. There are positive associations between female autonomy and power within households, and shares of expenditure on food and health (Haddad et al. 1997; Doss 2006). Third, cultural norms discriminating against women are often expressed in eating practices which prioritize males, both in terms of portion sizes and allocation of more nutritious (especially protein-laden) foods. These norms can also be manifested in the preference of sons over daughters (Behrman 1988). Recognition of the profound gendering of FNS is a crucial ingredient to consideration of this issue. 13

Bill Pritchard

Theme 7: creating innovative, nutrition-sensitive connections between food producers and consumers Socio-cultural and economic factors shaping individual and household decisions about food and nutrition are also heavily mediated by place. The human and biophysical environments that people inhabit can facilitate or occlude opportunities for more nutritious diets. Two chapters in this book consider these issues at length. In chapter 19, Gelli, Hawkes and Donovan use the concept of value chains for nutrition (VCN) to investigate the economic and social arrangements that alternately enable or constrain the flow of nutrition from farm to fork. In chapter 23, Schnell critiques arguments about the role of localism as a driver for greater sustainability and better nutrition in our food systems. The VCN concept represents an important innovation in the broad field of FNS research and policy. Value chain frameworks themselves date from the mid-1990s, when the American sociologist Gary Gereffi established them as a means to understand how companies were adapting their strategies as economies were globalizing (Gereffi 1994). However, application of this framework to nutrition analysis was triggered only much more recently, via Corinna Hawkes’ paper to the Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition (Hawkes 2009) and then her joint paper to IFPRI’s 2020 Conference: Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition and Health (Hawkes and Ruel 2011). The motivation for these publications was to introduce the market analysis into food and nutrition research (Gelli 2014). The analysis of this method in chapter 19 identifies three ways in which value chain concepts can be used for nutrition analysis and interventions: 1 2 3

Demand-based research and strategies to construct or intervene in value chains in order to encourage increased consumption of nutritious foods. Supply-based research and strategies enabling the increased production of nutritious foods. Research and strategies into the internalization of ‘pro-nutrition’ actions of value chain participants, for example, by establishing nutrition-rating systems or codes of conduct that act as credence attributes for inputs within food value chains.

The VCN approach is explicitly geographical. At its core is the question of how to facilitate the channels through which people located in a particular place can obtain improved nutrition. This question evidently prompts consideration of localism as a food access strategy. Localism in food systems takes a plethora of forms – including home and community gardens, farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture, urban agriculture, and a host of variants. As Schnell reports in chapter 23, the principle of strengthening local food systems has great appeal. It can reduce transport costs and food wastage, make productive use of urban land that otherwise may lie vacant, can help build social capital and community, and encourage people to think more about the origins of their food and potentially improve food choices. Yet Schnell weighs carefully into this debate. He acknowledges these benefits but also cautions against over-enthused portraits of its potential – the ‘local trap critique’, as he calls it. Hence, he argues: ‘Local food alone will not solve the issue of food insecurity, but as countless projects out in the world have demonstrated they have an important role to play, both alone and in conjunction with national and international food systems’.

Theme 8: perceiving food and nutrition security in life-cycle terms Food and nutrition security is important in different ways throughout the various stages of a person’s life cycle, and policy and research must be sensitive to this (Rai et al. 2015). This is 14

Food and nutrition security

most obviously the case with infancy and early childhood, and it is no surprise that this area represents a clear priority for nutrition policy and interventions. Approximately 25 per cent of the world’s children under five are stunted (UNICEF et al. 2012), largely as a result of a lack of nutrients being consumed, often in association with maternal malnutrition or ill health. Appropriate nutrition during the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, in particular, is now seen as having crucial effects for physical and cognitive development with profound impacts later in life (WHO 2013). Because of these long-term consequences, investment in nutrition-sensitive interventions for infants, children and their mothers has a high social rate of return. Wodon and Shekar (chapter 30) provide various estimates of the relatively high economic pay-off for national economies from these policies. Perhaps the most striking of these is Horton and Steckel’s (2013) estimation that childhood stunting reduces adult earnings by up to 50 per cent, and that undernutrition contributes to a loss of 10 per cent of GDP in Africa and Asia. In chapter 27, Aguayo and Paintal identify a suite of six nutrition-specific interventions to safeguard infant and maternal health during this window: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Promotion of breastfeeding exclusively for infants up to six months, and continuing to at least two years of age. Complementary feeding of appropriate nutrients after six months. Supplementary feeding for infants and young children with severe or moderate acute malnutrition. Micronutrient supplementation for children and women. Maternal dietary supplementation during pregnancy. Food fortification for children, women and the general population.

Wodon and Shekar (chapter 30) cite the work of Denboba et al. (2014) to provide a similar (though lengthier) framework, also premised on the need for integrated interventions (see Box 30.1). To be most effective, however, nutrition-sensitive early childhood development programmes need to possess a wider remit which includes household stability and the early introduction of children into environments such as crèches where they can learn and be fed nutritious foods. As Wodon and Shekar attest, from an economic perspective, the combination of psychosocial stimulation and nutrition can generate human capital co-benefits of better physical health and improved pathways for education. Nevertheless, the social reality of many situations poses challenges to these aspirations. As Aguayo and Paintal observe: ‘In socially adverse environments – where the most vulnerable children and women live – mothers are more likely to be the poorest, most undernourished, mentally vulnerable and/or depressed and less responsive to their children’s needs’.

Theme 9: recognizing nutrition beyond food In large part, this handbook addresses FNS with the primary focus on how the operation of food systems enables populations to obtain nutrients. Attaining good nutrition, however, depends not just on food alone; it is the intake of food, considered in relation to the body’s dietary needs. If a person’s body is weakened by ill health, nutrients entering the body through food may not be converted optimally into a healthier metabolism. It is therefore crucial to consider how food systems intersect with environmental health, and in particular, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). As discussed by Aguayo and Paintal (chapter 27) these strong connections are manifested through the potential for infectious diseases to spread through fecal–oral pathways (food, fluids, 15

Bill Pritchard

faeces, field, and flies – the ‘5-f’ transmission routes) and affect nutrient intake and absorption. Hence, benefits of investing in WASH are usefully understood if they are assessed in terms of their interface with nutrition. For example, if primary care-givers are placed in situations where they have safer sources of water and are able to pursue health-precautionary practices, this will flow into improved nutrition absorption in infants, children and other sub-populations to whom nutrition intake is vitally important. Cumming, Watson and Dangour (chapter 29) further develop these arguments through their analysis of the importance of domestic hygiene practices for interrupting the ‘5-f’ pathways, which in turn hinges on safe and plentiful water access. However, they argue that responsibilities for water provision are rarely coordinated with health strategies, and moreover, are managed in fractious ways across numerous agencies. It is imperative that WASH considerations be mainstreamed into FNS analysis. Cumming et al. cite evidence of diarrhoea accounting for 1.5 per cent of the annual global disease burden, equivalent to 842,000 deaths per year that can be linked to poor WASH (Prüss-Ustün et al. 2014: 894–905). Discussion on this point also emphasizes the relevance of people-centred frameworks to understand FNS. Unless researchers and policy-makers have rich appreciation of the circumstances in which people consume food – including consideration of their immediate health environments – key dimensions of the global FNS problem will escape purview.

Theme 10: upholding the importance of social protection programmes In the post-Washington Consensus period, the importance of social protection – ‘mechanisms that protect and prevent individuals and households from suffering the worst consequences of shocks and stresses’ (Brunori and O’Reilly 2010: 2) – has gained renewed international policy attention. Investment in social protection has been demonstrated to generate significant progress in alleviating poverty and improving health and education (Soares et al. 2013). Successful models have frequently made use of Conditional Cash Transfer delivery mechanisms that provide reward incentives for particular health, education and nutrition-related behaviours, often targeting infants and school-aged children (Lignani et al. 2011). Although the incidence of need varies across the world, recognition of the importance of social protection is a global phenomenon. In the developing world, Latin America provided a wellspring for the revitalization of the social protection agenda. Reforms in Mexico during the 1990s provided lessons that were taken up in Brazil during the Presidency of Lula (2003–2010), where ‘zero hunger’ featured as a central policy platform (Pritchard, Rammohan, Sekher, Parasuraman and Choithani 2013: 143–50). The success of Brazil in using social protection to combat poverty and hunger provided impetus to similar programmes in other large developing and middle-income countries including India (especially within individual states, notably Chhattisgarh (see Garg 2013)) and South Africa (De Shutter 2012). This is not to say that programmes in these (and other) countries are always well-managed or sufficient to meet population needs. However, their more positive contemporary profile within leading agencies including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund represents a far cry from when those agencies were more single-mindedly influenced by the neoliberalist Washington Consensus. In the developed world, the relevance of social protection has been asserted anew in the sober economic circumstances of the post-2007 ‘great recession’. Yaktine (chapter 33) charts these developments, with primary focus on the US. Food insecurity in the US increased sharply post-2007, and has remained high, notwithstanding higher economic growth during recent years (Feeding America 2014). Food banks and food rescue programmes are an increasingly prominent part of post-2007 food landscapes in the developed world. 16

Food and nutrition security

Finally, with regards to a FNS perspective, it is worth noting that social protection programmes provide an important plank for ensuring poor and vulnerable population segments gain access to calories, however their contribution to broader indicators of good nutrition (such as reduced anemia) remains vexed (Aguayo and Paintal, chapter 27; see also Meeker and Haddad 2013). This does not deny their crucial role, but to stress the point that the aspirations for global nutrition security require frameworks that go well beyond the ambit of most current social protection agendas.

Theme 11: building food system resilience for a more populated, increasingly degraded and climate-stressed world Globalization has created food systems that are interlocked in increasingly intricate ways. This can generate welfare gains to consumers on account of the laws of comparative advantage, but can equally give rise to new forms of food system vulnerability. A case in point is rural Mexico following the enactment of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1990s. The resulting flood of cheap (subsidized) food imports from the US caused the income-earning potential from Mexican farming to crash, dealing smallholders a heavy blow. A common response by smallholders was to diversify sources of household income into non-farm activities, however this generated new types of risk and vulnerability as the non-farm economy was dominated by ‘precariat’ (Standing 2011) employment arrangements. Subsequent research highlighted how households with subsistence or semi-subsistence maize cultivation were better able to navigate this highly destabilized period, because the ability to grow one’s own food cushioned negative effects elsewhere on household livelihoods (Eakin 2005). The broader implication here is that in a world that is more integrated, reverberations carry farther and shocks and stresses take more complex forms. In these respects, the study of famines takes on key significance. Famines provide lenses into the interplay of food systems and human behaviour during times of acute crisis. In chapter 15, Vanhaute argues that famines are regional crises ‘that can only be understood via the “local story”’ and with an appreciation of the ‘long-term socioeconomic processes that accelerate destitution of society’s most vulnerable groups’. In other words, they are contextually framed through pre-existing patterns in how economic and social assets (what Sen (1981) calls entitlements) are manifested through a population. Of crucial importance is the extent to which vulnerable households are able to improve the resilience of their situation, potentially via their capabilities for adaptation. Examination of this question requires attention both to individual household assets, and the wider institutional environments in which they inhabit. These points have pressing contemporary relevance given the potentially large and wideranging disruptive effects of climate change on food systems. Brown and Mata (chapter 12) discuss this issue from a holistic framework. Agriculture remains at the front-end of climate impacts. An altered climate will change what crops are grown where, and most models conclude that climate change will reduce the yields for major crops, especially by 2030 (IPCC 2014: 498). A key priority, therefore, is to strengthen the translation of findings from climate science into climate-sensitive agricultural practices. The concept of climate-smart agriculture has provided a template for this process, anchored around the tripartite agenda of improving sustainability, increasing farmer resilience to climate shocks, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (FAO 2013b). However, notwithstanding the increasing sophistication in which this template has been applied (FAO 2013c), the adoption challenge remains pressing. Farmers often have little option but to prioritize short-term measures to maintain livelihoods under conditions of economic and environmental duress, but investments in agricultural ‘climate-proofing’ demand longer-term horizons (Schiermeier 2015). 17

Bill Pritchard

Yet, the potential effects of climate change extend well beyond agriculture. Brown and Mata examine these further dimensions extensively. Higher food prices will impact on urban consumers, particularly those on low incomes (Pritchard 2014). Climate change will also bring an increased propensity for disasters to some regions, with population-displacing effects. The potential repercussions are extremely wide-ranging, as detailed in IPCC (2014: chapter 7). A final lesson from famine episodes and the prospect of food crises attached to climate change is the importance of food and nutrition surveillance. In chapter 26, Marks assesses the evolution of surveillance and monitoring programmes in line with ascendant conceptualizations of the ‘food and nutrition security problem’. Priorities in the 1970s and 1980s to measure food stocks are now supplemented by a greater diversity of data capture methods focusing on dietary intake and nutritional status. Inevitably, however, there are tensions relating to ‘what should be measured?’ Technical capabilities in an emergent era of ‘big data’ have run ahead of analytical capacities. Researchers and policy-makers have never before had access to so much information about FNS, however obstacles remain in terms of data integration, scope, reliability and timeliness. New technologies and collaborative models for data collection will dramatically reshape this landscape in future years, and it is likely that the concept of resilience will be a central driver in terms of prioritizing data capture.

Conclusion The world produces enough food to generate an estimated 2,868 kilocalories per person per day, even when industrial uses of food, animal feed, seed production and food wastage is taken into account (FAO 2014: 20). In volumetric terms this is sufficient to provide everyone on the planet with enough dietary energy to meet daily living requirements. Therefore, in a macroanalytical sense, the global imperative for food availability can be said to have been resolved. Yet, of course, it hasn’t. An estimated 795 million people remain undernourished and potentially 2 billion suffer from hidden hunger – micronutrient deficiencies (FAO 2013a). Simultaneously, the incidence of overweight and obesity has increased from 22 per cent of the global population in 1990–1992 to 30 per cent in 2012–2014 (FAO 2014: 16). As the world moves forward into the SDG period, there is a need to better align global food production to the world’s nutritional needs – both in terms of securing minimum nutrient requirements for the vulnerable, and promoting diets that discourage overweight and obesity. This chapter has assessed the wider landscape of research and policy towards these ends. It commenced with the observation that FNS is a wicked problem because of competing conceptions of what constitutes the problem, and its complex interdependencies with other concerns, notably agricultural and environmental constraints, poverty, gender and other forms of discrimination, and human health. It charted how ideas and terminology evolved in this field, and then provided 11 themes that aimed to serve as a roadmap for considering research and policy in support of a food and nutritionally secure world. Each of the following 32 chapters of this handbook specify an individual issue that forms a component of this bigger picture, generating depth and breadth to the consideration and understanding of this wicked problem.

Notes 1 Although the 1996 World Food Summit gave authority to this definition, the World Bank (1986: 1) used a very similar set of words a decade previously. 2 The related framework known as the ‘Capability Approach’ addresses the question of how entitlements are converted into freedoms (or capabilities) through functionings – the things people are able to do

18

Food and nutrition security (Alkire 2005: 118). This introductory chapter is not the place to interrogate Sen’s Capability Approach further, which is the basis for a huge body of research. 3 Answering this question is not always straightforward. On the one hand, the fear of being hungry, let alone its manifestation, can be the vital catalyst for explaining how and why people make the livelihood decisions they do (Maxwell 1990: 3). On the other hand, research in famine contexts indicates that poor people may opt to go hungry in preference to preserving assets for future livelihoods (de Waal 1991; Davies 1996). In other words: ‘food, especially short-term nutritional intake, is only one of the objectives people pursue’ (Maxwell 1996: 158). 4 It should be noted that in the discussion of this point in the 2015 State of Food Insecurity report (FAO et al. 2015: 10), progress is measured in terms of halving the proportion of the population in developing countries only, although the MDG target made no such distinction. This has arithmetic consequences. Because the populations of developed countries (with lower levels of undernourishment) are excluded from the denominator, progress is made to look healthier. This explains a discrepancy between the estimates presented here and those in FAO et al. (2015). 5 In addition to 50 per cent of the world’s undernourished people living on small farms, an additional large number of undernourished people are rural but landless. This means that the prevalence and vulnerability to undernourishment is (ironically) higher in rural than urban settings (Gillespie, Harris and Kadiyala 2012).

References Aiking, H. 2014. Protein production: planet, profit plus people? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(suppl): 483S–489S. Alkire, S. 2003. A conceptual framework for human security. CRISE working paper (Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, University of Oxford). (Accessed online http://www. crise.ox.ac.uk/pubs/workingpaper2.pdf 5 December 2014). Alkire, S. 2005. Why the capability approach? Journal of Human Development, 6(1): 115–135. Allen, L. H. 2009. How common is vitamin B-12 deficiency? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(2): 693S–696S. Behrman, J. R. 1988. Intrahousehold allocation of nutrients in rural India: Are boys favored? Do parents exhibit inequality aversion? Oxford Economic Papers, 40: 32–54. Brunori, P. and O’Reilly, M. 2010. Social protection for development: a review of definitions. European report on development. San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy: European University Institute (Robert Schuman Center) http://erd.eui.eu/media/BackgroundPapers/Brunori.pdf. Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S. and Foley, J. A. 2013. Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3): 034015. Clapp, J. and Helleiner, E. 2012. Troubled futures? The global food crisis and the politics of agricultural derivatives regulation. Review of International Political Economy, 19(2): 181–207. Clay, E. J. 1981. Food policy issues in low-income countries: an overview. World Bank staff working papers, 473. Washington, DC: World Bank. Collier, P. 2008. The politics of hunger: how illusion and greed fan the food crisis. Foreign Affairs, 97(6): 67–79. CFS (Committee on World Food Security) 2012. Coming to terms with terminology: food security, nutrition security, food security and nutrition, food and nutrition security. Document CFS 2012/39/4 Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/MD776E.pdf. Davies, S. 1996. Adaptable livelihoods: coping with food insecurity in the Malian Sahel. London: Macmillan. Denboba, A., Sayre, R. K., Wodon, Q., Elder, L., Rawlings, L. and Lombardi, J. 2014. Stepping up early childhood development: investing in young children with high returns. Washington, DC: The World Bank. De Schutter, O. 2012. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his mission to South Africa (7–15 July 2011). Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly. De Waal, A. 1991. Emergency food security in Western Sudan: what is it for? In: To cure all hunger: food policy and food security in Sudan. Maxwell, S. (ed). London: Intermediate Technology. D’Odorico, P., Carr, J. A., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L. and Vandoni, S. 2014. Feeding humanity through global food trade. Earth’s Future, 2: 458–469, doi: 10.1002/2014EF000250. Dorward, A., Kydd, J., Morrison, J. and Urey, I. 2004. A policy agenda for pro-poor agricultural growth. World Development, 32(1): 73–89. Doss, C. R. 2006. The effects of intrahousehold property ownership on expenditure patterns in Ghana. Journal of African Economies, 15(1): 149–180.

19

Bill Pritchard Downs, S., Thow, A., Ghosh-Jerath, S. and Leeder, S. 2014. Developing interventions to reduce consumption of unhealthy fat in the food retail environment: a case study of India. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 9(2): 210–229. Drèze, J. and Sen, A. 2011. Putting growth in its place. Outlook India, 14 November, online, http://www. outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278843. Eakin, H. 2005. Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: cases from central Mexico. World Development, 33(11): 1923–1938. Fader, M., Gerten, D., Krause, M., Lucht, W. and Cramer, W. 2013. Spatial decoupling of agricultural production and consumption: quantifying dependences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1): 15. Feeding America. 2014. Hunger and poverty fact sheet. Washington DC: Feeding America. http://www. feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-andpoverty-fact-sheet.html. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1996a. Rome declaration on world food security and world food summit plan of action. Rome: World Food Summit 13–17 November 1996. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1996b. Food, agriculture and food security: developments since the World Food Conference and prospects. Technical background documents, 1. Rome: World Food Summit 13–17 November 1996. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2000. The state of food insecurity in the world 2000. When people live in hunger and fear starvation. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2003. Trade reforms and food security: conceptualizing the linkages. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2013a. The state of food and agriculture. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2013b. Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2013c. FAO success stories on climate-smart agriculture. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. Food and nutrition in numbers. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and World Food Programme (WFP). 2012. The state of food insecurity in the world 2012. Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction in hunger and malnutrition. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and World Food Programme (WFP). 2015. The state of food insecurity in the world 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Rome: FAO. Garg, S. 2013. Twin strategies for food security and productive inclusion – PDS reforms in Chhattisgarh, India. Policy in Focus, 25. Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (UNDP) http:// www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCPovertyInFocus25.pdf. Gelli, A. 2014. Value chains and nutrition: a framework to support the identification, design and evaluation of interventions. Washington DC: CGIAR Program for Agriculture for Nutrition and Health http:// www.a4nh.cgiar.org/files/2012/07/Value-Chains-for-Nutrition-Framework-V-1.1.pdf. Gereffi, G. 1994. The organization of buyer-driven global commodity chains: how US retailers shape overseas production networks. In: Commodity chains and global capitalism. Gereffi, G. and Korzeniewicz, M. (eds.), pp. 95–122. Westport: Praeger. Gibson, M. 2012. The feeding of nations: redefining food security in the 21st century. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. Gillespie, S., Harris, J. and Kadiyala, S. 2012. The agriculture-nutrition disconnect in India: what do we know? IFPRI discussion paper, 001187. Washington DC: IFPRI. Haddad, L., Chandrasekher, C. P. and Swain, B. 2012. Overview. Standing on the threshold: food justice in India. IDS Bulletin, 43(S1): 1–7. Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J. and Alderman, H. 1997. Intrahousehold resource allocation in developing countries: models, methods, and policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Haddad, L., Nisbett, N., Barnett, I. and Valli, E. 2014. Maharashtra’s child stunting declines: what is driving them? Findings of a multidisciplinary analysis. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies. Hawkes, C. 2005. The role of foreign direct investment in the nutrition transition. Public Health Nutrition, 8(4): 357–365. Hawkes, C. 2006. Uneven dietary development: linking the policies and processes of globalization with the nutrition transition, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Globalization and Health, 2(1): 4, doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-2-4. Hawkes, C. 2008. Dietary implications of supermarket development: a global perspective. Development Policy Review, 26(6): 657–692.

20

Food and nutrition security Hawkes, C. 2009. Identifying innovative interventions to promote healthy eating using consumption oriented food supply chain analysis. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 4: 336–356. Hawkes, C. and Popkin, B. M. 2015. Can the sustainable development goals reduce the burden of nutrition-related non-communicable diseases without truly addressing major food system reforms? BMC Medicine, 13(1): 143. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0383-7. Hawkes, C. and Ruel, M. 2011. Value chains for nutrition. 2020 Conference: Leveraging agriculture for improving nutrition and health, Conference Paper 4. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Hazell, P., Poulton, C., Wiggins, S. and Dorward, A. 2010. The future of small farms: trajectories and policy priorities. World Development, 38(10): 1349–1361. Headey, D., Chui, A. and Kadiyala, S. 2011. Agriculture’s role in the Indian enigma: help or hindrance to the undernutrition crisis. IFPRI discussion paper, 01085. Washington DC: IFPRI. High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE). 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome: FAO. Horton, S. 2009. The 1974 and 2008 food price crises: déjà vu? In: The global food crisis. Clapp, J. and Cohen, M. J. (eds.), pp. 29–42. Toronto: Wilfred Laurier Press. Horton, S. and Steckel, R. 2013. Global economic losses attributable to malnutrition 1900–2000 and projections to 2050. In: The economics of human challenge. Lomborg, B. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IPCC. 2014. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kakwani, N. and Pernia, E. M. 2000. What is pro-poor growth? Asian Development Review, 18(1): 1–16. Kassebaum, N. J., Jasrasaria, R., Naghavi, M., Wulf, S. K. and Johns, N. 2014. A systematic analysis of global anemia burden from 1990 to 2010. Blood, 123(5): 615–624. Lignani, J. de B., Sichieri, R., Burlandy, L. and Salles Costa, R. 2011. Changes in food consumption among the Programa Bolsa Família participant families in Brazil. Public Health Nutrition, 14(5): 785–792. Marini, A., Alderman, H. and Shekar, M. 2013. Improving nutrition through social protection. In: Improving nutrition through multi-sectoral approaches, pp. 107–128. Washington DC: World Bank. Masset, E., Haddad, L., Cornelius, A. and Isaza-Castro, J. 2012. Effectiveness of agricultural interventions that aim to improve nutritional status of children: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 344: d8222. Maxwell, S. 1990. Food security in developing countries: issues and options for the 1990s, IDS Bulletin, 21(3): 1–13. Maxwell, S. 1996. Food security: a postmodern perspective. Food Policy, 21(2): 155–217. Meeker, J. and Haddad, L. 2013. A state of the art review of agriculture-nutrition linkages. Agridiet position paper. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Parasuraman, S., Raj, G. K. and Fernandez, B. 2003. Listening to people living in poverty. Bangalore: Books for Change. Patel, R. C. 2012. Food sovereignty: power, gender, and the right to food. PLoS Med, 9(6): e1001223. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001223. Philips, R. W. 1981. FAO: its origins, formation and evolution 1945–81. Rome: FAO. Popkin, B. 2009. Reducing meat consumption has multiple benefits for the world’s health. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(6): 543–545. Pritchard, B. 2014. The problem of higher food prices for impoverished people in the rural global South. Australian Geographer, 45(4): 419–427. Pritchard, B. and Choithani, C. 2014. Hunger games: changing targets and the politics of global nutrition. The Conversation, 26 September. https://theconversation.com/hunger-games-changing-targets-andthe-politics-of-global-nutrition-32045. Pritchard, B., Rammohan, A., and Sekher, M. 2013. Food security as a lagging component of India’s human development: a function of interacting entitlement failures. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 36(2): 213–228. Pritchard, B., Rammohan, A., Sekher, M., Parasuraman, S. and Choithani, C. 2013. Feeding India: livelihoods, entitlements and capabilities. London: Routledge. Prüss-Ustün, A., Bartram, J., Clasen, T., Colford, J. M., Cumming, O. and Curtis, V. et al. 2014. Burden of disease from inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene in low- and middle-income settings: a retrospective analysis of data from 145 countries. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 19(8): 894–905. Quisumbing, A. R., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T. L., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J. A. and Peterman, A. 2014. Closing the knowledge gap on gender in agriculture. Netherlands: Springer.

21

Bill Pritchard Rai, R. K., Kumar, S., Sekhar, M., Pritchard, B., Rammohan, A. 2015. A life-cycle approach to food and nutrition security in India. Public Health Nutrition, 18(5): 944–949. Reardon, T. and Hopkins, R. 2006. The supermarket revolution in developing countries: policies to address emerging tensions among supermarkets, suppliers and traditional retailers. The European Journal of Development Research, 18(4): 522–545. Sabaté, J. and Soret, S. 2014. Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(Supplement 1): 476S–482S. Schiermeier, Q. 2015. Quest for climate-proof farms. Nature, 523: 396–397. Schröder, S., Begemann F. and Harrer, S. 2007. Agrobiodiversity monitoring – documentation at European level. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety 2 (Supplement 1): 29–32. Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. 1987. Property and hunger. Economics and Philosophy 4: 57–68. Sen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Singh, S. 2008. Marketing channels and their implications for smallholder farmers in India. In: The transformation of agri-food systems: globalization, supply chains and smallholder farmers. McCullough, E. B., Pingali, P. L. and Stamoulis, K. G. (eds), pp. 279–310. London: FAO and Earthscan. Sinha, R., Cross, A. J., Graubard, B. I., Leitzmann, M. F. and Schatzkin, A. 2009. Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169: 562–571. Smith, L. C. and Haddad, L. 2015. Reducing child undernutrition: past drivers and priorities for the postMDG era. World Development, 68: 180–204. Soares, F. V., Lal, R. and Higgit, R. 2013. Recent developments in the role and design of social protection programmes. Policy in Focus, 25. Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (UNDP) http://www.ipc-undp.org/pub/IPCPovertyInFocus25.pdf. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. 2006. Mission to India. Report to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights Sixty-Second Session, Item 10. Document E/CN.4/2006/44/ Add.2, online, http://www.righttofood.org/new/PDF/India%20PDF.pdf (accessed 20 July 2012). Standing, G. 2011. The precariat. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P. J., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and De Haan, C. 2007. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO. Sturm, R. 2009. Affordability and obesity: issues in the multifunctionality of agricultural/food systems. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 4(3–4): 454–465. Tangka, F. K., Jabbar, M. A. and Shapiro, B. I. 1999. Gender roles and child nutrition in livestock production systems in developing countries. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute. Timmer, C. P. 2014. Food security in Asia and the Pacific: the rapidly changing role of rice. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 1(1): 73–90, doi: 10.1002/app5.6. Timmer, C. P. 2015. Food security and scarcity: why ending hunger is so hard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Thow, A., Annan, R., Mensah, L. and Chowdhury, S. 2014. Development, implementation and outcome of standards to restrict fatty meat in the food supply and prevent NCDs: learning from an innovative trade/food policy in Ghana. BMC Public Health, 14(1): 1–9. Thow, A., Downs, S. and Jan, S. 2014. A systematic review of the effectiveness of food taxes and subsidies to improve diets: understanding the recent evidence. Nutrition Reviews, 72(9): 551–565. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994. Human development report. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization (WHO) and The World Bank. 2012. Levels and trends in child malnutrition. Joint child malnutrition estimates. Rome: UNICEF, WHO, World Bank. http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/estimates2012/en/. Vía Campesina. 1996. The right to produce and access to land: food sovereignty. A future without hunger. Statement at the World Food Summit, Rome. Waage, J., Yap, C., Bell, S., Levy, C., Mace, G. and Pegram, T. 2015. Governing the UN sustainable development goals: interactions, infrastructures, and institutions. In: Thinking beyond sectors for sustainable development. Waage, J. and Yap, C. (eds.), pp. 79–88. London: Ubiquity Press. Watts, M. 1991. Entitlements or empowerment? Famine and starvation in Africa. Review of African Political Economy, 51: 9–26. Wessels, K. R. and Brown, K. H. 2012. Estimating the global prevalence of zinc deficiency: results based on zinc availability in national food supplies and the prevalence of stunting. PloS One, doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0050568.

22

Food and nutrition security World Bank. 1986. Poverty and hunger: issues and options for food security in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2007. From agriculture to nutrition. Washington DC: World Bank. World Health Organization (WHO). 2013. Essential nutrition actions: improving maternal, newborn, infant and young child health and nutrition. Geneva: WHO.

23

This page intentionally left blank

PART I

Food availability

This page intentionally left blank

2 FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR CEREAL AND LEGUME PRODUCTION Jon Hellin

Introduction Maize, rice and wheat are critical for global food security and poverty reduction. These three main cereal crops provide at least 60 per cent of the food calories to about 4.5 billion people in 100 developing countries (see De Vicente, chapter 4, this volume). The Green Revolution of the mid-twentieth century provided the single most important transformation to the global cereal supply–demand balance during the past century. It was made possible through technological achievements in developing high yielding cultivars along with favourable policy and institutional support to ensure that farmers had access to new seeds, fertilizer, irrigation and markets. The Green Revolution significantly contributed to reducing hunger and poverty in the developing world. Enormous challenges, however, remain; the output of maize, rice and wheat needs to increase by 70 per cent by 2050 in order to feed a growing world population. Production shortfalls in global cereal and legume supplies and increasing input prices are having, and will continue to have, significant consequences for the developing world. Such increases will impose great hardship on the poor, as the food price surges of 2008 and early 2011 made abundantly clear. In addition, lagging domestic production will place a substantial burden on developing country economies, forcing them to increase their imports. Unless vigorous measures are taken to accelerate yield growth, the outcome will be less affordable food for millions of poor consumers. Substantive investment will be required to realize sustainable productivity growth through better technologies and policy, and institutional innovations that facilitate farmer adoption and adaptation. Increased edible yields need to be achieved against a background of dwindling land and water resources. Meeting the future demand for cereals will need to be achieved through sustainable intensification (see Benton, chapter 6, this volume) that combines better host plant resistance to pathogens and pests, adaptation to climate change, and reduced use of water, fertilizer, labour and fuel. Technology, in the form of further improved crop cultivars and sustainable agronomic practices, has a key role to play in meeting these demands but the development of technologies needs to take place in a broader value chain perspective, to ensure that cereal crops produced by farmers are of the right quality, tailored to market demands, and that contractual arrangements are established between farmers and other value chain actors. 27

Jon Hellin

Legumes, particularly pulses, are also staple foods for millions of people in the developing world and account for 15 per cent of arable land. Most of them also contribute to soil health by fixing nitrogen. Amongst the most important legumes are soybean, cowpeas, broad beans, common beans and groundnuts or peanuts and in the case of Asia, chickpeas and lentils. Soybean, e.g., is grown on approximately 6 per cent of the world’s arable land. Since the 1970s, the area in soybean production has increased more rapidly than any other major crop. Soybean is now one of the most traded commodities. The USA, Brazil, and Argentina dominate global soybean production. The majority of the soybean produced in South America is exported to China. Most of the world’s soybeans are processed or crushed into soybean meal and oil. Due to its high protein level, about 98 per cent of the soybean meal is used in livestock and aquaculture feeds. A smaller percentage is processed to make soy flour and protein for human consumption. Soybean oil is used in making numerous processed food products like margarine. Groundnuts, which are widely grown in tropical, subtropical, and warm temperate regions, provide energy-dense and nutritious food, and are the fourth largest oilseed crop in the world. Common beans are very important in the diet of people in Latin America and East Africa because they are a source of proteins, vitamins, and minerals. Chickpea is the third most important grain legume protein source in the world, particularly in South Asia, North Africa and the Middle East. Cowpeas are the most important food legume in the dry savannas of tropical Africa, especially in West Africa where they are often grown in mixtures with millets and sorghum. Lentils are highly digestible and nutritious, and contain high levels of protein, minerals and vitamins. Lentils play a major role in the food and nutritional security of millions of people especially among low-income Asian families (Erskine et al. 2011). Lentils are grown predominantly under rain-fed conditions and on residual soil moisture under different crop production systems.

Production challenges Wheat Wheat is the most widely cultivated cereal in the world with more than 220 million ha planted annually under wide ranges of climatic conditions and in many geographic regions. Wheat contributes about 20 per cent of the total dietary calories and proteins worldwide (Shiferaw et al. 2013). Wheat production is evenly split between the developed and developing world. Grain yields in both regions are about 3 tonnes per hectare, which is largely because almost all the wheat produced in the developing world is irrigated, while that produced in the developed world is mostly rain-fed. Most countries in Africa, West Asia and Southeast Asia are net importers of wheat, while the major exporters include the USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Russia. Wheat is the most traded agricultural commodity with an imported volume of 144 million tonnes and a total value of US$36 billion (in 2010). This compares with 107 million tonnes imported for maize and 31 million tonnes for rice with a total trade value of about US$26 billion and US$20 billion, respectively (Shiferaw et al. 2013). At the global level wheat is mainly used for food and less than 20 per cent is consumed as feed. The total global annual demand for wheat has grown at an average rate of about 2.24 per cent per year since the 1960s but slowed to about 1 per cent in the last decade (Shiferaw et al. 2013). Meeting this growing demand has been made possible through the technological achievements in developing the semi-dwarf, high yielding cultivars and favourable policy and institutional support in ensuring farmer access to new seeds, fertilizer, markets and irrigation infrastructure. Global production of wheat showed a dramatic annual growth of about 4.4 per cent during the 28

Future prospects for cereal and legume production

first decade (1960–1970) of the Green Revolution, about 4 per cent during the following decade and approximately 3.2 per cent during the third decade. Production growth then stagnated during 1990–2000 and grew by 1.27 per cent per annum during the last decade (2001–2010). As a result, global production expanded from 222 million tonnes in 1961 to 674 million tonnes in 2008–2010 (Shiferaw et al. 2013). Farmers adopted modern semi-dwarf wheat cultivars more rapidly than any other technological innovation in the history of agriculture. These cultivars now cover about 90 per cent of the area in the developing world (Shiferaw et al. 2013). However, the benefits of the Green Revolution have not been even. Farmers in diverse, risk-prone areas could not take advantage of standardized packages of practices and, at the same time, better-off farmers in the irrigated areas have been facing stagnating grain yields and environmental problems such as increased salinity. Demand for wheat is projected to increase 60 per cent by 2050 (Nelson et al. 2010). One of the key challenges is to replace these cultivars with new ones that show host plant resistance to various pathogens and pests, and adaptation to abiotic stresses such as drought and heat. The main detrimental effects of abiotic stress in wheat growing environments will increase due to climate change. Wheat in developing countries is expected to suffer most among major crops from rising temperatures (particularly night time temperatures) in lowlatitude countries (Ortiz et al. 2008). Among all wheat diseases, rust is the most damaging. The emergence of the stem rust Ug99 strain in East Africa and its spread to other countries in Africa and Asia demonstrates the challenge of combating rust diseases. It is clear that expansion in land area sown to wheat will no longer contribute significantly to future increases in production; these future increases in productivity will have to rely almost exclusively on the greater use of inputs by farmers and technological advances. The costs of two of the most important physical inputs for wheat production – water in developing countries and fertilizer globally – are rising and expected to continue to rise as fossil fuels and water become increasingly scarce. Future demand will need to be achieved through sustainable intensification that combines better host plant resistance to pathogens and pests (including emerging threats), adaptation to warmer climates, and reduced use of inputs such as water, fertilizer, labour and fuel.

Rice Worldwide, more than 3.5 billion people depend on rice for more than 20 per cent of their daily calorie intake. Worldwide, rice is grown in four main environments. About 85 to 90 million ha of irrigated lowland rice provide 75 per cent of the world’s rice production (Seck et al. 2012). Much of this irrigated lowland rice comes from Asia, and China is the main producer. The share of irrigated rice area in Africa is relatively very small, except for countries such as Egypt (100 per cent of rice area) and Mauritania (100 per cent). The second main rice-growing environment is rain-fed lowland rice. Between 40 and 45 million ha of rain-fed lowlands supply about 20 per cent of the world’s rice production. Thirdly, upland rice is grown in fields like cereal crops. Upland rice is common in West and Central Africa where it covers about 50 per cent of the total rice cultivated area. Lastly, large rice areas in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, India, Vietnam and Indonesia grow deep-water rice where it is grown in areas where water depths reach one metre or more for durations of 10 days to five months (Seck et al. 2012). The Green Revolution in Asia was based on the development and diffusion of a series of short-stature, fertilizer-responsive, early maturing, non-photoperiod sensitive, high-yielding rice varieties. Increases in rice productivity have fallen since the Green Revolution, from 2.2 per cent per annum during 1970–1990 to less than 0.8 per cent in the 1990s and 2000s. A range of biotic and abiotic stresses limit or reduce the productivity of rice, e.g., in sub-Saharan Africa, 29

Jon Hellin

weeds are the most important of the biotic limiting factors with annual grain loss estimated at around 2.2 million tonnes. The most serious abiotic constraints in Africa include drought due to variable rainfall and poor soil fertility (Balasubramenian et al. 2007). Global rice demand is estimated to rise from 439 million tonnes (milled rice) in 2010 to 496 million tonnes in 2020 and further increase to 555 million tonnes in 2035 (Seck et al. 2012). This poses a major challenge for Africa, the continent with the highest prevalence of undernutrition. Almost 40 per cent of the rice consumed in Africa is already imported. With the exception of Egypt, all rice-consuming countries in Africa are net rice importers. In Africa, where rice is the most rapidly growing food source, about 30 million tonnes more rice will be needed by 2035, representing an increase of 130 per cent in rice consumption from 2010. About one-third of this extra rice will be needed in Nigeria alone. Agricultural research will have an important role to play in meeting the increased demand for rice. Rice breeding will need to reduce the grain yield gaps caused by biotic and abiotic constraints. A major thrust of research will be cultivar development and improved rice production methods. There is also a need to foster public–private sector partnerships with special emphasis on mechanization of rice farming from land preparation to harvest and rice processing practices. Mechanization is common in Asian rice systems, but in Africa, the lack of mechanization is one of the most important bottlenecks to the development of the rice sector. Research is already paying dividends. During 2007–2011, productivity increases in Africa have been leading the way, with paddy rice production levels increasing by 9.5 per cent per year, compared to 1.6 per cent in Asia (Seck et al. 2012).

Maize Maize production doubled in the past 40 years due to the increased yields resulting from the use of improved crop cultivars, along with greater inputs of fertilizer, water and pesticides (Evenson and Gollin 2003). The main driver of the dramatic growth in production and yield response at the global level is the growth in demand for maize for both food and non-food uses. The overall global demand increased by more than fourfold from 189 million tonnes in 1961, to 771 million tonnes in 2010 (Shiferaw et al. 2011). Maize is currently produced on nearly 100 million ha in 125 developing countries and is among the three most widely grown crops in 75 of those countries (FAOSTAT 2010). Maize is grown over a wider range of altitudes and latitudes, under temperatures ranging from cool to very hot, and on wet to semi-arid lands. Maize is primarily grown as a rain-fed crop in many developing countries including sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America. Under uncertain climatic conditions, this increases the risks associated with maize production. The global area for maize (average for 2008–2010) is about 150 million ha, corresponding to an average annual production over 750 million tonnes (Shiferaw et al. 2011), which is larger than either wheat or rice production. Maize is an important food crop but rapid economic growth in parts of Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America has increased demand from more affluent consumers for poultry and livestock products (Delgado 2003). Maize is also a key ingredient in animal feed and is used extensively in industrial products, including the production of biofuels. Increasing demand and production shortfalls in global maize supplies have worsened market volatility and contributed to surging global maize prices. Such increases will impose great hardship on the poor, as exemplified by the food price surges of 2008 and 2011 (Shiferaw et al. 2011). Maize grain yields in Africa, Asia and Latin America are extremely low, averaging approximately 1.5 tonnes per hectare – about 20 per cent of the average yield in developed 30

Future prospects for cereal and legume production

countries. Yields in low-productivity rain-fed environments are severely limited by an array of factors, including abiotic and biotic stresses. Unless vigorous measures are taken to accelerate yield growth, the outcome will be less affordable food for millions of poor maize consumers. Combinations of stresses are also particularly damaging to crops (Mittler 2006). The combinations of drought, heat stress and waterlogging or excess moisture, coupled with vulnerability to emerging pathogens and insect pests, are likely to increase in some regions, especially in subSaharan Africa and Asia, with global climate changes. Analysis of climate risk identified maize in Southern Africa as one of the most important crops in need of climate adaptation investments (Lobell et al. 2008). In order to meet the future demands for maize, especially in the face of climate change, more attention needs to be directed at the generation of stress-tolerant and widely adapted maize cultivars. Research is required into the identification of traits associated with combined heat and drought adaptation, and the development, mainly through judicious combination of conventional and molecular breeding approaches, of high yielding, stress-tolerant and widely adapted maize cultivars for high temperature and water-limited environments. Efforts to reduce maize losses from diseases and insect pests through host plant resistance (i.e., biotic stress resistant cultivars) offer tremendous opportunities for increasing and stabilizing maize productivity (Shiferaw et al. 2011).

Legumes Legumes are important food and feed crops and are gaining importance for their health benefits. Legume cultivation, however, remains below that of cereal crops. Legumes are traditionally grown in marginal lands, with the more fertile areas being allocated to crops, such as cereals, that are perceived to be more important. The most grown legumes vary by continent and according to their use, as well as their national grain yields due to pathogens, pests and abiotic stresses or technological innovations on the farms. More than 30 species of legumes are grown across the tropics. The major legumes grown in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia include chickpea, common bean, cowpea, groundnut, pigeon pea, and soybean. The annual area planted to these six aforementioned crops is about 27 million ha in sub-Saharan Africa and 40 million ha in South Asia although average yields in both regions are below 1.0 tonne per hectare. An estimated 141 million households of a total of 724 million smallholders grow one or more of these six legume crops (Abate et al. 2012). World trade for the six major crops is estimated at more than US$21.8 billion in export, with soybean accounting for 83.8 per cent of the total, followed by common bean (8.8 per cent), groundnut (4.9 per cent), and chickpea (2.4 per cent). Soybean is grown in more than 100 countries worldwide on just under 100 million ha. This is the one major tropical legume that has shown sustained growth in productivity and production over the last two decades. The USA, Brazil, and Argentina combined produce nearly 81 per cent of the world’s production. China, India, Paraguay, Canada, Bolivia, Ukraine, and Indonesia are among the top world producers. Soybean is the largest traded commodity among the major tropical grain legumes in the world. More than 170 countries and territories import soybean, with China accounting for 45 per cent of the total. Soybean production is threatened by biotic constraints such as soybean rust, recently introduced into major soybean producing regions, and red leaf blotch that is a threat in Africa. The soybean aphid, a native to Asia, was first observed in the USA and has now spread in the mid-western USA and also into southern Canada. Production of soybean will increase in the future due to growing demand. Increased production will come from increase in yield and the area grown. 31

Jon Hellin

World production of chickpea has not shown dramatic changes over the last 20 years. India supplies about 65 per cent of the world’s total production, followed by Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Australia, Canada, Mexico and Iraq. The common beans (dry and green) were grown in 128 countries and territories on more than 30 million ha worldwide that produced 43.6 million tonnes in 2011. They can adapt to extreme environments and grow at different altitudes (50–3,000 m above sea level). The main producers are Brazil, India, Myanmar, China, Mexico and the USA. Cowpea is grown in 45 countries across the world. An estimated 14.5 million ha of land is planted to cowpea each year worldwide with average grain yield below 400kg per hectare. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for about 84 per cent of cowpea area and production. Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali are the most important producers of this dryland legume in Africa. Groundnut is the most widely grown major legume worldwide – cultivated in 118 countries and occupies more than 22.6 million ha with average yield of about 1.6 tonne per hectare (Abate et al. 2012). This legume crop is significantly grown in the semi-arid tropics where stressful environments affect their productivity and seed quality. China, India, USA, Nigeria and Myanmar are the top producers of groundnuts. Pigeon pea is the least widely grown (about 4.7 million ha) major tropical legume worldwide – including South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean. India and Myanmar account for about 72 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively, of world production. Lentil production constituted 5.7 per cent of the total dry pulse production of 60 million tons in 2007–2008, ranking sixth in production among pulses after dry bean, pea, chickpea, broad bean and cowpea. Lentils are very important in the diet in several very poor countries such as Bangladesh, Eritrea, Nepal and Sri Lanka. The only significant lentil producers outside Asia are Australia, Canada and the USA, all of which grow the crop for export to Asia (Erskine et al. 2011). In Asia, lentil production is concentrated in two major regions: South and West Asia. In South Asia the crop is grown on 1.8 million ha area exclusively as a post-rainy season crop on residual moisture. The most important constraints to the development of major grain legumes can be either technical or institutional. Technical constraints are attributed to abiotic and biotic factors, while institutional constraints include government policies and regulations, and partnerships. Drought is the most important abiotic constraint that limits the production of tropical grain legumes. Extreme heat is another abiotic factor that threatens the development of tropical legumes. Chickpea and cowpea are the most affected crops. Aflatoxin affects groundnut, particularly when grown under drought and heat. This mycotoxin may cause death, impair growth and development of children, suppress the immune system, enhance infection with hepatitis, increase risk to certain types of cancer and impede the uptake and utilization of micronutrients in humans and livestock (Williams et al. 2004).

Improved land management to complement crop breeding Part of the response to demand for greater crop production had involved bringing new land into cultivation. Area expansion, however, is not a sustainable option and often comes with an environmental cost in terms of increased land degradation. At the current rate of area expansion, increases in future production will come at the cost of crop diversity and forest conservation. The major challenge for the future is achieving significant growth in food production without compromising public health, environmental quality, and sustainability of farming systems (Tilman et al. 2002). The use of improved cereal and legume germplasm per se will not, however, be enough to raise edible yields sustainably, especially in the face of climate change. Climate change will be especially detrimental to crop production in cropping systems where 32

Future prospects for cereal and legume production

soils have degraded to an extent that they no longer provide adequate water-holding capacity to buffer crops against drought and heat stress. Plant breeding efforts need to be complemented by improved crop and agronomic practices (Hobbs and Govaerts 2010). In some sub-Saharan Africa countries, average rice yields have increased largely through improved crop management, e.g., from 4 to 6 tonnes per hectare in the Senegal River Valley since the 1990s and from 2 to 6 tonnes per hectare in the Niger River delta in Mali since the 1980s (Seck et al. 2012). In recent years, there has been much interest in conservation agriculture (CA). CA involves significant reductions in tillage, a permanent soil cover through enhanced surface retention of crop residues, and diversified, economically viable crop rotations. This approach has contributed in some cases to productivity growth, reduced burning of crop residues, and efficient utilization of water, soil nutrients, as well as savings in cost of fuel and labour. At the same time, CA is not a panacea and while early experience has been positive, adoption is still limited and considerable research is needed to adapt conservation agriculture practices to locally-specific biophysical and socioeconomic conditions (Giller et al. 2009), especially for resource poor smallholder farmers in Africa. Trade-offs also exist, for example, due to the use of crop residues for feed or fuel (Hellin et al. 2013). These trade-offs need to be addressed and if necessary, appropriate contextspecific solutions have to be developed to be not only environmentally, but also socially and economically sustainable.

A value chain perspective to increased production and productivity Growth in demand for cereal crops and legumes needs to be addressed from a broader value chain perspective. While crop breeding and land management are essential, there are other activities that are required and other actors with important roles to play in ensuring that demand can be met. Coordination is required amongst chain actors in both input and output value chains and this involves a cross-disciplinary approach. There is a need for crop breeders to focus also on quality traits, ‘output traits’ related to product quality required by agro-processors and consumers. Quality traits are generally associated with many genes or gene complexes acting in concert. As a result of this greater technical difficulty, quality traits have tended to lag behind the development of agronomic traits. Many maize breeding programs operating in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia are currently developing cultivar to improve nutrition and health of local populations (Krivanek et al. 2007). Another important breeding objective is improving the pro-vitamin A content of the maize grain. Research has provided significant leads for developing micronutrient-enriched maize, especially for kernel-zinc and pro-vitamin A (Yan et al. 2010). Quality-differentiated demand for wheat products, due to more discerning consumers, will place new demands on market channels. The demand for certain high-value end uses including flour, pasta, and bakery products is expected to grow significantly. At the same time, increased industrial processing of traditional foods like chapatti will require supplies of consistent and high quality grain. Breeding wheat with specific quality characteristics has the potential to add economic value, but realizing this potential requires investments in quality standards and institutional capacity to differentiate products in value chains. Past experiences from successes in Asia and other regions have clearly demonstrated that technology adoption and impact at scale is a function of the ‘hard’ technology (e.g., good germplasm and agronomy) as well as the institutional innovations and policies that ensure farmer access to information, new seeds, complementary inputs and reliable markets for selling surplus produce at prices that will make investments in new technologies attractive to smallholder farmers. These institutional and policy innovations may as well be considered as ‘soft technologies’ without 33

Jon Hellin

which the ‘hard technologies’ alone will not make much impact. The integrated approach that links the biophysical and the socioeconomics work is essential for success in improving productivity of cereals and legumes and enhancing their adaptation to changing climate. Seck et al. (2012) stress that in sub-Saharan Africa, prevailing socioeconomic and policy constraints adversely affect rice production. Farmers, especially those who cultivate rice in the upland rice systems, have poor access to markets, inputs and services. Due to the remoteness of the upland environment, most farmers do not have access to vital information. Also, the lack of well-established farmer organizations prevents rice producers from accessing credit facilities. Consequently, farmers do not have the financial capital required to expand production especially when it comes to seed. Guaranteeing farmers access to good quality seed can be achieved only if there is a viable seed supply system to multiply and distribute seeds of improved cultivars and if mechanisms to assist farmers in emergency situations have been established. As rice is a selfpollinating crop, seed stocks do not need to be replaced every season. However, researchers and extension agents have to monitor and continuously train farmers on quality seed production techniques at the farm level. The major bottlenecks in the maize seed industry in sub-Saharan Africa are lack of awareness of the availability and value of existing cultivars, the high relative price of seed because of poor and uncompetitive grain prices, and lack of credit (Langyintuo et al. 2010). The supply of prebasic and basic seed that is used in the production of certified seed is a major supply side constraint in the provision of quality seed to farmers. The adoption of progressive seed laws and regulations with effective harmonization of seed trade will improve regional trade in seed and farmers’ access to improved maize cultivars adapted to local conditions. To promote growth and development of the maize seed industry in sub-Saharan Africa, it is imperative for a coordinated intervention effort by both public and private sector players to address the various bottlenecks. The collection, processing, dissemination and management of information on varietal release and adaptation remain vital in ensuring success of the coordinated effort. Another area that requires action is to reduce post-harvest losses. For example, significant post-harvest grain losses have been reported for maize in the tropics from grain weevils (Sitophilus zeamais) and the larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatus). Furthermore, economic losses result from reduced grain quality, and mycotoxin contamination making grain unsafe for food and animal feed, thus adversely impacting food and feed safety. Adequate storage facilities are essential to preserve quality, minimize storage losses and maintain food safety for food security. Minimizing such losses, through improved post-harvest storage will significantly contribute to nutrition and food security. In the case of wheat, post-harvest losses and deterioration in quality are also significant and are additional risks for food security particularly in developing countries lacking adequate infrastructure for grain storage. Most new technologies that will become available to farmers will be ‘information intensive’; i.e., they will require increased levels of knowledge for appropriate management. Extension provision, therefore, plays a role in bringing new ideas and educating farmers about promising technology options as well as linking them to new networks which play an important role to facilitate farmer access to new technologies and services. However, the need for more responsive extension provision has coincided with deep cuts to publicly-funded extension services in many developing countries. Extension needs to play an important role in demonstrating new technologies to farmers and stimulating local innovation systems for participatory adaptation of innovation, especially the knowledge-intensive integrated crop and natural resource management systems. The breakdown of classical publicly-funded agricultural extension services means that these services are now unable to address the needs of many farmers, especially those living in marginal environments. Private extension provision was expected to replace that previously provided by 34

Future prospects for cereal and legume production

government. In the majority of cases, however, the private sector has proven incapable of replacing previous state services due to high transaction costs, dispersed clientele, and low (or non-existent) profits. If services are only offered where demand already exists, there is a risk that private sector providers will serve only the better-off farmers and ignore those living in less favoured areas (Muyanga and Jayne 2008). New approaches to extension provision are needed along with a new consensus on the role of the public and private sectors and how extension provision for resource-poor farmers can be provided on a more sustainable basis. Both the private and public sectors clearly have key roles to play in contributing to the provision of extension services. The separation of delivery and financing of extension, results in four main extension modalities that can be used to enhance farmers’ access to improved maize seed (Chapman and Tripp 2003): • • • •

Private delivery and private financing (totally private extension). Private delivery and public financing (contracting out). Public delivery and public financing (typical government extension service). Public delivery and private financing (contracting in).

Agricultural extension should not only play a role in disseminating information and seed technologies but also stimulate local innovation. In the linear vision, innovation results from the creation of knowledge through basic scientific research, followed by strategic, applied, and adaptive research, and ultimately to technology development, dissemination and adoption. Agricultural development, however, is an immensely complex process characterized by a high degree of nonlinearity. Hence, in place of a linear approach, what is needed is an ‘innovation systems’ approach in which innovation is the result of a process of networking, interactive learning and negotiation among a heterogeneous set of actors (Davis et al. 2008). An innovation system consists of a web of dynamic interactions among researchers, extension agents, equipment manufacturers, input suppliers, farmers, traders, and processors. In a vibrant innovation system, agricultural development results from efforts to combine technological improvements in production (e.g., improved cereal and legume seed), processing, and distribution with organizational improvements in how information and knowledge are exchanged between various actors along with policy changes that create favourable incentives and institutions to promote local innovation and adaptation of technologies.

Conclusion The combined challenges of increasing demand, continuing poverty and malnutrition, natural resource depletion and climate change will require the world to double the productivity and dramatically increase the sustainability and resilience of cereal and legume farming systems. This challenge can only be met through a concerted engagement of farming communities, international and national researchers, policy makers, the private sector, and many other development partners that intrinsically involves targeting communities and national governments in designing appropriate and pro-poor solutions (Shiferaw et al. 2011). Future productivity growth to meet the growing demands for cereal and legume crops will require holistic approaches that not only help sustain current yields but substantially increase crop productivity under variable and changing climate. There is a need for continued investment in agricultural research and to address the policy and institutional constraints in accessing information, technologies, inputs and markets that continue to undermine farmers’ incentives to invest in adoption and adaptation of new maize technologies. 35

Jon Hellin

Over the long term, large public and private sector investments and sustained political commitment are needed to ensure strong plant breeding and innovations in seed and input supply systems to enhance farmer access and utilization of improved seed and complementary inputs as well as improved crop management practices to protect soils and cope with unpredictable climatic conditions. More innovative extension and advisory systems are also needed to facilitate farmer learning, rather than focus on delivering technological packages.

Acknowledgements The author is very grateful to Rodomiro Ortiz for guidance on the structure and content of this chapter.

References Abate, T., Alene, A. D., Bergvinson, D., Shiferaw, B., Silim, S., Orr, A. and Asfaw, S. 2012. Tropical grain legumes in Africa and South Asia: knowledge and opportunities. Nairobi, Kenya: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Balasubramenian, V., Sie, M., Hijmans, R. J. and Otsuka, K. 2007. Increasing rice production in subSaharan Africa: opportunities and challenges. Advances in Agronomy, 94: 55–133. Chapman, R. and Tripp, R. 2003. Changing incentives for agricultural extension – a review of privatised extension in practice. Agriculture Research & Extension Network Paper, 132. London: Overseas Development Institute. Davis, K. E., Ekboir, J. and Spielman, D. J. 2008. Strengthening agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa from an innovation systems perspective: a case study of Mozambique. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 14: 35–51. Delgado, C. J. 2003. Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food revolution. The Journal of Nutrition, 133: 3907S–3910S. Erskine, W., Sarker, A. and Kumar, S. 2011. Crops that feed the world 3. Investing in lentil improvement toward a food secure world. Food Security, 3: 127–139. Evenson, R. E. and Gollin, D. 2003. Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300: 758–762. FAOSTAT. 2010. Statistical databases and datasets of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. Accessed April 2010. Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. and Tittonell, P. 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Research, 114: 23–34. Hellin, J., Erenstein, O., Beuchelt, T., Camacho, C. and Flores, D. 2013. Maize stover use and sustainable crop production in mixed crop–livestock systems in Mexico. Field Crops Research, 153: 12–21. Hobbs, P. R. and Govaerts, B. 2010. How conservation agriculture can contribute to buffering climate change. In: Climate change and crop production, Reynolds, M. P. (ed.), pp. 151–176. Wallingford: CABI. Krivanek, A. F., De Groote, H., Gunaratna, N. S., Diallo, A. O. and Friesen, D. 2007. Breeding and disseminating quality protein maize (QPM) for Africa. African Journal of Biotechnology, 6: 312–324. Langyintuo, A. S., Mwangi, W., Diallo, A. O., MacRobert, J., Dixon, J. and Bänziger, M. 2010. Challenges of the maize seed industry in eastern and southern Africa: a compelling case for privatepublic intervention to promote growth. Food Policy, 35: 323–331. Lobell, D., Burke, M., Tebaldi, C., Mastrandera, M., Falcon, W. and Naylor, R. 2008. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science, 319(5863): 607–610. Mittler, R. 2006. Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends in Plant Science, 11: 15–19. Muyanga, M. and Jayne, T. S. 2008. Private agricultural extension system in Kenya: practice and policy lessons. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 14: 111–124. Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Palazzo, A., Gray, I., Ingersoll, C. and Robertson, R. 2010. Food security, farming, and climate change to 2050: scenarios, results, policy options. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Ortiz, R., Sayre, K. D., Govaerts, B., Gupta, R., Subbarao, G. V. and Ban, T. 2008. Climate change: can wheat beat the heat? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 126: 46–58.

36

Future prospects for cereal and legume production Seck, P. A., Diagne, A., Mohanty, S. and Wopereis, M. 2012. Crops that feed the world 7: rice. Food Security, 4: 7–24. Shiferaw, B., Prasanna, B. M., Hellin, J. and Bänziger, M. 2011. Crops that feed the world 6: past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Security, 3: 307–327. Shiferaw, B., Smale, M., Braun, H-J., Duveiller, E., Reynolds, M. and Muricho, G. 2013. Crops that feed the world 10: past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Security, 5: 291–317. Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418: 671–677. Williams, J. H., Phillips, T. D., Jolly, P. E., Stiles, J. K., Jolly, C. M. and Aggarwal, D. 2004. Human aflatoxicosis in developing countries: a review of toxicology, exposure, potential health consequences, and interventions. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 80: 1106–1122. Yan, J., Kandianis, C. B. and Harjes, C. E. et al. 2010. Rare genetic variation at Zea mays crtRB1 increases ȕ-carotene in maize grain. Nature Genetics, 42: 322–327.

37

3 FRUITS, VEGETABLES AND TUBERS Bountiful resources for achieving and sustaining food and nutrition security Norman E. Looney

Introduction The fruits and nuts, vegetables and tubers (FVTs) produced or gathered for human consumption come from a very rich array of plant families, genera and species, both woody and herbaceous. They represent at least 61 botanical families, 168 genera, 285 species and many thousands of improved varieties. Furthermore, the number of species of higher plants with horticultural crop potential is much greater still. It has been estimated that more than 12,000 species of plants have been used for food in the course of human development (Kunkel 1984), and thousands more for medicinal purposes. As we approach a time when our planet must feed more than 9 billion people, there can be little doubt that intensive production of FVTs will play an increasingly important role. The beauty of horticulture, both literally and figuratively, is that it can both nourish and nurture humankind wherever they live (Serageldin 2004). Through the development of new or improved technologies for intensive protected cultivation, by focussing scarce resources like water and nutrients on high productivity farms and gardens, and by assigning and designing space for intensive crop production within the large cities of the world, one can envisage a future where attractive, nutrient-rich crops like fruits and vegetables need never be in short supply. This chapter calls attention to both the diversity and the total quantity of food that is represented by the FVTs presently produced for markets around the world. Although production of the most important of these crops is estimated annually by the FAO, hundreds of minor crops not monitored by FAOSTAT play an important role in determining food and nutrition security (FNS), especially in many developing countries. Moreover, unfortunately, neither national estimates nor the FAO data collection process are geared to determining the nature and quantity of fruits, vegetables and tubers that are produced for home consumption or for bartering. The importance of this small plot production, and of the horticultural foods that are gathered from fields and forests rather than farmed, must be considered when discussing global FNS, now and in the future. The final section is devoted to a discussion about how the production and use of horticultural crops and foods might evolve in response to the challenges presented by a growing world population, climate change, increasingly scarce land, water and nutrient resources, and the 38

Fruits, vegetables and tubers

ongoing depopulation of farms and rural communities globally. It offers some strategies for increasing the production and consumption of FVTs and approaches to ensuring that future production is sufficient to meet the ever-expanding demand.

Positioning FVTs within the plant agriculture domain Within the realm of plant agriculture that aims to produce food for direct human consumption there are two main divisions, agronomy and horticulture. The agronomic crops include the grains, pulses, oilseeds and sugar crops that provide humankind with the bulk of the energy needed to fuel life processes. These are often called food staples. Furthermore, agronomic crops, more than horticultural crops, are used to nourish livestock. While many FVTs do provide significant energy (consider for example starchy roots and tubers, nuts, and sweet or oil-rich fruits), they play a special role in providing the dietary fibre, vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients required for a healthy diet. Those crops that are grown specifically to provide the raw materials for some widely-consumed beverages like coffee and tea, and others that provide the herbs and spices that add flavor and interest to foods are sometimes set apart from either agronomy or horticulture. However, they are most commonly called aromatic crops and grouped within horticulture. For the purposes of this chapter, the tuber crops used for human food are all considered as horticultural crops despite the fact that large quantities of cassava and sweet potatoes are used for animal feed. Because of their importance for providing the dietary energy needs of many world cultures, some tuber crops must also be considered as food staples. Thus, these tubers and some other crops are both agronomic and horticultural in their production and utilization. Sweet corn sold for fresh consumption or processed as ‘baby’ corn is clearly horticulture whereas most corn (Zea mays) is harvested as a grain crop used both for human food and livestock feed. Soybean (Glycine max) is primarily an oilseed crop yet sprouted seeds, and pods and seeds consumed as edamame, are highly valued vegetables. Some general descriptors of horticultural food crops include the following: • • • • • •

Relatively high moisture content, more perishable than most agronomic crops, and are often consumed fresh. Grown and managed intensively, often involving irrigation and other costly inputs, but generate relatively high returns per unit of area being farmed. Often low in calories but high in vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre. They rate high aesthetically, adding color, variety and interest to the human diet. Constitute a large proportion of total agricultural crop biodiversity and offer great potential for adding value to raw product. Produced in home and market gardens, orchards and groves, vineyards, intensively managed fields and plantations, and in greenhouses or other structures for protected cultivation. Botanically, horticultural food crops are fruits and nuts from perennial plants, fruits and seeds of herbaceous plants, above-ground plant parts other than fruits (i.e., stems, shoots, leaves and flowers), and bulbs, roots and tubers.

Fruits from perennial plants are most often sweet as opposed to vegetable fruits (excepting melons) that are usually not. Horticultural science professionals working with perennial fruit and nut crops are referred to as pomologists, but even this profession has a number of specializations. Fruit and nut crops can be temperate, subtropical or tropical. Fruit trees and vines can be deciduous or evergreen. Berries are produced on bushes and vines across many 39

Norman E. Looney

latitudes. Academic specializations within pomology, like citriculture (focus on Citrus species fruits) and viticulture (Vitis species fruits) warrant separate scientific societies. Vegetable crops science (olericulture) can be subdivided to an even greater extent given that we consume various organs of the approximately 100 herbaceous and perennial plant species used extensively as vegetables, tubers, or culinary herbs. There are a few species used both as a fruit and a vegetable. For example, immature papaya and babaco fruits (Carica spp.) are an important vegetable while the mature organ is a prized tropical fruit. Bananas and plantains (Musa spp.) are closely related but bananas are most commonly eaten fresh while the plantain fruit is prepared and consumed as a starchy vegetable. For some other crop species, the above-ground organs are consumed as vegetables while the below-ground organ is a very different crop. A good example is sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) where the leaves are an important vegetable in East Africa and Southeast Asia while the tubers are a staple food crop in many countries.

World production of fruits, vegetables and tubers The FAOSTAT database collects and collates commercial crop production data from 233 countries or regional governments. These data provide a ‘best estimate’ of production values for a wide range of crops, but are not inclusive of all FVTs. Furthermore, for many crops the data from one country cannot be easily compared to another because of reporting differences. And especially limiting, within the context of FNS at the individual or family level, these data do not capture the quantity or quality of food produced or procured non-commercially for home use. Nonetheless, it is instructive to know the extent and magnitude of fruit and vegetable production intended for commerce. With that knowledge one can then consider questions about potential availability on a per capita basis, now and into the future (see also Marks, chapter 26, this volume). More specifically, by identifying those crops of particular importance in countries classed as least developed (LDCs) or as low-income and food deficient (LIFDCs), we can gain some appreciation of the FVTs that have a special place in serving the needs of the developing world.

Fruits and nuts Temperate zone fruits and nuts Temperate zone fruits and nuts produced for market in 2012 totalled about 227 million metric tonnes (MMT) or approximately 32.4 kg/person. Tree fruits (11 species) contributed 144 MMT, berries (15 species) about 77 MMT, and temperate zone nuts (4 species) 6.3 MMT. Of these 30 species, the fruits and nuts of 16 species accounted for about 98 per cent of the total (see Table 3.1). These crops, while produced in a number of LIFDCs, are primarily crops of the developed world. Apples (Malus domestica) and pears (Pyrus communis and P. pyrifolia) are the most widely grown temperate zone tree fruits, accounting for about 44 per cent of the total. China is now the world’s leading producer of apples and pears, and Asia produces about two-thirds of the world crop of these fruits. Production in Europe contributes about 18 per cent and South America and North America about 6 per cent each. This distribution of world production differs remarkably from the case 25 years earlier when China produced about 10 per cent of a world crop of 43 MMT while Europe produced more than half. Apple and pear production has 40

Species

Malus domestica

Vitis vinifera V. labrusca

Pyrus communis, P. pyrifolia

Prunus persica

Prunus domestica, P. salicina

Fragaria x ananassa

Diospyros kaki

Prunus armeniaca

Juglans regia

Prunus avium

Castanea sp. mainly C. mollissima

Prunus cerasus

Actinidia sp.

Crop name

Apples

Grapes

European and Asian pears

Peaches and nectarines

European and Asian plums

Strawberry

Persimmon

Apricots

Walnuts

Sweet cherries

Chestnuts

Tart cherries

Kiwifruit

Table fruit

Pies and pastries 1.5

1.2

2.0

Confections, baked goods

0.21

0.16

0.28

0.33

0.49

3.4

2.3

0.57

0.64

0.63

1.53

3.03

3.37

9.58

10.91

Fresh production per person (Kg)

4.0

4.5

4.4

10.7

21.2

23.6

67.1

76.4

World production (million tonnes)

Table fruit, canned fruit

Table nuts, confections, baked goods

Table fruit, canned/ dried fruit, jam

Table fruit

Table fruit, frozen fruit, jam

Table fruit, canned fruit, prunes

Table fruit, canned fruit, jam

Table fruit, canned fruit, dried fruit

Wine, table fruit, juice, jelly, raisins

Table fruit, juice, sauce, pie filling

Main uses

Table 3.1 Temperate zone fruit and nut crops

22

32

26

67

54

70

15

75

86

81

86

94

95

Number of countries reporting to FAOSTAT

Italy (27%), New Zealand, Chile

Turkey (15%), Russia, Poland

China (82%), Korea, Turkey

Turkey (21%), USA, Iran

China (50%), Iran, USA

Turkey (20%), Iran, Uzbekistan

China (74%), Korea, Japan

USA (30%), Mexico, Turkey

China (56%), Romania, Serbia

China (57%), Italy, USA

China (68%), USA, Argentina

China (14%), USA, Italy

China (48%), USA, Poland

World production leaders (2012)

1 for 0.3%

1 for 2.8%

3 for 0.6%

3 for 4.7%

8 for 3.1%

14 for 13.1%

2 for 10.1%

8 for 5.6%

14 for 3.4%

16 for 3%

14 for 2.5%

14 for 1.2%

15 for 5.7%

Production by LIFDCs (# and %)

Norman E. Looney

contributed importantly to improving livelihoods across rural China: apple production per capita in China was about 3.9 kg in 1987 and 27.4 kg in 2012. China is now a very significant supplier of apples to Russia and to most of the countries of Southeast Asia (Ahmed et al. 2011). Grapes (Vitis spp.) are the world’s most important berry fruit (26 MMT in 2012), produced in 93 countries for table use, wine and dried fruit (raisins). However, grapes converted to wine or spirits account for more than 70 per cent of the total grape production, diminishing its importance as a food crop. Another 8 per cent were dried for raisin production. Grape production is widely distributed across the temperate and subtropical world with 16 countries producing more than 1 MMT per year. While grapes are produced in 14 LIFDCs, the combined production is less than 2 per cent of the world total. The Prunus species fruits, often referred to as stone fruits, include: peaches and nectarines (P. persica); plums of several species but primarily P. domestica and P. salicina; apricots (P. armeniaca); and sweet and tart cherries (P. avium and P. cerasus). They combined to provide about 40 MMT of fresh fruit in 2012, about 28 per cent of all temperate zone tree fruits. For the most important of these crops, peaches and plums, more than half of the world crop was produced in China. While all of these crops were produced in a number of LIFDCs, apricot (important in west and central Asia), was the only one of these fruits with production high enough to have global significance. Some proportion of the crop of all of the Prunus species fruits is processed as canned fruits, and plums and apricots are commonly preserved by drying. One cultivar of P. domestica, d’Agen, is used for the production of sun dried plums (prunes) with the USA (California), Chile, Argentina and France combining to produce about 260 thousand MT of this product (Anon. 2012). Other temperate zone tree fruits of regional or global importance include persimmon (Diospyros kaki) and quince (Cydonia oblonga) with both crops of greatest importance in Asia. Strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa) and kiwifruit (Actinidia spp.) are the second and third ranking temperate zone berry fruits. Strawberry is well adapted for production in both open fields and under protected cultivation and seems destined to become a more significant crop in China and other countries in Asia. Presently, the USA, Mexico and Turkey are the leading producers of strawberry. While several species of Actinidia are native to China, most of the world’s kiwifruit is produced in Italy and New Zealand. A wide range of other temperate zone berry crops add variety and interest to the world’s fruit basket. They include crops of the genus Vaccinium (blueberries and cranberries), Rubus (raspberries and blackberries) and Ribes (currants and gooseberries). The total production of these fruits amounts to roughly 3.3 MMT. Three temperate zone nut crops have significance as a world food crop given their high nutritive and epicurean value: walnuts (Juglans regia and J. nigra); chestnuts (Castanea spp., mainly C. mollissima); and hazelnuts (Corylus spp.) combine to total 6.1 MMT of nuts with shells. Pecan (Carya illinoensis) is a significant nut crop in parts of the USA and Mexico but world production is less than 100 thousand MT. Pine nuts (Pinus spp.) are an emerging crop in China and produced commercially in at least seven other countries. Total production is estimated to be about 40 thousand MT and rising (Anon. 2012).

Mediterranean and subtropical fruits and nuts These fruits and nuts (Table 3.2), of which the Citrus species fruits are of central importance, contributed about 165 MMT of harvested product to the world food supply in 2012. This is about 24 kg/person. These crops also include: olives (Olea europaea); dates (Phoenix dactylifera); avocado (Persea americana); pomegranates (Punica granatum); figs (Ficus carica); loquats (Eriobotrya 42

Table fruit

Table fruit, dried fruit

Table use, confections

Table use, confections

Punica granatum

Ficus carica

Prunus dulcis

Pomegranates

Figs

Almonds in shell

Table fruit

Dried fruit

Eriobotrya japonica

Ziziphus jujuba

Opuntia sp.

Loquat

Jujuba

Cactus pear

Table fruit

Table use, confections

Pistacia vera

Macadamia sp.

Pistachio nuts

Macadamia nuts w/o shell

Table fruit

Table fruit, confections

Olive oil, Brined fruit

Table fruit

Persea americana

C. medica Fortunella japonica

Minor citrus and hybrid varieties

Table fruit, juice

Avocado

C. paradise C. maxima

Grapefruit and pomelo

Table fruit, juice

Table fruit, juice

Olea europaea

C. limon C. aurantifolia

Lemons and limes

Phoenix dactylifera

C. reticulata

Tangerines etc.

Table fruit, juice, preserves

Olives

Citrus sinensis C. aurantium

Sweet orange Sour orange

Main uses

Dates

Species

Crop name

n/a

0.15

0.5

0.030

1.0

1.9

1.1

3.0

4.4

7.6

16.6

13

8

15

27

68

World production (million Mt)

Table 3.2 The most significant Mediterranean and subtropical fruits and nuts

n/a

0.02

0.07

0.004

0.14

0.27

0.16

0.4

0.6

1.1

2.4

1.8

1.1

2.1

3.9

9.7

Fresh product per person

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

21

47

49

n/a

68

38

40

70

76

106

69

120

Number of countries reporting

Mexico, Tunisia

China, Korea, India

China, Japan, Israel

South Africa, Australia, USA

Iran (47%), USA, Turkey

USA (37%), Spain, Australia

Turkey (25%), Egypt, Algeria

India, Iran

Mexico (30%), USA, Dominican Republic

Egypt (19%), Iran, Saudi Arabia

Spain (22%), Italy, Greece

China (42%), Nigeria, India

China (47%), USA, Mexico

China (15%), India, Mexico

Spain (7%), China, Brazil

Brazil (26%), USA, China

World production leaders (2012)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

5 for 0.4%

10 for 4.7%

8 for 3.3%

n/a

15 for 22%

12 for 36%

4 for 0.04%

21 for 40.9%

22 for 7.5%

31 for 21.5%

18 for 4.4%

40 for 17.3%

Production by LIFDCs (# and %)

Norman E. Looney

japonica); tomatillo and Cape gooseberry (Physalis spp.); and cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica). The nut crops considered to be Mediterranean or subtropical crops are: almonds (Prunus dulcis); pistachios (Pistacia vera); and macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia, M. ternifolia, and M. tetraphylla). Two species of oranges (Citrus sinensis and C. aurantium) are the most important by far of the citrus fruits. While produced in 120 countries, the four leading producers (Brazil, USA, China, and India) produce about 55 per cent of the total. Still, 40 LIFDCs produce about 17 per cent of the world orange crop showing that oranges are an important fruit crop across the developing world. Other citrus fruit species/crops monitored by FAOSTAT, in order of production quantity, are: C. reticulata (tangerines and other easy-peel varieties like mandarins and satsumas); lemons and limes (C. limon and C. aurantifolia); grapefruit and pomelo (C. paradise and C. maxima); and a variety of minor citrus fruits not captured within the above mentioned categories. After oranges, lemons and limes are produced in the most countries. Olive (Olea europaea) is amongst the most important of the non-citrus Mediterranean fruits and consumed both as brined fruit and as olive oil. Leading producers are Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey and Morocco. Unfortunately, the olive fruit production reported by the FAO fails to include all of the olives used to produce olive oil. Olive oil production in 2012 is reported to have been 3.32 MMT which, given an average oil yield of 17 per cent (e.g., Trentacoste et al. 2010), would require more than 19 MMT of fruit. This level of production far exceeds the 16.6 MMT reported by the FAO for this crop. Dates (Phoenix dactylifera) are an important food crop in the Middle East and North Africa. Dates are a low moisture fruit very rich in sugar and dietary fibre and have been an important food crop for millennia. Ironically, date palm is an oasis crop that requires abundant water for optimum production. The high productivity of date palm plantations along the Egyptian Nile stands in stark contrast to much lower per unit productivity values in many other countries (Mumtaz Khan and Prathapar 2012). However, being more tolerant than most crops to brackish water (up to 4 dS/m) (Ayers and Westcot 1985) permits its production in other countries lacking abundant fresh water resources. Avocado (Persea americana) can be grown successfully in both subtropical and tropical climates. Native to tropical America, it is well adapted for production in Mexico where about 30 per cent of all avocados are presently produced. However, 22 per cent of total production came from 15 LIFDCs, making it an important crop for the developing world. Pomegranates and figs (Punica granatum and Ficus carica) have long been useful crops in the Mediterranean region and countries of the Middle East but are now grown much more widely, with India and Iran notable contributors. Almonds (Prunus dulcis), pistachios (Pistacia vera) and macadamia (Macadamia spp.) are warm climate nut crops highly valued by consumers worldwide. For almonds and pistachios the production in low-income countries is relatively insignificant but for macadamia nuts, Malawi, Kenya and Guatemala combine to produce about 20 per cent of the world crop (Anon. 2012). Other subtropical fruits that are relatively minor in production but contribute significantly to the food supply of many countries include loquat (Eriobotrya japonica), tomatillo (Physalis philadelphica), jujuba (Ziziphus jujuba) and cactus pear (Opuntia spp.). Both temperate and subtropical fruits and nuts range from being highly perishable and most suitable for local and immediate use to others with relatively long product life like apples and oranges, nuts and dried fruits. Still others are immediately converted to a long-life product like wine or olive oil and many are canned, frozen, juiced or otherwise preserved. Some of these fruits and nuts have very low wastage when consumed while with others the edible portion of the marketed fruit or nut is quite small. And of course they differ greatly in energy and nutrient content per unit of fresh weight. Finally, we must recognize that these crops come from 44

Fruits, vegetables and tubers

perennial trees and bushes that normally produce just one crop per year and in a prescribed season. This limits their ‘efficiency’ as a year-around provider of fresh produce but provides valuable export opportunities for producers in both hemispheres.

Tropical fruits and nuts Tropical fruits and nuts (Table 3.3) comprise a very important resource for addressing food and nutrition issues in much of the developing world. Even when excluding coconut (Cocos nucifera) which is primarily a plantation crop for copra production, these fruits and nuts produced for commerce totalled about 205 MMT or more than 29 kg/person/year. The most important tropical fruit is banana (Musa acuminata), produced for market in 130 countries in the tropics and (with some protection) in parts of the subtropical world. Country leaders in banana production are India, Kenya, China, Philippines and Ecuador, spanning three continents. More than half of the total production arose from 44 LIFDCs, and 36 of the world’s 49 LDCs produced 12 per cent of the bananas for market in 2012. The second most cultivated tropical fruit crop is mango (Mangifera indica). Although the FAOSTAT database combines mango, mangosteen (Garcina mangostana) and guava (Psidium guajava) – three botanically unrelated tropical fruits – mangoes account for about 90 per cent of this 42 MMT total. India produced in excess of 15 MMT followed distantly by China, Kenya and Thailand. Like banana, mango is a very important crop in the developing world with 41 LIFDCs accounting for about 65 per cent of total production. Of course, the production and consumption of mango from trees growing outside of formal orchards or plantations is excluded from the FAO data, and these garden, street and forest trees are a common feature of many tropical countries. Pineapple (Ananas comosus) is the only important food crop amongst the 57 genera and more than 3,000 species in the family Bromiliaceae. With about 40 per cent of world production coming from 33 LIFDCs, pineapple is an extremely important fruit for the developing world. Similarly, papaya and babaco (Carica papaya and C. pentagonia) are very much crops of lowincome countries with India and 20 other LIFDCs producing more than 60 per cent of the world crop. Cashew apple (Anacardium occidentale) is consumed as a tropical fruit in Brazil but this species is grown solely as a nut crop in many other tropical countries. Vietnam produced about 30 per cent of the cashew nuts and together with 19 other LIFDCs these countries produced nearly 70 per cent of this crop. Brazil nuts (Bertholletia excelsa) at 106 thousand MT and a number of minor tropical and subtropical nut species estimated by the FAO under the category of nuts not elsewhere specified (nes) combine to account for about 950 thousand MT of high-energy food produced in more than 70 countries. Bolivia and Brazil are the most important of the five countries producing Brazil nuts. Amongst the scores of minor fruit crops commonly found and consumed locally in many tropical countries, some have become popular in specialty cuisines and in boutique markets around the world. These include: guava (Psidium guajava); durian (Durio zibethinus); carambola (Averrhoa carambola); acerola (Malpighia punicifolia); feijoa (Acca sellowiana); passion fruit and sweet granadilla (Passiflora edulis and P. ligularis); white sapote (Casimiroa edulis); lychee (Litchi chinensis); longan (Dimocarpus longan); rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum); mamey sapote (Pouteria sapota); sapodilla (Manildara zapota); star apple (Chrysophyllum cainito); cherimoya, sugar apple and soursop (Annona spp.); mangosteen (Garcina mangostana); and tamarind (Tamarindus indica).

45

Musa acuminata

Mangifera indica

Ananas comosus

See footnote**

Carica papaya, C. pentagonia

Anacardium occidentale

As above

Bertholletia excelsa

Banana

Mango *

Pineapple

Tropical fruits (nes)

Papaya and Babaco

Cashew nuts with shell

Cashew apple

Brazil nuts in shell

Table nuts

Table fruit

Table nut, confections

Table fruit, vegetable

Table fruit

Table fruit, juice, canned fruit

Table fruit, juice, preserved products

Table fruit, dried fruit

Main uses

0.1

2.0

4.1

12.4

20.4

23.3

42.1

102

World production (million tonnes)

0.015

0.28

0.57

1.7

2.9

3.3

5.2

14.2

Product per person (Kg)

5

31

63

70

87

102

130

Countries reporting to FAO (#)

Bolivia (42%), Brazil (41%)

Brazil (90%), Mali

Vietnam (29%), Nigeria, India

India (42%), Brazil, Indonesia

India (21%), Philippines Indonesia

Thailand (11%), Costa Rica, Brazil

India (36%), China, Kenya

India (24%), Kenya, China

Production leaders (2012)

2 for 16%

2 for 10%

20 for 69%

21 for 62%

25 for 61%

33 for 40%

41 for 65%

44 for 55%

Crop produced in LIFDCs # and %

* Mangosteen and guava (Garcina mangostana and Psidium guajava) production is estimated together with mango but together account for less than 10% of the total for these three crops. ** Including breadfruit (Artocarpus incisa); carambola (Averrhoa carambola); cherimoya, custard apple (Annona spp.); durian (Durio zibethinus); feijoa (Feijoa sellowiana); hog plum, mombin (Spondias spp.); jackfruit (Artocarpus integrifolia); longan (Nephelium longan); mammee (Mammea americana); naranjillo (Solanum quitoense); passion fruit (Passiflora edulis); rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum); sapote, mamey colorado (Calocarpum mammosum); sapodilla (Achras sapota); star apple, cainito (Chrysophyllum spp.) and other tropical fresh fruit that are not identified separately because of their minor relevance at the international level.

Species

Crop name

Table 3.3 Tropical fruit and nut crops estimated by FAOSTAT 2012

Fruits, vegetables and tubers

Vegetables and tubers Vegetable fruits The vegetable fruits including melons monitored by the FAO (Table 3.4) provided about 568 MMT of food in 2012 or about 81 kg/person if distributed evenly. Seven of the eight species of vegetable fruits contributing the greatest tonnage of produce belong to two botanical families, the Solanaceae and the Cucurbitaceae. FAOSTAT provides estimates for the production of 10 species of vegetable fruit crops within these two families while another 13 species are considered minor crops and not individually monitored. World production for the 10 measured crops totaled 472 MMT. When the other 13 species are included one can comfortably assume that world production of crops in these two families is well in excess of 500 MMT annually. Pratt et al. (2008) have pointed to the key importance of the Solanaceous main crops (including potato) and a host of minor crops and wild relatives for providing the genetic resources needed to meet future challenges to the global food supply. The Cucurbitaceae can be considered in the same light. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) is presently the world’s most widely grown and consumed vegetable fruit. Production is reported by 175 of the 233 countries/regions recognized within the FAOSTAT database. Eighteen countries produced in excess of 1 MMT and they represent every region of the arable world. India and 44 other LIFDCs produce about 23 per cent of the world tomato crop. Because tomato production under protected cultivation is now common even in the far North and this product commands a very high return, its total value exceeds that of any other horticultural food crop. However, it is important to note that tomatoes consumed as fresh fruits, while highly valuable, comprise a relatively small proportion of the total tomato crop. This fruit, when processing into juice, sauce, and as tinned fruit used in thousands of home and commercial recipes, is a nearly universal staple of food manufacturing. Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), as its common name implies, contains relatively little dry matter per fruit but accounted for 105 MMT of fresh produce in 2012. China alone produced 70 MMT and 11 other countries produced more than 1 MMT. Cantaloupes and other varieties of Cucumis melo melons are significant crops in 96 countries but China accounted for 55 per cent of world production. Melons of both species are seldom processed so the main valueadded potential lies in grading and packaging, fresh-cut produce for specialty uses, and targeted distribution to high-end markets. Cucumbers, cornichons and gherkins, all varieties of Cucumis sativus, are very popular vegetables throughout the temperate and subtropical world with production from 133 countries standing at 65.1 MMT in 2012. Cucumbers are important both as field and greenhouse crops which extends their season and greatly enhances their return to producers. Cucumbers, on average, generate about twice the value per kg as do watermelons. Furthermore, various value-added processes using these fruits contribute importantly to their contribution to national economies. Amongst the most important vegetable fruits, eggplant (Solanum melongena) ranks fourth in total production. Production in 2012 was 48.4 MMT from 89 countries and the gross value of this crop is estimated to be in excess of US$10 billion. This places eggplants similar to cucumbers in value per unit weight. About 31 per cent of world production of eggplants comes from 22 countries categorized as LIFDCs. This suggests that eggplants are considerably more important than watermelons or cucumbers and comparable to tomato as a crop for the developing world. Another vegetable fruit of great importance to the developing world, in particular subSaharan Africa and Latin America, is the plantain (Musa x paradisiaca). Twenty LDCs and LIFDCs produce about 73 per cent of the world’s plantains. Surprisingly, the estimated average value of plantains (about $ 0.21/kg) is comparable to that of field-grown eggplants and cucumbers. 47

Phaseolus vulgaris

Pisum sativum

Zea mays

Abelmoschus esculentus

Capsicum frutescents and C. chinense

Phaseolus coccineus

Green beans or wax beans

Garden peas

Sweet corn

Okra

Hot peppers and chillies

String beans

31 25

Table use

Culinary use

Capsicum annuum

Cucurbita maxima, C. moschata

Peppers, green

Musa x paradisiaca

Cucumis melo

Plantain

Melons

Pumpkins and Squash

Table use

Solanum melongena

Culinary use, fresh fruit

Culinary use, dried fruit, sauces

Culinary use, fresh or canned

Culinary use, fresh, canned or frozen

Processed as frozen and canned peas

Culinary use, fresh, canned or frozen

Culinary use

Culinary use

1.9

3.4

8.4

9.8

18.5

21

32

37

48

65

105

Eggplant

Table use

Table use, pickles

Citrullus lanatus

Cucumis sativus

Watermelon

162

World production (million tonnes)

Cucumbers, gherkins etc.

Table use, juice, sauce, canned fruit

Lycopersicon esculentum

Tomato

Primary uses

Species

Crop

0.27

0.46

1.2

1.4

2.6

2.9

3.5

4.5

4.6

5.3

6.9

9.3

15.0

22.5

Fresh product per person (Kg)

Table 3.4 Production of the vegetable fruits (including melons) monitored by FAOSTAT

19

62

44

49

82

108

113

122

96

52

89

133

117

175

Number of countries reporting to FAOSTAT

USA (48%), France, Morocco

India (39%), China

India (72%), Nigeria

USA (42%), Mexico, Nigeria

China (62%), India, France

China (78%), Turkey, Indonesia

China (28%), India, Russia

China (51%), Mexico, Turkey

China (55%), Turkey, Iran

Uganda (25%), Ghana, Cameroon

China (60%), India, Iran

China (74%), Turkey, Iran

China (67%), Kazakhstan, Turkey

China (31%), India, USA, Turkey

Leading countries (2012)

4 for 6%

32 for 62%

16 for 96%

8 for 21%

13 for 22%

28 for 10%

24 for 30%

30 for 13%

20 for 12%

20 for 73%

22 for 31%

25 for 5%

24 for 7%

45 for 23%

Production in LIFDCs (# and % of total)

Fruits, vegetables and tubers

Green peppers or bell peppers (Capsicum annuum), along with tomatoes, cucumbers and eggplant have become very important crops worldwide for off-season production in greenhouses. However, peppers are also very important as a field crop. China is the clear leader in green pepper production but five other countries produced more than 1 MMT (Mexico, Turkey, Indonesia, USA and Spain). Thirty LDCs and LIFDCs reported green pepper production accounting for about 13 per cent of world production. Green peppers on average returned about $ 0.47/kg to producers in 2012, making it amongst the most valuable of the vegetable fruits. Pumpkins and squashes of many varieties belonging to the species Cucurbita maxima and C. moschata are important crops worldwide but with China (7 MMT) and India (4.9 MMT) accounting for nearly 50 per cent of world production. In addition to India, another 23 LIFDCs combine to produce about 50 per cent of the world crop, placing these crops amongst the most important for the developing world. Amongst the leguminous vegetable fruits, green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) including wax beans are the most widely produced crop. World production in 2012 was nearly 21 MMT with about 78 per cent of this coming from China. Fifteen LDCs and another 13 LIFDCs produced about 10 per cent of the world crop of green beans but this crop is recognized as an important contributor to export earnings in several countries of Africa, most notably Egypt and Kenya. Varieties of this same species are grown for the production of dry beans with world production in 2012 estimated at 24 MMT. Clearly, Phaseolus vulgaris with its many agronomic and horticultural varieties ranks very high as a provider of human food. Green peas or garden peas (Pisum sativum), together with a number of sub-species including snow peas, sugar snap peas and others, are other widely grown leguminous vegetable fruit crops. China (11.5 MMT) and India (3.7 MMT) produced about 82 per cent of the total crop. Six LDCs and another 7 LIFDCs combined to produce about 22 per cent of the global total. Like green beans, Pisum sativum varieties are also grown for the production of dry peas with world production of this commodity reported as 10.4 MMT in 2012. However, the total value of dry peas was only about one-third that of green peas for fresh or processing use. While primarily thought of as an agronomic crop and one of the planet’s most important staple grains, corn or maize (Zea mays) is also an important vegetable fruit when the kernels are consumed fresh or the very immature reproductive organ that bears the kernels is consumed as ‘baby’ corn. These crops are categorized by the FAO as ‘green’ corn. The major producer is the USA, but eight LIFDCs produce 21 per cent of the world crop with countries as different as Nigeria and Papua New Guinea producing significant quantities. Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) is a vegetable fruit of great importance in India and across much of Africa. Interestingly, this crop and durian (Durio zibethinus), a tropical fruit tree, are the only species of agricultural importance in the family Malvaceae. Given that 96 per cent of the world crop of okra arises from 16 LIFDCs, it is clearly a food of special importance to the developing world. Similarly, hot peppers and chillies (Capsicum frutescents and C. chinense) marketed as dry fruit are a significant crop in many poor countries with 62 per cent of the crop produced in LIFDCs. India alone produces 39 per cent of the 3.35 MMT of hot peppers produced annually. The final vegetable fruit with world production for market exceeding 1 MMT is string beans (Phaseolus coccineus) with the major producer being the USA. This high value crop is produced for domestic consumption in the USA and France and for export by most other producing countries.

Other vegetable crops excluding tubers This group represents crops where the organ or organs used for human food are the leaves, stems, flowers, bulbs or roots. Together, these provided about 570 MMT of commercially grown produce in 2012 (Table 3.5). 49

See footnote*

Allium cepa

Brassica oleraceae, B. chinensis, B. pekinensis Daucus carota Brassica rapa rapa Lactuca sativa, Cichorium endiva, C. intybus Allium sativum

Fresh vegetables nes

Dry onions

Cabbages and near relatives Carrots and turnips

Allium fistulosum, A. porrum, A. shoenoprasum Cynara scolymus Pimpenella anisum Foeniculum vulgare Coriandrum sativum

5.3

37 25

Culinary use, fresh

Culinary use, fresh Culinary use, fresh, dried

Culinary use, fresh, dried Culinary use, fresh, frozen Culinary use, fresh, frozen Culinary use, fresh, canned Culinary use, fresh

9.7

0.23 0.13

0.9

6.5

1.6 0.9

1.2

3.0

3.1

3.3

8

21

22

25

3.3

11.8

37.5

Fresh product per person (Kg)

70

83

270

World production (million tonnes)

Culinary uses, fresh and processed Culinary use, fresh, dried Culinary use, fresh or fermented Culinary use, fresh

Primary uses

31 39

50+

45

94

58

97

101

129

150

141

201

No. of countries reporting to FAOSTAT

Egypt (24%), Italy, Spain India (58%), Mexico, China

China (19%), Indonesia, Japan

China (89%), Peru

China (45%), India

China (90%), USA

China (81%), India, Korea

China (56%), USA, India

China (46%), Russia, USA

China (47%), India, Russia

China (59%), India, Vietnam China (27%), India, USA

Leading countries

5 for 24% 9 for 63%

12 for 7.2%

3 for 0.5%

13 for 35%

8 for 1.4%

23 for 9%

18 for 6%

25 for 35%

33 for 21%

30 for 32%

62 for 23%

Production in LIFDCs (# and % of total)

* Including bamboo shoots (Bambusa spp.); beets, chards (Beta vulgaris); capers (Capparis spinosa); cardoons (Cynara cardunculus); celery (Apium graveolens); chervil (Anthriscus cerefolium); cress (Lepidium sativum); fennel (Foeniculum vulgare); horseradish (Cochlearia armoracia); marjoram, sweet (Majorana hortensis); oyster plant (Tragopogon porrifolius); parsley (Petroselinum crispum); parsnips (Pastinaca sativa); radish (Raphanus sativus); rhubarb (Rheum spp.); rutabagas, swedes (Brassica napus); savory (Satureja hortensis); scorzonera (Scorzonera hispanica); sorrel (Rumex acetosa); soybean sprouts; tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus); and watercress (Nasturtium officinale)

Globe artichokes Anise, fennel and coriander

Green onions, shallots, leeks, chives etc.

Brassica oleraceae

Cauliflower and broccoli Asparagus

Asparagus officinalis

Spinacia oleracea

Spinach

Garlic

Lettuce and chicory

Species

Crop

Table 3.5 World production of vegetable crops excluding tubers monitored by FAOSTAT 2012

Fruits, vegetables and tubers

As a single species, ‘dry’ onion bulbs (Allium cepa), comprise the most important vegetable that is not a vegetable fruit. Onions are widely produced in both developed and developing countries but China and India combine to produce about 47 per cent of the world total. Like tomatoes, onion bulbs are used in many ways for human food, both fresh and processed. They are more easily transported than many vegetables and are an important trade item in sub-Saharan Africa and many other regions of the developing world. In fact, 32 per cent of the world’s dry onions are produced in countries classed as LIFDCs. Other vegetables from the family Liliaceae include: garlic (Allium sativum), a crop important worldwide but now overwhelmingly produced and exported by China; green onions (A. fistulosum) and shallots (A. cepa var aggregatum) produced mainly in Indonesia, China and Japan; leeks (A. porrum); and some other Alliaceous vegetables like chives (A. shoenoopreasum and A. tuberosum) produced most extensively by Indonesia. Cabbages originating from both Europe and Asia (Brassica oleraceae, B. chinensis, B. pekinensis), including varieties like Brussel sprouts, green kale and sprouting broccoli, represented more than 70 MMT of fresh produce in 2012, of which almost half (33 MMT) was produced in China. Various varieties are widely used for the production of fermented foods like sauerkraut and kimchi which greatly expands their importance as a food crop. Cauliflower and heading broccoli are also varieties of Brassica oleraceae where the edible organ is the developing inflorescence. World production exceeds 21 MMT with China and India predominating, although there is very substantial production in Europe and North America. Within the LIFDCs, 13 countries including India produce about 35 per cent of the world’s cauliflower and broccoli. For cabbage the LIFDC contribution is 21 per cent. The FAO combines the reporting of carrots (Daucus carota) and turnips (Brassica rapa rapa) despite the fact that these root vegetables are taxonomically unrelated. Carrots reside in the same family (Apiaceae) as parsnip, celery and fennel. While China is now the world leader in carrot and turnip production, cultivation of these crops is well-distributed around the globe. Europe was the principal production region in historic times but now produces only about 23 per cent of the world crop. Today, these crops are very important in much of the developing world with 25 LIFDCs producing about 35 per cent of the crop. The leafy vegetables belonging to the Asteraceae are led by the lettuces (Lactuca sativa, L.sativa var longifolia, and L. sativa var crispa), chicory or endive (Cichorium endiva), and radicchio and some other varieties of C. intybus. FAOSTAT reports lettuce and chicory production in 101 countries and total production at 25 MMT. Some other less important leafy vegetables within the Asteraceae are: edible burdock (Arctium lappa); cardoon (Cynara cardunculus); and dandelion (Taraxicum officinale). Furthermore, this large family of higher plants also includes such crops as: the garland chrysanthemum (Glebionis coronaria); and the tuber-forming Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus). Globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus) with its edible flower parts is produced to the extent of 1.6 MMT with Egypt and Italy being prominent producers. Spinach (Spinacia oleracea), table beets and chard (Beta vulgaris) are the main vegetable crops belonging to the Amaranthaceae. While table beets and chard are not specified crops for FAO data collection (captured under the ‘fresh vegetables nes’ category), spinach production is reported by 58 countries with total production estimated at 21.6 MMT. Given the worldwide popularity of this leafy vegetable it is both curious and surprising that FAOSTAT has China producing more than 90 per cent of the spinach crop. The USA stands second at only 1.6 per cent. Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) production, reported by 45 countries in 2012, totaled 8.3 MMT with year-around production in China accounting for nearly 90 per cent of the world total. However, Peru is a highly successful producer and exporter of this crop, using climatic 51

Norman E. Looney

advantages, marketing innovations and protected cultivation to supply its markets with fresh produce for at least 11 months of every year (Benson 2012). Finally, it is very important to recognize the importance of an extensive range of traditional and in some cases indigenous vegetables (mainly leafy greens) that contribute to food and nutrition security throughout the developing world. These plants are usually gathered or informally cultivated and their production is not captured by FAOSTAT. Nonetheless, they represent a valuable food resource that deserves both protection and improvement. Some plants of notable importance include: African nightshade (Solanum scabrum and related species); spider plant or African cabbage (Cleome gynandra); water spinach (Ipomoea aquatic); and moringa (Moringa oleifera).

Tuber crops Tuber crops (including potatoes, cassava, sweet potatoes, yams and taro) contributed about 821 MMT of high-energy food in 2012 (Table 3.6). However, it must be recognized that a substantial percentage of this total production does not contribute directly to the human diet, with one FAO report estimating that as much as 45 per cent is used for propagation materials, animal feed, and for starch and alcohol production (FAO 1994). These crops, in addition to banana and plantain, are often considered as staple foods in that they provide a substantial proportion of the carbohydrates in many diets around the world. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) is the most important of all horticultural food crops and as a starchy vegetable contributes both energy and important micronutrients to the human diet (Anon. 2010). Production of 365 MMT in 2012 was reported from 156 countries/regions. However, climate-sensitivity (potatoes require a sufficient frost-free growing season and nighttime air temperatures below 21° C) limits production in the tropics to high elevation regions (Manrique and Bartholomew 1991), and in high-latitude countries (such as Iceland, Norway and Belarus) to small, milder, growing areas. Potato production was historically centered in the Americas and Europe until recent decades where production in Asia has become dominant (Walker et al. 2011). China and India now account for about 35 per cent of world production. Its importance as a crop even in the poorest of nations is indicated by the fact that 33 of the world’s 48 LDCs reported potato production, amounting to 6.4 per cent of the world total. Potatoes are sold directly to consumers for table use, however, large quantities of potatoes are processed and made available to consumers as potato chips, French fries and other frozen products, and as dehydrated potatoes. They are also used for starch, flour and alcohol production. In the USA, approximately 25 per cent of the 2011 crop was sold as table potatoes while twothirds was processed, most notably to frozen French fries and other frozen products (Anon. 2013). Thus, potatoes are a hugely versatile food crop that serves a host of consumer interests worldwide. The importance of this crop is sure to increase in coming decades. Cassava (Manihot esculenta) production worldwide amounts to about 269 MMT, placing it second to potato in the amount of potential human food represented. Cassava production was reported by 102 countries in the tropical world with the leaders being Nigeria, Indonesia and Brazil but more than half is produced in 40 countries in equatorial Africa. Thirty-four of the world’s LDCs produced about 30 per cent of the world cassava crop, and when one adds the LIFDCs producing cassava this proportion increased to 68 per cent. Clearly, cassava is of pivotal importance as a food crop for the poor in the tropical world. Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), amongst the most nutritious of the tuber crops, is another important staple food crop in many countries. This crop was produced commercially in 116 countries for a total production of 108 MMT in 2012. China (at about 77 MMT) remains the 52

Solanum tuberosum

Manihot esculenta

Ipomoea batatas

Dioscorea sp.

Colocasia esculenta, Xanthosoma roseum

See footnote*

Potato

Cassava

Sweet potato

Yams

Taro and yautia

Roots and tubers nes

Culinary use, various

Culinary use, fresh

Culinary use, fresh

Culinary use, fresh and processed

Culinary use, fresh

Culinary uses, fresh and processed

Primary uses

9.7

10

60

108

269

365

World production (million tonnes)

1.3

1.4

8.3

15.4

37.4

50.8

Fresh product per person (Kg/year)

75

48

59

116

102

156

No. of countries reporting to FAOSTAT

Ethiopia (54%), D.R. Congo

Nigeria (35%), China, Cameroon

Nigeria (64%), Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire

China (72%), Nigeria, Tanzania

Nigeria (20%), Indonesia, Brazil

China (24%), India, Russia

Leading countries

36 for 77%

22 for 77%

27 for 97%

45 for 22%

44 for 68%

49 for 22%

Production in LIFDCs (# and % of total)

* ‘Roots and tubers nes’ includes: arracacha (Arracacoa xanthorrhiza); arrowroot (Maranta arundinacea); chufa (Cyperus esculentus); sago palm (Metroxylon spp.); oca and ullucu (Oxalis tuberosa and Ullucus tuberosus); yam bean, jicama (Pachyrxhizus erosus, P. angulatus); mashua (Tropaeolum tuberosum); Jerusalem artichoke, topinambur (Helianthus tuberosus)

Species

Crop

Table 3.6 World production of tuber crops monitored by FAOSTAT 2012

Norman E. Looney

predominant producer, despite some recent fluctuations in production levels. The other production regions of great importance are West Africa (Nigeria), East Africa (Tanzania and Uganda) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia and Vietnam). Despite the overriding importance of China’s production, sweet potatoes grown in 45 LIFDCs contributed 22 per cent of the world crop. Its importance as a staple food in some countries is illustrated by the fact that per capita sweet potato consumption in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands sweet potato provides more than 65 per cent of total calories consumed (Bourke 2006). Yams of several species of Dioscorea, D. alata being the most important, are produced for commerce in 59 countries, most now being in Africa despite this being a crop native to Southeast Asia. Nigeria alone reported production of 38 MMT in 2012 which was about 64 per cent of the world crop. In fact, more than 97 per cent of the world yams are produced by the LIFDCs of Africa. The sum of all Asian yam production accounted for less than 1 per cent of the world crop reported to FAOSTAT in 2012. Finally, taro (Colocasia esculenta) and new cocoyam (tannia or yautia; Xanthosoma sagittifolium) are important food crops in Africa, Asia and Oceania (primarily taro) and a few countries of the Americas (almost entirely new cocoyam).

Commercial production of FVTs in relation to global dietary needs Siegel et al. (2014) have carefully considered whether present day production of fruits and vegetables is sufficient to meet global health needs. They point to the well-established evidence showing that consuming sufficient fruits and vegetables substantially reduces the risk of dying from a host of chronic or non-communicable diseases (Lock et al. 2005) and also reduces allcauses mortality (Bellavia et al. 2013). They conclude that while supply does not meet the present need (as opposed to demand), particularly in low-income countries, this situation can improve if given sufficient attention and effort by the global community. Assuming the accuracy of the FAOSTAT data, it is difficult to make the case that there is a serious global insufficiency of production (measured at the farm gate) in relation to the present world population. These data suggest that approximately 245 g of fruit and nuts, 222 g of vegetable fruits, and 222 g of vegetable crops (where the edible organ is not a botanical fruit) could theoretically be available per person each day. If one uses the commonly accepted recommendation that a healthy diet should include at least 500 g of fruit and vegetables (excluding tubers) per day (Lock et al. 2005), present commercial production of these foods on a per capita basis amounts to roughly 140 per cent of that value. The commercial production of the tuber crops is equally impressive. Led by potatoes, cassava, sweet potato and taro, present world production of tubers is estimated to be 822 MMT or about 117 kg/person/year (about 322 g/day). Thus, there is enough present-day commercial production to provide everyone with about 1 kg of vegetables, tubers, fruits and tree nuts per day. However, we know that between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of the weight of harvested fruits and vegetables fails to reach the consumer, this proportion being lowest in the industrialized countries of North America, Europe, Oceania and Asia (Cederberg et al. 2011). Furthermore, another significant proportion is wasted following purchase, being especially high in economically privileged countries (Parfitt et al. 2010), approaching 22 per cent in North America and Oceania (Cederberg et al. 2011). Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect that either availability or consumption of FVT will be equitable anytime soon. Few perishable products can be transported great distances and remain both palatable and affordable. And even when considering locally-produced foods, poverty is a serious limitation to family food procurement worldwide. 54

Fruits, vegetables and tubers

Countering that scenario, however, is the reality that global FVT production is much greater than what FAOSTAT can capture. Home and community gardens, and especially the foods grown or gathered by the hundreds of millions of subsistence farmers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, provide much if not most of the fresh produce consumed by many millions of people. The problem is to know how many millions and how reliable and sustainable is this supply. For those wishing to craft or influence policy relevant to food and nutrition security, this is not an easily quantifiable resource. Furthermore, while it would seem likely that as more of us live in cities the importance and availability of these home-produced foods will decline, this may or may not prove to be the case. Agricultural and nutritional education, combined with creative urban and peri-urban planning, could make all the difference. One of the most striking revelations arising from this analysis of horticultural food crop production worldwide is the predominate role that China now plays in contributing to the world supply of FVT. According to the FAOSTAT data for 2012, China is presently producing most of the crops considered herein at a per capita level well above the global average. In 2012, China: • • •

• •

produced 53.3 per cent of the vegetables listed in Table 3.5, enough to theoretically provide each of its citizens with about 264 kg per year; led the world in production of nine of the top 10 vegetable fruits and melons; ranked first in the production of a wide array of temperate zone fruits and nuts (Table 3.1) including apples, pears, peaches and nectarines, plums, persimmons, grapes, walnuts, chestnuts and pine nuts. When one adds to this the production of the temperate fruit and nut crops where they did not rank first (10 crops totalling 462 thousand MT), China, with about 19 per cent of the world’s population, contributed more than 35 per cent of all temperate zone tree fruits, nuts and berries, enough to provide each of its citizens with 65.2 kg/year (compared to the global average of 35 kg); was the world’s largest producer of potatoes and sweet potatoes; and with respect to subtropical fruits, China led the world in the production of grapefruit (47 per cent of world production), lemons and limes (15.2 per cent) and citrus not elsewhere specified (42 per cent). For tangerines it ranked second (5 per cent) and for oranges third (9.5 per cent), and overall, provided 12 per cent of the world’s subtropical fruits.

Overall, it is sobering to consider that for most horticultural crops, the world outside of China is not producing the 500 g/person/day of fruits and vegetables considered necessary for a balanced diet. Without China’s contribution, the present commercial production of horticultural crops provides only about 450 g/person/day. Remarkably, China achieves its level of horticultural food crop production on a land base which, according to the World Bank, only 12 per cent is classed as arable and the amount of arable land per capita is estimated to be less than 800 m2. By comparison, the USA, another large temperate to tropical zone country with a rich and varied agriculture and much more arable land per capita (5,100 m2), produced about 270 kg of this same range of crops for each of its 314 million citizens in 2012. Clearly, China has made impressive gains in recent decades toward reducing rural poverty (Wang 2013) and one could argue that using more of its limited arable land base to produce high value horticultural crops has contributed importantly to that achievement. This agroeconomic model is providing Chinese consumers with a rich array of FVT food options while at the same time providing citizens of nearby countries with affordable produce. Other developing countries, indeed the world at large, must take note of this accomplishment. 55

Norman E. Looney

Achieving and maintaining FVT sufficiency There is much to applaud with respect to the efforts of health science professionals worldwide to encourage greater consumption of fruits and vegetables. However, both availability and affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables limit consumption in many parts of the world. Clearly, this situation will be exacerbated by population growth, climate change, inequitable wealth distribution, and by the continuing migration of subsistence farmers to urban centers. Still, given the enormous success of China in scaling up its production of FVT and reducing rural poverty, it is clear that there is great scope for increasing production and equitable distribution of these crops worldwide. Nevertheless, the following present-day constraints and emerging challenges must be recognized. Poverty, rather than food availability, is the root cause of hunger and malnutrition in much of the world and poverty preferentially limits the consumption of higher-cost foods like fresh fruits and vegetables. Thus, initiatives or interventions that reduce poverty will lead to greater consumption of these nutritious food options. If the rapidly expanding cities of the developing world can find ways to generate and equitably distribute more wealth, there will be rapid escalation of the demand for FVTs. However, meeting this urban demand for FVTs, especially in low-income countries, is already proving problematic. There is a steady depopulation of rural farm-based communities and most of the remaining farms, operated by smallholder farmers, are under-capitalized. Furthermore, subsistence farming typically focuses on the production of staple crops for family consumption with little effort given to production for market. Urban centers worldwide are increasingly dependent on FVTs coming from distant lands. Thus, a FVT-inspired pathway for developing countries to achieve greater food and nutrition security for their city-dwellers, while reducing rural poverty, could involve optimizing domestic production of these high value and nutrient-rich crops. Ideally, this would engage the existing community of smallholders to produce a broad range of FVTs, including the traditional foods valued by their recently urbanized kin. The interventions required to achieve this vision must start with both rural and urban agricultural/horticultural education and training, continue with the provision of a professional public-sector agriculture advisory service, include investments in required infrastructure, and putting in place the policy framework, regulatory instruments and human competencies needed to sustain an efficient market chain delivering safe, nutritious and affordable produce. Thinking more globally, one of the strongest arguments for emphasizing FVTs within the context of achieving and sustaining food and nutrition security in the twenty-first century is the suitability of many of these crops for intensive production under controlled environment conditions (Cribb 2015). While more costly than traditional open-field production, enhanced yields and product quality (including food safety) and the ability to serve the market yeararound combine to make it more profitable and less wasteful. Of special importance in many parts of the world are the enhanced efficiency of water and nutrient use and the avoidance of climate and weather-related crop losses that can be achieved with protected culture. And where space is both limited and costly, as is normally the situation in large cities, one can envisage FVT production in towers and other novel structures in or near the city center. Finally, it must be fully understood that great gains can be made toward achieving and sustaining sufficient availability of FVT crops from open-field production even without using more land than is presently the case. Crop yields are too often restricted by inferior planting materials (e.g., seeds and propagules) and by poor cultural practices, most commonly related to the provision of nutrients and water. Poor management of weeds and a host of other pests and 56

Fruits, vegetables and tubers

diseases results in devastating crop losses. Very substantial losses occur during sorting (‘high’ grading) and due to product senescence and decay before it reaches the consumer. And seemly beyond the control of anyone in the supply chain, is the wastage incurred by consumers. (See Pinstrup-Andersen et al., chapter 11, this volume.) One can only speculate about how much the usable supply of FVTs could be increased by optimizing productivity, minimizing postharvest losses and avoiding wastage. It is likely that it could easily be doubled.

Conclusion Within the context of efforts to achieve and sustain FVT sufficiency in coming decades, it will be very interesting to see how views, both popular and learned, will evolve around what can be considered as ‘sustainable’ agriculture/horticulture production systems in terms of inputs, practices and even scale. It is presently popular to argue that safe, nutritious and affordable FVTs can and should be provided by diversified and relatively small family-operated farms (no ‘factory farms’!) without the help of molecular genetics for crop improvement or the use of chemical fertilizers and pest control products. This, despite the weight of evidence showing that these technologies and agricultural inputs, when used correctly and responsibly, pose little or no food safety risk, need not degrade our environment, and have little or no effect on nutrient contents of the produce. Proponents of this ‘traditional’ model for global agriculture seldom acknowledge that the genetic improvements and advances in crop productivity of the past century, achieved by researchers working in both the public and private sectors, have provided us with the rich array of healthy and affordable food options now available around the globe. They also ignore the reality that horticultural crop production has steadily become less taxing on farmers and farm workers, although millions of peasant women hoeing maize or beans week after week in sub-Saharan Africa have yet to see these gains. But looking ahead, it seems inevitable to this observer that none of these advances in production efficiency will be reversed or forgotten for long. Rather, imaginative research and development will continue with an increasingly sophisticated tool-box. This R&D will address key global issues like maintaining sufficient productivity and availability of these healthy foods when and where they are needed and in face of major challenges related to climate change. Research will continue to focus on describing, protecting and responsibly exploiting the rich storehouse of genetic resources that underpin horticultural science and industry. And together with economists and other social scientists, tomorrow’s horticultural research will continue to address the questions about what production practices, social constructs and economies of scale (this latter within the context of the family farm vs. industrial agriculture debate) are really sustainable. Horticultural science and industry will play a leading role in the global effort to ensure that all of the children born in 2050 will have access to a diverse and adequate supply of nutritious fruits, vegetables and tubers.

References Ahmed, R. A., El-Shehawy, M. A. and Li, L. 2011. The structure and competitiveness of China’s apple exports. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(6): 678–683. Anon. 2010. National nutrient database for standard reference: release 27, Basic Report 11352 USDA-ARS National Agricultural Library (http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3115?fg=Vegetables+and+ Vegetable+Productsandman=andlfacet=andformat=andcount=andmax=25andoffset=250andsort= andqlookup). Anon. 2012. Nuts and dried fruits global statistical review 2006–2011 (www.nutfruit.org/global-statisticalreview_13608.pdf). Anon. 2013. Potato statistical yearbook. USA: National Potato Council.

57

Norman E. Looney Ayers, R. S. and Westcot, D. W. 1985. Water quality for agriculture. FAO irrigation and drainage paper 29. Rome: FAO. Bellavia, A., Larsson, S. C., Bottai, M., Wolk, A. and Orsini, N. 2013. Fruit and vegetable consumption and all-cause mortality: a dose response analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 98: 454–459. Benson, B. L. 2012. 2009 Update of the World’s Asparagus Production Areas, Sper Utilization and Production Periods. Acta Hort. 950: 87–89. Bourke, R. M. 2006. Recent research on sweet potato and cassava in Papua New Guinea. Acta Hort, 703: 241–246. Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R. and Meybeck, A. 2011. Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO. Cribb, J. 2015. Horticulture in the age of food. Presentation at the 29th International Horticultural Congress, Brisbane, Australia, August 18, 2014. Acta Hort, (in press). FAO. 1994. Report on the inter-centre review of root and tuber crops research in the CGIAR. Appendix 4: global production and consumption of roots and tubers. Rome: FAO. Kunkel, G. 1984. Plants for human consumption: an annotated checklist of the edible phanerogams and ferns. Koenigstein: Koeltz Scientific Books. Lin, S., Sharpe, R. H. and Janick, J. 2010. Loquat: botany and horticulture. Horticultural Reviews, 23: 233–276. Lock, K., Pomerleau, J., Causer, L., Altmann, D. R. and McKee, M. 2005. The global burden of disease attributable to low consumption of fruit and vegetables: implications for the global strategy on diet. World Health Organization, 83: 100–108. Manrique, L. A. and Bartholomew, D. P. 1991. Growth and yield performance of potato grown at three elevations in Hawaii: II. Dry matter production and efficiency of partitioning. Crop Science, 31: 367–372. Mumtaz Khan, M. and Prathapar, S. A. 2012. Water management in date palm groves. In: Dates: production, processing, food and medicinal values (Chapter 4). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. and Macnaughton, S. 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 365: 3065–3081. Pratt, R. C., Francis, D. M. and Barrero Mesesses, L. S. 2008. Genomics of tropical Solanaceous species. In: Genomics of tropical crop plants (Vol. 1), P. H. Moore, and R. Ming (eds.), chapter 19. Amsterdam: Springer. Serageldin, I. 2004. Nurturing and nourishing the world’s poor: important roles for horticulture in sustainable development. Acta Horticulturae, 642: 25–34. Siegel, K. R., Ali, M. K., Srinivasiah, A., Nugent, R. A. and Venkat Narayan, K. M. 2014. Do we produce enough fruits and vegetables to meet global health need? PLOS ONE, 9(8): e104059, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104059. Trentacoste, E. R., Puertas, C. M. and Sadras, V. O. 2010. Effect of fruit load on oil yield components and dynamics of fruit growth and oil accumulation in olive (Olea europaea L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 32: 249–254. Walker, T., Thiele, G., Suarez, V. and Crissman, C. 2011. Hindsight and forsight about potato production and consumption. Social Sciences Working Paper 2011–5. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center. Wang, S. 2013. Reducing poverty through agriculture development in China. IDS Bulletin, 44: 55–62.

58

4 THE IMPACTS OF MODERN AGRICULTURE ON PLANT GENETIC DIVERSITY M. Carmen de Vicente

Introduction From the Green Revolution that took place around the mid-twentieth century until today, the agricultural sector has undergone substantial changes on account of rapid developments in the agricultural sciences, especially those due to plant genetics. These changes have significantly affected plant genetic diversity, which is composed of two main types: one is inter-specific or species diversity that refers to the number of different species (i.e., crops) that are present in the fields; the other is intra-specific diversity and it refers to the variation in the genetic composition of a particular species (forms and types). This chapter reviews key developments that have had an impact in crop diversity at large, because those developments often have consequences for both the number of crops and their own genetic make up. For example, most of the technological advances in plant genetics serve to enhance intra-specific diversity (i.e., better adapted cultivars); however, the adoption of improved cultivars may foster the demotion of non-improved crops, thus affecting the number of crops planted in the field. This chapter tackles developments related to crop improvement, and the social implications of changes in the ownership of genetic resources. Finally, the chapter presents initiatives for conserving and using genetic diversity, thereby offsetting the negative impacts of modern developments. It presents a selected number of issues of social debate around modern agriculture and genetic diversity, ending with an outlook to agriculture in the near future.

Past and current crop diversity Agriculture became an occupation when people decided to settle in sedentary communities. First, people ate plants growing in the wild; slowly they chose wild stands for cultivation and, with this, plants with better traits were selected. More than 10,000 years ago, with the process of picking out plants, domestication gradually began (Piperno et al. 2009). Domestication was the path to plant breeding, the art and science of accumulating valuable traits, which became the foundation of modern agriculture. Throughout this period, domestication had a ‘funnel effect’ as only a handful of wild plants succeeded to enter agriculture and made the crops that we use today. Crop improvement is substantially based on the sustained availability of genetic diversity. But, the process of modern improvement itself, mainly directed towards increasing productivity, 59

M. Carmen de Vicente

often leads to decreasing diversity. A particular period for the improvement of crops, its impact in agriculture and the availability of food, was marked by the Green Revolution – a sequence of research-for-development and innovation initiatives starting around the 1950s to increase agricultural productivity worldwide (Hazell 2009). One of these projects, led by Norman Borlaug, involved the development of high-yielding cultivars of cereals, the advancement of modern agronomic practices and the wide dissemination of seeds and agrochemical inputs to farmers. The consequences of the Green Revolution in terms of food availability were huge; however, mostly they involved improving a few cultivars of a few cereals. On the negative side, this meant that other crops, not targeted by the new technologies, were relegated out of the main food streams (Pingali 2012). In addition, the new crop cultivars, which were uniformly high-yielding varieties and intrinsically more vulnerable, extensively replaced more diverse, and thus resilient, cultivars. As a result, the concept of genetic erosion (Frankel and Bennett 1970) was born to refer to the ‘loss of genetic diversity, in a particular location and over a particular period, including the loss of individual genes, and the loss of particular combinations of genes, such as those manifested in landraces or cultivars’ (FAO and IPGRI 2002). Translated to numbers, while approximately 7,000 plant species (out of the 30,000 edible species identified) are used to meet food needs, only three cereal crops (wheat, rice and maize) represent 60 per cent of the energy intake of people worldwide (FAO 1995). More specifically, data indicate that three-fourths of the crop genetic diversity used in agriculture was lost in the past century (Schröder et al. 2007). For example, in some parts of Ethiopia, genetic erosion of up to 100 per cent was detected in Triticum durum and T. dicoccon (Teklu and Hammer 2006); in the second half of the twentieth century, the number of wheat cultivars in China went from 10,000 to 1,000 (Thrupp 1998), and T. monococcum, which was essential to agriculture before being replaced by free-threshing wheat, is now cultivated only in remote mountainous areas of a few countries (Zarahieva and Monneveux 2014). Strictly speaking, genetic erosion occurs, however, only when there is a net negative change in crop diversity, be it diversity at the species or at the cultivar level. Thus, real genetic erosion is not a straightforward calculation. For example, the measurement of Nordic wheat germplasm diversity to analyze the effects of intense improvement in sustaining selection gains concluded that diversity was enhanced, then decreased, and enhanced again by plant breeding in the twentieth century (Christiansen et al. 2002). Nevertheless, plant breeding cannot be considered in isolation from its wider social contexts. Shifts in the relationships between populations and food, including urbanization, changes in land use, climate change (Hammer and Teklu 2008) as well as the exodus of people fleeing rural distress (Nakhutsrishvili et al. 2009) all contribute to the disappearance of traditional landraces or local cultivars and their wild relatives. On the other hand, often the main reason behind the wide diffusion of modern cultivars is based on the preference for high uniform yields both as a source of food and cash; i.e., farmers focus on the diversity of traits and trait combinations that are valuable for them. For example, in informal seed systems in Mexico it has been shown that some flowering/vegetative traits of modern maize hybrids are preferred (Bellon et al. 2003). It is also true that modern cultivars may add diversity when they have different genetic origin (van Heerwaarden et al. 2009) and when they carry traits that are not present in traditional cultivars (Wood and Lenne 1997; Louette and Smale 2000). Also, modern cultivars may broaden diversity if there is gene flow to traditional cultivars in farmers’ fields and then the product gets selected (Pressoir and Berthaud 2004). Thus, genetic erosion cannot be inferred just from the introduction of modern cultivars alone. Yet, whatever its causes, the loss of genetic diversity, represented by a reduced number 60

Modern agriculture on plant genetic diversity

of crops or cultivars or by greater genetic uniformity of the cultivated modern cultivars, is a risk for food security in the medium- to long-term, in particular at a time when humanity faces important environmental changes (Hammer and Teklu 2008).

Selected developments affecting modern agriculture and genetic diversity The evolution of agriculture in the past century, moving from subsistence farming and traditional practices with low inputs in limited land to intensive agriculture based on specialized mechanization and high chemical inputs, did not happen by chance. Steady population growth put pressure on available food, which has been argued as needing to double in less than 50 years to meet global demands (Tilman et al. 2011). Early deliberate crop improvement was based on a narrow genetic base and selection methods that rendered limited genetic progress: intraspecific diversity was produced through homologous recombination of chromosomes. Around the mid-twentieth century, breeding of a few crops used the hybridization of distantly related species (inter-specific diversity) to broaden genetic diversity. Contemporary developments included the use of cytoplasmic male sterility in inbred lines and the discovery of heterosis for the production of hybrids from selected inbred parents. In the twenty-first century, advanced techniques promise to increase significantly the rate of genetic improvement (Phillips 2010), often widening the use of genetic diversity, at the very least trying to surpass what conventional techniques can give of themselves and at a much higher speed. Related, but conceptually different, developments have also greatly affected genetic diversity in modern agriculture. These are, among others, those referred to further below in the social area, e.g., the role of consumers, and in the legal area, i.e., the protection of cultivars and their components.

Developments related to crop improvement Tissue culture Plant tissue culture involves methods to initiate, maintain, multiply and store plant material. These have been applied to crop improvement in ways that increase or decrease the genetic diversity available. For example: 1

2

3

4

The artificial production of double haploids creates genotypes that achieve complete homozygosis in one generation. If double haploids are used as parents for the production of hybrids, this leads to cultivation of uniform crops. In contrast, chromosome doubling can also be used to induce polyploidy, which is a way of maintaining diversity. Somaclonal variation observed in plants produced via tissue culture refers to differences affecting, among others, the DNA sequence, the chromosome structure and the ploidy number, thus generating new genetic diversity, potentially useful for plant improvement, that often has been used as a method to find new traits such as resistance or adaptation to environmental or chemical stressors. New diversity is created by protoplast fusion of two distantly related species thus forming a hybrid with novel and useful characteristics – similarly, embryo rescue renders viable crop hybrids between different species and genera that would not have the ability to survive naturally, and it has been successfully used for breeding when sexual reproduction was unfeasible after inter-specific hybridization. The regeneration of plants from cells that have undergone genetic transformation causes new genetic diversity; and 61

M. Carmen de Vicente

5

the production of clones – identical plants – leads to uniformity, thus less diversity. However, when tissue culture is used to produce clones of rare or endangered plant species, it is not the uniformity of the individuals that counts but the diversity of maintaining the particular species.

Mutagenesis Since the 1930s, some 3,000 cultivars (of which about 75 per cent are crops) have been developed as a result of induced mutagenesis in more than 170 different plant species (Shu 2009). Mutagenesis produces random, often multiple and unspecific changes in the genetic constitution of a cell through alterations to its DNA. It has been used for crop improvement by exposing seeds to radiation (X-rays and gamma rays) or chemical mutagens, mostly alkylating agents, in optimized doses to reach the expected effectiveness. As a result, the mutant seeds obtained may harbor desirable traits, in particular some that do not exist in nature. For example, hardy crops adapted to harsh environments have been obtained through mutagenesis to grow in the highlands of Peru (i.e., barley) (Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture 2014a; Gómez-Pando et al. 2009) and the high salinity region of the Mekong delta in Vietnam (i.e., rice) (Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture 2014b).

Genetic modification/engineering Genetic engineering refers to the artificial transfer of genes and so its result affects the genetic make up of the recipient plant. The recipient, which is otherwise good, lacks the trait or traits that the transformation will add and that will be transferred to the offspring. In this sense, genetic modification creates novel genetic diversity, mostly sought for conferring resistance to insects and viruses, resistance to herbicides and adaptation to environmental stresses such as cold, heat and salinity; though, crops are also engineered to increase their nutritional value or to add chemicals desirable for better health such as vaccines. The gene that is inserted in the genome of a plant can have different origins. If the gene comes from within the same or related species that they are able to cross with, the process of engineering is termed ‘cisgenesis’ (Park et al. 2009) and it achieves in a shorter time the same results that could be obtained by conventional breeding. If the gene comes entirely from a non-related species, the process is referred to as ‘transgenesis’. In terms of genetic diversity cisgenesis is a neutral process as compared to conventional breeding while transgenesis increases genetic diversity as a whole because it brings new genes and new gene combinations that could not naturally occur.

Marker technologies, genomics and molecular breeding Molecular markers tag the presence of genes and traits. Markers uncover and help manage diversity prior to and during the breeding process – known as molecular breeding – facilitating the integration of new and useful variation in the production of more pertinent crops which expands their genetic base. The increased availability of marker technologies significantly decreased the costs, facilitating the construction of dense genetic maps – tools assigning specific DNA fragments to the chromosomes of a given progeny – which were the precursors of decoding the complete genomes of plants. Following, genome re-sequencing allowed the discovery of biologically important sequence variation. Knowledge of the relevant genes involved in the expression of a particular trait enables mining their genetic diversity in genetic resources (Tanksley and McCouch 1997). Likewise, markers and 62

Modern agriculture on plant genetic diversity

sequence data made possible the discovery of valuable, yet unpredicted, variation in wild species and the selective transfer of that variation into crops, opening the door to the improvement of traits of economic importance, even those for which wild species appeared phenotypically inferior to their cultivated counterparts (de Vicente and Tanksley 1993). DNA profiles are also used in conservation management distinguishing genotypes, identifying duplicates, assessing genetic relationships within collections, and following-up genetic stability and integrity (Spooner et al. 2005). The first use of molecular breeding was through the so-called marker-assisted selection in which markers are used for indirect selection of a gene or trait of interest (in particular, qualitative traits) that are hard or difficult to phenotype. Nowadays, more efficient and effective breeding uses genomic selection based on markers spread through the entire genome, with unknown individual effect, maximizing the chances to have at least one marker close to important quantitative trait loci (Goddart and Hayes 2007). Genomic selection uses marker data combined with phenotypic and pedigree data. The evaluation of phenotype is essential for improving crops. Assigning a phenotype to a qualitative trait is quite straightforward, while ascertaining the phenotype of quantitative traits is more challenging because their expression is influenced by the environment. Having a wide array of genomic data and breeding strategies available, the ability to design crop cultivars basically hinges on the ability to phenotype and hence uncovering the associations worth selecting for the expected improvement. The potential for good phenotyping relies on measuring repeatedly large number of plants with reliable accuracy, i.e., high-throughput phenotyping. More and more tools (e.g., cameras, lasers, infrared thermometers etc.) have been used, as well as methods and platforms developed to facilitate the fast and objective measurement of complex traits for the detection of useful diversity that can be incorporated in modern breeding. Genetics and physiology have converged along with the increase of data analysis capacity. In turn, bioinformatics develops methods to store, retrieve, analyze and solve problems with biological data, such as nucleic acid sequences, structures, functions, pathways and their interactions. Increasingly powerful tools of bioinformatics make possible the exploitation of the scientific potential of genetic resources and the information they contain. Large datasets of genomic information can be stored and linked to existing standard passport, characterization and evaluation data, facilitating documentation and describing genetic diversity in collections. Bioinformatics tools can contrast genomes and find novel gene information based on research with other organisms, thereby potentially allowing the inference of gene information in a given plant and helping the study of gene and functional diversity – this is especially relevant in the cases of neglected crops or crops with small populations.

Seed technologies Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURT), or ‘terminator’ technology, use genetic engineering to restrict either the use of a plant cultivar, or the expression of a trait in a plant cultivar. GURT restricts the use of beneficial crop diversity either by limiting the expression of traits or – similar to other methods like hybrids – controlling the ability of saving seeds for the next cultivation cycle. Conversely, the use of GURT can safeguard natural diversity because of its capability to prevent the unwanted spread of genetically modified seeds and pollen in the environment. In 2000, the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) put on hold the use of GURT due to the lack of appropriate scientific data on any adverse effects on biological diversity (CBD 2000). Cryopreservation techniques, i.e., storage at ultra-low temperatures, slow down seeds’ biochemical processes, hence their natural biological decline. At present, available evidence 63

M. Carmen de Vicente

advocates cryopreservation as a method for conserving species with short-lived seeds as well as those endangered due to very low population sizes. For these species, cryopreservation would be the method of choice as standard seed conservation techniques is for orthodox seeds. Therefore, cryopreservation makes accessible more plant genetic diversity for the future improvement of cultivars.

Emerging technologies At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, new breeding technologies (NBT) allow targeted changes in the DNA, complementing the aforementioned techniques and promising to accelerate the breeding process. The changes are additions, replacements or deletions of specific DNA segments, thus affecting genetic diversity. The techniques included under this term are, among others: 1 2

3

4

Reverse breeding that allows the recovery of the inbred parents involved in a particular hybrid cultivar. RNA dependent DNA methylation that triggers the methylation of the DNA in a known site, silencing the target gene to optimize a trait of agronomic value via the production of an epigenetic transient change without altering the DNA sequence. Oligo-directed mutagenesis that introduces an oligonucleotide into a plant cell just to activate the DNA repair mechanism, which changes a single base within the sequence without the insertion of foreign DNA. Site-directed nucleases, proteins that bind to particular DNA sequences to produce a break so that small deletions, substitutions or insertions can be made, being later repaired by the internal system.

These techniques, also known as ‘genome editing’, will introduce similar, but more precise, DNA changes than conventional methods for the production of new varieties and in the case of epigenetic techniques not even DNA changes will occur. Other new areas are also promising, as is the case of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology, a discipline that mixes biology and engineering, has the ability to synthesize DNA and so novel genes from scratch, that points to an important role in agriculture through a new generation of engineered crops. By definition, synthetic biology has the potential for increasing genetic diversity, producing plants that could spare the use of nitrogen fertilizers or that perform well with much less water. Moreover, it could produce plants tailored to the environment of a particular farm. While the potential of synthetic biology sounds definitely exciting, it is not concern-free regarding the preservation of natural genetic diversity and the effects on evolution to continue to exercise its function.

Socio-economic developments Ecosystem services, or the resources we get from nature free of charge, rely on biodiversity. For biological systems to stay diverse and productive, genetic diversity is a must. It is important that modern crop improvements should not threaten ecosystem services, and there are now innovations to support these goals, via payments for ecosystem services (Biodiversity International 2015). These initiatives have developed alongside wider arguments for a change of paradigm: i.e., ensuring that new high-yielding crop cultivars go along with sustainable farming systems combining diversity and intensification of agriculture (Ortiz 2011a) (see also, Benton, chapter 64

Modern agriculture on plant genetic diversity

6, this volume). These proposals are entwined with arguments for ecological – biological, organic – agriculture, based on production practices that aim at sustainable agroecosystems (see also, Vaarst et al., chapter 7, this volume). The social implications of plant genetic diversity have particular relevance to smallholder farmers and consumers. Society has recognized the role of smallholder farmers, and their subsequent rights, in the maintenance of plant genetic diversity, its associated traditional knowledge and its relationship – mostly as food – with the cultural identity of peoples. This acknowledgement was achieved after a long process that started with the development of the concept of ‘farmers’ rights’ in the mid-1980s (FAO 1986) and culminated with the adoption of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR-FA), which obliges states to protect and promote farmers’ rights. Farmers’ rights are considered a precondition for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. Consumers are relevant to these issues because their influence in agricultural production has progressively gained importance. Increasingly, consumers request less conventional cultivars – including old ones – and exotic crops assumed to have better nutritional properties. At the same time, growing interest for the conservation of the environment questions distrustful practices while rewarding organic and agroecological agriculture.

Developments related to the ownership of plant genetic resources No country is self-sufficient in the genetic resources for food and agriculture upon which it relies (Frison et al. 2011). Initially, plant genetic resources belonged to humankind – as stated by the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, 1983 – with no barriers. Developed countries, through available technologies, maximized the use of genetic diversity including that located in lesser-developed countries. Agriculture in advanced countries had little regard for the source of its genetic diversity. In parallel, due to the natural ability of plant material to be self-replicating, at some point it was deemed commonsense that plant cultivars were objects of intellectual property, either through patents or plant breeders’ rights, as a reward for the investment of resources, especially in commercial breeding. In theory, the rights awarded to plant breeders benefit society at large, through better crop cultivars for farmers and consumers, and savings to the government in foregone plant genetic research. However, intellectual property applied to plants and their components is not free of consequences and controversy, especially with respect to poorer farmers in developing countries. The situation has witnessed a number of associated developments. In 1961, the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) recognized breeders’ rights at the international level. These rights entail the authorization of the breeder to make her/his cultivar available commercially. Protection of cultivars rests on a few conditions (the cultivar must be new, distinct, uniform and stable) necessary to assure intervarietal diversity. While the impact of breeders’ rights is justified in terms of performing enhanced breeding activities – greater numbers of improved cultivars, a diversity of breeders (private and public breeders, researchers, farmers, etc.) – by definition some of the conditions imposed for cultivar protection counter the deployment of greater diversity. Similar consequences derived from the revised version of the UPOV Convention in 1991, which restricted the sale or exchange of seeds for propagating purposes between farmers, activities that ensure farmers’ protection of genetic diversity as well as food security in many developing countries. During the Earth Summit in 1992, 189 nations signed the Rio Declaration acknowledging the negative aspects of agricultural expansion, which led to numerous national Biodiversity Action Plans. In 1993, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was born to promote the 65

M. Carmen de Vicente

conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components. Two relevant developments through the CBD were: 1) the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety dealing with the potential undesirable effects of living modified organisms on biological diversity; and 2) the Nagoya Protocol that promotes the sharing of benefits resulting from the utilization of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way, the appropriate access to and development of genetic resources and the appropriate transfer of relevant technologies. In 1994, the international agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) laid down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property regulation. In particular, Article 27.3 (b) allowed governments to exclude plants, animals and ‘essentially’ biological processes (other than those involving micro-organisms) from patentability. However, it also defined that plant cultivars could be eligible for protection either through patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination of the two. This article has been afterward subject of discussions and modifications seeking to align it with the CBD. Given the intrinsic association of these issues with global food security, an international and collective agreement was deemed necessary to oversee the products and rights of researchers and farmers and the interests of developed and developing countries (Esquinas-Alcázar and Hilmi 2008). After a long process of negotiation, in 2001 the ITPGR-FA (FAO 2009) – in addition to recognizing the contribution of farmers to the diversity of crops – established a global system to provide access to plant genetic materials while ensuring benefits derived from the use of these genetic materials are shared with the countries of origin. The ITPGR-FA also established the Multilateral System (MLS), a scheme declaring that the genetic resources of 64 of the most important crops – accounting for 80 per cent of all human consumption – were available to everyone. With the MLS, research and development of these materials are facilitated without restrictions.

Initiatives to conserve and access genetic resources: dealing with the impact of modern agriculture in genetic diversity National and international gene banks: ex situ conservation Expansion and harmonization of agricultural practices, plus the resulting environmental and social changes affecting farming, have altered the landscape of agriculture with the loss of wild relatives and local crop cultivars. Hence, as happened with incidences of crop uniformity in the past (e.g., the Irish famine caused by potato late blight in the mid-nineteenth century), a major concern emerged after the Green Revolution: the need to conserve genetic diversity and genetic resources to keep up with the growing demands of society and the challenges posed by the environment and to ensure food security (Smale 1997). The establishment of international gene banks, such as those of the CGIAR Consortium, addressed multiple concerns: the loss of genes and successful gene complexes and combinations; the occurrence of pathogens unresponsive to agrochemicals; and the occurrence of new pests and diseases. CGIAR gene banks store biodiversity collections of about 710,000 accessions of cereals, legumes, roots and tubers, bananas, trees and other staple crops. More recent developments are the establishment of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which offers a rational and cost-effective system for the conservation of the crop diversity in gene banks worldwide, and the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, which is a state-of-the-art safe seed storeroom in Norway keeping duplicates of all seed samples from the world’s crop collections (currently, more than 700,000 samples from almost every country in the world). Alongside the use of molecular markers in genetic resources conservation activities, DNA banks emerged as a complement – not a replacement – of traditional ex situ conservation, based 66

Modern agriculture on plant genetic diversity

on the fact that DNA alone does not allow the regeneration of biodiversity, as seeds and other tissues do. Yet DNA is a resource that can be distributed among scientists with interests in diverse areas of biodiversity, and that works as recourse for biotechnological applications (de Vicente and Andersson 2006). Worldwide-known DNA banks are: the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, UK; the Australian Plant DNA Bank; and the DNA bank at the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) in Japan. Furthermore, in 1996 the hazard of genetic erosion and the need to have appropriate genetic diversity conservation strategies led the FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to develop agreed policies related to ex situ and in situ conservation of genetic resources. The efforts to preserve plant genetic diversity include gene bank initiatives at both regional and country levels, which currently represent about 1,750 institutional crop collections worldwide, as well as a number of community-based seed bank initiatives (e.g., India and Nepal). Together with the international gene banks, the number of accessions held at present is more than seven million (FAO 2010).

In situ and on-farm conservation of genetic resources Ex situ conservation of genetic resources in gene banks is a necessary but insufficient storage system. Complementary to ex situ conservation, and likely more sustainable, there are two distinct conservation processes: in situ that focuses on wild plant relatives of a domesticated crop kept in their natural surroundings; and on-farm that refers to the maintenance of crop landraces in traditional farmers’ fields. The conservation of the diversity of crop wild relatives and cultivars is especially relevant for the livelihood of smallholder farmers, who protect diversity in the places where it is used, allowing it to evolve in a dynamic process of adaptation to a changing environment and encouraging further new forms of diversity. Diversity is a dynamic process in traditional farming systems. This diversity may support a greater number of rare alleles and different genotypes than accessions stored in gene banks (Brown 2000). The fact is that farmers decide the cultivars they grow and develop, and this decision may at times not only be based on reasons of productivity and economic output. Landraces, as well as minor non-commodity crops, may be appreciated for their nutritional value, versatility to stresses and culture. When farmers grow these local cultivars they are, often unknowingly, maintaining essential resources for addressing climate changes and phases of economic concern; they are also increasing seed diversity and preserving farmers’ rights. In doing so, these farmers play a strategic role in society by sustaining the basis for the future improvement of crops (Zarahieva and Monneveux 2014; Konvalina et al. 2010)

Initiatives to use genetic resources The value of diversity conservation is allied with its potential utilization (Maxted et al. 2002). If conservation of plant diversity was an endeavor to respond to genetic erosion, utilization in breeding is one of the best attempts to grasp the value of diversity and reinstate the deprived genetic basis of modern crops (Tanksley and McCouch 1997). Though most genetic resources have been underused due to insufficient knowledge about their value, in recent decades technological developments have offered methods to mine useful trait diversity for modern agriculture in a sustainable manner. Examples of these developments are targeted core and mini-core collections, i.e., limited sets of accessions representing, with minimum repetitiveness of genes, the genetic diversity of a crop species and its wild relatives (Frankel 1984). A different and more recent approach is the ‘focused identification of germplasm 67

M. Carmen de Vicente

strategy’ (FIGS) (Mackay and Street 2004) based on the premise that germplasm likely reflects the selection pressures of the environment in which it developed. The importance of using genetic diversity stored in gene banks in relation with the impact on agricultural productivity has been documented, e.g., with CGIAR germplasm (Hajjar and Hodgkin 2007). Other types of impact might be more elusive, as an increase in the number of requests of germplasm from a gene bank is not correlated with its utilization. As a strategy to enhance the utilization of germplasm stored in gene banks, in 2003 the Unlocking the Genetic Diversity of Crops for the Resource-Poor program was launched, a 10-year initiative designed by the CGIAR to use genetic diversity to improve crops for drought-prone and harsh environments by tapping into a broad gene-pool of appropriate germplasm through access to modern technologies.1

Issues of social debates related to modern agriculture and plant genetic diversity Use and spread of genetically engineered crops By 2013, biotech crops were grown on 175 million hectares globally (James 2013). These crops were grown by farmers both in rich countries and developing countries, including risk-averse, small and resource-poor farmers (16.5 million of them in 2013) (James 2013), showing that transgenic crops are attractive to a wide range of farmers. Yet, genetically modified crops have been at the center of debates for many years and from multiple viewpoints. Some worries relate to the unexpected consequences of the interaction of the modified trait with other species in the ecosystem – more specifically there is concern for the likelihood of gene flow and introgression from genetically modified crops to the same crops (non-engineered cultivars) and their wild relatives, thus jeopardizing plant genetic diversity. This concern misses the fact that the permanent insertion of genetic material into the receiving plant is not an automatic event; on the contrary it depends on the reproduction system, the viability and fitness of the offspring and the nature of the gene (Andersson and de Vicente 2009). Nonetheless, if hybridization occurred, it could increase or decrease the genetic diversity of the receiving population (Gepts and Papa 2003) – a relevant situation if landrace or wild populations were small, as is the case in centers of crop origin and diversity. But this would also happen if the origin of the trait were a cultivar bred with traditional methods. A similar conclusion applies to the argument that crops genetically modified with a resistant gene questionably maximize the risk of pests and diseases to surpass plant defense mechanisms, making crops continuously vulnerable. It also applies to the reasoning that genetically modified crops pose a threat to the subsistence of crop genetic diversity because they embody the characteristic genetic monocultures of Western agriculture and the concerns over the ownership of seed technologies that prevents farmers from saving and reusing seeds. Consumer advocates are prominent in this debate, and intrinsic to many positions is a deepseated mistrust of governments, agribusiness and industry-funded researchers (Nature Biotechnology 2013). No matter the point of view, the debate around genetically modified crops concerns equally conventionally bred cultivars, thus it is independent on the breeding technology. In fact, this boundary may become fuzzier with the new technologies of genetic engineering (see above, new breeding technologies). Unfortunately, this is not reflected as it should be in terms of variety release, hence crops developed through genetic engineering are in some countries subjected to an over-regulation – based extraordinarily on the process and not on the product itself – that makes their marketing very heavy on time and costs. This in 68

Modern agriculture on plant genetic diversity

the end may explain why just a few large private companies commercialize seeds of genetically modified crops.

Switching from a peasant-based agriculture for self-subsistence and local supply to a corporate export-oriented agriculture Subsistence agriculture is often not a choice and subsistence farmers are poor. Both inter-species and intra-species diversity are crucially important for subsistence farmers, who, far from commercial seed suppliers, grow an assortment of crops – including many underutilized varieties whose landraces are central for the dynamic conservation of genetic resources (see Fanzo et al., chapter 20, this volume). On the other hand, the goal of commercial agriculture is to make money out of crop production. Commercial farmers seek to maximize crop yields and therefore they rely on seeds of improved cultivars. A farmer of the commercial model typically focuses on one or a few crops. Commercial farmers must also respond to specifications imposed by export trade when shipping production abroad is the objective. These specifications tend to require homogeneous products. Homogeny, similar to economies of scale, and the use of advanced technologies only fit with large production schemes. Thus, commercial agriculture goes hand in hand with loss of diversity at the farm level, with uniformity of crops and with standardization of field practices. In turn, this represents a significant loss of traditional agricultural knowledge. In a subsistence setting, crop production is often used for household self-provisioning, with little surplus for sale or trade. Yet, this distinction is never static, and farmers often look for the chance to go beyond subsistence by participating in trade in some degree. In doing so, they slowly enter into market environments and become subject to the own demands of the commercial channels. The challenge is to find middle ground: forms of sustainable commercial agricultural production must be explored (Ortiz 2011b). Maintenance of plant genetic diversity must be valued before subsistence farmers move to other forms of living. In the end, genetic diversity is critical to the food system but the need to global food supplies cannot be ignored.

Reservations about the consolidation of the seed sector Concentration of seed producers Although constrained by the self-replicating nature of seeds, a commercial seed sector developed in the eighteenth century. Later, the production and release of the first hybrid cultivars changed the circumstances and in the decade of the 1960s, mostly based on the worth of their hybrids, large seed companies purchased small companies to the point that at this moment, four firms control 56 per cent of proprietary seed sales (Howard 2009). This situation is at the basis of several concerns, one of which is the impact on plant genetic diversity. Consolidation has consequences for intra-specific diversity, whereby less profitable seed lines from the acquired companies usually get eliminated and focus is put on the development of higher producing cultivars under very specific conditions; and for inter-specific diversity, whereby only the most rewarding crops are retained and benefit from public and private research (Howard 2009). Moreover, modern improvement of cultivars usually prioritizes those types than cannot be reused by farmers, with the added penalty from a diversity point of view that evolution in farmers’ fields is prevented. The effects of consolidation are more pronounced in developed countries, whose farmers cannot obtain self-reproducing seeds and genetically diverse germplasm, and are thus constrained 69

M. Carmen de Vicente

to grow products that they must buy yearly. Therefore, for now, farmers in developing countries, where seed saving is still prevalent (estimated at 80–90 per cent), hold the key to open opportunities for new and more diverse types of agriculture.

Intellectual property of plant genetic diversity For millennia, farmers have created, exchanged and developed their own cultivars. Farmers and their communities have been in charge of managing genetic resources, safeguarding their diversity and contributing to the world’s food supply. Even today, subsistence farmers save seeds or exchange or purchase them from other farmers, giving them control of seeds. But the way the seed industry works affects the amount of used plant genetic diversity, its maintenance, natural evolution and its ownership. First, it was the release of high-yielding hybrid crops that forced farmers to re-buy seeds annually; then the patent-like protection of seeds via plant breeders’ rights; later the full-patent protection of genetically modified seeds that some countries allowed; and more recently the development of ‘terminator’ technology that, if marketed, would make transgenic seeds incapable of self-reproducing. Whatever the protection – biological or legal – originally meant to encourage plant breeding and look after higher crop diversity in the fields, modern commercial agriculture is less diverse and more uniform; just the opposite to the situation where seeds could be self-reproduced, reused and exchanged. On one hand, it is acknowledged that what is available in nature cannot be patented and should be accessible for continuous use. On the other hand, this should be compatible with a model that fosters innovation and allows recapturing development costs. This concerns formal breeders and farmers. Private seed companies want to maximize profit with their varieties, but cannot ignore the importance of food security in developing countries. Governments (at least in some countries) are interested in reacting to public opinion, in particular as it affects poorer farmers. The effects of the modern seed industry must be balanced with alternatives to seed production and the conservation of seed biodiversity. Fortunately, there is a changing environment and some initiatives are under way. The Open Source Seed Initiative seeks to enhance awareness and understanding of the issue around access to genetic diversity.

Increasing homogeny within global food supplies Consolidation of the seed industry is a sign of globalization that greatly affects food value chains. Commercial agriculture, by definition intensive, relies on high yielding uniform cultivars, combining a suite of the most desirable traits to make the most of the crop harvest. This uniformity over large regions disrupts the environmental balance and renders cultivars more vulnerable to the pressure by pathogens and to the global challenges of climate. But there is more. A recent attempt to relate the diversity of crops with national food supplies shows that at the global level these are more and more similar, mostly relying on a few global crops (Khoury et al. 2014). Local and regional crops, some of them highly nutritious, are neglected, with implications for human health. Furthermore, less genetic diversity in food production and a more homogeneous food supply are global threats. Modern seeds are developed for commercial farmers and large uniform settings. The seed industry does not produce seeds well-adapted to particular ecological situations. The current situation in terms of the number of crops and species diversity may be insufficient to cope with climate change, and in the long term may involve the risk of food emergency. For people, the standard diet lacks the nutrients that diversity provides for human well-being. Thus, it seems urgent to recover an adequate balance in agriculture worldwide with respect to plant genetic diversity. 70

Modern agriculture on plant genetic diversity

Conclusion Commercial agriculture has reduced the diversity of agricultural landscapes and that of agroecosystem biodiversity (Klein et al. 2005), hence the future of agriculture must find a way to reconcile global food supply needs with greater diversity and its restoration in terms of crops – noting that diversity within species is at least as important as diversity between species. For reasons of vulnerability to nature’s challenges, agricultural production will be incompatible with increasing narrowness of plant genetic resources. A variety of cropping systems will need to live side-by-side for improved sustainability and greater resilience. New knowledge will also be necessary to improve systems for the intensification of agriculture with a view on ecosystem efficiency. A compromise will be required between global and local production schemes, both valorizing diversity along the value chain. This has been declared by the FAO, on the occasion of naming 2014 as the International Year of Family Farming: ‘family farming is the predominant form of agriculture both in developed and developing countries and family farmers are an important part of the solution for a world free from poverty and hunger’ (FAO 2014). In this context, the job of farmers maintaining diversity must continue to be acknowledged and supported. Future research will need to resort to all avant-garde technologies available, while respecting all forms of production and consumption. Breeding will need to make the most of diversity and science and technology to continue increasing the productivity of staple crops, while being more mindful about the need for cultivars that can yield adequately using less water and less toxic inputs. Practices such as ‘evolutionary plant breeding’ might be considered to allow the dynamic diversity enhancement of populations and adaptation to local conditions (Ceccarelli 2014), as well as the use of varietal mixtures where seeds harbor resistances to different pathogens (Ammann 2009). Agroecological methods will need to be developed that pursue higher yields by focusing on management practices targeted to farmers’ field conditions and choices. In parallel, the portfolio of food crops will need to expand, taking in traditional cultivars and crops that have been neglected – the so-called orphan crops – by market oriented research. Indeed, traditional cultivars and orphan crops may well fill in periods of climate and economic distress and ensure a healthy diet; however, they have been deprived of improved cultivars and good agronomic practices. Research strategies will include underutilized crops in formal funding plans, allocating necessary investments to the application of the latest portfolio of technologies proven successful in basic crops. This will benefit from the creation of research networks that work cooperatively in the generation and sharing of information in all fields involved. Initiatives of this type are already under way such as the African Orphan Crops Consortium (AOCC), which starting in 2014 announced an international effort to sequence, assemble and annotate the genomes of 100 African traditional crops and 100 lines for each of the crops selected. It is expected that this great project, which includes academia, civil society organizations, the public and the private sectors, will serve as a blueprint for similar undertakings to take full advantage of the use of plant genetic diversity in modern agriculture for our generation and the generations to come. Finally, it will be important to constantly educate and raise the awareness of consumers about plant diversity, on one hand stimulating their demand for a wider range of crops, and also ensuring that access to an array of crops is adequately valued by society.

Acknowledgements Thanks to José Esquinas-Alcázar and Humberto Gómez-Paniagua for their suggestions for the outline and the discussions about some of the issues of debate. 71

M. Carmen de Vicente

Disclaimer The author is currently an employee of the European Commission, but is authoring this chapter in her private capacity. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

Note 1 A compilation of research publications resulting over the life of the Generation Challenge Program is accessible here: http://www.generationcp.org/communications/research-publications.

References Ammann, K. 2009. Why farming with high tech methods should integrate elements of organic agriculture. New Biotechnology, 25(6): 378–388. Andersson, M. S. and de Vicente, M. C. 2009. Gene flow between crops and their wild relatives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bellon, M. R., Berthaud, J., Smale, M., Aguirre, J. A., Taba, S., Aragón, F., Díaz, J. and Castro, H. 2003. Participatory landrace selection for on-farm conservation: an example from the Central Valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 50: 401–416. Biodiversity International 2015. Payment for agrobiodiversity conservation services (PACS). http://www. bioversityinternational.org/pacs/. Brown, A. H. D. 2000. The genetic structure of crop landraces and the challenge to conserve them in situ on farms. In: Genes in the field: on-farm conservation of crop diversity, Brush, S. B. (ed.), pp. 29–48. Boca Raton: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Ceccarelli, S. 2014. GM crops, organic agriculture and breeding for sustainability. Sustainability, 6: 4273–4286. Christiansen, M. J., Andersen, S. B. and Ortiz, R. 2002. Diversity changes in an intensively bred wheat germplasm during the 20th Century. Molecular Breeding, 9: 1–11. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2000. COP 5 Decision V/5. Available at http://www.cbd.int/ decision/cop/?id=7147. de Vicente, M. C. and Tanksley, S. D. 1993. QTL analysis of transgressive segregation in an interspecific tomato cross. Genetics, 134: 585–596. de Vicente, M. C. and Andersson, M. S. (eds.) 2006. DNA banks – providing novel options for genebanks? Topical reviews in agricultural biodiversity. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Esquinas-Alcázar, J. and Hilmi, A. 2008. Las negociaciones del tratado internacional sobre los recursos fitogenéticos para la alimentación y la agricultura. Recursos Naturales y Ambiente, 53: 20–29. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1986. Report of the Working Group of the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources (Rome, 2–3 June 1986, CPGR/87/3, October 1986). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1995. Dimensions of need – an atlas of food and agriculture. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2009. ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. http://www.planttreaty.org/sites/default/files/i0510e.pdf. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2010. The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. International year of family farming. http://www.fao. org/family-farming-2014/home/main-messages/en/. FAO/IPGRI. 2002. Review and development of indicators for genetic diversity, genetic erosion and genetic vulnerability (GDEV): summary report of a joint FAO/IPGRI workshop (Rome, 11–14 September 2002). Frankel, O. H. 1984. Genetic perspectives of germplasm conservation. In: Genetic manipulation: impact on man and society, Arber, W. K., Llimensee, K., Peacock, W. J. and Starlinger, P. (eds.), pp. 161–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frankel, O. H. and Bennett, E. (eds.) 1970. Genetic resources in plants-their exploration and conservation. International biological programme handbook 11. Oxford: Blackwell.

72

Modern agriculture on plant genetic diversity Frison, C., López, F. and Esquinas, J. 2011. Plant genetic resources and food security: stakeholder perspectives on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture – issues in agricultural biodiversity. Rome: FAO. Frison, C., López, F. and Esquinas-Alcazar, J. T. 2011. Plant genetic resources and food security: stakeholder perspectives on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Washington, DC: Earthscan. Gepts, P. and Papa, R. 2003. Possible effects of (trans)gene flow from crops on the genetic diversity from landraces and wild relatives. Environmental Biosafety Research, 2: 89–103. Goddart, M. E. and Hayes, B. J. 2007. Genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 124(6): 323–330. Gómez-Pando, L., Eguiluz, A., Jimenez, J., Falconí, J. and Heros Aguilar, E. 2009. Barley (Hordeum vulgare) and kiwicha (Amaranthus caudatus) improvement by mutation induction in Peru. In: Induced plant mutations in the genomics era, Q.Y. Shu (ed.), pp. 330–332. Rome: FAO. Hajjar, R. and Hodgkin, T. 2007. The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: a survey of developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica, 156: 1–13. Hammer, K. and Teklu, Y. 2008. Plant genetic resources: selected issues from genetic erosion to genetic engineering. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 109(1): 15–50. Hawkes, J. G. 1983. The diversity of crop plants. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Hazell, P. B. R. (2009). The Asian Green Revolution. IFPRI Discussion Paper. 00911. van Heerwaarden, J., Hellin, J., Visser, R. F. and van Eeuwijk, F. A. 2009. Estimating maize genetic erosion in modernized smallholder agriculture. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 119: 875–888. Howard, P. 2009. Visualizing consolidation in the global seed industry: 1996–2008. Sustainability, 1: 1266–1287. James, C. 2013. Global status of biotech/GM crops: 2013. ISAAA Brief 46. Ithaca NY: ISAAA. Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. 2014a. Improved barley varieties – feeding people from the equator to the arctic. http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/news/pbgbarley-peru.html. Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture 2014b. High quality mutant rice varieties widely grown in Viet Nam. http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/news/rice-vietnam.html. Khoury, C. K., Bjorkman, A. D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L. H. and Struik, P. C. 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11): 4001–4006. Klein, A., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Thies, C. and Tscharntke, T. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8(8): 857–874. Konvalina, P., Capouchova, I., Stehno, Z., Moudry, J. and Moudry, J. Jr. 2010. Agronomic characteristics of the spring forms of the wheat landraces (einkorn, emmer, spelt, intermediate bread wheat) grown in organic farming. Journal of Agrobiology, 27(1): 9–17. Louette, D. and Smale, M. 2000. Farmers’ seed selection practices and traditional maize varieties in Cuzalapa, Mexico. Euphytica, 113: 25–41. Mackay, M. and Street, K. 2004. Focused identification of germplasm strategy – FIGS. In: Proceedings of the 54th Australian cereal chemistry conference and the 11th Wheat breeders’ assembly, pp. 138–141. Melbourne: Cereal Chemistry Division, Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI). Maxted, N., Guarino, L., Myer, L. and Chiwona, E. A. 2002. Towards a methodology for on-farm conservation of plant genetic resources. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 49: 31–46. Nakhutsrishvili, G., Akhalkatsi, M. and Abdaladze, O. 2009. Main threats to the mountain biodiversity in Georgia (the Caucasus). Mountain Forum Bulletin, 9(2): 18–19. Nature Biotechnology 2013. Editorial. 31: 767, doi: 10.1038/nbt.2700. Ortiz, R. 2011a. Revisiting the Green Revolution: seeking innovations for a changing world. Chronicha horticulturae, 51(1): 6–11. Ortiz, R. 2011b. Agrobiodiversity management for climate change. In: Agrobiodiversity management for food security: a critical review, Lenne, J. M. and Wood, D. (eds.), pp. 189–211. Amsterdam: CAB International. Park, T. H., Vleeshouwers, V. G. A. A., Jacobsen, E., Van der Vossen, E. and Visser, R. G. F. 2009. Molecular breeding for resistance to Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.): a perspective of cisgenesis. Plant Breeding, 128: 109–117. Phillips, R. L. 2010. Mobilizing science to break yield barriers. Crop Science, 50: S99–S108. Pingali, P. L. 2012. Green Revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(31): 12302–12308. Piperno, D. R., Ranere, A. J., Holst, I., Iriarte, J. and Dickau, R. 2009. Starch grain and phytolith evidence for early ninth millennium B.P. maize from the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(13): 4957–4958.

73

M. Carmen de Vicente Pressoir, G. and Berthaud, J. 2004. Population structure and strong divergent selection shape phenotypic diversification in maize landraces. Heredity, 92: 95–101. Schröder, S., Begemann, F. and Harrer, S. 2007. Agrobiodiversity monitoring – documentation at European level. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, 2(Supplement 1): 29–32. Shu, Q. Y. (ed.) 2009. Induced plant mutations in the genomic era. Rome: Joint FAO/IAEA Programme – Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0956e/i0956e.pdf. Smale, M. 1997. The Green Revolution and wheat genetic diversity: some unfounded assumptions. World Development, 25(8): 1257–1269. Spooner, D., van Treuren, R. and de Vicente, M. C. 2005. Molecular markers for genebank management. IPGRI Technical Bulletin, 10. Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. Tanksley, S. D. and McCouch, S. R. 1997. Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science, 277: 1063–1066. Teklu, Y. and Hammer, K. 2006. Farmers’ perception and genetic erosion of Ethiopian tetraploid wheat landraces. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 53: 1099–1113. Thrupp, L. A. 1998. Cultivating diversity: agrobiodiversity and food security. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Tilman, D., Balzerb, C., Hill, J. and Beforta, B. L. 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108: 20260–20264. Wood, D. and Lenne, J. M. 1997. The conservation of agrobiodiversity onfarm: questioning the emerging paradigm. Biodiversity Conservation, 6: 109–129. Zarahieva, M. and Monneveux, P. 2014. Cultivated einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum L. subsp. monococcum): the long life of a founder crop of agriculture. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 61: 677–706.

74

5 AGRICULTURE AND MICRONUTRIENT AVAILABILITY Dennis D. Miller

Introduction The primary purpose of agriculture is to produce food to meet the calorie and nutrient requirements of humans. Agriculture is a relatively recent enterprise in the course of human history. It began about 11,200 years ago in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East at a time when the world population was between three and four million (Raven 2014). Today’s global population of 7.2 billion depends on agriculture as its main source of food, replacing almost entirely food acquired through hunting and gathering. Over the past 150 years, agricultural productivity and efficiency have grown enormously. Advances in agricultural technologies along with developments in food preservation and distribution technologies have enabled agriculture to more than keep pace with the rapid increases in demand for food created by an exploding population. Today, agriculture produces sufficient calories and protein to meet the needs of every human being on the planet, if that bounty was distributed according to need. Unfortunately however, hunger and malnutrition persist, affecting hundreds of millions of people. A basic premise of nutrition is that foods, produced primarily through agriculture (rather than dietary supplements), should be the primary source of essential nutrients (USDA 2011). This means that agriculture must produce and the broader food system must process, package, and distribute the wide variety of foods necessary for healthy diets; defined as sufficient calories to meet energy requirements, and balanced amounts of essential nutrients, including protein, essential fatty acids, and essential micronutrients. This is an extremely complex and challenging task, especially in the case of micronutrients. Numerous factors all along the food supply chain, from pre-planting decisions by farmers to food choices made by consumers, affect micronutrient availability (see Figure 5.1). The problem of micronutrient malnutrition, and its prevention, must be viewed in the broader food system context of the ‘triple burden of malnutrition’ (Pinstrup-Andersen 2007). This triple burden includes: 1) Undernourishment: inadequate intake of calories to meet requirements (also called hunger); 2) Micronutrient malnutrition: inadequate intakes of micronutrients to meet requirements (also called hidden hunger); and 3) Obesity: a condition caused by chronic intake of calories in excess of energy expenditure. Key contributors to the triple burden are outlined in various other chapters of this handbook. In this chapter, the overall picture of how major food groups contribute sources of micronutrients is firstly sketched, and then, the role of agricultural practices and innovations to micronutrient supply is reviewed. 75

Dennis D. Miller

Factors affecting plant-based foods

• • • • • • •

Crop selection Plant breeding (biofortification) Soil fertility Fertilization Rainfall/irrigation Insect and disease pressure Extreme weather events

Pre-harvest crops, meats, fish, dairy, eggs

• • • • •

Harvested crops, meats, fish, dairy, eggs

• Post-harvest handling (threshing, cooling, washing, trimming, etc.) • Transportation (bruising, temperature abuse, etc.) • Processing ᔜ Refining cereal grains ᔜ Fermentations ᔜ Dehydration ᔜ Salting ᔜ Canning ᔜ Freezing ᔜ Adding sugars, fats ᔜ Nutrient fortification ᔜ Addition of pre and probiotics • Storage conditions ᔜ Ambient temperature storage ᔜ Refrigerated storage ᔜ Frozen storage

Raw products

Retail foods • Food prices/affordability • Consumer food choices • Home preparation methods ᔜ Baking, boiling, roasting ᔜ Sugar/fat addition • Home fortification • Home storage

Factors affecting animal-based foods

Species of animal Breed of animal Animal diets Biotic and abiotic stresses Animal husbandry practices

• Post-harvest handling (meat cutting, milk cooling, egg washing, etc.) • Transportation

• Processing ᔜ Meat trimming ᔜ Meat grinding ᔜ Meat curing ᔜ Fish cleaning and filleting ᔜ Milk and egg pasteurization ᔜ Nutrient fortification (e.g. Vitamins A and D in milk) ᔜ Fermentation (sausage, cheese, yogurt) ᔜ Adding sugars, fats (e.g. ice cream) ᔜ Addition of pre and probiotics • Storage conditions ᔜ Ambient temperature storage ᔜ Refrigerated storage ᔜ Frozen storage

• • • •

Food prices/affordability Consumer food choices Home preparation methods Home storage

Diets consumed

Figure 5.1 Factors affecting concentrations and bioavailabilities of micronutrients in human diets Source: Miller and Welch 2013.

Sources of micronutrients Cereals Three cereal grains (wheat, rice and maize) provide more than 60 per cent of total calorie intake for the world’s population (see de Vicente, chapter 4, this volume). A substantial fraction of maize goes into animal feed but most of the wheat and rice are consumed directly by humans in the form of flour and pasta in the case of wheat and whole kernels in the case of rice. Data in Table 5.1 show that whole grain wheat and rice contain significant amounts of iron, zinc, 76

Agriculture and micronutrient availability Table 5.1 Energy values and concentrations of selected micronutrients in whole grain and refined wheat and rice. Data are means for 100 g of raw product

Energy (kcal) Protein (g) Iron (mg) Zinc (mg) Thiamin (mg) Riboflavin (mg) Niacin (mg) Folate (μg DFE) Vitamin A (μg RAE) Vitamin B-12

Wheat Flour, Whole Grain

Wheat Flour, All Purpose, White

Rice, Brown Medium Grain

Rice, Medium Grain, White

340 (14% RDA) mass (% RDA) 13.21 (29) 3.60 (20) 2.60 (32) 0.50 (38) 0.16 (15) 4.96 (36) 44 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0)

364 (15% RDA) mass (% RDA) 10.33 (22) 1.17 (7) 0.70 (9) 0.12 (9) 0.04 (4) 1.25 (9) 26 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0)

362 (15% RDA) mass (% RDA) 7.50 (16) 1.80 (10) 2.02 (25) 0.41 (32) 0.04 (4) 4.31 (31) 20 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0)

360 (15% RDA) mass (% RDA) 6.61 (14) 0.80 (4) 1.16 (14) 0.007 (1) 0.05 (5) 1.60 (11) 9 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Source: USDA 2014. National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.

thiamin, and niacin but zero or nutritionally insignificant amounts of folate, vitamin A, and vitamin B-12. Milling of wheat into refined flour and rice into polished rice removes large proportions of most micronutrients. This is because concentrations of micronutrients in cereal grains tend to be higher in the bran layers and germ, which are largely removed during milling, than in the endosperm. For example, zinc concentrations in bran and white flour fractions of Rialto wheat were 60 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg, respectively (Eagling et al. 2014). Differences are less pronounced in rice but are still substantial. Lu et al. reported that milling whole grain rice into polished rice removed nearly half of the zinc, two-thirds of the iron and more than 90 per cent of the manganese (Lu et al. 2013). Unfortunately, most people prefer the refined products so cereals, as consumed, are poor sources of most micronutrients unless they are fortified. Also, cereals contain phytates and polyphenolic compounds, both of which inhibit the bioavailability of iron and zinc (Hurrell et al. 2003; Hambidge et al. 2010). Thus, even though whole grains provide nutritionally significant amounts of iron and zinc, they may not be good sources. Phytates and polyphenolics are largely removed in the milling process but, as indicated above, so are the micronutrients.

Roots and tubers Roots and tubers, including cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes are staple foods for millions of people. These foods are generally high in starch but low in protein and most micronutrients (Table 5.2). Orange-fleshed sweet potatoes but not cassava, white potatoes or white-fleshed sweet potatoes, are good sources of pro-vitamin A. The color of sweet potato flesh varies widely, depending on the variety, from white to cream colored to orange to red. The concentration of carotenoids in sweet potato flesh is directly correlated to color and therefore vitamin A content (Bovell-Benjamin 2007). White sweet potatoes have almost no pro-vitamin A content while some varieties of orange-fleshed sweet potatoes are extremely rich sources of ß-carotene. White- and yellow-fleshed varieties are the most common in developing countries while orange-fleshed are preferred in the US (Bovell-Benjamin 2007). 77

Dennis D. Miller Table 5.2 Energy values and concentrations of selected micronutrients in cassava, potato and sweet potato. Data are means for 100 g of raw product

Energy (kcal) Protein (g) Iron (mg) Zinc (mg) Thiamin (mg) Riboflavin (mg) Niacin (mg) Folate (μg DFE) Vitamin A (μg RAE) Vitamin B-12

Cassava

White Potato (flesh & skin)

Sweet Potato (orange flesh)

Indonesian Sweet Potato (white)*

352 (15% RDA) mass (% RDA) 25 (54) 6.5 (36) 3.3 (41) 0.9 (67) 0.2 (19) 2.6 (18) 479 (120) 2 (0) 0 (0)

77 (3% RDA) mass (% RDA) 2 (4) 0.8 (4) 0.3 (4) 0.08 (6) 0.03 (3) 1.0 (7) 16 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0)

86 (4% RDA) mass (% RDA) 1.6 (3) 0.6 (3) 0.3 (4) 0.08 (6) 0.06 (6) 0.56 (4) 11 (3) 709 (101) 0 (0)

– mass (% RDA) – – – – – – – 5–58 (1–8) –

*Vitamin A data are from Bovell-Benjamin (2007). Source: USDA 2014. National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.

Legumes Legume seeds, also known as pulses, have remarkably high densities of many micronutrients. As shown in Table 5.3, they are good sources of many nutrients, except vitamins A and B-12, which are in short supply in the diets of people around the world. Legumes are particularly high in folate. They also contain high concentrations of protein and the amino acid profile of most legumes is complementary to that of cereals – cereals tend to be low in lysine and high in the sulfur amino acids while legumes are high in lysine and low in the sulfur amino acids. As in the case in cereals, however, legumes contain significant concentrations of phytates and polyphenols that limit the bioavailabilities of trace minerals like iron and zinc (Petry et al. 2010; Petry et al. 2014). Table 5.3 Energy values and concentrations of selected micronutrients in selected legume seeds. Data are means for 100 g of raw mature seeds

Energy (kcal) Protein (g) Iron (mg) Zinc (mg) Thiamin (mg) Riboflavin (mg) Niacin (mg) Folate (μg DFE) Vitamin A (μg RAE) Vitamin B-12

Lentils

Pinto beans

Chickpeas

Black beans

352 (15% RDA) mass (% RDA) 25 (54) 6.5 (36) 3.3 (41) 0.9 (67) 0.2 (19) 2.6 (18) 479 (120) 2 (0) 0 (0)

347 (15% RDA) mass (% RDA) 21 (46) 5.1 (28) 2.3 (29) 0.7 (55) 0.21 (19) 1.2 (9) 525 (131) 0 (0) 0 (0)

378 (16% RDA) mass (% RDA) 20 (43) 4.3 (24) 2.8 (35) 0.48 (37) 0.21 (19) 1.54 (11) 557 (139) 3 (0) 0 (0)

341 (15% RDA) mass (% RDA) 22 (48) 5.0 (28) 3.7 (46) 0.9 (69) 0.19 (17) 2.0 (14) 444 (111) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Source: USDA 2014. National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.

78

Agriculture and micronutrient availability

Vegetables and fruits Vegetables and fruits are major contributors of several micronutrients including folate, vitamin A and vitamin C (USDA 2011). Most vegetables and fruits are low in calories so, coupled with their high concentrations of micronutrients, they have exceptionally high nutrient densities. Bioavailabilites of most water soluble vitamins are greater than 50 per cent with the exception of folate which averages 50 per cent or less (Gregory 2008). Bioavailabilities of carotenoids tend to be lower and are quite variable depending on the food source, the fat content of the meal and other factors (Gregory 2008). Moreover, consumption of fruits and vegetables is associated with lower risks of several chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease and cancer (USDA 2011). Also, vegetables and fruits that are rich in vitamin C may enhance the bioavailability of iron from other foods consumed along with them.

Animal-source foods (meats and dairy products) Animal-source foods are good sources of several micronutrients including those that are often low or absent in staple plant-source foods such as cereal grains and roots and tubers (Miller and Welch 2013). Meats are excellent sources of numerous micronutrients including several B vitamins, iron, and zinc (Miller and Welch 2013). Dairy products are good sources of calcium, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, riboflavin, zinc, iodine and, if fortified, vitamin D (Dror and Allen 2014). While it is possible to design vegan diets (diets composed of only plant-source foods) that are nutritionally complete, the task is difficult. Vitamin B-12 is not present in nutritionally significant amounts in plant-source foods unless they are fortified. This explains the high prevalence of vitamin B-12 deficiency in populations where consumption of animal-source foods is low (Stabler and Allen 2004). In a two-year study of Kenyan school children, supplementation of diets with animal-source foods increased intakes of heme iron, pre-formed vitamin A and vitamin B-12. Moreover, the authors reported a positive relationship between intakes of animalsource foods and growth in this population where one-third of children are stunted (Grillenberger et al. 2006). In another study, Wessells and Brown (2012) found a negative correlation between the estimated prevalence of inadequate zinc intake and the percentage of zinc provided by animal-source foods. They estimated the global prevalence of inadequate zinc intakes to be 17.3 per cent. These and other studies clearly demonstrate that animal-source foods are important sources of micronutrients in many diets, especially diets of children in developing countries.

Fish Aquaculture production has been growing rapidly in recent years, up 12-fold between 1980 and 2012, with the biggest gains in Asia (see Grainger, chapter 10, this volume). Fish provide nearly 17 per cent of total animal protein and 6.5 per cent of total protein supplies worldwide (FAO 2012). Data on contributions of fish to micronutrient intakes are sparse and often overlooked but fish are good sources of vitamin A, iron and zinc (Roos et al. 2007). Small fish eaten whole are particularly good sources of these nutrients as well as calcium (World Fish 2011), as illustrated in Table 5.4, which shows the concentrations of vitamin A, iron and zinc in two species of small indigenous fish and silver carp in Bangladesh. Note that vitamin A and calcium concentrations (after correction for the removal of bones) are zero, or nearly zero, in the carp but quite high in the small fish if they are eaten whole. Furthermore, fish consumed in the same meal as other sources of iron and zinc enhances the bioavailability of iron and possibly zinc (Navas-Carretero et al. 2008). 79

Dennis D. Miller Table 5.4 Micronutrient and calcium composition of selected fish species in Bangladesh. Values are per 100 g of raw, edible parts with corrections for plate waste (mainly bones). The Chanda and Mola are consumed whole whereas the bones, intestines and livers of the carp are discarded Common name

Scientific name

Vitamin A (RAE)

Calcium (mg)

Calcium corrected for plate waste (mg)

Iron (mg)

Zinc (mg)

Chanda

Parambassis ranga Amblypharygodon mola Hypophthamichyths molitrix

1679±1000

1,000±300

900±300

1.8±0.7

2.3±0.6

2680±390

900±100

800±0

5.7±3.7

3.2±0.5

2500 μg RAE in 100g of fish; 140g of this fish will be enough to cover a child’s weekly requirement for vitamin A. Particular benefits accrue from small indigenous fish species consumed at local level, as they are in many parts of the world, such as fish produced in many Asian rice fields which are an important source of protein and micronutrients for local consumers. The importance of small fish in traditional diets has been increasingly highlighted because of their contribution to micronutrients as they are eaten whole and nutrient dense parts (e.g., heads, bones and liver) are not thrown away. Finally, from a nutritional point of view by-products in many cases can be of higher nutritional value than the main product, particularly in terms of essential fatty acids and micronutrients such as minerals and vitamins. The increasing global demand for fish oil as a nutritional supplement has also made it profitable to extract highly valued fish oil from by-products such as tuna heads. Mineral supplements can be made out of fish bones, although this is not yet widely done.

The contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to global food and nutrition security Production Global fish1 production has increased since 1950 at an average annual rate of 3.5 per cent (Figure 10.1), outpacing world population growth at 1.7 per cent. Increasing demand for food fish has been driven mainly by population growth and rising incomes, and supply has been boosted by a strong expansion of fish production, more efficient distribution channels, and increasingly by a reduction of waste. The result has been that world per capita apparent fish consumption increased impressively from an average of 9.9kg in the 1960s to 19.7kg in 2013 (Figure 10.2). Most of this growth is attributable to China, which has dramatically expanded its fish production, particularly from aquaculture. Its per capita apparent fish consumption also increased at an average annual rate of 5.7 per cent in the period 1990–2012 to about 35.4kg in 2012, nearly double the annual per capita fish supply in the rest of the world of about 19.2kg in that year. Average fish consumption has increased markedly in developing regions but has still not reached that of developed regions. Between 1961 and 2011, annual apparent fish consumption per capita in developing regions rose from 5.2kg to 17.9kg, and in low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) from 4.4 to 8.6kg. Whereas fish consumed in developed countries is increasingly dependent on imports owing to steady demand and declining domestic fishery production, fish consumption in developing countries tends to be supply-driven and based on locally and seasonally available products. However, as incomes increase, imports are also rising in emerging economies and providing a more diverse range of species to consumers. Increased and more widespread consumption of fish by low-income populations offers an important means for improving food security and nutrition. Although fish accounts for about 17 per cent of the global population’s intake of animal protein, this share can exceed 50 per cent in some countries. In West African coastal countries, where fish has traditionally been central to diets, the proportion of dietary proteins that comes from fish is very high: e.g., 43 per cent of animal proteins in Senegal; 68 per cent in Sierra Leone; 52 per cent in The Gambia; and 46 per cent in Ghana. The same applies to some Asian countries and Small Island States, where the contribution from fish as a source of animal protein is also high: e.g., 72 per cent in Maldives; 66 per cent in Cambodia; 56 per cent in Bangladesh; 56 per cent in Sri Lanka; and 55 per cent in Indonesia (HLPE 2014; COFI:FT 2014). 155

Richard Grainger

Million tonnes 180 160 140

Aquaculture production Capture production

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2013

Figure 10.1 World capture fisheries and aquaculture production Source: FAO Statistics and Information Branch, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.

Crucially, also, much of the fishing in developing countries is undertaken by small-scale fisheries. These account for 90 per cent of fisher folk. Small-scale fisheries, as compared to larger-scale (sometimes called industrial) fisheries, generally make broader direct and indirect contributions to food security: they make affordable fish available and accessible to poor populations and are keys to sustaining livelihoods of marginalized and vulnerable populations in many developing countries. The importance of small-scale fisheries (including inland fisheries) in terms of overall production and contribution to food security and nutrition is often underestimated or ignored. Catches from subsistence fishing are rarely included in national catch statistics. There is, however, sufficient evidence to support a focus on small-scale fisheries for food security and nutrition interventions in developing countries. Larger-scale industrial fisheries can also contribute to the food security and nutrition of the poor in developing countries, especially when they favour the wide commercialization of cheap, easily stored and transported (e.g., canned) nutritious pelagic fish such as sardine, pilchard, herring, anchovy or even tuna, species which small-scale fishing vessels are generally far less efficient at catching. As noted in relation to international fish trade, revenues generated by large-scale operations can also contribute indirectly to food security through employment creation where legislation to protect decent working conditions is in place and enforced. However, small- and large-scale fleets (e.g., trawlers) can compete for resources and fishing zones, leading to conflicts in zones where they jointly operate, which can often increase smallscale operators’ vulnerability, threaten their well-being, incomes and food security, as well as negatively impact on coastal habitats. This has led many countries to introduce restrictions on larger vessels fishing in near-shore waters.

Capture fishery versus aquaculture production After several decades of rapid growth, global capture fishery production has leveled off since the 1990s at about 90 million tonnes per year (Figure 10.1), of which around 80 million tonnes is taken in marine waters and 10 million tonnes in inland waters. Catches by fishing country are 156

Fisheries and aquaculture

highly skewed with, e.g., 19 countries (10 in Asia) accounting for more than 78 per cent of global marine catches. The Northwest and Western Central Pacific are the areas with highest catches. Production in the Southeast Pacific fluctuates wildly and is always strongly influenced by climatic variations, most notably by the El Niño phenomenon affecting the abundance of anchoveta (a species fished predominantly for fishmeal production). The only area showing a continuing increasing trend in catch is the Indian Ocean which was the last marine area to experience fisheries development. Global inland waters capture production has shown a steadily increasing trend since the 1950s and reached nearly 12 million tonnes in 2013, but still only represented about 13 per cent of total global capture production. Statistics are particularly problematical for inland fisheries for a variety of reasons (Bartley et al. 2015) and the increase in reported production is probably due partly to improving statistics but also to stock enhancement schemes such as the release of hatchery-reared fish fry to the wild. Inland fisheries comprise small-scale artisanal and subsistence fisheries involving very large numbers of fishers from highly dependent fishing communities (e.g., on the Mekong River) as well as some semi-industrial fisheries in the large lakes and reservoirs. The highly-dispersed small-scale and subsistence fisheries are notoriously difficult to monitor but increasing efforts are being made to do this in some water systems such as the Mekong River and Lake Victoria. In contrast to capture fisheries, global aquaculture production has been increasing over many decades, but growth has been particularly rapid since the 1990s with an annual average growth rate of over 6 per cent since 2000. Production reached 70 million tonnes in 2013 (worth US$150 billion in first sale value), plus 27 million tonnes of aquatic algae (worth almost US$7 billion). China alone accounted for 59 per cent of the global total and was followed by six other Asian countries as the world’s top producers. Aquaculture development remains imbalanced with Asia accounting for 88 per cent of world production. Africa’s production has lagged the rest of the world although growth of the sector has been high in recent years; with the notable exception of Egypt, commercial aquaculture still remains undeveloped on the continent. The major contributor to recent growth of aquaculture is the rapid expansion of carp species in Asia. Since 1980 aquaculture has grown more rapidly in inland waters (e.g., constructed fish ponds, cages in lakes and reservoirs, fish culture in rice paddies) than in marine waters because it is easier to achieve, requiring less investment in infrastructure and technological expertise. Freshwater fish farming makes the greatest contribution to the supply of affordable protein-rich food to people still in poverty in developing countries and is expected to be a lead player in achieving food and nutrition security in the long term. Non-fed species such as filter-feeding carps and molluscs have an obvious attraction and are an important component of global aquaculture (accounting for about 21 million tonnes in 2012), but growth in the production of fed species is greater due to various constraints concerning the culture of non-fed species such as limited capacity in mollusc seed production. Aquatic plant production has been growing rapidly and it is estimated that in 2012 about 9 million tonnes of farmed seaweeds were used for direct human consumption.

Trade Fish remains among the most traded food commodities worldwide with 200 countries reporting exports of fish and fishery products in 2014. The fishery trade is especially important for developing nations, in some cases accounting for more than half of the total value of traded commodities. In 2013, it represented about 10 per cent of total agricultural exports and 1 per cent of world merchandise trade in value terms. The share of total fishery production exported 157

Richard Grainger

in different product forms for human consumption or non-edible purposes grew from 25 per cent in 1976 to 36 per cent (60 million tonnes, live-weight equivalent) in 2014. China is, by far, the largest exporter of fish and fishery products. However, since 2011, it has become the world’s third-largest importing country, after the USA and Japan. The European Union is the largest market for imported fish and fishery products, and its dependence on imports is growing. An important change in trade patterns is the increased share of developing countries in fishery trade. Developing economies saw their share rise to 54 per cent of total fishery exports by value in 2014, and more than 60 per cent by quantity (live weight). Although developed countries continue to dominate world imports of fish and fishery products, their share has decreased. Exports from developing countries have increased significantly in recent decades also thanks to the lowering of tariffs. This trend follows the expanding membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the entry into force of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, and rising disposable incomes in emerging economies. However, several factors continue to constrain developing countries in accessing international markets, including meeting the stringent food quality and safety requirements of the importing countries. Fish exports can help in poverty alleviation and improved food security and nutrition by providing employment in the fish production, processing and supply chain activities and generating hard currency earnings. Typically, developing countries can export high-value fish species and import low-value but nutritious and more affordable species. Several African countries have been net exporters of fish products in terms of value, but net importers in terms of quantity. Policy makers can try to ensure that such benefits reach impoverished communities but this is not always realized as can happen, e.g., when fish caught in a country’s waters are landed abroad. The granting of fishing licenses to foreign vessels can provide valuable sources of revenue from foreign earnings to national governments but it is essential that these are properly managed and strictly enforced to ensure the sustainability of the fishery resources. Developing nation governments have not always negotiated good agreements with foreign fishing operators for the resources extracted from their fisheries and sometimes very remunerative international fish trade co-exists with miserable living conditions for the local communities who have been displaced by industrial-scale operators, or excluded from the trade by stringent commercial regulations, losing access to employment and to a rich food source. The increasing demand and trade of fish at the global level has triggered more farming of fish, particularly for a few high-value species such as shrimp and salmon as well as more affordable species such as carp, tilapia and pangasius. In some low-income countries monoculture of fish has increasingly replaced traditionally consumed small fish species with their unique nutritional composition. However, polyculture of carp and small indigenous fish species is an example of how aquaculture could add, rather than replace, fish to vulnerable local diets. In some cases small indigenous fish species, such as Mola in Bangladesh, are increasingly being traded. The growing appreciation of its exceptional nutritional quality has led to an increased demand and higher market price for Mola. In Africa, small lake sardines such as Dagaa/Mola (Rastrineobola argentea) from Lake Victoria and similar species, such as Kapenta (Limnothrissa miodon and Stolothrissa tanganicae) in southern Africa, are an important source of micronutrients in traditional diets as they are consumed whole. Significant volumes of Dagaa, e.g., are being traded to areas outside their region of capture, providing nutritious food to people in neighbouring countries. At the same time, these small indigenous fish are also being traded more and more as a valuable feed ingredient as a result of a well-paying market. Increased trade of fisheries products has increased the need for fish to be processed, enabling the export of the higher valued parts of the fish and leaving less valued by-products such as 158

Fisheries and aquaculture

heads, viscera and backbones for local markets. By-products represent between 30–70 per cent of the fish after being processed at industrial level. In most cases these by-products are further processed into fishmeal and fish oil, primarily for feed purposes, therefore indirectly contributing to food security. A significant, but declining, proportion of world fisheries production is processed into fishmeal (mainly for high-protein feed) and fish oil (as a feed additive in aquaculture and also for human consumption for health reasons) (Figure 10.2). Fishmeal and fish oil can be produced from whole fish (typically from large scale dedicated fisheries), fish remains or other fish by-products. The share of production derived from fish residues has been growing and about 35 per cent of global fishmeal production was obtained from fish residues in 2013, and the proportion of global fish production used as fishmeal has decreased from an average of 23 per cent (26 million tonnes/yr) in the 1990s to 10 per cent in 2013 (17 million tonnes). These changes are due to the development and use of fishmeal replacers, including plant proteins, waste products from fish and terrestrial animals and the cultue of improved breeds of aquatic animals with better feed conversion rates. As more fish is being processed on an industrial scale before being sold, more of the waste, or rather, by-products can potentially be processed into valuable products for direct human consumption. Although most of these by-products are not utilized at present for human consumption, international trade has opened up new markets for fish products traditionally not consumed in their country of origin. For example, there is a growing demand for fish heads in some Asian and African markets, a product not considered as food in other regions. For years, Nile perch caught in Lake Victoria has been locally processed, and high-valued fresh fillets exported out of the region. By-products such as backbones and frames have become a popular product on the local market, are now important products traded at local and regional level, and are an important source of nutrients in local diets. As countries compete in the global economy, national and international policies and interventions have so far provided strong support to international fish trade, often giving little attention and support to regional and domestic fisheries trade, despite its potential to improve food security and nutrition, especially for vulnerable groups. The large number of small-scale, informal producers and traders (who are usually marginalized by the globalization of fish trade oriented to a small number of globally traded species) would be better able to engage with the market opportunities created by domestic or regional trade, where demand exists for a diverse set of local species and products that small-scale fisheries can produce and that are easier for them to commercialize. Focusing more policy and development attention to regional or domestic trade in developing countries could help make more fish available locally, contributing to reduce a growing gap between the demand and supply of fish, which fish imports cannot alone alleviate. In Africa, renewed focus on the local trade of products could also provide a further stimulus for aquaculture, which has been contending with production challenges. Increased demand for fish by the growing urban population could also boost investments in, e.g., peri-urban aquaculture. The main focus of fish certification schemes to date has been on eco-labeling to address environmental sustainability issues. These schemes are also progressively moving to include social responsibility and labour considerations, but have failed so far to include food security and nutrition considerations. With limited exceptions, certification concerns predominantly developed countries and large-scale fisheries. More work is needed on appropriate indicators of the food security and nutrition outcomes of fisheries and aquaculture operations so that improvements can be better targeted and monitored. As certification schemes currently operate their effect on food security and nutrition is unclear, but with refinement they offer a powerful tool to promote best practices for fisheries and aquaculture. 159

Richard Grainger

Employment FAO statistics indicate that 58.3 million people were engaged in the primary sector of capture fisheries and aquaculture in 2012, of which 37 per cent were engaged full-time. Of all people employed in the fisheries and aquaculture primary sector, 84 per cent were in Asia, followed by Africa with more than 10 per cent. About 18.9 million were engaged in fish farming (more than 96 per cent in Asia). In the period 2010–2012, at least 21 million people were capture fishers operating in inland waters (more than 84 per cent in Asia). Employment in the sector has grown faster than the world’s population. In 2012, it represented 4.4 per cent of the 1.3 billion people economically active in the broad agriculture sector worldwide (2.7 per cent in 1990). Overall, women accounted for more than 15 per cent of all people directly engaged in the fisheries primary sector in 2012. The proportion of women exceeded 20 per cent in inland water fishing and up to 90 per cent in secondary activities (e.g., processing). The FAO estimates that, overall, fisheries and aquaculture assure the livelihoods of 10–12 per cent of the world’s population. Most of these fish workers live in developing countries, earn low incomes, and often depend on casual work. They are typically not covered by regulations of work or social protection such as unemployment or pension schemes or health insurance. Although the International Labor Organization adopted the Work in Fishing Convention No 188 in 2007, progress towards ratification of Covenant 188 concerning working conditions in the fishing sector has been slow, especially in the developing world. Nearly half of the 120 million people who work in the capture fisheries sector and its supply chains (e.g., processing, trading) are women. This is essentially due to the very high number of female workers engaged in fish processing (including in processing factories) and in (informal) small-scale fish trading operations. However, small-scale fisheries and supply-chain jobs outside production are not well recorded, so the actual number of women may be higher. Comparable estimates are not yet available for the 38 million aquaculture sector workers but it is likely that women figure prominently here also. Much of women’s work, such as gleaning, post-harvest processing and vending, is not recognized or not well recorded, despite its economic and other contributions. Gender disaggregated data are not routinely collected and, partly as a result of this, little policy attention is given to women and to the gender dimension of the sector. The large role of women in this industry has significant implications for its role in food and nutrition security, as providing women with a source of income has important flow-on benefits for food access at the household level in income-poor contexts (see also Rammohan, chapter 24, this volume).

Risks and pressures affecting world fisheries Status of fishery resources As stated above, global capture fishery production has leveled off since the 1990s (see Figure 10.1) as more of the world’s fish stocks became either fully fished or overfished. The proportion of assessed marine fish stocks fished within biologically sustainable levels declined from 90 per cent in 1974 to 71.2 per cent in 2011, when 28.8 per cent of fish stocks were estimated as fished at a biologically unsustainable level and, therefore, overfished (see Figure 10.3). Of the stocks assessed in 2011, fully fished stocks accounted for 61.3 per cent and underfished stocks 9.9 per cent. Stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels are defined as those that have abundance lower than the level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and are therefore overfished. They require strict management plans to rebuild them to full and biologically 160

Fisheries and aquaculture

Population (billions) and food supply (kg/capita) 21

Fish utilization (million tonnes) 150 Food

18

Non-food uses

120

Population (Billions)

15

Food supply (kg/capita)

90

12 9

60

6 30 3 0 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

0 2013

Figure 10.2 World fish utilization and supply Source: FAO Statistics and Information Branch, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.

100% 90% 80% 70% Overfished (unsustainable)

60% 50%

Fully fished (sustainable)

40%

Underfished (sustainable)

30% 20% 10% 0% 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 Figure 10.3 Status of fishery resources 2011 Source: FAO (2014).

sustainable productivity. Stocks fished within biologically sustainable levels have abundance at or above the level associated with MSY. Stocks fished at the MSY level produce catches that are at or very close to their maximum sustainable production. Therefore, they have no room for further expansion in catch, and require effective management to sustain their MSY. Stocks with a biomass considerably above the MSY level (i.e., underfished stocks) may have some potential to increase their production. 161

Richard Grainger

It has been estimated that rebuilding overfished stocks could increase production by 16.5 million tonnes and annual rent by US$32 billion (Ye et al. 2012). With the ever-strengthening declarations of international acceptance of the need to rebuild overfished stocks, the world’s marine fisheries can potentially make good progress towards long-term sustainability, so long as political will on this issue is realized. However, of equal note, fish caught can end up being dumped overboard (i.e., discarded) either due to: accidental by-catch of non-targeted species or fish which cannot be legally landed due to conservation measures (including minimum landing size limits); or due to low quality, partial damage or spoilage making them not being commercially worth landing. The volume of fish discards varies greatly between fisheries and within fisheries, with discard rates ranging from negligible in some small-scale coastal fisheries to 70–90 per cent for some demersal trawl fisheries. Global discard volumes are particularly challenging to estimate, and any global figure is prone to significant uncertainty, but the most recent estimate is 8 per cent of the world total for capture fisheries, with a lower rate of 3.7 per cent for small-scale fisheries. Discarding of dead fish is obviously a waste of natural resources and can be very detrimental to the fishery resources and their productivity, and there are increasing numbers of legal and technical efforts to reduce the by-catch of non-target species and avoid discarding in line with best practices (see reference to technical guidelines under Governance below). Over-capacity in fishing fleets has been a long-standing problem in many of the world’s fisheries and a serious contributor to the problem of overfishing. Recent data confirm that the period of high investment in large-size vessels, which peaked around the mid-1980s, is largely over. However, in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs up to 200 nautical miles from the coast), where both large and smaller operators are present, the total number and power of smaller boats have increased substantially over the same period. Global fishing capacity is still very high and, with some notable exceptions, the required adjustments in fishing capacities have not yet happened. Many fishery resources are severely depleted and subsidies (often in the form of subsidized fuel) continue although they are often not transparent. When the production environment, ecosystems or the fish stocks are degraded or overexploited, the capacities of the sector to deliver its food security and nutrition functions are reduced. The sustainability of fisheries in their environmental and ecosystem dimensions is therefore recognized to be an essential condition for food security and nutrition. In recognition of this, the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) which ‘strives to balance diverse societal objectives, by taking into account the knowledge and uncertainties about biotic, abiotic and human components of ecosystems and their interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningful boundaries’ (FAO 2003), is increasingly being implemented. Further, food security and nutrition outcomes of fisheries depend not only on stock recovery but also on access to, and distribution of, the harvest. The impacts of activities such as oil drilling, energy installations, coastal development and construction of ports and other coastal infrastructures, dams and water flow management for inland fisheries (MRC 2011), can have huge negative impacts on aquatic productivity, on habitats that sustain resources (e.g., erosion and pollution), or on the livelihoods of fishing communities (e.g., through denial of access to fishing grounds or displacement from coastal settlements). Conservation activities and the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can also impact on the livelihoods of local fishing communities. Climate change impacts are already visible, with modifications of the geographic distribution of species and warmer water species moving towards the poles, ocean acidification and changes in coastal conditions that affect habitat. This has various impacts on production. Inland fisheries and aquaculture may face higher mortality due to heatwaves, water scarcity and competition for 162

Fisheries and aquaculture

water. Climate change impacts on fish-dependent populations will depend on the evolution of fishing opportunities (evolution of resources available, entitlements and capacities to fish, evolution of operational costs in production and marketing) and the evolution of prices. Impacts of extreme events are increasing, with more risks of damage or loss of infrastructure and housing. Sea level rise might lead to the relocation of communities.

The challenges facing aquaculture Thanks increasingly to aquaculture, fish represents an important and growing contribution to the world’s animal food supply (see Figure 10.4). Following the rapid growth in aquaculture in recent decades (making it one of the fastest growing food production sectors) and the stagnation in capture fishery production, the foreseen future increase in demand for fish will have to be satisfied through aquaculture production. From an energy conversion perspective, aquaculture has key merit. Fish convert more of their feed into body mass than terrestrial animals. Aquatic animal production systems also have a lower carbon footprint per kilogram of output compared with other terrestrial animal production systems. Nitrogen and phosphorous emissions from aquaculture production systems are much lower compared to beef and pork production systems though they are slightly higher than those of poultry. Hence, aquaculture is expected to continue growing – although at a lower rate than in recent decades – and there is a strong interest amongst public and private sector enterprises in many countries to engage in this activity. However, such a positive development is contingent upon good governance ensuring the implementation of best practices (see under Governance below). Aquaculture development has come with a range of challenges and externalities which also have implications for food security, most notably the negative impacts of aquaculture on the environment. However, aquaculture experts are now more confident that the era of severe environmental problems in aquaculture has passed and that it is on the road to being more environmentally sustainable. 70

60

50

From aquaculture From capture fisheries

40

Meat, other

kg

Mutton and goat meat 30

Bovine meat Poultry meat

20

Pigmeat

10

0 1961

1971

1981

1991

2001

2011

Figure 10.4 World per capita meat and fish food supply Source: FAO Statistics and Information Branch, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.

163

Richard Grainger

Conflicts are common when aquaculture is introduced into a region where water is used for other purposes or fishery activities are already established, particularly when this is at the subsistence level. As more space is progressively allocated to aquaculture operations on lakes, water bodies or along the coast, more congestion in the areas remaining open for wild harvest can affect the fishing opportunities and negatively impact the local fishery resources. Consultation with the affected communities and careful planning is necessary to avoid such problems As is the case for livestock production, fish diseases (e.g., the early mortality syndrome) are a constant threat to production and therefore to local livelihoods. The use of antibiotics and chemicals in intensive systems are also sources of concern and many countries have put in place regulations on the use of antibiotics, drugs and chemicals in aquaculture production. Genetic improvement programmes for cultured species – even just the use of traditional breeding techniques – offer strong prospects for increasing efficiencies and yields. However, the potential release of aquaculture stock into the wild (e.g., through escapes) can constitute a risk to the ecosystem through the escapee stock becoming invasive or interbreeding with native populations and endangering the genetic integrity of wild stocks. As for capture fisheries, aquaculture operations range in scale and intensity but the implications of these for food security and nutrition outcomes is still not clear. In Africa, small-scale, subsistence aquaculture has failed to deliver the anticipated reduction of poverty and food insecurity, and interest has now shifted towards slightly larger (i.e., medium-scale), more commercially-oriented enterprises, with the hope that this new model will be more successful at delivering viable food security outcomes. In Asia, however, which dominates global aquaculture, the fact remains that 70–80 per cent of aquaculture production has come so far from small-scale farming.

Governance Governance is crucial to ensure the conservation of fishery resources and their associated ecosystem and environment, to determine access to them and the distribution of fish benefits. Almost two decades since its adoption, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995) remains a key document for achieving sustainable fisheries and aquaculture and it has evolved to embrace the ecosystem approach. The Code provides the framework and its implementation is steered by three related international agreements: •

• •

Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (UN 1995). Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas (FAO 1998). Agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (FAO 2009).

These agreements are complemented by a number of less rigorously binding documents including four international plans of action (on the incidental catch of seabirds, the catch of sharks, the management of fishing capacity and the control of fishing) (FAO 2015a), two strategies on knowledge exchange and information reporting (FAO 2015b), seven international and other guidelines (FAO 2015c) and numerous technical guidelines which are being developed continuously for fisheries and aquaculture (FAO 2015d). Many countries have introduced fisheries and aquaculture policies and legislation consistent with the 1995 Code, while other countries have plans to align them. Globally, the priority for 164

Fisheries and aquaculture

implementation is the establishment of responsible fisheries and aquaculture with due consideration of relevant biological, technical, economic, social, environmental and commercial aspects. Countries have reported progress on various aspects of the Code including establishment of systems to control fisheries operations, developing food safety and quality assurance systems, establishment of mitigation measures for post-harvest losses, and development and implementation of national plans to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and curtail fishing capacity. Several regional fishery bodies (RFBs) have implemented management measures to ensure sustainable fisheries and protect endangered species. MPAs have proved successful as conservation measures in several cases. While there has been progress in implementation of best practices in support of the Code, it has been slow and much remains to be done to address outstanding problems, meet emerging challenges and mitigate the effects of climate change. The contributions of small-scale fisheries (SSFs) to poverty alleviation and food and nutrition security are being increasingly recognized, most notably: in the Rio+20 outcome document The Future We Want; in the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VG Tenure); and in the development of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines). These initiatives aim to ensure that fishers and their communities have tenure security and market access while safeguarding their human rights. In most countries, too little attention has been given to the ways different individuals and groups (including poorer and marginalized people in the fisheries and aquaculture supply chains, but also poor consumers more generally) will gain, lose, or be excluded from access to fish resources, to other productive supply chain assets, or to fish as a food commodity. In this regard, evidence suggests that human rights instruments are important effective tools to help ensure that states fulfil their obligations, including those pertaining to the right to food. In the face of increasing and competitive economic exploitation of the oceans and freshwater, fish and food security and nutrition interests are usually acknowledged at the international level, but only in general and rhetorical terms. Detailed strategies linking production growth and sustainability to food security and nutrition are generally lacking. With the notable exception of the UN-driven initiatives, for which a very inclusive consultative process has been followed, most of the other recent ocean-related governance initiatives are deficient by their lack of representation of the small-scale operators from developing countries. Traceability in the food supply chain is increasingly becoming a requirement in major fish importing countries. It can safeguard public health and demonstrate that fish has been caught legally from a sustainably managed fishery or produced in an approved aquaculture facility. FAO technical guidelines describe best practices for certification of products and processes and for ensuring that labels on fish products are accurate and verifiable. The RFBs are the primary organizational mechanism through which states work together to ensure the long-term sustainability of shared fishery resources. Progress has been made in extending the global coverage of RFBs, which ideally will eventually result in all marine and transboundary inland aquatic regions being covered by some form of RFB or arrangement. The RFBs recognize the need for their mandates to be sound and for their practices, procedures and advice to be best practice. Most have prioritized plans for implementing review recommendations and are effectively monitoring their progress. Several RFBs have responsibilities for managing fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) or the high seas beyond the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) which are also subject to other impacts such as from shipping, pollution and deep-sea mining. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing remains a major threat to marine ecosystems. Therefore, many States are striving to implement the International Plan of Action 165

Richard Grainger

to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA–IUU), while RFBs have engaged in vigorous campaigns to combat IUU fishing. The binding Port State Measures Agreement (FAO 2009) has not yet come into force but it has the potential to be a cost-effective and efficient means of combating IUU fishing. In addition, the 2014 FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance should prove a valuable tool for strengthening compliance by flag States regarding fishing vessels. The ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) and spatial planning is becoming important in supporting implementation of the Code, particularly with respect to social license and environmental integrity. Interest in the certification of aquaculture production systems, practices, processes and products is also increasing. However, the plethora of international and national certification schemes and accreditation bodies has led to some confusion and unnecessary costs. In this regard, the FAO has developed technical guidelines on aquaculture certification and an evaluation framework for assessing such schemes. Overall, the major challenge for aquaculture governance is to ensure that the right measures are in place to guarantee environmental sustainability without destroying entrepreneurial initiative and social harmony.

Conclusion In recent years, fish has become more integrated into overall agricultural analysis, including outlook models, with the aim to have a more comprehensive and consistent examination of its medium- or long-term prospects, taking into account interactions with other foods. For example, the FAO Fish Model (developed with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) is run annually and provides projections of fish supply and demand under various scenarios and assumptions. These projections can provide valuable guidance for policy-making and planning for governments and civil society, but they are not forecasts and are uncertain due to the inherent complexity of the systems modeled, the validity of the assumptions made and the quality of the data used. Therefore the projections should not be seen as prophecies but rather indications of potentials – or, ‘sensitivity analyses’ – to the model assumptions and as starting points from which to act to improve policy-making and planning. The overall context is that of a fisheries and aquaculture sector addressing priority areas such as food security and poverty alleviation while ensuring environmental sustainability. The challenge is to translate these goals into practical action and to evaluate trade-offs between different options. Thus, the challenges are to produce more fish, to do so in a sustainable manner and to ensure that fish for food is also available where most needed. Population and income growth, together with urbanization and dietary diversification, are expected to create additional demand for animal products, including fish in developing countries. Thus, the future of the sector will be the result of social development, in its ecological, social and economic contexts, at local, regional and global scales. Improvements in feed formulation, feeding technologies, farm management and selective breeding will increase production output per feed input. Both improved fishery management and aquaculture technology will play a role in improving fish consumption, provided appropriate governance structures are in place to assist and protect small-scale operators. The steering of fisheries and aquaculture development through good management and, more broadly good governance, is essential in order for the sector to contribute to meeting the demand for fish – and including in a way that is environmentally sustainable and contributes to reducing food insecurity and poverty. This can only be achieved if ecological, social and economic sustainability concerns are addressed in an integrated way, and the ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaculture provides a practical framework to enable managers and stakeholders to do so. In 166

Fisheries and aquaculture

addition, the sector has to be integrated in multisectoral management. This is particularly important in the context of ensuring that water resources are available for both inland fisheries and aquaculture. Improved management of fisheries which would restore overfished and depleted resources can provide some increase in supply (e.g., a 10 per cent increase in capture fishery production assumed by one study) (Kelleher et al. 2009) and more stability, but this would be insufficient to meet growing demand. Therefore, the aquaculture sector warrants special attention if it is to provide most of the increase in fish production. Its continued growth has to be directed in a way that is environmentally sustainable, also in relation to required inputs, and to ensure that increased fish supply will also sustain those who are most dependent on fish for food and livelihoods. To this end, it is highly desirable that appropriate international mechanisms, instruments and standards on responsible fisheries and aquaculture be further developed and, more importantly, implemented by the international community.

Acknowledgements The chapter draws heavily on sources referred to in the endnotes and references. Valuable inputs in terms of data and suggestions were provided by the following staff of the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department: Devin Bartley, Gabriella Laurenti, Sara Montanaro, Jogeir Toppe, Stefania Vannuccini and Xiaowei Zhou.

Note 1 Throughout this chapter, ‘fish’ is taken to include fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic animals. Production quantities are in live weight-equivalent units.

References Bartley, D. M., De Graaf, G. J., Valbo-Jørgensen, J. and Marmulla, G. 2015. Inland capture fisheries: status and data issues. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 22(1): 71–77. Committee on fisheries Sub-Committee on Fish Trade (COFI:FT). 2014. Fish trade and human nutrition. FAO COFI Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, Fourteenth Session, Bergen, Norway, 24 February 2014. Available at http://www.fao.org/cofi/29401-083ff934c3ccfd8576005d8d0c19b04d6.pdf. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1998. Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2003. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 4(Supplement 2). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2009. Agreement on port state measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Available at http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_ upload/legal/docs/037t-e.pdf. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2014. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2015a. International plans of action. Available at http://www. fao.org/fishery/code/ipoa/en. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2015b. Strategies on information – code of conduct. Available at http://www.fao.org/fishery/code/strategies/en. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2015c. Guidelines – code of conduct. Available at http:// www.fao.org/fishery/code/strategies/en. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2015d. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Available at http://www.fao.org/fishery/code/publications/guidelines/en. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). 2014. Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition. Available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3844e.pdf. Kelleher, K., Willmann, R. and Arnason, R. 2009. The sunken billions: the economic justification for fisheries reform. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

167

Richard Grainger Mekong River Commission (MRC). 2011. Assessment of basin-wide development scenarios: cumulative impact assessment of the riparian countries’ water resources development plans, including mainstream dams and diversions. Available at http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/basin-reports/BDP-Assessment-of-Basinwide-Dev-Scenarios-2011.pdf. United Nations. 1995. Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. New York: UN. Ye, Y., Cochrane, K., Bianchi, G., Willmann, R., Majkowski, J., Tandstad, M. and Carocci, F. 2012. Rebuilding global fisheries: the World Summit Goal, costs and benefits. Fish and Fisheries, 14(2): 174–185.

168

11 FOOD LOSSES AND WASTE AND THE DEBATE ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Vincent Gitz and Alexandre Meybeck

Introduction Food losses and waste are being increasingly recognized as a global issue with impacts on food and nutrition security, as well as on the sustainability of food systems and their capacity to ensure global food security and nutrition in the long term. According to the FAO (2011), almost one-third of food produced is lost or wasted globally, approximately 1.3 billion tonnes per year. This raises two categories of concerns in relation to food and nutrition security (FNS). First, it seems paradoxical that so much is lost or wasted while there are still more than 800 million people suffering from hunger. This calls to analyze the relations between food losses and waste (FLW) and FNS, as well as the potential of a reduction of FLW to improve FNS. Second, FLW represents a waste of natural resources, in a context of growing food demand, driven by population and income growth and changing food consumption patterns, which raises questions about the capacity of ecosystems and natural resources to sustain it. For these two reasons FLW is increasingly presented as a symbol of the inefficiency, unfairness and unsustainability of food systems. Reducing FLW appears as a way to improve FNS now and in the future (HLPE 2011; Foresight 2011). The Zero Hunger Challenge launched in 2012 by the Secretary-General of the United Nations includes a zero-food-loss-and-waste objective, along with a 100 per cent sustainable-food-systems objective. The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) discussed ‘food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems’ in 2014, based upon a report of its High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE 2014). The present chapter is drawn from this report. It clarifies the terms of the debate, the definitions and approaches to FLW, summarizes available data on their extent, and analyzes their impact on food security and nutrition. Food losses and waste are consequences of the way food systems function, technically, culturally and economically (HLPE 2014). The very extent of food losses and waste invites to consider them not as an accident but as an integral part of food systems. The chapter reviews the range of causes of FLW along food chains, from production to consumption, organizing them from micro- to macro-levels and presents a hierarchy of solutions to reduce FLW.

169

Pinstrup-Andersen et al.

The scope of food losses and waste Food losses and waste have been approached by two different angles: either from a waste perspective, with the associated environmental concerns; or from a food perspective, with the associated food security concerns (HLPE 2014). This duality of approaches, and the inconsistent use of the terminology between studies and authors (Schneider 2013), has often led to confusion on the definition and scope of food losses and waste, contributing to unreliability and lack of clarity of data. Studies focusing on waste find their origin in the objective to diminish waste of all kinds, in order to reduce the costs and negative impacts of the treatment of waste. The interest for ‘food waste’, or rather for food-related waste, is here motivated by the fact that it represents an important part of global waste, and that the volume sent to landfill could be reduced by using it as animal feed, for energy production or as compost to return nutrients to the soil. These studies, having final global waste as their entry point, do not distinguish edible food but tend to assimilate as ‘food waste’ all organic matter resulting from food production, transformation and consumption which is ultimately treated as waste. Some distinguish ‘non-avoidable waste’, defined as the nonedible parts of food, and ‘avoidable waste’, defined as edible food waste (WRAP 2011a). The other field of study focuses on food, edible parts intended for human consumption, which are lost or discarded at some point in the food chain. Driven by a food security perspective, we retain here this second approach, focused on food, and follow the definition and scope of the HLPE (2014): ‘Food loss and waste (FLW) refers to a decrease, at all stages of the food chain from harvest to consumption in mass, of food that was originally intended for human consumption, regardless of the cause’. Many authors further distinguish between food losses and food waste (Gustavsson et al. 2011; Parfitt et al. 2010) but there are different acceptations of what these two categories mean: •

•

•

For some authors, the distinction between food loss and food waste is based on the stage of the food chain where the loss or waste of food physically happens: food losses (often denominated post-harvest losses) happen at the earlier stages of food chains, and food waste happens at the later stages, towards the consumer, with the boundary at retail or at consumer level. Other authors ground their distinction between losses and waste according to the nature or origin of the cause of loss or waste, whether its cause is ‘behavioural’ (waste) or not (loss); ‘voluntary’ (waste) or not (loss); the result of an explicit choice (waste) or not (loss), etc. Such approaches are often less operational, as they raise the difficult methodological question of determining what is really the result of choice and often tend to undervalue technical, organizational, economical and social constraints which can drive it. A third group of authors uses ‘food waste’ or ‘food wastage’ as a generic term for ‘food losses and waste’. Some expand the scope to all ‘food-related’ waste, which includes non-edible parts.

We use here, aligned with the dominant practice and with the HLPE, ‘food losses’ to designate FLW before the consumer and ‘food waste’ at consumer level. The HLPE (2014) further proposes to define food quality loss or waste (FQLW) which refers to the decrease of a quality attribute of food (nutrition, aspect, etc.), linked to the degradation of the product, at all stages of the food chain from harvest to consumption. In summary, what is considered as FLW here are diminutions of edible products occurring between the moment when a product is ready to be harvested or harvested, and the moment when it is consumed or removed from the food supply chain (Figure 11.1). Inedible fractions are not considered as FLW. Yield gaps, conversion of plant products in animal products, and overnutrition are not considered as FLW, as they are rather related to broader considerations on the efficiency of food systems. 170

Food losses and waste

Raw production (total harvest)

Planned for non human food uses (feed, energy, seed …)

Raw production planned for human food uses

Non edible

Edible

Harvest losses

Available harvested

Post-harvest losses

Available post-harvest

Process losses

Available processed

Distribution losses

Available purchased

Food

Consumer consumed waste (eaten)

Total loss and waste

Note: FLW along the food chain: Raw agricultural production is divided into food versus non-food uses, and food uses is further divided into edible and non-edible parts of produce. Total FLW is the sum, at each step of the food chain, of losses and waste of edible parts of food that were originally planned for human consumption. The figure represents the five steps (harvest, post-harvest, process, distribution, consumption) where the mass can be measured and data available in national multi-product statistics, building upon food-balance sheets, as used in FAO (2011) and described in Gustavsson et al. (2013). Inside each of these stages, and between each of these stages – and attached to them, FLW can happen for various reasons, including storage, transport etc.

Figure 11.1 Schematic representation of the definition of food losses and waste along the food chain

The extent of food losses and waste There are numerous studies on FLW with very diverse scopes, purposes and methodologies. As mentioned above they can be grouped in two major types of approaches: studies on food losses, often denominated post-harvest losses, generally focused on a product or group of products, often restricted to some stages of the food chain and generally excluding 171

Pinstrup-Andersen et al.

consumption stage; and studies on waste, often at local or national level, aiming generally to improve waste management. At global level, the study by Gustavsson and colleagues (FAO 2011) entitled Global food losses and food waste has been the most quoted and used reference on the extent of FLW.1 The methodology of the study, described in Gustavsson et al. (2013), is challenged by major data gaps for percentages of both losses and waste. Where there are gaps of knowledge, assumptions and estimations were made, based on comparable regions, commodity groups and/or steps of the food supply chain. The results have thus to be taken with great caution, as acknowledged by the authors. It is, however, the only global study currently available with FLW estimates at all levels from production to consumption and encompassing all sectors of food production, including fisheries. Its results are coherent with studies at regional/national level, as well as with sectoral studies. FAO (2011) assesses global FLW at a level of roughly one-third of the mass of edible parts of food intended for human consumption, representing about 1.3 billion tonnes per year, with average per capita FLW of 280–300 kg/year in Europe and North America and of 120–170 kg/ year in sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia (Figure 11.2). Kummu et al. (2012) used the raw data compiled for this study and calculated that this one-third decrease in mass translates in a 25 per cent decrease in calorie terms. Losses and waste differ widely between products and between regions for the same type of products (FAO 2011; Kummu et al. 2012). For instance, in Europe, cereal losses and waste are twice as high as in sub-Saharan Africa. On the other hand, in sub-Saharan Africa, milk losses and waste are twice as high as in Europe. Globally (FAO 2011; Kummu et al. 2012; Parfitt et al. 2010; Hodges et al. 2010), in lowincome countries, most FLW happen during agricultural and post-harvest steps (Figure 11.2); in middle- and high-income countries a great share of the food losses and waste occur at distribution and consumption levels. For instance, in Africa cereals are lost mostly in the first stages of the food chain. In Europe, they are lost mostly at the consumer stage. For fruits and vegetables, the differences between regions are also striking. In Africa, processing and distribution are the weak stages. In Europe, it is at consumption that most FLW occur. Losses at harvest stage are significant across all regions of the world. However, these losses do not take place for the same reasons: in developing countries they are generally due to agronomic or technical causes; in developed countries, they are mostly due to produce being rejected because of quality standards, price fluctuations, or consumer-linked reasons. Getting reliable data and information on food losses and waste is a challenge, and we highlight below some examples from Africa, Europe and the USA. The African Postharvest Losses Information System provides post-harvest weight loss estimates for seven cereal crops in sub-Saharan Africa (APHLIS 2014), at national and provincial scale. APHLIS gathers information from a network of local experts to verify loss estimates in a central database, and from this, calculate losses from all provinces of the countries in the region. Loss estimates are derived from the best-known estimates of the loss for each link in the postharvest chain. For example, APHLIS found that total post-harvest losses for cereals during harvesting, drying, handling operations, farm storage, transport and market storage in the region oscillated between 14.3 per cent and 15.8 per cent of the production during the period 2003– 2013 (APHLIS 2014). The European Union (EC 2011) has used Eurostat and other national data to estimate EU27 annual FLW at 89 million tonnes, or 179 kg per capita (EC 2011). It pointed out limitations due to lack of clarity on definitions and methodologies, as well as missing data for some sectors. Further evaluation of the Eurostat system concluded that it would be 172

Food losses and waste

FLW per capita

North America, Oceania Europe, incl. Russian Federation 296

Latin America Japan, Republic of Korea, China

North Africa, west and central Asia

281 236

223

Sub-Saharan Africa

216

South and south-eastern Asia

167

126 115 100 Kg/cap/yr

94 73 33

25

7

11

Population

1 billion people

The X-axis represents the population of a region or group of countries. The Y-axis shows per capita FLW in the given region. The grey part distinguishes consumer waste from post-harvest losses within regional food loss and waste. For each region, the area of the rectangle represents total regional FLW.

40% 36% 35%

32%

33%

36%

34% 1.3%

31% 3.7%

5.5%

4.6%

30% Percentage of FLW

10.3%

25%

12.6%

4.1%

5.6%

4.5%

10.6%

2.4%

15%

2.2%

6.3%

4.4%

12.7%

3.4%

3.9%

3.1%

3.5%

3.4%

6.6%

10.5%

11.3%

2.6% 4.6%

5.0%

20%

28% Consumption Distribution

2.7%

Processing and packing

9.6%

Post-harvest

7.5% 7.8%

10% 13.4%

5% 0%

North America, Oceania

10.8%

9.0%

Europe, Japan, Republic incl. Russian of Korea, Federation China

12.5% 8.7%

Latin America

North Africa, west and central Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Harvest

South and south-east Asia

The bars represent the percentages lost or wasted at each step of the chain, expressed in percentage of the initial production (edible part originally intended for human consumption, see Figure 11.1).

Figure 11.2 FLW per capita in the different world regions (top), and distribution of FLW along the food chain in the different world regions (bottom) Source: elaborated from Gustavsson et al. (FAO 2011).

difficult to use this data for generating reliable food losses and waste time series (Hanssen and Møller 2013). The USDA Economic Research Service has put in place a Food Availability Data System (USDA 2014) that includes loss-adjusted food availability (LAFA) data series. It estimates FLW in the USA at roughly between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the total food supply in 2010, with 31 per cent of the food available at the retail level lost or wasted at the retail or consumer levels, corresponding to approximately 60 million tonnes of food (Buzby et al. 2014). 173

Pinstrup-Andersen et al.

The impacts of food losses and waste on food and nutrition security The production of food which is ultimately not eaten, whether it is lost during the production and transformation processes or wasted at the consumption stage, entails a ‘waste’ of economic or natural resources. It also brings social impacts. These impact FNS in five ways, as now discussed.

Food availability FLW has a direct impact on food availability. This is true at the level of a household (or of a community) under strong food availability constraints. At global level also, FLW translate into food availability reduction (be it expressed in mass, in calories or in nutrients) but with more diversified and indirect effects on food security at local levels. Applying a simple proportional calculation, which is merely useful to get an order of magnitude without implying whatsoever a cause–effect relationship, 1.3 billion tonnes of food lost annually is an amount that could equivalently feed the 820 million people (12 per cent of world population) that were estimated to be suffering from hunger in 2010–2012 (FAO, IFAD and WFP 2015). However, food not lost or wasted in one area would not necessarily be transferred to an area in need. For cultural or for economic reasons, some systems generate ‘waste’, which for another system is useful resources or food, therefore providing a positive impact on sustainability. This is particularly the case for some parts of animals, such as offal, which can be considered nonedible in some countries, while edible in other. In fact, this notion of ‘inedible’ tends to expand for rich consumers and to cover ‘less-preferred’ and thus less-marketable parts. Trade movements transferring food parts or by-products from regions where they are not consumed to regions where they are demanded could be seen as a contribution to the reduction of food losses and waste, as well as a contribution to food and nutrition security of poorer people. However, it can also have impacts on the producers in the importing countries, confronted with the concurrence of cheap imports. In some cases it can also raise food safety considerations (that should be harmonized) and nutrition concerns, as shown by the controversies on international trade of turkey tail and mutton flap that leads to a concentration of the consumption of very fatty parts in some countries.

Food prices and food access FLW has economic impacts, which in turn impact access to food. Analyses of economic impacts of food losses and waste are scarce. By applying FAOSTAT traded prices for the year 2012 to FLW quantities, the FAO (2013b) made a preliminary estimation of the direct economic cost of the 1.3 billion tonnes of FLW at close to USD 1 trillion per year. This number does not include externalities and other social and environmental costs and damages, which the FAO estimates at USD 900 billion and USD 700 billion, respectively (FAO 2014). Nahman and de Lange (2013) evaluated the cost of FLW in South Africa (an estimated USD 7.7 billion, equivalent to 2.1 per cent of South Africa’s annual GDP) by attributing a representative price to each commodity group at each stage of the value chain. Different actors suffer different economic impacts depending on their position in the food system. Analyses have highlighted the fact that losses and waste contribute to higher demand and thus to higher prices (Stuart 2009; HLPE 2011). Any effect of price increase due to FLW is different for net sellers versus net buyers of food (see similar analysis on the effect of food price increase and food security in HLPE 2011, 2013). Also, depending on their market or purchasing power, and/or on their position and capacity of coordination in the production chain, some agents may suffer less from FLW and ‘push’ the costs of inefficiency to less well-positioned 174

Food losses and waste

agents. The high volume of losses in agriculture in developing countries ends up impacting also on labour productivity (marketable output per worker) and therefore on wages. A very controversial issue is to what extent consumer food waste in rich countries has an influence on access to food of poor consumers, or to what extent reducing consumers’ food waste would improve global food security. There is currently a lack of quantitative studies to describe the impact of FLW on food prices. Only a handful of theoretical papers (e.g., Rutten 2013) are available. Everything else being equal, it is generally accepted that global FLW, as part of an increased global demand for food, feed, and biofuels lead to tighter food commodity markets (see for instance HLPE 2011 and 2013), therefore to higher food prices than if there were no FLW. Therefore, according to economic theory, higher FLW, which may lead to higher food prices, are likely to lead to a larger supply of food, therefore acting to increase availability. The supply and demand equilibrium takes place at higher production levels and higher prices with FLW than without. The net effect of such FLW and food price increase on food access ultimately depends on: (i) whether a household is a net buyer or a net seller of food; (ii) how large are its food losses and waste; and (iii) how important the food budget is within the household budget. There is a well-known decreasing relationship between the household income and share of food expenditure in the household budget, established from the comparison between countries or in the same country between different income classes (Seale et al. 2003; Hicks 2013). In developing countries, food costs can represent more than half of the household budget, and FLW can have a disproportionate impact. In richer countries, spending on food does not exceed 15 per cent of the income of households therefore higher food prices and economic losses caused by FLW at the consumer level have much less impact on livelihoods.

Unsustainable use of natural resources FLW entails a needless use of resources. Recent studies (FAO 2013a) have attempted to quantify this effect, using simple proportional calculation estimations of the environmental impact of food production in general and applying such average values to the amount of food estimated to be lost. This can only be a very rough first order estimation, as the environmental impact of food (resources used, land, water, energy, etc.) varies according to the way and place of production and also, importantly, to the stage where the loss or waste occurs, especially for energy. A study on global resource productivity practices (Dobbs et al. 2011), ranked reducing food loss and waste in the top three measures to improve productivity of resources. Authors note that FLW contributes also to water ‘waste’ (Lundqvist et al. 2008). The carbon footprint of global FLW, without accounting for GHG emissions from land-use change, is estimated to be 3.3 Giga tonnes of CO2 equivalent, an amount equivalent to 6–10 per cent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Vermeulen et al. 2012) – a calculation which includes the impact of putting waste at disposal, with emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG). It is important to note that consumer food waste embeds the footprints of transport, packaging, processing, distribution and preparation at home, and thus has a higher environmental footprint. For instance, on average consumer waste is equivalent to eight times more energy ‘waste’ than post-harvest loss (Dobbs et al. 2011).

Quality and nutrient losses The impact of FLW on nutrition is often underestimated. As mentioned above, some studies (Kummu et al. 2012; Lipinski et al. 2013) transformed the FAO (2011) figures (expressed in mass terms) into calories. Such analysis, however, fail to take into account the effects on 175

Pinstrup-Andersen et al.

nutrition of micronutrient losses. FLW are important for fruits and vegetables as well as for fish for instance, particularly when fresh. These foods are particularly rich in micronutrients. A key issue here is food quality losses, particularly for fresh products, with losses of some micronutrients such as vitamins, and ultimately food safety risks.

Impacts on food system stability And finally, to ensure food security one needs to ensure constant availability of food above the strict minimal nutrition requirements. A system too tight between supply and demand will be prone to shortage risks and drive food prices up to unacceptable levels: there is therefore a need for some margin of production over demand. The more variability in production or consumption, the more a buffer of ‘overproduction’ might be important to ensure food security, even if, expost, some of that food might be lost or wasted. A certain degree of losses and waste enables this buffering system to work. The main issue is then how to valorize the extra production, and how to adjust the production, transformation, storage and distribution capacities to manage the surplus. More generally, FLW can often be the result of strategies to avoid the risk of not having a certain product at disposal, at whatever stage of the food chain, including consumption.

Causes of FLW Numerous studies (Parfitt et al. 2010; FAO 2011; Hodges et al. 2010; Hodges et al. 2011) have touched on individual causes of FLW, ranging from biological, microbial, chemical, biochemical, mechanical, physical, physiological, technological, logistical, organizational, to psychological and behavioural causes – including those induced by marketing, etc. The importance of these antecedents varies greatly according to the produce and the context, and the stage of the food chain considered. Identifying the causes of FLW requires an integrated perspective along the food chain, and to consider any action at one specific stage not in isolation but as part of a whole. FLW happening at one stage of the food chain can have its cause at another stage. Just as in a conveyor belt, actions at one stage of the food chain can affect the whole chain. For instance, some part of FLW happening at retail and consumption stages can be traced back to causes at harvest or even pre-harvest stages. Careless manipulation of fruits during harvest and packaging, often due to poor work conditions, can reduce their shelf-life and cause retail-level loss or consumer waste. Conversely, fruits can be left to rot in the field because of a retailer’s decision to lower its buying price or interrupt a contract. Causes are often interrelated: rarely a loss or a waste appearing at one stage of the chain, for a particular reason, is solely dependent on one specific cause. The HLPE (2014) proposes a description of causes on three different levels (Figure 11.3): • •

•

‘Micro-level’ causes of FLW, at each particular stage of the food chain resulting from actions or non-actions of individual actors of the same stage, in response (or not) to external factors. ‘Meso-level’ causes of FLW which can be found at another stage of the chain as to where FLW happens, or result from how different actors are organized together, of relationships along the food chain, of the state of infrastructures, etc. Meso-level causes can contribute to the existence of micro-level causes. ‘Macro-level’ causes of FLW such as a malfunctioning food system, the lack of institutional or policy conditions to facilitate the coordination of actors (including securing contractual relations) to enable investments and the adoption of good practices. They favour the emergence of all the other causes of FLW and are a major reason for the global extent of FLW. 176

Production and pre-harvest

Harvest and initial handling

Storage

Transport

Processing

Retail

Consumer

1 Micro cause

2 Meso cause

3 Macro cause

The food chain is represented here on the left of the figure in a schematic way: depending on produce, location, etc. the real order and succession of the different steps can vary and can form very complex chains. Food losses and waste at each step of the food chain can result from micro-, meso- and macro-causes. Here, a micro-cause of food loss at the stage of transport is represented. One meso-, and one macro-cause also happen to influence the micro cause. The meso-cause is in turn also influenced by two separate macro-causes. For instance, in the case of transport, one example of micro-cause is the rough handling of raw produce. Related meso-causes could be, for example, the absence of properly trained loaders, and/or of proper packaging or logistic solutions. Related macro-causes, for example, could be found in the economic environment leading to low-paid, untrained loaders, and poor infrastructure.

Figure 11.3 Losses along the food chain and organization of causes of FLW

Pinstrup-Andersen et al.

Micro-level causes Micro-level causes can be found all along the food chain. Pre-harvest conditions and actions in the field can lead to losses at later stages in the chain, as production and agronomic practices influence quality at harvest, suitability for transport and shipping, storage stability and shelf-life after harvest (Kader 2002; Florkowski et al. 2009). Poor harvest scheduling and timing, and rough, careless handling of the produce, are both major contributors to FLW. All along the food chain, inadequate or lack of storage conditions and, for perishable products, poor temperature management (IIR 2009) are key factors leading to FLW. Transport can be a major cause of FLW, of particular importance for fresh products: by introducing a time span between production and consumption and by bringing additional risks of mechanical and heat injury. Time spent because of transport can also lead to decrease of nutritional contents. Conditions within the retail outlet (temperature, relative humidity, lighting, gas composition, etc.) and handling practices have an effect on quality, shelf-life and acceptability of the product. FLW at consumer stage, at household level but also in catering and other food services, are particularly important in developed countries. They are mainly driven by behavioural causes (Evans 2011; Segrè 2013), including habits of food buying, preparation and consumption, as well as time planning and coordination (Soyeux 2010). They are influenced by marketing techniques which encourage consumers to buy more than they need (WRAP 2011a; Williams et al. 2012).

Meso-level causes At the meso-level, the lack of equipment and/or of good practices, inadequate organization, coordination and communication between food chain actors, inadequate infrastructure and maladapted economic conditions along the food chain (product unmarketable, etc.) are major causes of FLW at various parts of the food chain. In many low-income countries, there is considerable food loss due to lack of storage capacity and poor storage conditions (FAO 2011; Liu 2014) as well as lack of capacity to transport the produce to processing plants or markets immediately after harvesting. There are also too few wholesale, supermarket and retail facilities providing suitable storage and sales conditions for food products. Wholesale and retail markets in developing countries are often small, overcrowded, unsanitary and lack cooling equipment. Poor transportation infrastructure is another important meso-cause of FLW (Rolle 2006). Even with adequate equipment, lack of implementation of good practices all along the food chain is a major cause of food losses and waste (FAO 2013b). Quality standards (as to shape, size and weight) imposed by the processors, retailers or target markets can lead to produce not meeting them remaining unharvested (Stuart 2009). Inadequate information and bad anticipation of market conditions (level of demand and prices) can also lead to produce remaining unharvested (FAO 2011). Confusion arising from the existence and poor understanding of different food date labels are a major cause of FLW at the retail and consumer levels (NRDC 2013; WRAP 2011b; HISPACOOP 2012). Consumers tend to assume that these dates are linked to food safety when in reality they are more often based on food quality (which will deteriorate over time without necessarily becoming a health hazard). Many kinds of date labels coexist, some of them not intended to inform consumers but rather to help retailers manage their stock. Other date labels are directed to consumers, but their purpose can be very different whether the indicated date is related to food safety rules, or related to marketing strategies to protect consumers’ experience of a product in the view to safeguard its reputation, often with a huge food safety margin. Consumers get lost in this multitude of date labels. Furthermore, date labeling is a major cause of FLW and economic loss at the retail level as retailers often anticipate dates to preserve their good image. 178

Food losses and waste

Macro-level causes More macro-level, systemic causes include the absence of a good enabling environment to support coordination between actors, investment and improvement of practices. Many regulations affect FLW, including policies that control the use of surplus food for humans or for animal feed; policies or bans on fish discards; food hygiene regulations; food labelling and packaging regulations; and waste regulations and policies. Other regulations might not have a direct impact on FLW, but on the potential to use them as feed or energy.

Solutions to reduce food losses and waste Most analyses (Stuart 2009; Foresight 2011; FAO 2011; Lipinski et al. 2013) agree that a reduction of food losses and waste would lead to food systems being more sustainable, with positive economic, social and environmental outcomes. However, the optimum pathway for sustainability is not zero food loss (Stuart 2009), as incremental costs of efforts to reach very low levels of food loss and waste might, at a certain point, prove too costly (including social and environmental costs), and outweigh the economic, social and environmental benefits provided by the additional reduction. The organization of causes with three levels (micro, meso and macro) can serve as a basis to a similar organization of solutions. First, the review of ‘micro’ causes of FLW at each stage of food chains leads to the identification of potential solutions and of actors to implement them. At each stage of the food chain, some solutions can be implemented by single actors to address specific causes of losses and waste. At harvest and post-harvest stages they involve improved practices, adoption of technical innovations, investments, or a combination of these. When appropriately applied, good agricultural practices and good veterinary practices at the primary stage of production as well as good manufacturing practices and good hygienic practices during food processing can protect food from contamination or damage. A key intervention all along food chains is to improve storage conditions (Liu 2014). Various solutions have been already successfully implemented in many places (FAO 2008; Tefera et al. 2011). Modifying consumers’ behaviour is also important (Quested et al. 2013). It involves direct communication and awareness raising, stressing civic responsibility. Consumers also need technical options, such as better, smarter packaging adapted to different conditions of use, or the ‘doggy bag’ practice in restaurants. It also requires the support and cooperation of the food industry and retailing, for instance to improve the clarity of food date labelling and to provide advice on food storage, or to ensure that an appropriate range of pack or portion sizes is available to meet the needs of different households. Second, micro-level solutions can be supported and enhanced by actions at the meso-level, often involving coordination between actors. They often require investments, both public and private. This is particularly the case when the main solutions reside in improvement of logistics. For perishable products, management of temperature and absence of delays are two vital issues that require investments in infrastructures (energy for cold chain and roads for transportation). Innovation and adaptation of technical solutions to local conditions are essential. Cold chain management in perishable foods supply chains offers a very good example of potential solutions and what is needed to implement them in locally adapted ways (FAO and IIF 2014). Transformation can be a way to reduce FLW of perishable products, improve resistance to transport and storage, and increase shelf-life (Langelaan et al. 2013). Investment in food processing infrastructure, including packaging, can be key, especially to fulfil the growing demands of cities. Capacity development in the form of education, training and extension services for farmers and all actors across the food chain is a key tool for reducing food losses and 179

Pinstrup-Andersen et al.

waste (FAO 2013b; IFAD 2010; van Gogh et al. 2013). Of particular importance is to involve and engage women who play a major role in food production and transformation. Annual corporate business reports (Tesco 2014) increasingly include a section detailing environmental and social impacts of their activities. Businesses can commit and report on: (i) monitoring of food losses and waste in their activities; (ii) reducing food losses and waste in their activities; and (iii) supporting activities reducing FLW of their suppliers and consumers. The standardization of the products offered to consumers is a major cause of FLW in modern retailing systems. In traditional systems products gradually lose their economic and exchange value along with their quality, as defined by the FLWQ concept. They are generally still sold or exchanged, but at gradually lower prices. In modern, standardized systems, products are rather defined as marketable or not. They ‘suddenly’ lose all their economic value when they are no more of the minimum quality considered as marketable – which is often not linked to their edibility – as illustrated by the confusion on date labelling. Alternative distribution systems (NRDC 2013), such as food banks (Schneider 2013) preserve them with an edible value. Third, many solutions can only be implemented if they are accompanied by action at ‘macro’ level. For instance, the ability of the actors of the food chain to reduce FLW depends on the surrounding policies and regulatory frameworks. This includes specific policies against FLW or considering FLW in other sets of policies. This may include improving infrastructures, particularly transport, energy and market facilities, which requires government action, often with the involvement of local authorities and also of the private sector. Decisions and policies need to be based on sound cost–benefit analysis to ensure that the right incentives or corrective measures are put in place. Some governments have started to define specific targets for FLW reduction (OECD 2014). However, few governments have put in place specific policies to reduce FLW, less even with a systemic approach and integrated programmes. Main drivers for FLW targets are generally found outside the perimeter of food policies, such as in waste management policies leading to reducing the volume of waste, including packaging waste, and in resource use efficiency policies leading to optimize, in analogy to the energy sector, the amount of inputs and resources (including raw food products) in production and consumption. Solutions to be implemented at the meso- and macro-level generally require concerted and collective action and measures, including prior identification of potential winners and losers across the whole food system, and the design of appropriate incentive or compensation mechanisms. They should also consider how the ‘FLW-to-be-reduced’ was originally used (e.g., was it used as feed for animals or thrown away?) and all the impacts of the proposed changes. There are a growing number of initiatives around the world aiming to reduce FLW at global, national, regional and local levels. Most of them gather public and private actors in a multi-stakeholder setting. Motivations to reduce FLW are driven by both food security and environmental concerns. In the long term, from a sustainable development perspective, these two concerns tend to merge, as natural resources also ground future food security. To conciliate them, from the perspective of sustainable food systems, there is a growing consensus to consider reduction of FLW systematically, and according to a hierarchy of uses (Figure 11.4). Deciding which strategy to adopt necessitates a thorough analysis of causes and the consideration of winners and losers, and of costs and benefits for all involved. It also necessitates the promotion of individual and collective action of many actors along the food chain, and in support of them. Based on this, the HLPE has proposed a ‘way forward’, as an impetus at the country level, for all actors to build together, locally-adapted and properly coordinated food losses and waste reduction strategies (Figure 11.5). This approach is integrated in the recommendations adopted by the Committee on World Food Security in 2014 (CFS 2014). 180

FLW prevention

Micro/meso/macro solutions including redistribution of food to feed people in need through charity and food banks

Food redistribution

Food not fit for human consumption directed to animal feed

Feed

Compost and renewable energy

Food waste (including non-edible parts of foods) used for composting, to produce fertilizer or provide energy sources

Disposal To be used as least preferred option

Figure 11.4 A food-use-not-waste hierarchy to minimize FLW 1 Gather information and data Agree on scope of FLW definition (global level) Agree on protocols for measure (all levels) Collect data, and promote transparency and corporate social responsibility (all levels)

2 Diagnose and develop strategies Identify hotspots of losses and waste (all levels) Identify the causes at different levels (all levels) Identify solutions (all levels) Identify costs and benefits for all actors (all levels)

3 Act, individually and collectively Raise awareness and support multi-stakeholder initiatives (all levels) Roll out the actor-level, individual and collective plans of action, for all actors, producers, businesses, and consumers: – Investments – Good practices – Behavioural change – Coordination inside food chains – Valorization of food and by-products Consider systemic evolutions, including drivers of change (economic, social and cultural)

4 Coordinate policies to reduce FLW for SFS and FSN Set an enabling environment Support capacity building Integrate food losses and waste concerns, and a food chain approach, in agricultural policies and development programmes Adapt other policies

Figure 11.5 The way forward to food losses and waste reduction strategies

Pinstrup-Andersen et al.

Acknowledgements This chapter draws on the HLPE Report on Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems (HLPE 2014), with credits going to the members of the HLPE Steering Committee: Per Pinstrup-Andersen (Chair) Maryam Rahmanian (Vice-Chair), Amadou Allahoury; Marion Guillou; Sheryl Hendriks; Joanna Hewitt; Masa Iwanaga; Carol Kalafatic; Bernardo Kliksberg; Renato Maluf; Sophia Murphy; Ruth Oniang’o; Michel Pimbert; Magdalena Sepúlveda; Huajun Tang; and the five members of the HLPE Project Team for this Report: Vish Prakash (Team Leader); Huang Jikun; Toine Timmermans; Walter Belik; Jane Ambuko.

Note 1 It is important to note that all the studies of global relevance providing estimates of global FLW, published subsequently to the FAO (2011) study, such as Kummu et al. (2012), the WRI study (Lipinski et al., 2013), the FAO, 2013 Toolkit (FAO 2013a), or the 2013 Report from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE 2013), rely on the same raw data from FAO (2011) and therefore do not provide independent estimates of the extent of FLW.

References APHLIS (The African Postharvest Losses Information System). 2014. Understanding APHLIS. Available from http://www.aphlis.net/downloads/Understanding%20APHLIS%20ver%20%202.2%20May%2014.pdf. Buzby, J. C., Wells, H. F. and Hyman, J. 2014. The estimated amount, value, and calories of postharvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States. EIB-121, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Committee on World Food Security (CFS). 2014. Report of the 41st session of the committee on world food security, Rome, 13–18 October 2014. Available from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ cfs/Docs1314/CFS41/CFS41_Final_Report_EN.pdf. Dobbs, R., Oppenheim, J., Thompson, F., Brinkman, M. and Zornes, M. 2011. Resource revolution: meeting the world’s energy, materials, food, and water needs. McKinsey Global Institute. Available from http:// www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/resource_revolution. EC. 2011. Preparatory study of food waste across EU 27. Technical Report 2010 -054. Available from http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/bio_foodwaste_report.pdf. Evans, D. 2011. Beyond the throwaway society: ordinary domestic practice and a sociological approach to household food waste. Sociology, 46(1): 1–16. FAO. 2008. Household metal silos. Key allies in FAO’s fight against hunger. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO. Available from http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf. FAO. 2013a. Toolkit: reducing the food wastage footprint. Rome: FAO. Available from http://www.fao.org/ docrep/018/i3342e/i3342e.pdf. FAO. 2013b. Report of the expert consultation meeting on food losses and waste reduction in the near East Region: towards a regional comprehensive strategy. Sharm El Sheikh, 18–19 December 2012. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2014. Food wastage footprint: full-cost accounting. Rome: FAO. FAO/IIF. 2014. Rapport de l’atelier régional sur l’utilisation de la chaîne du froid dans le développement de l’agriculture et de l’agro-industrie en Afrique subsaharienne. Rome: FAO. FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2015. The state of food insecurity in the world 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Rome: FAO. Florkowski, W. J., Prussia, S. E., Shewfelt, R. L. and Brueckner, B. (eds.). 2009. Postharvest handling, a systems approach, 2nd edition. San Diego: Elsevier, Academic Press. Foresight. 2011. The future of food and farming. Final Project Report. London: The Government Office for Science. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R. and Meybeck, A. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO. Available from http://www.fao.org/ docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf.

182

Food losses and waste Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U. and Emanuelsson, A. 2013. The methodology of the FAO study: global food losses and food waste – extent, causes and prevention. SIK. Available from http://www.sik.se/ archive/pdf-filer-katalog/SR857.pdf. Hanssen, O. J. and Møller, H. 2013. Food wastage in Norway 2013. Status and trends 2009–13. ForMat Project. Hicks, D. L. 2013. Consumption volatility, marketization, and expenditure in emerging market economies (research paper). University of Oklahoma. Available from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMACRO/ Resources/seminar_253%5B1%5D.pdf. HISPACOOP (Confederacíon Españolade Cooperativas d Consumidores y Usarios). 2012. Estudio sobre el desperdicio de alimentos en los hogares. Available from http://www.hispacoop.es/home/index.php?option=com_ docman&task=doc_view&gid=279 HLPE. 2011. Price volatility and food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome: FAO. HLPE. 2013. Biofuels and food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome: FAO. HLPE. 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome: FAO. Hodges, R. J., Bernard, M., Knipschild, H. and Rembold, F. 2010. African postharvest losses information system – a network for the estimation of cereal weight losses. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Stored Products Protection, 27 June to 2 July 2010, Estoril, Portugal. Carvalho, M. O. (ed.), pp. 956–964. Available from http://pub.jki.bund.de/index.php/JKA/article/view/1301. Hodges, R. J., Buzby, J. C. and Bennett, B. 2011. Foresight project on global food and farming futures, postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries opportunities to improve resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science, 149: 37–45. Huang, J. 2013. Food supply enough for everyone. China Economic Quarterly, 7(3): 20–23. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2010. Rural poverty report 2011. Rome: IFAD. IMechE (Institution of Mechanical Engineers). 2013. Global food waste not, want not. Available from http:// www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/reports/Global_Food_Report.pdf?sfvrsn=0. IIR (International Institute of Refrigeration). 2009. The role of refrigeration in worldwide nutrition. Paris: IIR. Kader, A. A. (ed.). 2002. Post-harvest technology of horticultural crops. Oakland: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication. Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O. and Ward, P. J. 2012. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland and fertilizer use. Science of the Total Environment, 438: 477–489. Langelaan, H. C., Pereira da Silva, F., Thoden van Velzen, U., Broeze, J., Matser, A. M., Vollebregt, M. and Schroën, K. 2013. Technology options for feeding 10 billion people. Options for sustainable food processing. State of the art report. Science and Technology Options Assessment. Brussels: European Parliament. Available from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513533/IPOLJOIN_ET(2013)513533_EN.pdf. Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R. and Searchinger, T. 2013. Reducing food loss and waste. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: Working Paper Installment 2. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available from http://www.unep.org/pdf/WRI-UNEP_Reducing_Food_Loss_ and_Waste.pdf. Liu, G. 2014. Food losses and food waste in China: a first estimate. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, 66. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz5sq5173lq-e. Lundqvist, J., de Fraiture, C. and Molden, D. 2008. Saving water: from field to fork, curbing losses and wastage in the food chain. Stockholm: SIWI Policy Brief. Available from http://www.siwi.org/documents/ Resources/Policy_Briefs/PB_From_Filed_to_Fork_2008.pdf. Nahman, A. and de Lange, W. 2013. Cost of food waste along the value chain: evidence from South Africa. Waste Management, 33(11): 2493–2500. NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). 2013. The dating game: how confusing food date labels lead to food waste in America. Available from http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/dating-game-report.pdf. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2014. Food waste along the food chain. Available from http://www.oecd.org/site/agrfcn/4thmeeting20-21june2013.htm. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. and Macnaughton, S. 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554): 3065–3081. Quested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D. and Parry, A. D. 2013. Spaghetti soup: the complex world of food waste behaviour. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79: 43–51.

183

Pinstrup-Andersen et al. Rolle, R. S. (ed.). 2006. Improving postharvest management and marketing in the Asia-Pacific region: issues and challenges trends. In: Postharvest management of fruit and vegetables in the Asia-Pacific region. Rolle, R. S. (ed.), pp. 23–31. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization. Rutten, M. M. 2013. What economic theory tells us about the impacts of reducing food losses and/or waste: implications for research, policy and practice. Agriculture & Food Security, 2: 13. Schneider, F. 2013. Review of food waste prevention on an international level. Waste and Resource Management, 166: 187–203. Seale, J. L., Regmi, A. and Bernstein, J. A. 2003. International evidence on food consumption patterns. Technical Bulletin No. (TB-1904), October. Segrè A. 2013. Vivere a spreco zero, una rivoluzione alla portata di tutti. Venice, Italy: Marsilio Editori. Soyeux, A. 2010. La lutte contre le gaspillage. Quel rôle face aux défis alimentaires? Revue Futuribles, 362: 57–68. Stuart, T. 2009. Waste: uncovering the global food scandal. London: W.W. Norton Co. Tefera, T., Kanampiu, F., De Groote, H., Hellin, J., Mugo, S., Kimenju, S., Beyene, Y., Boddupalli, P. M., Shiferaw, B. and Banziger, M. 2011. The metal silo: an effective grain storage technology for reducing post-harvest insect and pathogen losses in maize while improving smallholder farmers’ food security in developing countries. Crop Protection, 30(3): 240–245. Tesco. 2014. Tesco and society: using our scale for good. 2013/14 half-year update. Available from http://www.tescoplc.com/files/pdf/reports/tesco_and_society_2013-14_halfyear_summary.pdf. Trueba, I. and MacMillan, A. 2011. How to end hunger in times of crisis. Madrid: UPM. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. Food availability (per capita) data system. Available from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx#26705. van Gogh, B., Aramyan, L., van der Sluis, A., Soethoudt, H. and Scheer, F.-P. 2013. Feasibility of a network of excellence postharvest food losses: combining knowledge and competences to reduce food losses in developing and emerging economies. Available from http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Publicationdetails.htm?publicationId=publication-way-343338383538. Vermeulen, S., Campbell, B. and Ingram, S. 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 37: 195–222. Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Lófgren, M. and Gustafsson, A. 2012. Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24: 141–148. WRAP. 2011a. Investigation into the possible impact of promotions on food waste. UK: Banbury. WRAP. 2011b. Consumer insight: date labels and storage guidance. Available from http://www.wrap.org.uk/ content/consumer-insight-date-labels-and-storage-guidance.

184

12 HOW IS CLIMATE CHANGE AFFECTING THE GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEM? Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata

Introduction Climate change over the next century is likely to have extensive and pervasive impacts across society. Agriculture and food production is one of the most climate-sensitive sectors of the economy, since yields of rain fed crops rely upon adequate rainfall and moderate temperatures. Food systems describe a complex network of people who conduct activities that take raw agricultural produce and deliver it as easily digestible food for people across the globe. The food system is comprised of the activities of producing food; producing agricultural products, storing, trading, processing, packaging, retailing, and distributing food; and preparing and consuming food. These food system activities contribute to livelihood, health and environmental – e.g., greenhouse gas emissions – outcomes, and affect food security (Figure 12.1) (Ericksen 2008) and how the food system functions across scales depends on interactions between and within biogeophysical and human environments. In turn, these influence the activities and outcomes of society at regional, national and international levels. There are significant likely impacts of climate on the food system, with potentially negative impacts on food security. Food systems are vulnerable to climate change at a variety of scales. Maintaining a functioning food system into the future will be challenged by accelerating food demand, competition for depleting resources, and the failing ability of the environment to buffer increasing anthropogenic

Transporting

Producing food

Transporting

Transporting

Storing

Processing packaging

Wholesaling retailing

Storing

Figure 12.1 Food system activities and their relationships

185

Consuming food

Transporting

Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata

impacts (Beddington et al. 2012; Clay 2011; Vermeulen et al. 2012). Climate change is one among a set of interconnected trends and risks facing agriculture and food systems that also include rapid changes in biodiversity, shifts in land cover, and alterations to the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, among others (Rockstrom et al. 2009). A critical indicator that the food system is not adapting to change is the failure to provide adequate food supplies during weather extremes, resulting in malnutrition, hunger or famine (Ericksen 2008; Hillbruner and Moloney 2012; Lautze et al. 2012). These effects are particularly acute in poor and isolated communities with limited capacity for adaptation (Schmidhuber and Tubiello 2007; Vermeulen et al. 2012). Indicators that specific elements of the food system are failing to adapt to stressors include soil degradation and falling productivity in response to decreased rainfall (Berry et al. 2009; Le Houerou 2002; Moseley 2003; Wessels et al. 2004). Changes in biodiversity; changes in ecosystems from one type to another; and the resulting reductions in ecosystem services may also be connected to climate impacts (Aerts and Honnay 2011; Hansen 2004; Myers et al. 2013; Spector et al. 2008). All humans participate in food systems and in doing so have multiple objectives: livelihoods, profit, and environmental stewardship, as well as securing food for nutrition, pleasure, and social functions (Vermeulen et al. 2012). As outlined in Table 12.1, each of the activities in a food system is vulnerable to climate in different ways, and the way each activity is carried out confers different vulnerabilities on the people participating in the system. Crucially, these vulnerabilities differ across the world on account of relative incomes of households, as well as the social, cultural and other socioeconomic and biophysical conditions of different regions and countries. Although there is an enormous amount of literature on the vulnerability of agriculture to global environmental change and weather extremes (Berg et al. 2013; Diaz-Ambrona et al. 2013; Garnett et al. 2013; Jones and Thornton 2003; Rosenzweig et al. 2013), this literature focuses on the production of food through agriculture but does not treat off-farm elements of the food system to the same level of detail. Eakin (2010) states that an analysis of the impact of climate on each element of the food system may not be directly additive: interactions between system components and synergies in adaptations may affect the food system in unexpected ways (Eakin 2010). In the next section, we will step through each part of the food system detailed in Figure 12.1 and demonstrate how climate and climate change may affect the functioning of the elements of the food system. Table 12.1 Comparison and description of mechanized and non-mechanized food systems activities Activity

Mechanized food systems

Non-mechanized food systems

Growing

Using heavy equipment, preparing the soil, planting, and maintaining the crop in large plots in monocrops with few actors and a high efficiency and productive capacity (IAASTD 2008; Walthall et al. 2013). The bulk of high-value fish is produced by intensive farming systems using high-cost nutrient inputs (Hasan 2001).

Preparing the soil, planting and tending crops on small farms and small field sizes by hand, producing a diversity of foods, including cereals, vegetables, legumes and livestock (IAASTD 2008). Pond-based or open-water extensive, improved extensive and semi-intensive practices using polyculture farming technologies (Hasan 2001).

Harvesting

Harvesting the crop with heavy machinery in large quantities over short time periods. Large-scale fish harvesting with industrial on-boat bleeding, dressing, flash-freezing, and individually sleeved packaging.

Farm workers gather the ripened crop by hand from the field or with assistance from mechanical or animal power. Fishers use low-tech gear and catches are species-specific and low volume.

186

Processing

Processing food in factories to chop, grind, dry, boil, can, or freeze food to preserve it or make it more convenient, longer lasting, and higher value (Vermeulen et al. 2012; Fellows 2000).

Food relies on local knowledge of preservation and packaging techniques, such as salting, curing, curding, sun drying, smoking and fermenting (IAASTD 2008). Most grain is processed by the family consuming it, either by hand or with automated simple village level machinery (Mal et al. 2010).

Packaging

Packaging food into cans, bags, boxes, shrink wrap, or other containers for sale. The packaging protects food and is associated with certification and labeling, and is required before food retail (IAASTD 2008).

Food is packed at the field or farm in reusable boxes or bags for transport. Certification is often not imposed and systems not in place for most food production (Reardon et al. 2003).

Retailing

Supermarkets, grocery stores, restaurants, and other establishments sell food to customers, possibly very far from where the food was grown (IAASTD 2008). Shopping occurs less frequently because of cold storage in the home.

Farmers, market shopkeepers, restaurant owners, or local storeowners sell food to customers (Clark 1994; Garg et al. 2013; Neven et al. 2009). Shopping occurs more frequently due to lack of cold storage in the home.

Consuming

Buying, preparing and eating food, often pre-prepared or based on convenient semi-processed intermediary products (Lewis and Potter 2011).

Buying, preparing, and eating food (FAO 2008).

Disposing

Discarding unused, leftover and spoiled food and packaging, mostly to landfills (Parfitt et al. 2010; Vermeulen et al. 2012).

Discarding scraps and spoiled food; in rural areas, scraps fed to livestock and other animals, composted for fertilizer (Godfray et al. 2010).

Storing

Storing of food grain, vegetables, and other goods in large warehouses, grain elevators, with various levels of climate control (Vermeulen et al. 2012).

Food storage limited and likely local, open, and located on the farm and near markets (Godfray et al. 2010; Shepherd 2012).

Transporting

Transporting agricultural inputs, outputs, and processed food by air, truck, ship, or barge, through many steps over long distances (Hawkes and Ruel 2006). Expansion of the cold chain into more regions and more parts of the food system will become necessary as temperatures rise (James and James 2010).

Transporting agricultural inputs, outputs and eatable food by foot, animal, boat, or truck to local markets over relatively short distances (Coulter and Poulton 2001; Limão and Venables 2001).

Trading

Moving of goods from farm to market along the value chain, enormously increasing the value of raw materials (Lee et al. 2012) and creating packaged or ready-to-sell food from manufacturer or packager to retail outlet (IAASTD 2008).

Moving of goods from farmer to consumer, with less participation of smallholders and non-mechanized food system processes in the global value chain of goods as they move from farm to market (Lee et al. 2012; Plateau 1996).

Source: Derived from Ericksen (2008) and Ingram et al. (2010).

187

Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata

Producing food Climate change has implications for plant and animal agriculture through processes operating at global, regional and local scales (Walthall et al. 2012). Crops and livestock are adapted to their environments. The agricultural industry has invested heavily in breeding plants and animals that maximize agricultural production in environments that have been relatively stable over the last 200 years (Fleming and Vanclay 2011; Smit and Skinner 2002). Each crop or livestock breed has optimal environmental parameters, and those optimal parameters are bounded by upper and lower limits for tolerance below or above which they cannot survive. Climate change, by shifting a broad host of biotic and abiotic parameters away from their historical baseline and inducing extreme events, will challenge the agricultural industry to adapt at a rapid pace (Diffenbaugh and Scherer 2013; Gutierrez et al. 2006). At a global scale, a higher temperature on Earth, brought on by rising atmospheric greenhouse gases, increases the amount of moisture in the atmosphere and alters atmospheric pressure gradients (Hansen et al. 2010; Lotsch et al. 2003). These shifts impact agricultural production through changes to climate and weather at a regional scale. Climate change is expected to alter the volume and timing of precipitation on a region-by-region basis: some areas may see precipitation changes that enhance their agricultural productivity, while others may see baseline shifts and extreme events that decrease agricultural productivity (Walthall et al. 2012). For example, the northern and eastern United States is projected to experience more precipitation, while the already water-strapped Southwest and Southern Plains are projected to experience less (DOI 2011; NCDC 2011). These changes have implications for yearly surface water availability as well as groundwater recharge (Taylor et al. 2013). Even in areas expected to receive more precipitation, the interaction between the timing of precipitation and biotic and abiotic properties of the environment will determine whether it can be utilized by agriculture in the form of rain, surface water or groundwater, whether it will become runoff, or whether it will actually cause crop damage (Rosenzweig et al. 2002; Walthall et al. 2012). At local scales, climate and weather combine with small-scale biotic and abiotic factors to determine agricultural productivity (Malcolm et al. 2012). Livestock will be affected by climate and weather depending on how they are raised: largely indoor operations may be able to manage temperature increases and weather severity at a higher energy cost, but largely outdoor operations may see declines in productivity in the absence of mitigation (Turnpenny et al. 2001). Animals raised outside will have to physiologically cope with elevated temperatures and extreme weather and shifting pest and disease regimes, and grazing animals will also be subjected to changing forage composition, quantity, and quality (Nardone et al. 2010; Thornton et al. 2009; West 2003; White et al. 2003). Crop plants and livestock forage will, with the exception of the very small portion grown in greenhouses, be subject to a myriad of positive and negative forces (Tubiello et al. 2007). Climate and weather, interacting with plant life cycles and acting on water and nutrient availability, will determine productivity. Temperature changes will affect when crops and forage plants germinate, flower, produce seeds, and die or senesce (Badeck et al. 2004; Chmielewski et al. 2004; Tao et al. 2006). For plants, changes in the life cycle brought on by shifts in climate and extreme weather will interact with abiotic factors (e.g., soil moisture, nutrient availability, solar radiation) and biotic factors (e.g., pollinator life cycles, pest, and disease populations) to determine crop productivity. The net effect of these changes on agricultural productivity will vary by region and will also change through time: a positive forcing in the near future may become negative in the long-term 188

How is climate change affecting the global food system?

without mitigating technology or breeding. For example, in the short term, higher carbon dioxide concentrations may stimulate plant growth by accelerating photosynthesis, provided that there is sufficient water and nutrients to support growth. But increasingly stressful high temperatures caused by carbon dioxide can dampen and eventually reverse the positive effect in the absence of adaptive management, and climate’s co-occurring impacts on water availability and nutrient cycling are likely to act synergistically to decrease productivity some regions (Idso et al. 1987; Schlenker and Roberts 2009). Lastly, climate change indirectly impacts agriculture through shifts in the dynamics of pests and pathogens. Temperature and carbon dioxide affect the growth rates and life cycles of pests and pathogens, which in turn will affect food production (Gregory et al. 2009). Emerging diseases and changes in pest dynamics can be caused by climate change. Several studies find that increases in temperature affect pest populations and migrations. For animal diseases, Purse et al. (2005) explore climate-induced shifts in bluetongue virus incidence in Europe and found that strains have spread across 12 countries and 800 kilometers further north due to climate change since 1998 (Purse et al. 2005). Warm weather has been shown to result in prolonged rodent breeding seasons, and likely results in the spread of insect pests over a wider geographic region (FAO 2008; Tirado et al. 2010).

Producing food from fish Climate-driven changes in temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen can affect the physiology and behavior of fisheries species and their predator and prey species, which in turn impact the population dynamics and distribution (Brander 2007; Roessig et al. 2004; Walther et al. 2002). The effects of climate on fisheries, however, must be disentangled from long-term climate forcing on the oceans, such as El Niño and La Niña. These natural oscillations may themselves be influenced by climate change, with current trends suggesting more frequent warming events since 1977, though assessing the strength of that trend and role of climate change requires a longer time scale and more complete physical data (McGowan et al. 1998). These long-term forcings have profound direct impacts on the populations of fisheries species, as well as indirect impacts through the food web (Mysak 1986; Wespestad et al. 2000). Some species experience increased growth and survival during warmer periods while others undergo population declines (Ottersen et al. 2001). Species may also shift their ranges temporarily during warming periods to expand into regions where temperatures were previously too cool (Mysak 1986). Climate change, however, is causing some more permanent shifts in distribution. For example, over the last 25 years Perry et al. (2005) found that of 36 species of North Sea demersal fish they studied, 21 species have shifted their centers of distribution northward or local depth deeper to follow cooler water. Climate change temperature increases are also impacting the food web of fisheries species by increasing productivity in cooler regions and decreasing productivity in warmer regions, likely to due differences in stratification of nutrient availability in those regions (Richardson and Schoeman 2004).

Storage, processing and packaging Post-harvest stages of the food system typically involve drying (if required), storing, transporting and packaging. Each of these stages may be susceptible to changes in climate and to weather shocks – such as changes in temperature or moisture in the storage containers that may promote the growth of microorganisms, insects, or fungus that may cause contamination. 189

Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata

Storing food Food storage is a critical part of the food system, playing a role on the farm, after the food leaves the farm at the processing or retail establishment, and in the home after food has been purchased but before it is consumed. Storage facilities enable the smoothing of food supply by enabling food produced in one year to be consumed in the next. Unfortunately, there is very little information in developing countries, and little centralized information in developed countries, on household, private and corporate storage capacity. Storage facilities can be very sensitive to extremes of heat and/or precipitation and stored food has been identified as a major cause of food loss. The agricultural product processing sector often lags behind broader agriculture growth in many food insecure countries (Byerlee et al. 2005). In developing regions, packaging and storage facilities are weak and under-studied, with little publicly available information (IAASTD 2008). A 2013 report by the FAO concludes that in developing countries, there are significant post-harvest losses due to financial and structural limitations in harvest techniques, inadequate or poorly managed storage and transport infrastructures, combined with climatic conditions favorable to food spoilage (FAO 2013). Lack of appropriate storage facilities for food crops and processed products can lead to pest infestations or mold growth that render them harmful or inedible, especially in hot and humid regions (Parfitt et al. 2010; Vermeulen et al. 2012b). Under future climate change scenarios, aflatoxins, a class of toxins produced by fungus, may threaten many grain staples in the absence of climatecontrolled storage (Tirado et al. 2010). In eastern and southern Africa, for example, grain is often stored outside or in open-air sheds, and may be harmed by unusual wet weather in the dry season (Stathers et al. 2013).

Transporting food Post-harvest movement of food can be complex, as it may involve a number of geographically dispersed intermediaries, such as traders and intermediate processors. In the simplest case, produce may remain on-farm in storage facilities to allow for reduction in the demand for transport facilities for short periods of time before being passed on to the processor (Atanda et al. 2013). The majority of transportation in the food chain is by international water (29 per cent); truck (28 per cent); rail (29 per cent); and inland water (10 per cent) (Weber and Matthews 2008). By food group, cereals/carbohydrates contribute the greatest proportion to freight requirements (14 per cent); followed by red meat (10 per cent); and with nonalcoholic beverages, fats/sweets/condiments, non-red meat proteins and processed food following with about 6–8 per cent each (Weber and Matthews 2008). With over 80 per cent of the volume of world trade carried by sea, international shipping and ports provide crucial linkages in global supply chains and are essential for the ability of all countries – including those that are landlocked – to access global markets (UNCTAD 2011). The transportation infrastructure through which food is moved is vulnerable to extreme weather events and to large-scale trends such as sea level rise (Attavanich et al. 2013; Clark et al. 2004). It is especially vulnerable where investment is low, and in locations that are especially exposed to extreme weather impacts, such as along coastlines or near rivers (Mashayekh et al. 2012). While damage may only be temporary, they can be very disruptive. They may affect traffic demand, traffic safety and traffic flow relationships, potentially creating a problem for food-related just-in-time distribution (Koetse and Rietveld 2009; Wu and Olson 2008). For land transportation, intense precipitation increases accident frequency, decreases traffic speed, and can lead to road and railway flooding and mudslides that further disrupt transportation systems (Brijs et al. 2008; Maze et al. 2006; McGuirk et al. 2009). River transportation is 190

How is climate change affecting the global food system?

affected by water levels in rivers and lakes, which can cause reductions in the amount of cargo that can be transported per vessel, increasing the number of trips and the cost of moving cargo (Millerd 2005 and 2011). Storms at sea affect shipping and access to harbors (Becker et al. 2013), reducing the efficiency of ocean transportation. For example, recent Hurricane Sandy in 2012, which struck the New York region, led to a week-long shut-down of one of the largest container ports in the US and generated US$50 billion of economic damage (EQECAT 2012). Heatwaves put additional stress on transport systems as food needs to be moved faster and/or the cold chain will need to be strengthened to avoid deterioration. For perishable crops, such as fruit and dairy produce, lack of a cold chain or refrigerated transport can result in large losses due to spoilage (Choudhury 2006; Mittal 2007). Not all climate effects on transportation are negative, however: shorter duration of ice cover due to warming climate in the Great Lakes and the Upper Mississippi River basin could lead to an extension of the navigation season (Kling and Wuebbles 2005; Millerd 2011; Wittman 2008). While transportation of food commodities can be highly vulnerable to climate variability and change, evidence suggests that there is substantial adaptive capacity. Changnon (1989) reviewed the impacts of an adjustment to the severe drought of 1988 combined with reduced spring melt runoff in the Mississippi River drainage. At the time, the barge industry shipped 45 per cent of all bulk commodities (coal, grains and petroleum) leaving the Midwestern US. Low flows in the river forced lighter loads on barges and smaller numbers of barges per tow. The revenue loss to the barge industry, coupled with higher transportation costs to commodity industries, totaled US$1 billion. Changnon (1989) reported that the Illinois Central Railroad, which parallels much of the blocked portions of the Mississippi River, used information from a climate forecast to lease additional rail cars to transport commodities originally destined for barges. That action provided alternative transport to commodity companies and served as a model of ex ante risk management. Adaptation to these rising sea levels and storm surge in heavily populated coastal regions can be observed in both high- and low-income countries (Koetse and Rietveld 2012). Becker et al. surveyed port authorities from around the world to discover whether ports already have policies to address climate adaptation issues (Becker et al. 2012). Their study reveals that 63 per cent of the 93 respondents reported that they had at least one policy that specifically addressed potential climate change effects. The survey responses showed few significant differences between ports of different sizes or regions, but indicated that US Gulf Coast ports appeared to be the most prepared. In developed countries, infrastructure has been constructed that allows for storm surge and sea level rise without significant losses or change in the location of population or industry. For example, in the UK, Thames River tidal defenses were built to protect London and most of the Thames Estuary against storm events that might happen on average only once every 1,000 years (Love et al. 2010). In Bangladesh, there have been very successful efforts to reduce the impact of tropical cyclones on the population while reducing overall vulnerability to sea level rise by investing in raising roads and highways, building cyclone and flood shelters, designing flood management schemes, and constructing coastal polders (Adger et al. 2007; Rawlani and Sovacool 2011).

Trading food Trade is important in ensuring food security. It buffers the effects of regional shortfalls, helps stabilize food prices in importing countries, and rationalizes resource allocation, thus leading to efficiency gains. Trade can also benefit farmers, supporting their income through export sales of surplus and providing access to a greater variety of, or lower-priced, inputs such as seed, fertilizer, pesticides, and machinery (Brooks 2014) (see also Timmer, chapter 17 this volume; 191

Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata

and Murphy, chapter 18, this volume). The flow of products from surplus to shortfall regions helps equilibrate prices between them. Countries with closed markets as a means of achieving food security face challenges when they do not have favorable climatic conditions or adequate resources in land, water, pest control, etc. for producing the staple commodities for feeding their populations (Johnson 2009). Integrated assessment models link future changes in temperature and precipitation from climate models to agricultural yield models, and finally to economic models (Nelson et al. 2010). Using these linked models, we can estimate future changes in food prices (Brown 2014). Although future commodity price movements are very uncertain, it is likely that climate change will, in general, increase food prices (Nelson et al. 2014). Increasing food prices globally will affect the ability of low-income, food-poor countries to import sufficient food, leading to regional heterogeneity in prices (Fader et al. 2013). Higher food prices have been shown to affect overall food consumption rates (Kearney 2010), reduce diet diversity, reduce expenditures on durable goods, reduce the number of children being sent to school, and increase the number of children performing domestic work, among other effects (Tandon 2014). Trade emerges as a key way the food system will adapt to large-scale changes in where food is produced (Nelson et al. 2010). Moving food from regions that are able to produce more to regions that will produce less is a key adaption to the impact of climate change (Anderson and Nelgen 2012; Chapoto and Jayne 2009; Do et al. 2013; Wu and Guclu 2013). Fader et al. (2013) show that 16 per cent of the world’s population is already using international trade to cover their demand for agricultural products, and reliance on trade is likely to increase in countries facing climate change’s most adverse effects on agricultural production.

Retailing and wholesaling Food that is ready for consumption is sold to distributors for onward sale through large supermarkets or directly to consumers or small local vendors. Since more than half of all people now live in urban areas (Seto et al. 2012), food suppliers must consolidate resources and diversify their products to meet urban demand. Large-scale changes in the retail sector have led to the rise of supermarkets and other highly efficient retailing outlets in developing countries (Pingali 2007; Reardon et al. 2003). Expansion of large-scale retail will affect producer prices as integration and consolidation occurs, particularly for specialty crops such as cocoa and coffee (Kaplinsky 2004). In growing coastal cities, imported food from other countries and regions that is affordable and caters to changing urban dietary preferences will compete with inland producers (Pingali 2007). This will affect the entire food system by changing the way food is marketed and its profitability across many sectors (Crush and Frayne 2011; Lee et al. 2012). Wholesaling and retailing of food may be vulnerable to climate change directly through infrastructure damage, and indirectly through its impact on economic drivers, such as affecting consumer traffic or increasing local demand for perishable foods during times of crisis (Burrus et al. 2002; Murraya et al. 2010). Globalization and expansion of the retail sector in recent years has seen an emerging dualism between industrialized large-scale production and smallholderbased production (Lee et al. 2012), resulting in the rise of multiple governance structures in agrifood chains (Dolan and Humphrey 2004). This has resulted in a diverse exposure to climate and weather shocks, as the retail sector has increasingly placed risk on the producer – because if a farmer produces sub-standard or insufficient goods, their income is affected – but the retailer can always find replacements or substitutes from elsewhere in the food system (Lee et al. 2012). Elongated supply chains, sometimes bringing food from thousands of miles away, expose food products to greater risks for potential spoilage and make it harder to verify their quality at 192

How is climate change affecting the global food system?

multiple stages (Swinnen 2007). Losses of food or delays in food delivery can affect food prices. Swinnen and Squicciarini (2012) show that both high and low food prices on the world market challenge food security. Low prices make it difficult for farmers in developing countries to compete with developed country farmers on world markets, thus reducing domestic capacity. High prices make it difficult for low-income populations to purchase adequate food supplies when their own production cannot cover need (Nin-Pratt et al. 2011). The latter is likely to become an increasing challenge under climate change.

Consuming and disposing of food The final stage in the food system is consuming food, which involves buying, preparing and eating food at the individual or household level (Ericksen 2008). Disposing of food is discarding unused, leftover and spoiled food and packaging. Cultural and socioeconomic factors greatly affect diet and, at a global scale, affect the resources required to produce food (Ingram et al. 2010). Climate affects consumption and disposal through temperature and humidity effects on food longevity and food safety (Tirado et al. 2010). Driven by technological and socioeconomic factors, food consumption per person has increased over the past 50 years by 400 kcal per person per day, with dramatic decreases in the prevalence of under-nutrition in many areas (Kearney 2010) (see Marks, chapter 26, this volume). The marked rise in available food energy observed globally has been accompanied by changes in dietary composition which has an effect on overall demand for food (IAASTD 2008). Large increases in the consumption of vegetable oils (199 per cent), meat (119 per cent) and sugar (199 per cent) in low-income countries between 1963–2003 reveal significant expansion of food availability across all income brackets (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012). Expansion of income, urbanization, and increasing demands on women’s time all result in larger proportions of the diet coming from pre-prepared foods high in fats, sugar, and salt, resulting in adverse health consequences for those in higher income brackets (Popkin 1999). Climate change may affect consumption through temperature and humidity impacts on food longevity and food safety, which, in turn, influence consumer choices and diets. The indirect impacts via changes in all the preceding food system activities affecting food prices will, however, likely be much more significant: different crops and supply chains, increased transport and storage costs, and changes in food safety requirements will all be major drivers of food prices and hence affordability. These will translate into changes in diets.

Consuming land-derived food Climate change and weather’s effects on water availability and temperature could have a myriad of effects on food-borne pathogens. Mild winters and warmer summers may lead to a longer seasonal peak of diseases caused by organisms such as Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7, possibly over a larger geographic area. Mycotoxin contamination is an important concern in lowincome countries due to the lack of refrigeration or climate controlled containers (Groopman et al. 2008). Mycotoxins can result in immune suppression, impaired growth and cancer, and even act synergistically with important diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and kwashiorkor (Wagachaa and Muthomib 2008; Williams et al. 2010). Environmental factors, including temperature, humidity, insect damage, and drought affect mycotoxin production, and in some regions will be aggravated by climate change (Miraglia et al. 2009). Climate change may also indirectly affect food safety. Pesticide and herbicide use may increase with increasing weed and pest populations, potentially contaminating food as well as 193

Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata

groundwater (Miraglia et al. 2009). Indirect effects of climate change on the fate of pesticide residues through land use change may also be significant (Bloomfield et al. 2006).

Consuming sea-derived food Food derived from aquatic systems faces its own suite of contamination opportunities prior to distribution and retail. As sea water temperatures increase, there is an increase in the uptake of mercury by fish (Dijkstra et al. 2013). This can result in an increase in human dietary exposure to mercury. Mercury is highly toxic, having neurotoxic effects to the brain of the developing fetus (NAS 2000). In addition, warmer water can result in an increase in certain pathogenic microorganisms that can contaminate seafood. For example, Vibrio vulnificus, which is a pathogenic microorganism found in oysters, is more commonly found in warm waters than cooler waters (McLaughlin et al. 2005). Enhanced algal blooms in both marine and fresh water systems, fed by warmer surface waters and climate-induced shifts in water circulation, have significant human health impacts through direct pathogen consumption and indirect pathogen consumption through aquatic foodstuffs (Moore et al. 2008). Climate change is expected to make the harmful algal blooms more frequent.

Disposing of food ‘Food loss’ describes all food that is discarded or cannot be used, while ‘food waste’ specifically describes food that is discarded or cannot be used during the retail and consumption stages. It is estimated that the world’s post-harvest food losses in all products are approximately 25 per cent, with 10 per cent and 28 per cent in developed and developing countries respectively (IIR 2009). According to IIR (2009), loss of perishable foods through a lack of refrigeration accounts for 20 per cent of all food, with 9 per cent in developed and 23 per cent in developing countries. Increase in ambient temperature resulting from climatic change is expected to increase the risk of food poisoning and food spoilage unless the cold chain is extended and improved (James and James 2010). In the future, food waste may be reduced as consumers are made increasingly aware of its environmental, as well as economic, costs. Improved food processing and packaging technologies can also reduce food waste, as well as clearer food product dating (sell by/use by) that helps consumers understand whether food is safe to eat (Parfitt et al. 2010).

Conclusions The food system encompasses activities that include producing food, processing, storing and transporting food, and consumption. As all these activities are sensitive to climate and weather, assessing their ultimate outcomes for food security greatly complicates the task of evaluating the overall consequences for food security beyond the traditional focus on food production alone. The primary outcome of a functioning and healthy food system is food security, which is a state or condition essentially related to peoples’ ability to access food. Access to food, together with the other important components of food availability and utilization, is an outcome of a range of food systems activities. Here we have introduced the wide range of activities encompassed by the food system and have introduced how they are sensitive to, and therefore affected by, climate change and extreme weather. We have seen that vulnerability is widespread, but adaptive capacity to climate impacts varies by income and sector. We are likely to see climate effects far beyond food production on the broader food system, with droughts and 194

How is climate change affecting the global food system?

storm surges being the most relevant extreme events for the food system. However, the vulnerability of some elements of the food system is less well-known, specifically in the processing and packaging of food across both capital- and labor-intensive food systems. The scale of linkages between different geographic areas is extensive. The current food system is sensitive to climate and weather impacts food prices. Changes in global food prices in recent years has resulted from a combination of factors, including the widespread occurrence of extreme weather events; competition for land by fuel crops; and an overall narrowing of global grain surpluses as global food demand continues to grow faster than the growth in global food production. Although the challenge of climate change to food security is extensive, the food system is constantly changing and responding to economic, social, political, and other drivers and therefore it can, and will, respond. The cost of food and its affordability may be significantly affected in coming decades.

References Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O’Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B., and Takahashi, K. 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In: Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Linden, P. J. v.d. and Hanson, C. E. (eds.), pp. 717–743. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aerts, R. and Honnay, O. 2011. Forest restoration, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. BMC Ecology, 11: 29–38. Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA working paper no. 12–03. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Anderson, K. and Nelgen, S. 2012. Trade barrier volatility and agricultural price stabilization. World Development, 40: 36–48. Atanda, O., Makun, H. A., Ogara, I. M., Edema, M., Idahor, K. O., Eshiett, M. E. and Oluwabamiwo, B. F. 2013. Fungal and mycotoxin contamination of Nigerian foods and feeds. In: Mycotoxin and food safety in developing countries. Makun, H. A. (ed.), pp. 3–38. Rijeka: InTech Publishers. Attavanich, W., McCarl, B. A., Ahmedov, Z., Fuller, S. W. and Vedenov, D. V. 2013. Effects of climate change on US grain transport. Nature Climate Change, 3: 638–643. Badeck, F. W., Bondeau, A., Bottcher, K., Doktor, D., Lucht, W., Schaber, J. and Sitch, S. 2004. Responses of spring phenology to climate change. New Phytologist, 162: 295–309. Becker, A., Inoue, S., Fischer, M. and Schwegler, B. 2012. Climate change impacts on international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators. Climatic Change, 110: 5–29. Becker, A. H., Acciaro, M., Asariotis, R., Cabrera, E., Cretegny, L., Crist, P., Esteban, M., Mather, A., Messner, S., Naruse, S., Ng, A. K. Y., Rahmstorf, S., Savonis, M., Song, D.-W., Stenek, V. and Velegrakis, A. F. 2013. A note on climate change adaptation for seaports: a challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society. Climatic Change, 120: 683–695. Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M., Fernandez, A., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda, L., Mamo, T., Bo, N. V., Nobre, C. A., Scholes, R., Sharma, R. and Wakhungu, J. 2012. Achieving food security in the face of climate change: final report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. Berg, A., Noblet-Ducoudré, N.d., Sultan, B., Lengaigne, M. and Guimberteau, M. 2013. Projections of climate change impacts on potential C4 crop productivity over tropical regions. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 170: 89–102. Berry, N., Utila, H., Clunas, C., Viergever, K. and Tipper, R. A. 2009. Avoiding unplanned mosaic degradation and deforestation in Malawi. Blantyre, Malawi: PLANVIVO. Bloomfield, J. P., Williams, R. J., Gooddy, D. C., Cape, J. N. and Guha, P. 2006. Impacts of climate change on the fate and behavior of pesticides in surface and groundwater – a UK perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 369: 163–177. Brander, K. M. 2007. Global fish production and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 19709–19714. Brooks, S. 2014. Enabling adaptation? Lessons from the new ‘Green Revolution’ in Malawi and Kenya. Climatic Change, 122: 15–26.

195

Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata Brown, M. E. 2014. Food security, food prices and climate variability. London: Earthscan/Routledge Press. Burrus, R., Jr., Dumas, C., Farrell, C. and Hall, W., Jr. 2002. Impact of low-intensity hurricanes on regional economic activity. Natural Hazards Review, 3: 118–125. Byerlee, D., Diao, X. and Jackson, C. 2005. Agriculture, rural development, and pro-poor growth: country experiences in the post-reform era. Washington DC: The World Bank. Changnon, S. A. 1989. The 1988 drought, barges and diversion. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 70: 1092–1104. Chapoto, A. and Jayne, T. S. 2009. The impacts of trade barriers and market interventions on maize price predictability: evidence from eastern and southern Africa. In: Food security international development working papers. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics. Chmielewski, F. M., Muller, A. and Bruns, E. 2004. Climate changes and trends in phenology of fruit trees and field crops in Germany, 1961–2000. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 121: 69–78. Choudhury, M. L. 2006. Recent developments in reducing post-harvest losses in the Asia-Pacific region. In: Reports of the APO seminar on reduction of postharvest losses of fruit and vegetables. Rolle, R. S. (ed.), pp. 5–11. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization APO and the FAO. Clark, G. 1994. Onions are my husband: survival and accumulation by West African market women. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press. Clark, X., Dollar, D. and Micco, A. 2004. Port efficiency, maritime transport costs and bilateral trade. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Papers. Clay, J. 2011. Freeze the footprint of food. Nature, 475: 287–289. Coulter, J. and Poulton, C. 2001. Cereal market liberalization in Africa. In: Commodity market reforms: lessons of two decades. Akiyama, T., Baffes, J., Larson, D. and Varangis, P. (eds.). Washington DC: The World Bank. Crush, J. and Frayne, B. 2011. Supermarket expansion and the informal food economy in southern African cities: implications for urban food security. Journal of Southern African Studies, 37: 781–807. Diaz-Ambrona, C. G. H., Gigena, R. and Mendoza, C. O. 2013. Climate change impacts on maize and dry bean yields of smallholder farmers in Honduras. Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies, 2: 5–22. Diffenbaugh, N. S. and Scherer, M. 2013. Likelihood of July 2012 U.S. temperatures in pre-industrial and current forcing regimes. Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94: S6–S9. Dijkstra, J., Buckman, K., Ward, D., Evans, D. and Dionne, M. 2013. Experimental and natural warming elevates mercury concentrations in estuarine fish. Plos One, 8: e58401. Do, Q.-T., Levchenko, A. A. and Ravallion, M. 2013. Trade insulation as social protection. Washington DC: The World Bank. DOI. 2011. Reclamation: managing water in the west. Literature synthesis on climate change implications for water and environmental resources. Technical memorandum 86–68210–2010–03. Denver, CO: Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Dolan, C. and Humphrey, J. 2004. Changing governance patterns in the trade in fresh vegetables between Africa and the United Kingdom. Environment & Planning A, 36: 491–509. Eakin, H. 2010. What is vulnerable? Food security and global environmental change. London: Earthscan. EQECAT. 2012. Post-landfall loss estimates for superstorm Sandy released. New York: CoreLogic EQECAT Inc. Ericksen, P. J. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 18: 234–245. Fader, M., Gerten, D., Krause, M., Lucht, W. and Cramer, W. 2013. Spatial decoupling of agricultural production and consumption: quantifying dependences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environmental Research Letters, 8: 014046. FAO. 2008. Climate change and food security: a framework document. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO. 2013. Food wastage footprint impacts on natural resources: summary report. Rome, Italy: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Fellows, P. J. 2000. Food processing technology principles and practice. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing. Fleming, A. and Vanclay, F. 2011. Farmer responses to climate change and sustainable agriculture. In Sustainable agriculture volume 2. Lichfouse, E., Mamelin, M., Navarette, M. and Debaeke, P. (eds.), pp. 283–293. New York: Springer. Garg, T., Barrett, C. B., Gómez, M. I., Lentz, E. C. and Violette, W. J. 2013. Market prices and food aid local and regional procurement and distribution: a multi-country analysis. World Development, 49: 19–29. Garnett, T., Appleby, M. C., Balmford, A., Bateman, I. J., Benton, T. G., Bloomer, P., Burlingame, B., Dawkins, M., Dolan, L., Fraser, D., Herrero, M., Hoffmann, I., Smith, P., Thornton, P. K., Toulmin,

196

How is climate change affecting the global food system? C., Vermeulen, S. J. and Godfray, H. C. J. 2013. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science, 341: 33–34. Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. R., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M. and Toulmin, C. 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327: 812–818. Gregory, P., Johnson, S. N., Newton, A. C. and Ingram, J. S. I. 2009. Integrating pests and pathogens into the climate change/food security debate. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60: 2827–2838. Groopman, J. D., Kensler, T. W. and Wild, C. P. 2008. Protective interventions to prevent aflatoxininduced carcinogenesis in developing countries. Annual Review of Public Health, 29: 187–203. Gutierrez, A. P., Ponti, L., Ellis, C. K. and d’Oultremont, T. 2006. Analysis of climate effects on agricultural systems. In: White Paper CEC-500-2005-188-SF. Berkeley, CA: California Climate Change Center, University of California, Berkeley. Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M. and Lo, K. 2010. Global surface temperature change. Review of Geophysics, 48: RG4004. Hansen, M. A. D. R. 2004. Ecosystems. Detecting long term forest change using continuous fields of tree cover maps from 8km AVHRR data for the years 1982–1999. Ecosystems, 7: 1–22. Hasan, M. R. 2001. Nutrition and feeding for sustainable aquaculture development in the third millennium. In Aquaculture in the third millennium. Technical proceedings of the conference on aquaculture in the third millennium. Subasinghe, R. P., Bueno, P., Phillips, M. J., Hough, C., McGladdery, S. E. and Arthur, J. R. (eds.) pp. 193–219. Bangkok, Thailand: NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome. Hawkes, C. and Ruel, M. T. 2006. Understanding the links between agriculture and health. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Hillbruner, C. and Moloney, G. 2012. When early warning is not enough – lessons learned from the 2011 Somalia Famine. Global Food Security, 1(1), 20–28. IAASTD 2008. International assessment of agricultural knowledge: science and technology for development. London: Island Press. Idso, S. B., Kimball, B. A., Anderson, M. G. and Mauney, J. R. 1987. Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant-growth – the interactive role of air-temperature. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 20: 1–10. IIR. 2009. The role of refrigeration in worldwide nutrition – 5th informatory note on refrigeration and food. Paris: International Institute of Refrigeration IIR. Ingram, J., Ericksen, P. and Liverman, D. 2010. Food security and global environmental change. London and Washington DC: Earthscan. James, S. J. and James, C. 2010. The food cold-chain and climate change. Food Research International, 43: 1944–1956. Johnson, R. 2009. Food security: the role of agricultural trade. IPC discussion paper. Washington DC: International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council. Jones, P. G. and Thornton, P. K. 2003. The potential impacts of climate change on maize production in Africa and Latin America in 2055. Global Environmental Change, 13: 51–59. Kaplinsky, R. 2004. Competition policy and the global coffee and cocoa value chains. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Kearney, J. 2010. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365: 2793–2807. Kling, G. W. and Wuebbles, D. J. 2005. Confronting climate change in the Great Lakes region: impacts on our communities and ecosystems, executive summary. In: Report of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological Society of America. Koetse, M. J. and Rietveld, P. 2009. The impact of climate change and weather on transport: an overview of empirical findings. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14: 205–221. Koetse, M. J. and Rietveld, P. 2012. Adaptation to climate change in the transport sector. Transport Reviews, 32: 267–286. Lautze, S., Bella, W., Alinovi, L. and Russo, L. 2012. Early warning, late response again: the 2011 famine in Somalia. Global Food Security, 1: 43–49. Le Houerou, H. N. 2002. Man-made deserts: desertization processes and threats. Arid Land Research and Management, 16: 1–36. Lee, J., Gereffi, G. and Beauvais, J. 2012. Global value chains and agrifood standards: challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: 12326–12331. Lewis, T. and Potter, E. 2011. Ethical consumption: a critical introduction. London: Routledge.

197

Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata Limão, N. and Venables, A. J. 2001. Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs, and trade. World Bank Economic Review, 15: 451–479. Lotsch, A., Friedl, M. A., Anderson, B. T. and Tucker, C. J. 2003. Coupled vegetation-precipitation variability observed from satellite and climate records. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(14). Love, G., Soares, A. and Püempel, H. 2010. Climate change, climate variability and transportation. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 1: 130–145. Mal, B., Padulosi, S. and Ravi, S. B. 2010. Minor millets in South Asia: learnings from IFAD-NUS project in India and Nepal. Rome: Bioversity International and M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation. Malcolm, S., Marshall, E., Aillery, M., Heisey, P., Livingston, M. and Day-Rubenstein, K. 2012. Agricultural adaptation to a changing climate: economic and environmental implications vary by U.S. region. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Mashayekh, Y., Jaramillo, P., Samaras, C., Hendrickson, C. T., Blackhurst, M., MacLean, H. L. and Matthews, H. S. 2012. Potentials for sustainable transportation in cities to alleviate climate change impacts. Environmental Science and Technology, 46: 2529–2537. McGowan, J. A., Cayan, D. R. and Dorman, L. M. 1998. Climate-ocean variability and ecosystem response in the northeast Pacific. Science, 281: 210–217. McGuirk, M., Shuford, S., Peterson, T. C. and Pisano, P. 2009. Weather and climate change implications for surface transportation in the USA. WMO Bulletin, 58: 84. McLaughlin, J., DePaola, A., Bopp, C., Martinek, K., Napolilli, N., Allison, C., Murray, S., Thompson, E., Bird, M. and Middaugh, J. 2005. Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus gastroenteritis associated with Alaskan oysters. New England Journal of Medicine, 353: 1463–1470. Millerd, F. 2005. The economic impact of climate change on Canadian commercial navigation on the Great Lakes. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 30: 269–280. Millerd, F. 2011. The potential impact of climate change on Great Lakes international shipping. Climatic Change, 104: 629–652. Miraglia, M., Marvin, H. J. P., Kleter, G. A., Battilani, P., Brera, C., Coni, E., Cabbada, F., Croci, L., Santis, B. D., Denkers, S., Filippi, L., Hutjes, R. W. A., Nordan, M. Y., Disante, M., Piva, G., Prandini, A., Toti, L., Boon, G.v.d. and Vespermann, A. 2009. Climate change and food safety. An emerging issue with special focus on Europe. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47: 1009–1021. Mittal, S. 2007. Strengthening backward and forward linkages in horticulture: some successful initiatives. Agricultural Economic Research Review, 20: 457–469. Moore, S. K., Trainer, V. L., Mantua, N. J., Parker, M. S., Laws, E. A., Backer, L. C. and Fleming, L. E. 2008. Impacts of climate variability and future climate change on harmful algal blooms and human health. Environmental Health, 7: 24–27. Moseley, W. G. 2003. Environmental degradation and ‘poor’ smallholders in the West African SudanoSahel: global discourses and local realities. In African environment and development: rhetoric, programs, realities. Moseley, W. G. (ed.), pp. 41–62. New York: Ashgate. Murray, K. B., Muro, F. D. and Leszczyc, P. P. 2010. The effect of weather on consumer spending. The effect of weather on consumer spending, 17: 512–520. Myers, S. S., Golden, C. D., Ricketts, T., Turner, W. R., Redford, K. H., Gaffikin, L. and Osofsky, S. A. 2013. Human health and ecosystem alteration: a critical review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110: 18753–18760. Mysak, L. A. 1986. El Nino, interannual variability and fisheries in the northeast Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences, 43: 464–497. Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., Ranieri, M. S. and Bernabucci, U. 2010. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livestock Science, 130: 57–69. NAS. 2000. Toxicological effects of methylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NCDC. 2011. State of the climate: global analysis for annual 2011. Asheville, NC: NOAA National Climatic Data Center. Nelson, G. C., Havlík, P., Ahammad, H., Deryng, D., Elliott, J., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Heyhoe, E., Kyle, P., Von Lampe, M., Lotze-Campen, H., Mason d’Croz, D., van Meijl, H., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Müller, C., Popp, A., Robertson, R., Robinson, S., Schmid, E., Schmitz, C., Tabeau, A. and Willenbockel, D. 2014. Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(9), 3274–3279. Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Palazzo, A., Gray, I., Ingersoll, C., Robertson, R., Tokgoz, S., Zhu, T., Sulser, T. B., Ringler, C., Msangi, S. and You, L. 2010. Food security, farming, and climate change to 2050: scenarios, results, policy options. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.

198

How is climate change affecting the global food system? Neven, D., Odera, M., Reardon, T. and Wang, H. 2009. Kenyan supermarkets, emerging middle-class horticultural farmers, and employment impacts on the rural poor. World Development, 37: 1802–1811. Nin-Pratt, A., Johnson, M., Magalhaes, E., You, L., Diao, X. and Chamberlin, J. 2011. Yield gaps and potential agricultural growth in West and Central Africa. Research Monograph, 170. Ottersen, G., Planque, B., Belgrano, A., Post, E., Reid, P. C. and Stenseth, N. C. 2001. Ecological effects of the North Atlantic Oscillation. Oecologia, 128: 1–14. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. and Macnaughton, S. 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365: 3065–3081. Perry, A. L., Low, P. J., Ellis, J. R. and Reynolds, J. D. 2005. Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science, 308: 1912–1915. Pingali, P. 2007. Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: implications for research and policy. Food Policy, 32: 218–298. Plateau, J.-P. 1996. Physical infrastructure as a constraint on agricultural growth: the case of sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford Development Studies, 24: 189–219. Popkin, B. M. W. D. 1999. Urbanization, lifestyle changes and the nutrition transition. World Development, 27: 1905–1916. Purse, B. V., Mellor, P. S., Rogers, D. J., Samuel, A. R., Mertens, P. P. C. and Baylis, M. 2005. Climate change and the recent emergence of bluetongue in Europe. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 3: 171–181. Rawlani, A. K. and Sovacool, B. K. 2011. Building responsiveness to climate change through community based adaptation in Bangladesh. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 16: 845–863. Reardon, T., Timmer, C. P., Barrett, C. B. and Berdegue, J. 2003. The rise of supermarkets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85: 1140–1146. Richardson, A. J. and Schoeman, D. S. 2004. Climate impact on plankton ecosystems in the Northeast Atlantic. Science, 305: 1609–1612. Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J. A. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461: 472–475. Roessig, J., Woodley, C., Cech, J., Jr. and Hansen, L. 2004. Effects of global climate change on marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14: 251–275. Rosenzweig, C., Elliott, J., Deryng, D., Ruane, A. C., Müller, C., Arneth, A., Boote, K. J., Folberth, C., Glotter, M., Khabarov, N., Neumannk, K., Piontek, F., Pugh, T. A. M., Schmid, E., Stehfest, E., Yang, H. and Jones, J. W. 2013. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (9): 3268–3273. Rosenzweig, C., Tubiello, F. N., Goldberg, R., Mills, E. and Bloomfield, J. 2002. Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Global Environmental Change–Human and Policy Dimensions, 12: 197–202. Schlenker, W. and Roberts, M. J. 2009. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106: 15594–15598. Schmidhuber, J. and Tubiello, F. N. 2007. Global food security under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 19703–19708. Seto, K. C., Güneralp, B. and Hutyra, L. R. 2012. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109: 16083–16088. Shepherd, A. W. 2012. Grain storage in Africa: learning from past experiences. Food Chain, 2: 149–163. Smit, B. and Skinner, M. 2002. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7: 85–114. Spector, S., Nichols, E. and Gomez, A. 2008. Dysfunctional hotspots? Pan-tropical changes in dung beetle communities and declining ecosystem functions. Annual meeting of the International Congress for Conservation Biology. Chattanooga, TN: International Congress for Conservation. Stathers, T., Lamboll, R. and Mvumi, B. M. 2013. Postharvest agriculture in changing climates: its importance to African smallholder farmers. Food Security, 5: 361–392. Swinnen, J. 2007. Global supply chains, standards and the poor: how the globalization of food systems and standards affects rural development and poverty. Oxon: CAB International. Tandon, S. 2014. Non-food coping strategies in response to the world food price crisis: evidence from education in India. Minneapolis: Agricultural & Applied Economics Association 2014 AAEA Annual Meeting.

199

Molly E. Brown and Tawny M. Mata Tao, F. L., Yokozawa, M., Xu, Y. L., Hayashi, Y. and Zhang, Z. 2006. Climate changes and trends in phenology and yields of field crops in China, 1981–2000. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 138: 82–92. Taylor, R. G., Scanlon, B., Doll, P., Rodell, M., van Beek, R., Wada, Y., Longuevergne, L., Leblanc, M., Famiglietti, J. S., Edmunds, M., Konikow, L., Green, T. R., Chen, J. Y., Taniguchi, M., Bierkens, M. F. P., MacDonald, A., Fan, Y., Maxwell, R. M., Yechieli, Y., Gurdak, J. J., Allen, D. M., Shamsudduha, M., Hiscock, K., Yeh, P. J. F., Holman, I. and Treidel, H. 2013. Ground water and climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3: 322–329. Thornton, P. K., van de Steeg, J., Notenbaert, A. and Herrero, M. 2009. The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: a review of what we know and what we need to know. Agricultural Systems, 101: 113–127. Tirado, M. C., Clarke, R., Jaykus, L. A., McQuatters-Gollop, A. and Frank, J. M. 2010. Climate change and food safety: a review. Food Research International, 43: 1745–1765. Tubiello, F. N., Soussana, J. F. and Howden, S. M. 2007. Crop and pasture response to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104: 19686–19690. Turnpenny, J. R., Parsons, D. J., Armstrong, A. C., Clark, J. A., Cooper, K. and Matthews, A. M. 2001. Integrated models of livestock systems for climate change studies. 2. Intensive systems. Global Change Biology, 7: 163–170. UNCTAD. 2011. Climate change impacts and adaptation: a challenge for global ports. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M. and Ingram, J. S. I. 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37: 195–222. Wagachaa, J. M. and Muthomib, J. W. 2008. Mycotoxin problem in Africa: current status, implications to food safety and health and possible management strategies. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 124: 1–12. Walthall, C. L., Hatfield, J., Backlund, P., Lengnick, L., Marshall, E., Walsh, M., Adkins, S., Aillery, M., Ainsworth, E. A., Ammann, C., Anderson, C. J., Bartomeus, I., Baumgard, L. H., Booker, F., Bradley, B., Blumenthal, D. M., Bunce, J., Burkey, K., Dabney, S. M., Delgado, J. A., Dukes, J., Funk, A., Garrett, K., Glenn, M., Grant, D. A., Goodrich, D., Hu, S., Izaurralde, R. C., Jones, R. A. C., Kim, S.-H., Leaky, A. D. B., Lewers, K., Mader, T. L., McClung, A., Morgan, J., Muth, D. J., Nearing, M., Oosterhuis, D. M., Ort, D., Parmesan, C., Pettigrew, W. T., Polley, W., Rader, R., Rice, C., Rivington, M., Rosskopf, E., Salas, W. A., Sollenberger, L. E., Srygley, R., Stöckle, C., Takle, E. S., Timlin, D., Whit, J. W., Winfree, R., Wright-Morton, L. and Ziska, L. H. 2012. Climate change and agriculture in the United States: effects and adaptation. Washington: US Department of Agriculture. Walther, G. R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T. J. C., Fromentin, J. M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and Bairlein, F. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416: 389–395. Weber, C. L. and Matthews, H. S. 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 42: 3508–3513. Wespestad, V. G., Fritz, L. W., Ingraham, W. J. and Megrey, B. A. 2000. On relationships between cannibalism, climate variability, physical transport, and recruitment success of Bering Sea walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 272–278. Wessels, K. J., Prince, S. D., Frost, P. E. and van Zyl, D. 2004. Assessing the effects of human-induced land degradation in the former homelands of northern South Africa with a 1 km AVHRR NDVI time-series. Remote Sensing of Environment, 91: 47–67. West, J. W. 2003. Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 86: 2131–2144. White, N., Sutherst, R. W., Hall, N. and Whish-Wilson, P. 2003. The vulnerability of the Australian beef industry to impacts of the cattle tick Boophilus microplus under climate change. Climatic Change, 61: 157–190. Williams, J. H., Grubb, J. A., Davis, J. W., Wang, J.-S. and Jolly, P. E. 2010. HIV and hepatocellular and esophageal carcinomas related to consumption of mycotoxin-prone foods in sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92: 154–160. Wittman, S. 2008. Climate change in the Great Lakes region. A Summary report of the ‘starting a public discussion’. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute and the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. Wu, D. S. and Olson, D. L. 2008. Supply chain risk, simulation and vendor selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 114: 646–655. Wu, F. and Guclu, H. 2013. Global maize trade and food security: implications from a social network Mode. Risk Analysis, 33(12): 2168–2178.

200

13 THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE WORLD’S SOILS Stefan Hauser and Lindsey Norgrove

Introduction Agriculture and food production are predominantly soil-based, with only marginal portions based on hydroponics or the use of only biomass as a substrate. In this chapter, the factors affecting sustainable soil use will be elaborated. This is defined as factors that: • • • •

maintain or improve soil biological, chemical, and physical properties; maintain an input:output (harvest) ratio greater than one for all macronutrients; use nutrient inputs, preferably but not exclusively from renewable rather than nonrenewable sources that seek to complement natural nutrient cycling; and permit the system to recover from the disturbances caused by cultivation and harvest (adapted after Schaller 1993).

To address and apply these themes, the attention of this chapter rests predominately on the situation in sub-Saharan Africa. There are good reasons for this geographical focus. In the twentieth century, the green revolution in Asia demonstrated that dramatic yield increases are possible in the poorer tropical regions, achieved by combining fertilizer inputs, better agronomy, improved pest management, soil water management and crop varieties (Huang et al. 2002). These, coupled with development of rural infrastructure, have sustained input supply lines and marketing and value chains. However, sub-Saharan Africa has neither experienced a green revolution nor has it the rural infrastructure or NARES to support agriculture to even keep pace with the food demands of the growing population. According to FAO (2012), sub-Saharan Africa is the only region with an increasing number of people suffering undernourishment, often with more than 25 per cent of the total population thus classified (FAO 2011). SubSaharan Africa has the world’s lowest fertilizer application rates (Morris 2007) and one of the lowest percentages of irrigated agricultural land (FAO 2011). Thus the region is the most reliant on the nutrient and water-providing functions of soil, given the lack of replacement of nutrients by external inputs and the absence of irrigation at scale. Furthermore, this region has the highest food crop yield gaps globally as well as the lowest growth in the agricultural sector. Coelli and Rao (2005) conducted a study of 93 countries and demonstrated that those African countries had the lowest growth in total factor productivity (TFP) in agriculture between 1980 and 2000, 201

Stefan Hauser and Lindsey Norgrove

however, certain individual countries, notably Nigeria had higher growth in TFP (FAO 2011), yet increasing food demand. While some other parts of the world have serious threats to soil sustainability because of over-fertilization and consequent pollution or high levels of soil erosion due to excessive mechanization, we shall focus our discussion mainly on sub-Saharan Africa or areas with similar agro-eco zones.

Background to traditional cropping systems In sub-Saharan Africa, there are two core tropical agro-eco regions for agricultural cultivation: the savannah zones with mono-modal rainfall and a relatively short rainy season of no longer than six months and the humid forest zones with either mono- or bi-modal rainfall, yet with dry seasons no longer than four months. This chapter will first outline the traditional shifting cultivation system, and then describe systems with shortened fallows, replacement of natural fallows with managed or planted fallows, and those where fallow is no longer possible and continuous cultivation is necessary. Still existing early forms of tropical agriculture used land in an extensive way by selectively removing vegetation by slashing, followed by burning, yet conserving part of the original vegetation. This ensures that after the cropping phase, fallow re-establishment is rapid. In many parts of West and Central Africa, such practices are enshrined in traditional laws affecting land use rights. For example, in southern Cameroon, mvut (Trichoscypha acuminata) and tom (Pachypodanthium staudtii) trees have to be conserved during clearing to gain exclusive control of the land (Diaw 1997). Likewise, it is forbidden to cut down Garcinia kola trees and thus they feature commonly in food crop fields (Fondoun and Tiki Manga 2000). In such fields, relatively shade-tolerant crops such as plantain (Musa spp. AAB), the cocoyams tannia (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) and taro (Colocasia esculenta) are grown. In the savannah, with fewer trees, lightdemanding crops such as sorghum, millet and cowpea are dominant. In the past, crops such as African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa), bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) and various species of melon were more important. These systems were predominant at low human population densities and are still deemed sustainable. However, here it is important to distinguish between sustainability and productivity. The traditional systems were sustainable, meaning they were reliably producing crops sufficient to sustain farming households year after year. Systems relied upon long fallow phases during which soil chemical fertility was restored, weeds were smothered, pests and diseases were reduced or eliminated, and soil macrofaunal populations reestablished under the permanent shade (Hauser 1993). These processes stabilized soil physical and chemical properties. Soil macrofauna produce large biopores with high continuity, allowing rapid water infiltration during heavy rainstorms, thus avoiding or reducing soil erosion. The total factor productivity of these systems is difficult to assess but is considered low. However, labour productivity was relatively high as the slash and burn system requires less labour over the crop cycle. From Latin America it has been reported that labour-intensive systems were abandoned in favour of shifting cultivation due to decreasing population densities. The traditional system was used throughout the tropics, yet research on optimizing the trade-off between fallow length and productivity is rare and largely restricted to the Congo region. Laudelout (1990) summarized fallow research work conducted at Yangambi, during the first half of the twentieth century and calculated that at 20 people km2 and a minimum fallow period of 12 years, the system is sustainable and these criteria are likely to apply to the larger part of the Congo Basin. In West Africa, Nye and Greenland (1960) related sustainability of shifting cultivation systems directly to population density and estimated the limit to be 7.8 people km2. In contrast, an earlier report from south west Nigeria indicated that land was 202

The sustainability of the world’s soils

cropped for 3–4 years then left fallow for 3 years at most and soil fertility maintenance was reported to be due to the activity of Siphonogaster earthworms (Millson 1891), although the predominantly Alfisol soils of this area are of relatively high fertility. The large difference in estimates indicates that there may be strong effects of site and climate and the dominant crops. However, these issues have not been sufficiently researched. Population densities have exceeded these thresholds across most of the tropics. The most common response has been that smallholders have shortened the fallow length: for example, Van Vliet et al. (2012) conducted a recent global review of shifting cultivation systems and found that more than 80 per cent of studies reported declining fallow lengths. Following the principle proposed by Guillemin (1956) of declining soil fertility replenishment with shortened fallow length, the food production per unit area should start to decline over several crop/fallow cycles. Yet, there is little evidence for real yield declines due to reduced fallow length. For example, Mertz (2002) did not find a significant relationship between previous fallow length and crop yields. The yield declines experienced by farmers are most likely due to the number of crop/fallow cycles the land has undergone and the declining fallow occupation time to crop occupation time ratio. For more detailed information on slash and burn systems, farmers’ reasons to use it, options to intensify and stabilize and their effects on the ecosystem and productivity consult: Jurion and Henry (1969); Nyerges (1989); Peters and Neuenschwander (1988); Thurston (1992); and Hauser and Norgrove (2013).

Factors and processes affecting soil sustainability Soil inherent factors affecting sustainability Soils in the tropics developed from various parent materials, which affect the soil quality and the susceptibility to degrading processes. In West Africa, most soils are basement complex soils developed on the parent materials granite or gneiss, rocks of low nutrient status and thus producing poor soils. There are a few areas with basaltic parent materials producing more fertile soils and even fewer areas are covered with younger volcanic (basaltic) ashes. Although the same parent materials are present in Asia and South America, these regions have larger proportions of soils from basaltic parent materials (Vertisols in India) and volcanic ashes (islands of Java, Bali and others of the Indonesian archipelago) and a larger portion of soils are not as old as the SSA region. The age and rainfall regime are two important factors determining soil quality. The older and the more exposed to rainfall, the more weathered the soils. Excess rainfall leaches minerals and nutrients from the topsoil into deeper layers inaccessible to plant roots. West and Central African soils are predominantly old, up to 200 million years, and have been exposed to high rainfall for most of that development time. Accordingly, many soils are highly weathered and inherently nutrient poor, with a dominance of kaolinitic clay minerals, which have very low cation exchange capacity, thus lacking a major prerequisite to retain nutrients in the soil.

Erosion, run-off, leaching and compaction The principles of soil erosion control are well understood and measures have been developed to reduce or avoid erosion. In Ethiopia, erosion control using stone bunds is effective yet was not widely adopted due to the high labour requirements of construction. In urban vicinities of eastern DR Congo, cropping on steep slopes without any measures to prevent erosion has caused almost complete loss of the topsoil, rendering the land unsuitable for any crop, yet there 203

Stefan Hauser and Lindsey Norgrove

is no response to reduce or stop the practice. Important here is to mention, that all other measures to retain fertility and crop productivity rely on the topsoil being preserved. Run-off is the removal of dissolved substances, such as fertilizer, through the horizontal flow of surface water without the removal of soil. Usually run-off precedes soil physical erosion and both contribute to soil organic matter and nutrient losses. Avoiding run-off can be attained by the same measures as to control erosion. However, the contribution of run-off to nutrient loss is pronounced in systems where fertilizer is used and under conditions of high rainfall intensity. Leaching – the transfer of dissolved materials through the soil matrix into deeper soil layers from which food crops and fallow species cannot recover nutrients – is a process leading to soil degradation. Long-term (geological time frame) leaching is responsible for soil development and the loss of minerals leaving only the most resilient materials. Short-term leaching is currently a major process leading to nutrient losses from inputs. Farmers have practically no means to control such losses as they depend on rainfall amounts and intensity. Compaction of soils occurs when natural vegetation cover is removed and the soil is exposed to direct impact of rain. This process is not directly contributing to nutrient losses but can increase losses through run-off and erosion, particularly when soil porosity and pore continuity are low and so do not allow rain to penetrate the soil but lead to ponding water at the soil surface. Compacted soil hampers growth of most crops and thus has other negative effects such as reduced plant biomass production, delayed canopy cover, fewer roots to break up compacted soil and higher human labour requirements for tillage and harvesting of root and tuber crops.

Fallow length and vegetation management The traditional shifting cultivation system removes biomass by burning, thus retaining only the ash and some charcoal residues. In most systems, the soil is clean and friable after the burn and does not require tillage to plant crops such as cooking bananas, plantain, cocoyam, cassava, maize, upland rice or melon. Weed control is achieved as the burning of large quantities of biomass heats the soil surface to lethal temperatures, killing most weed seeds and small stumps of shrubs and trees. Thus, labour requirements to maintain fields after planting are low and fertility due to the large amounts of ash and the high soil organic matter (SOM) levels was sufficient to supply crops, while pest and disease pressure is low due to the long-term absence of crops serving as hosts. With fallow length being shortened, the effects of these factors change. Vegetation does not recover to the same type and species composition and certain species may not appear in the fallow any longer. The amount of biomass will be lower and specifically the amount of woody biomass may be reduced. Thus the burn will be less intensive and weed control less efficient. Furthermore, weed seeds may survive the shorter fallow and a weed seed bank may build up, contributing to more severe weed infestation. Less biomass will contain less ash and thus return lower amounts of nutrients, specifically potassium, magnesium, calcium and phosphorus to the soil. This is combined with less SOM accumulated and thus lower levels of soil fertility. However, retention of the biomass as mulch is not a realistic option because the material is mostly of such a structure that it will hinder planting, seeding and weeding operations.

Soil management and tillage Smallholders respond to these less favourable soil properties by introducing tillage. Tillage may be primarily related to crops, such as groundnut, that require the mixing of ash into the soil and loose topsoil yet retains the flat surface. Other forms of tillage, such as mounding or ridging 204

The sustainability of the world’s soils

concentrate richer topsoil around the crops yet shape a new surface on which water flow is directed. In many regions farmers ridge up and down the slope thereby creating channels that may lead to more run-off than ridging perpendicular to the slope. Another effect of tillage is that it acts as an early weed control measure. As land use frequency increases more weeds survive the fallow phase and the reason for tillage shifts more towards weed control which becomes more important as soil fertility declines and nutrients need to be ‘reserved’ for crops by early removal of weeds. However, tillage reduces aggregation, reduces pore continuity and exposes the soil to physical degradation, primarily to erosion, run-off, compaction, and waterlogging, depending on slope and soil texture.

Crop growth, canopy closure and soil protection Crops grow relatively slowly in the early stages, leaving the soil for a long phase unprotected against impact of rain and thus erosion and run-off (see the discussion above). It is often the weed flora that contributes to soil protection before the crop canopy is sufficient to cover the soil. However, weed infestation indicates competition, leading to yield losses even if the weeds are controlled later. Crops such as cassava, often planted at low densities (50 per cent, on a fresh mass basis, and stems are also removed to provide new planting material. In southern Cameroon, cassava exported five times more K than maize, and 10 times more than groundnut on a per hectare basis. Cassava exports of P, Mg and Ca also exceeded those of maize and groundnut (Hauser, unpublished). Total K uptake into these three crops was similarly high, indicating that nutrient retention and cycling is better in maize and groundnut and that cassava is likely to exhaust the exchangeable K reserves more rapidly than other crops. Such exports may require fertilizer application to balance losses, specifically in situations where there is little nutrient return to fields through manure, as is the case in most of the humid forest zone across the tropics. Improving food security will rely on increasing yields and thus improved germplasm, yet the consequences of increased nutrient export need to be considered and measures taken to avoid deficiencies that will compromise future food production. While it is possible to add N 205

Stefan Hauser and Lindsey Norgrove

through legumes and symbiotic N2 fixation, all other elements need to be retained or replenished either through tightening nutrient cycling or imported through use of biological materials or mineral fertilizer.

Legume integration: how beneficial is N2 fixation? Legumes that nodulate and fix N2 may benefit the N balance of a soil. There has been much research on N2 fixation in grain legumes, yet less in cover crops or green manure legumes. These two legume types have different purposes and thus potentially different effects on soil N, fertility and on following crops and system sustainability. Most studies on N2 fixation in grain legumes show that the largest portion of the fixed N is exported with the grains, leaving little or no positive N balance. This is very different in green manure or cover crop legumes, which are not harvested but retained on the land and thus return the entire amount of fixed N2 to the soil. A commonly used cover crop, Mucuna pruriens, may fix between 40 (Houngnandan et al. 2000) and 250 kg ha-1 of N (Sanginga et al. 1996). The lower of these estimates is approximately the same as the amount that less fertile soils naturally supply (Hauser and Nolte 2002). More fertile soils may supply up to 90 kg ha-1 N from soil sources (Grove 1979). Thus the higher estimates of fixed N by cover crops exceed N supply from the soil and uptake of most annual crops, thus could contribute to soil N accumulation if N losses are limited. However, although benefits may be realized through leguminous cover crops the time they occupy the land without making a contribution to food production and revenue generation has to be considered a cost. Furthermore, despite their benefits, adoption of cover crops remains low in SSA and SE Asia with most farmers arguing that the effort to establish cover crops is not remunerated directly. Livestock integration and use of cover crops as feedstock may improve such lack of revenue, yet there has been no research on the consequences of browsing on biomass production and N2 fixation and long-term effects on the soil in cover crop systems.

Soil maintenance in shortened fallow cycles Here some of the major consequences of shortened fallows and measures taken to counter the lack of soil fertility replenishment will be discussed.

Consequences of vegetation shifts The use of shorter fallows may cause shifts in vegetation composition. With less time available, certain species are not able to establish and reach reproductive stages, thus they disappear over a number of cycles from the fallow. The number of species affected increases as fallows progressively shorten and can ultimately lead to arrested succession and the permanent establishment of grassland on previously forested land. At the same time, the absence of plant cover permits invasive species to establish in the cropping phase. Such species would be eliminated in long fallows yet may survive short fallows, such as in the case of Chromolaena odorata that took over vast swathes of fallow vegetation across most of humid West and Central Africa. Generally, as fallows are shortened, they become less effective as weed breaks, as the fallow time may no longer exceed the maximum longevity of the weed seed bank. Thus weeds may be present at the start of a cropping phase, causing higher weed pressure and demanding more intensive or frequent weeding. Biomass management practices still rely on burning as it is labour efficient. While burning could potentially prevent the immobilization of N in fallows 206

The sustainability of the world’s soils

dominated by vegetation with a high C:N ratio, it can have the opposite effect. For example, the low-N grass Imperata cylindrica can dominate fallows across the tropics, yet it is selected for by repeated burning because it can resprout from underground rhizomes and, being light sensitive, will grow faster on exposed soils.

Planted fallows To allow for shorter fallow phases yet attain soil fertility restoration, planted fallow systems were developed that were expected to recover soil fertility faster than natural fallows. Such systems use trees or shrubs to form the fallow vegetation which are cut back during cropping phases yet are retained alive to allow rapid growth at the end of the cropping phase. Other systems use herbaceous cover crops, often legumes such as Mucuna pruriens, Pueraria phaseoloides or Stylosathes spp., to replace natural fallow or invasive species. For cover crops, live and dead mulch systems were tested in which the cover crop was maintained through or killed before cropping phases, respectively. In South America various types of the maize/mucuna system are common and widely adopted as they keep maize production at reasonably high levels at relatively low input, with mucuna smothering weeds as an added benefit. In SSA, research has shown the potential of these systems to maintain crop yields in short fallow/crop cycles and to attain higher crop yields than natural fallows of the same length (Hauser et al. 2006). Despite such potential, none of these systems has been adopted at scale, as labour requirements exceed those of the natural fallow and farmers have not chosen to invest in labour for the potential yield gains. Even a system in which a short-term crop, such as maize, that can be grown every year, using the remaining time to fallow with cover crops (Hauser et al. 2002) has not been adopted. Tree-based planted fallow systems using Leucaena and Gliricidia were developed and used a long time ago in high population areas of Java. The tree rows stabilized soils on slopes, produced mulch, browse and firewood and the interrow space was used for crops. The transfer of the system to SSA, however, failed although the positive effects on soil fertility and structure could be shown. However, the yield increments of the alley cropping system on Alfisols and Ultisols were too low and labour requirements were too high. Indigenous soil management systems in SSA were found in south eastern Nigeria with planted Dactyladenia barteri trees (Stamp 1938) presumably to replenish fertility and control weeds and in north west Cameroon with Tephrosia vogelii to control erosion on steep slopes and add fertility. In South America Inga, Erythrina and other species are used to replenish soil fertility and protect the soil surface.

Crop: fallow type compatibility Certain fallow types favour specific crops. Cassava has been reported to respond negatively to cover crops, on the contrary, significant yield increases of maize have been achieved when grown after cover crops. In most of the West and Central African humid zone, plantain (Musa spp. AAB) is preferably grown after clearing forest or old bush fallow. Planting plantain after short bush fallow leads to drastic yield losses. For other crops farmers noted that bush fallow was beneficial. One such example is from Cameroon, where farmers prefer Chromolaena odorata dominated fallow for their most common field type, a groundnut, maize, cassava intercrop (Büttner and Hauser, 2003). Ensuring crop–fallow compatibility is particularly important when planted fallow species are introduced. When Sesbania sesban was introduced into the western Kenyan bean/maize rotation, it caused major problems as it propagated Meloidogyne nematodes that caused yield losses in the 207

Stefan Hauser and Lindsey Norgrove

bean crops (Desaeger and Rao 1999). Although little is known about the biophysical sustainability of such systems, it is clear that farmers assess these systems more by their ability and reliability to produce adequate crop yields against the amount of labour that is required to clear and maintain crops in such fields.

Livestock integration, nutrient cycling and fallow use efficiency Recent surveys and stakeholder consultations across East, Central and West African countries revealed a strong interest of smallholders in integrating livestock into their farming systems. Although the reasons for such requests may vary, manure is a valuable source of organic matter and nutrients. Livestock integration is a measure to increase and potentially tighten nutrient cycles as well as accessing nutrient sources that would otherwise not become available for crop fields. Depending on the animal and its feed requirements, materials such as crop residues, weeds, unused fallow and ‘waste land’ vegetation are being used and returned as manure. The manner in which livestock is kept is decisive for the quantity and efficiency of nutrient cycling. Well-managed and corralled livestock would reduce losses to cropland and potentially increase nutrient stock depending on the proportion of feed foraged from outside the cropped area. Livestock may be a critical component to overcome problems of adoption of planted fallow systems (see the section in this chapter on Planted fallows) if the fallow can be used as forage specifically in phases when natural vegetation is short such as in dry seasons and short before the start of a cropping cycle. Corralling livestock on cover crop fields would ensure conversion to and retention of manure to improve soil quality and potentially reduce labour for land clearing and preparation before planting. Animals would improve food security, nutritional quality and income generation. However, a major constraint to their use in West and Central Africa include the presence of tsetse flies limiting the area suitable for cattle.

Complementing nutrient cycling and organic sources with fertilizer In shortened fallow systems, the soil regenerating processes still contribute to the maintenance of the ability of the soils to provide nutrients to crops. However, depending on soil type and fallow length, some specific elements may be deficient and limit yields in certain crops. Under such conditions, application of fertilizer of a particular composition, such as NPK 15:15:15, may not supply sufficient amount of the most limiting nutrient and relatively oversupply other elements. Considering the high risk farmers take when investing capital, it is likely that in many cases the fertilizer available in the market cannot profitably provide the nutrients required. Further, crops may need different elements at different times in different quantities, fixed fertilizer compositions cannot cater to such changing demands. Single nutrient fertilizers, except for urea, are uncommon in SSA. More fertilizer blends for specific crops and sites are required to improve fertilizer use efficiency and profitability and thereby their use and positive impact on soils. From the savannahs of West Africa, it is known that a crop like soybean requires mainly P supplements to attain high yields (provided effective rhizobia are present). Often, rather small quantities are required to balance a deficiency leading to profitable yield increases (Chiezey 2013). However, research still has to catch up on assessing nutrient deficiencies at scale and develop site-specific fertilizer recommendations. Only if farmers see the profits reaped from investing in fertilizer will it be possible to produce more food and more crop residue. While food crop sales permit reinvesting in soil fertility, more crop residues are directly contributing to soil quality as long as they are retained. Fertilizer companies are yet to join research to develop a wider range of fertilizer blends to suit the varying demands of crops and soils. 208

The sustainability of the world’s soils

Soil maintenance in continuous cropping systems With increasing population densities and increasing demand for food, fiber, fuel and other agricultural products it is to be expected that more land will be cropped continuously and that the strain on the soils’ natural resources will increase. Sustainable intensification measures are needed as population pressure increases. Through improved soil fertility management comprising the application of manure or fertilizer, integration of legume crops and the use of soil amendments such as biochar, the positive effects of fallow may be replaced. If smallholders do not use inputs either due to poor access or lack of capital, continuous cropping leads to soil depletion, declining yields (Vanlauwe et al. 2014), and thus lower incomes and may lead to marginalization. Obviously under such conditions, smallholders may not be able to address all constraints adequately and thus may need to prioritize which constraint is the most threatening. It appears that smallholders do not or cannot sufficiently invest in retaining their production base even if land use intensity allows no longer for fallow.

Fertilizer use Fertilizer use is the easiest measure to balance nutrient deficiencies and maintain yields at sufficiently high levels. However, not all crops respond sufficiently positively to fertilizer and with increasing energy costs, and increasing scarcity of fertilizers such as phosphates, projected to be depleted within 100 years (Cordell et al. 2009), fertilizer will become more expensive, increasing smallholders’ risk of not recovering their investment. In the Nigerian savannah zone, maize production is today heavily reliant on timely supply of fertilizer and past research on fertilizer use enabled farmers to attain grain yields of 4–5 Mg ha-1. However, according to members of a large farmer association, these high yields could not be maintained and have dropped to around 3 Mg ha-1. Continuous cropping and the use of only NPK fertilizer have apparently led to deficiencies of other elements or SOM decline and poor nutrient retention in the soil. Fertilizer suppliers are not sufficiently involved in research to modify their blends to balance for such deficiencies and many farmers’ response was to increase NPK application, thereby taking a higher risk of economic shortfalls. Application of Mg and Zn increased yields by around 10 per cent (Hauser, unpublished) at the standard recommended NPK rate. Thus fertilizer, as it is available in the market, should not be considered a sustainable measure to maintain crop yields and soil nutrient balances but should be looked upon as a tool that requires constant adjustment in composition and quantity to supply all essential nutrients as it is to be assumed that in continuous cropping the contribution from soil resources becomes marginal. Most recent approaches on fertilizer recommendations move away from ‘blanket application’ and use site-specific information to estimate fertilizer rates according to soil properties, yield targets and farmers’ resource endowment. However, these nutrient management systems are not yet available for most sites and many crops.

Manure and other organic nutrient sources Crop residues are commonly used in intensified systems to return SOM and nutrients to the soil, yet often biomass production is low. Furthermore, several competing uses of biomass (mainly crop residues) limit their use as mulch, which has several purposes such as protecting the soil surface from impact of rain, fostering soil faunal activity and through decomposition 209

Stefan Hauser and Lindsey Norgrove

providing nutrients to crops. If biomass is used as livestock feed, the benefits of mulch are lost and the impact of biomass recycling is reduced to SOM and nutrient return through manure. The optimum use of biomass will be context-specific. Livestock manure is a valuable SOM and nutrient source. However, livestock keeping and feeding poses severe problems in many areas as uncontrolled livestock browsing in crop fields can cause damage and crop loss while keeping animals in enclosures requires hauling feed to the paddock and thus labour. The impact of manure versus mulch or other biomass uses, such as biochar (see below), on soil fertility and sustainable crop production as well as overall livelihoods is difficult to determine and dependent on local conditions.

Biochar In regions where dominant soil types comprise those of low activity clays, with limited cation exchange capacity, the role of mineral fertilizers is limited. The discovery of anthropogenic dark earths in South America and West Africa has triggered research on biochar. Biochar is the carbon-rich solid formed by heating organic materials in the absence of air (pyrolysis) and can be used as a soil amendment (Woolf et al. 2010). Biochar application to soils with low CEC and low SOC can increase the nutrient holding capacity of such soils and thus can increase crop yields or reverse yield declines (Kimetu et al. 2008). However, the magnitude of effects is soildependent. A meta-analysis by Jeffery et al. (2011) found that the greatest positive effects were found on acidic to neutral soils with a coarse or medium texture. They deduced that positive yield effects were due to a soil liming effect and an improvement in water-holding capacity, as well as increased nutrient availability. However, the production of biochar requires biomass, which is usually in short supply in areas with dominantly continuous cropping. Biochar has various effects on soils and is in itself of such structure that nutrient retention may be increased. However, it remains to be determined what quantities of biochar are required to attain sustained yield advantages.

Indicators of soil sustainability Measuring the sustainability of soils remains a challenge due to the large number, the wide range and the lack of information on the ranking of parameters that play a role in sustaining soils’ ability to support crop growth. In addition, while the biophysical sustainability may be considered most important as the basis of future food production, the economic and social aspects of sustainable soil use may not be neglected as they may be major obstacles to the implementation of soil protecting and fertility conserving or rehabilitating measures.

Crop yields Crop yields have been used as simple and highly relevant indicators of soil quality. However, with changes in land use, crop management and specifically nutrient inputs, it becomes difficult to assess which factors contribute which portion to the crop yield. Further, changes of crop varieties, specifically when pest or disease problems are tackled through tolerant or resistant germplasm, may contribute to large yield increases without a major contribution from the soil. Declines in soil quality that would appear as declining yields when varieties are not changed may be masked, at least temporarily, by better performing varieties. At the same time, better performing varieties may be able to acquire more nutrients from the soil and thus accelerate soil degradation. Thus crop yields may not be suitable long-term indicators. 210

The sustainability of the world’s soils

Erosion and run-off The absence of erosion and run-off is a good indicator of sustainability. Although erosion is often easily recognized, it is difficult to quantify and also to assess the degree of run-off and the nutrient load removed from fields, which can be highly variable where fertilizer is applied. Run-off with high nutrient loads is not only a loss to the soil and crops but can have severe negative off-site effects if water bodies or groundwater is polluted. As such, it has to be considered that sustaining soils makes a potentially important contribution to the sustainability and ‘health’ of entire catchments. Although acceptable and critical levels of erosion have been proposed, it is not known if at such levels the soils’ sustainability is ensured.

Soil chemical properties Soil chemical properties appear to be easily determined through standard analysis for the essential nutrients and the SOM. Although this is regarded and accepted as a straightforward approach, concentrations of nutrients in a particular soil layer alone do not constitute a good measure for the amount of nutrients available to a crop. As sustainability needs to be evaluated or quantified over time, changes in the soil mass considered in the chemical analysis can bias results. Many results on changes over time in soil chemical properties have been obtained by the simple multiplication of nutrient concentration with the bulk density of the analysed soil layer, without considering that changes in bulk density cause over- or under-estimation of the changes depending on increases or decreases in bulk density. Wendt and Hauser (2013) demonstrated for organic carbon (OC) that ‘this method systematically overestimates OC stocks in treatments with greater bulk densities such as minimum tillage, exaggerating their benefits. Its use has compromised estimates of OC change where bulk densities differed between treatments or over time periods’ (Wendt and Hauser 2013). Thus, in addition to selecting suitable indicators, the analytical methodology needs revision and new standards need to be agreed upon before reliable data on soil sustainability can be obtained.

Conclusion The ability of soils to support crop growth is threatened in much of the tropics by erosion, runoff, compaction, nutrient depletion, loss of soil organic matter and a decline in soil faunal activity. Land use frequency and intensity are increasing and accelerating soil degrading processes. For erosion and run-off, control measures are well known. Yet, affordable, simple, farmer-friendly implementation approaches are missing. More applied and farmer community participatory research is required to overcome these problems. Nutrient deficiencies are commonplace in much of the tropics. Fertilizer application could provide a solution, yet the infrastructure of supplying fertilizers, and knowledge on the type (elemental composition), quantity and timing of fertilizer use needs major improvement to convince policy makers to promote its use and farmers to invest in fertilizer. New approaches, such as site- and crop-specific decision support systems should be the foci of future research, thus maximizing fertilizer use efficiency while avoiding any negative impact on soils and the environment. Higher level system integration by combining crop production, livestock and optimized crop residue, manure and biological refuse use, should receive more research attention. So should the expansion of precision agricultural techniques to poorer tropical countries, allowing the optimization of fertilizer application to combat soil nutrient heterogeneity. Change and growth in other sectors is also essential as the lack of industrial development and consequent dearth of job opportunities maintains the general labour value at such a low level that it is not economically 211

Stefan Hauser and Lindsey Norgrove

efficient for farmers to substitute labour for technology. Farmers’ willingness to invest in soil quality is thus apparently low as they need to eke a living out of limited resources, thus only measures with immediate effect on food security and income appear likely to be adopted.

Acknowledgements Lindsey Norgrove is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) through a Marie Heim-Vögtlin Research Fellowship in Agricultural and Forestry Sciences.

References Büttner, U. and Hauser, S. 2003. Farmers’ nutrient management practices in indigenous cropping systems in southern Cameroon. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 100: 103–110. Chiezey, U. F. 2013. Field performance of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merill) with farmyard manure and inorganic P fertilizers in the sub-humid savanna of Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(10): doi: 10.5539/jas.v5n10p46. Coelli, T. J. and Rao, D. S. 2005. Total factor productivity growth in agriculture: a Malmquist index analysis of 93 countries, 1980–2000. Agricultural Economics, 32(s1): 115–134. Cordell, D., Drangert, J. O. and White, S. 2009. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19: 292–305. Desaeger, J. and Rao, M. R. 1999. The root-knot nematode problem in sesbania fallows and scope for managing it in western Kenya. Agroforesty Systems, 47: 273–288. Diaw, M. C. 1997. Si, Nda Bot et Ayong: culture itinérante, occupation des sols et droits fonciers au SudCameroun. Réseau foresterie pour le développement rural 21e. London: ODI. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture: managing systems at risk. Rome: FAO, and London: Earthscan. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Food Programme (WFP) and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2012. The state of food insecurity in the world 2012. Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome: FAO. Fondoun, J. M. and Manga, T. T. 2000. Farmers’ indigenous practices for conserving Garcinia kola and Gnetum africanum in southern Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems, 48(3): 289–302. Grove, T. L. 1979. Nitrogen fertility in Oxisols and Ultisols of the humid tropics. Cornell International Agriculture Bulletin, 36. Ithaca: Cornell University. Guillemin, R. 1956. Evolution de l’agriculture autochtone dans les savanes de l’Oubangui. Agronomie tropicale, 11: 143–176. Hauser, S. 1993. Distribution and activity of earthworms and contribution to nutrient recycling in alley cropping. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 15: 16–20. Hauser, S. 2014 (unpublished). Effect of Mg and Zn supplements on maize grain yield in the northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. Results of a multilocational fertilizer trial with the farmer organization Baban Gona. Hauser, S. and Nolte, C. 2002. Biomass production and N fixation of five Mucuna pruriens varieties and their effect on maize yields in the forest zone of Cameroon. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 165: 101–109. Hauser, S. and Norgrove, L. 2013. Slash-and-burn agriculture, effects of. In: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd edition, Vol 6. Levin, S. A. (ed.), pp. 551–562. Waltham, MA: Academic Press. Hauser, S., Henrot, J. and Hauser, A. 2002. Maize yields in a Mucuna pruriens var. utilis and Pueraria phaseoloides relay fallow system on an Ultisol in southern Cameroon. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 20: 243–256. Hauser, S., Nolte, C. and Carsky, R. J. 2006. What role can planted fallows play in the humid and subhumid zone of West and Central Africa? Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 76: 297–318. Houngnandan, P. N., Sanginga, N., Woomer, P., Vanlauwe, B. and Van Cleemput, O. 2000. Response of Mucuna pruriens to symbiotic nitrogen fixation by rhizobia following inoculation in farmers’ fields in the derived savanna of Benin. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 30: 558–565. Huang, J. K., Pray, C. and Rozelle, S. 2002. Enhancing the crops to feed the poor. Nature, 418: 678–684. Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F. G. A., Van Der Velde, M. and Bastos, A. C. 2011. A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment, 144(1): 175–187.

212

The sustainability of the world’s soils Jurion, F. and Henry, J. 1969. Can primitive agriculture be modernised? London: Agra Europe (translation from French). Kimetu, J. M., Lehmann, J., Ngoze, S. O., Mugendi, D. N., Kinyangi, J. M., Riha, S., Verchot, L., Recha, J. W. and Pell, A. N. 2008. Reversibility of soil productivity decline with organic matter of differing quality along a degradation gradient. Ecosystems, 11(5): 726–739. Laudelout, H. 1990. La jachère forestière sous les tropiques humides, Unité des Eaux et Fôrets, Centre de Recherches Forestiéres de Chimay. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique: Université Catholique de Louvain. Mertz, O. 2002. The relationship between length of fallow and crop yields in shifting cultivation: a rethinking. Agroforest. Systems, 55: 149–159. Millson, A. 1891. The Yoruba Country, West Africa. Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography, 13(10): 577–587. Morris, M. L. 2007. Fertilizer use in African agriculture: lessons learned and good practice guidelines. Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications. Nye, P. H. and Greenland, D. J. 1960. The soil under shifting cultivation. Harpenden: Commonwealth Bureau of Soils. Nyerges, A. E. 1989. Coppice swidden fallows in tropical deciduous forest: biological, technological, and sociocultural determinants of secondary forest successions. Human Ecology, 17: 379–400. Peters, W. J. and Neuenschwander, L. F. 1988. Slash and burn. Farming in the third world forest. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press. Sanginga, N., Ibewiro, B., Houngnandan, P., Vanlauwe, B., Okogun, J. A., Akobundu, I. O. and Versteeg, M. 1996. Evaluation of symbiotic properties and nitrogen contribution of mucuna to maize grown in the derived savanna of West Africa. Plant and Soil, 179: 119–129. Schaller, N. 1993. Sustainable agriculture and environment: the concept of agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 46: 89–97. Stamp, L. D. 1938. Land utilization and soil erosion in Nigeria. Geographical Review, 28: 32–45. Thurston, H. D. 1992. Sustainable practices for plant disease management in traditional farming systems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Vanlauwe, B., Coyne, D., Gockowski, J., Hauser, S., Huising, J., Masso, C., Nziguheba, G., Schut, M. and van Asten, P. 2014. Sustainable intensification and the African smallholder farmer. Current Opinion on Environmental Sustainability, 8: 15–22. Van Vliet, N., Mertz, O., Heinimann, A., Langanke, T., Pascual, U., Schmook, B., Adams, C., SchmidtVogt, D., Messerli, P., Leisz, S., Castella, J-C., Jørgensen, L., Birch-Thomsen, T., Hett, C., BechBruun, T., Ickowitz, A., Chi, V. K., Yasuyuki, K., Fox, J., Padoch, C., Dressler, W. and Ziegler, A. D. 2012. Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment. Global Environmental Change, 22: 418–429. Wendt, J. W. and Hauser, S. 2013. An equivalent soil mass procedure for monitoring soil organic carbon in multiple soil layers. European Journal of Soil Science, 64: 58–65. Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. 2010. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communication, 10(1): doi: 10.1038/ncomms1053.

213

14 WATER RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY Alain Vidal and Larry Harrington

Introduction Reliable food systems – which include production, value chain, market, infrastructure and consumption subsystems – are critical for human health, nutrition, well-being and equity. Producing sufficient food of adequate quality for nine billion people by 2050 is a daunting challenge for agricultural research for development. We need access, stability and safety in food systems to achieve food security and nutrition for all. The sheer scale and urgency of our world’s food security-related mega challenges require action from many actors. Despite significant progress in addressing the needs of the world’s poorest in the first part of the twenty-first century, more than 800 million people still don’t have enough to eat and 1.2 billion live in extreme poverty (FAO et al. 2014). Climate change, cumulative environmental degradation, conflicts, dietary-induced obesity, zoonotic diseases and other stressors have slowed or reversed advances in both developed and developing countries. At the same time, lack of investments, inappropriate incentive structures, market failures and rapidly changing consumption patterns result in a large amount of food being lost or wasted, which also affects global food security. Hence, it is unsurprising that food and nutrition security has been central to global debates for many decades – and even more acutely so in the most recent years. However, the context and causes of food and nutrition security have to a large extent been misinterpreted and misunderstood. It is time to go beyond a search for magic-bullet, blanket solutions to global development challenges and to more aggressively pursue ways to improve food security that match and take account of localized geographic and political economy contexts. In this chapter we will challenge the accepted discourse on the role of water resources in development, instead suggesting new ways to approach the use of water resources to enhance food security.

A new discourse on water for food and nutrition security What is the accepted discourse on the role of water resources in development? And how can recent integrated, multidisciplinary research for development on water and food security help develop a new discourse? What we here refer to as the accepted discourse on water encompasses two propositions: 1) increasing agricultural water supply and improving water management will 214

Water resources for food and nutrition security

increase food production (mostly from crops, especially through irrigation); and 2) increased food production will enhance food and nutrition security. This discourse is explicit in the World Bank 2007 Development Report: Access to water and irrigation is a major determinant of land productivity and the stability of yields. Irrigated land productivity is more than double that of rainfed land. In Sub-Saharan Africa, only 4 per cent of the area in production is under irrigation, compared with 39 per cent in South Asia and 29 per cent in East Asia. With climate change leading to rising uncertainties in rainfed agriculture and reduced glacial runoff, investment in water storage will be increasingly critical. Even with growing water scarcity and rising costs of large-scale irrigation schemes, there are many opportunities to enhance productivity by revamping existing schemes and expanding small-scale schemes and water harvesting. (World Bank 2007: 9 (italics added)) The same discourse also underpins a more recent trend among development banks to reinvest in water infrastructure: New systems must be built for growing and urbanizing populations, changing consumption and income patterns, and food and energy security demands. (World Bank 2012) Of course, the first proposition within this discourse – i.e., that improving water management will increase food production – is correct most of the time. Producing more food will require sustainable water management systems that use water more productively. (World Bank 2012) However, a considerable body of literature (Sen 1981; Ellis 2000; IFAD 2011) has extensively and repeatedly shown that the second proposition within this discourse – i.e., that increased food production leads to improved food and nutrition security – is often faulty, and its wrongs are not made right by simply considering the well-known inefficiencies and low water productivity issues that hinder the transformation of water into food. Improved water availability may be a necessary condition, but it is rarely a sufficient condition for achieving food security. Even in systems where water resources play an important role, water security is only one of many factors driving food security and development. The CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) implemented more than 100 research-for-development projects in 10 river basins over 10 years. The program used improved water access and management as entry points, and it has shown how research for development can contribute to improvements in livelihoods (including in production, income, health and much more) in ways that directly or indirectly (including through enhanced capacity and empowerment) help people achieve food security. The lessons learned by the CPWF include the following: •

Water as such is usually not scarce; the issue is the way that it is managed. Because of their complexity, addressing interrelated water, food, poverty, and livelihood issues means tackling ‘wicked problems’ (i.e., problems that are difficult to solve because their requirements are contradictory, changing, hard to reconcile, and not well understood. Solutions require many people to change their mindsets and behaviours). 215

Alain Vidal and Larry Harrington

• • •

Research for development requires dedicated people, time, and continuity to address the wicked problems of water, food, poverty, and livelihoods. Technical and institutional innovation go together, but innovation is long term, nonlinear, and risky. The institutional environment for research for development – its leadership, mandates and power dynamics – is a major determinant of its success (Harrington and Vidal 2014).

Evidence from three river basins (Mekong, Ganges and Limpopo) suggest that to benefit from scarce water resources and improve food security, farmers and communities must successfully tackle wicked water and food problems in challenging contexts by developing and sustaining ‘a basket of smart moves’ (Harrington and Fisher 2014).

The Mekong River basin: a basket of fish and energy Few other places in the world, perhaps none, experience such an intensive ongoing development of dams as the Mekong basin. Major tensions in the Mekong region revolve around dams and other infrastructure development and around the shift from economies based on agriculture and primary production to economies based on manufacturing, industry, and services. The main protagonists in this debate are governments, dam financiers, developers and operators, nongovernmental organizations and civil society, and upstream and downstream communities. Within each group there are multiple, often conflicting, perspectives (Lebel et al. 2010). Much of the debate centers on costs, benefits, and their distribution across different social groups and on issues of governance and transparency. At the heart of these tensions lies a major trade-off between energy production and fisheries. The Mekong basin has indeed a massive hydropower potential, and Laos is often qualified as the region’s ‘water tower’. The country has a hydropower potential of 31,200 megawatts (MW), about 18,000 MW of which are technically exploitable, but just 5 per cent currently are. And in the Mekong region, electricity demand is growing at extraordinary rates. In Vietnam, electricity consumption grew 14.9 per cent per year between 1995 and 2005 (almost double economic growth), and demand is expected to continue growing 14–16 per cent per year between 2010 and 2015. In Thailand, electricity demand is projected to grow 4.1 per cent per year between 2010 and 2030 (Vidal and Geheb 2012). It seems fairly intuitive that Laos would take advantage of its resources and these markets. For countries like Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, hydropower means development, and development means improved food security. At the same time, however, food and nutrition security massively relies on fisheries, which provide 60 million people in the region with 50–80 per cent of their animal protein intake and which generate around 50 per cent of rural income in the Mekong basin (Mainuddin et al. 2011). And those fisheries are now threatened by the discontinuities caused by existing and planned large hydropower dams (Stone 2011; Pukinskis and Geheb 2012). Fisheries and rural communities may end up bearing an inordinate share of the cost of the hydropower investments that largely benefit urban areas. Figure 14.1 shows the forecasted decrease in capture fish production under different scenarios of hydropower dam construction on the Mekong mainstream. In the Mekong basin, CPWF explored changes in practice for more equitable sharing of benefits between fisheries and energy production along three distinct streams of intervention. A first stream is the design and management of dams and reservoirs to facilitate multiple uses of reservoir water, including productive uses of water for local and downstream communities. Apart from the fairly obvious practice of introducing rice–fish systems for resettled communities, 216

Water resources for food and nutrition security

2,200,000 Capture fish production forecasted in the LMB (tonnes)

2000 Baseline 2,000,000

1,800,000

No LMB mainstream dam

2015 Definite future

6 dams (upstream cluster)

9 dams (upstream + middle clusters)

1,600,000

1,400,000

11 LMB mainstream dams

1,200,000

1,000,000 2000

2015

2030

Figure 14.1 Forecasted decrease in capture fish production under different scenarios of hydropower dam construction on the Mekong mainstream Note: LMB = Lower Mekong Basin

there are other opportunities for multiple uses of water, e.g., recession agriculture within reservoirs as water is drawn down, and constructed wetlands within and around reservoirs. Wetlands are essential to the livelihoods of poor people throughout the world, and the Mekong region is no exception. They are also central to the ecological productivity of riverine systems. Hydropower dams radically alter the local hydrology and often diminish the extent of existing wetlands, thereby jeopardizing the livelihoods of the rural poor and subsequently their food security. Rice cultivation alone is inadequate for farmers to obtain income for daily subsistence, especially during certain times of the year. Therefore, farmers have diversified their livelihood activities and engaged in fishing (Sellamuttu et al. 2010). CPWF research has conceptualized creating wetlands in reservoirs that have a large drawdown zone. Such reservoirs often have relatively limited diversity of aquatic habitats, the productivity of which is limited by the rather barren shoreline areas in the drawdown zone. CPWF proposed developing permanent wetlands within the drawdown area by constructing small dikes below the full supply level that would retain water as the water level in the reservoir falls. The artificial wetlands are recharged with water during the wet season when the reservoir refills. Such created wetlands, tested by the Theun Hinboun Power Company (THPC), a major supplier of hydroelectric power in Laos, contribute to greater habitat diversity and allow areas for fish spawning and growth. They thereby increase the productivity of the reservoir, and they can also be used as more conventional fishponds for enhancing livelihood opportunities (Sellamuttu 2012). Successful introduction of such multiple water use practices is entirely reliant, however, on institutional innovations. Recession agriculture and the establishment of constructed wetlands (technical innovations) are only feasible when hydropower operators are willing to use water release protocols that are compatible with these practices (institutional innovations). 217

Alain Vidal and Larry Harrington

A second stream of intervention concerns the design and management of cascades of reservoirs to minimize damage to fish migration and spawning. This usually means placing hydropower dams away from the mainstream of the Mekong River, which requires a certain amount of coordination and high-level policy making on the spatial distribution of dams and reservoirs. A third stream is greater transparency in hydropower planning. Indeed, plenty of protocols and safeguards for Mekong dams are written into national policies and legislation. The World Commission on Dams offers guidelines, as does the International Hydropower Association in their hydropower sustainability protocol (IHA 2010). CPWF directly addressed transparency in governance by promoting dialogue among and between government ministries and departments, dam operators, and civil society (Sajor 2012). In general, in the Mekong region it is no longer possible to talk about dams and not talk about fisheries. Evidence of the potential adverse impacts of infrastructure on fisheries is now acknowledged. CPWF initiatives contributed to dam developers incorporating a fish pass in their design after recent controversy over a dam’s construction (Clayton and Victor 2014). Governments and power companies in the region now have at their disposal a series of water management and governance tools, which they can combine in a basket of smart moves that will ensure both sustainable hydropower development and enhanced food security.

The Ganges Delta: breaking the poverty trap The Ganges Delta is among the world’s poorest regions, with 75 per cent of rural households living on 0.2–0.6 hectares and with an average household income of US$700 per year. About 80 per cent of the population lives below the national poverty line, and the region suffers from severe poverty, food insecurity, and vulnerability (Clayton 2013). One of the characteristics of the Ganges Delta is that it alternately experiences water excess and water scarcity. During the rainy season, the excess of the monsoon is amplified by floods originating upstream, raising the water level and reducing the salinity of coastal rivers. To protect farmed areas from these seasonal floods, they are surrounded by dikes, thereby creating a system of polders. Because the water level is high and the water relatively fresh, it is easy to allow some water into the polders to irrigate rice crops. (Drainage, however, is more difficult and sometimes nearly impossible to control at the farm level.) During the dry season, lack of fresh rainwater is amplified by low water levels and high salinity in rivers surrounding the polders. Irrigation for rice or other field crops is no longer feasible (apart from using water introduced in the wet season and stored in within-polder canals). This alternation of water excess and water scarcity combined with salinity generates a real paradox: water is everywhere and omnipresent, and yet water is scarce (Easthom et al. 2010). Such constraints make it difficult for farm families to grow more than a single (often lowyielding) rice crop per year, keeping agricultural profitability at a very low level, thus reinforcing poverty and food insecurity. However, research conducted by CPWF during the past five years has shown that despite the growing pressure from salinity, the Ganges Delta has considerable untapped potential. A large potential to improve food and nutritional security and livelihoods does exist, especially: 1 2 3

if wet-season water can be stored in polder canals for dry-season cropping; if rural infrastructure can be utilized to enable within-polder water control, at best allowing on-demand irrigation and drainage at the individual farm or field level; and if salinity can be transformed from a constraint to an opportunity. 218

Water resources for food and nutrition security

All of these require a substantial improvement in the capacity to control water within polders over space and time. Figure 14.2 shows how proper monitoring and control of water flow, drainage, and water salinity in polder units allow a separation between periods with low water salinity, where one or more rice or cool-season crops can be cultivated, and periods with higher water salinity, where shrimp can be produced (often generating around 10 times the value of a rice crop per hectare). This research demontrates that the delta can host lots of viable cropping systems with crop diversification and fish and shrimp production (Alam et al. 2010; Collis et al. 2011). Areas further from the coast may benefit more from multiple wet-season and dry-season croppings, while areas closer to the coast may place more emphasis on rice–fish or rice–shrimp rotations (Humphreys et al. 2014). These technical opportunities for improving food production, incomes, livelihoods, and timeliness of food availablity are, however, dependent on policy and institutional innovations. Improved cropping and crop–fish systems depend on improved water control and drainage, which in turn depends on the adaptation of rural infrastructure (roads, bridges, dikes, canals and sluice gates) for localized, within-polder water control. Rural infrastructure improvements are contingent upon government institutions clarifying mandates and defining which offices have which responsibilities for polder maintenance and improvement (Mukherji 2012). When discussing with Bangladeshi officials, including the Minister of Agriculture, the same narrative comes up again and again: ‘People in the Delta are starving; they need food (security). Let us have them grow rice – the rest is not feasible!’ This indicates that sustainable intensification of polders in the Ganges Delta implies a major political and institutional challenge. Only a change of mindsets within institutions can unlock such an intensification. It requires envisaging a different narrative where food security is not only about better water management for rice. Yet, beyond the needed shift in attitude, the technical challenge remains, and it is all about water control: only smart and improved canal and polder maintenance and management will sustainably enable the Upper threshold of salinity – rice

Daily average salinity

24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

Polder 3 (Station-1, Ichamoti River)

8 Sep 2012

9 Aug 2012

10 Jul 2012

10 June 2012

11 May 2012

11 Apr 2012

12 Mar 2012

11 Feb 2012

12 Jan 2012

13 Dec 2011

Shrimp

13 Nov 2011

14 Oct 2011

14 Sep 2011

15 Aug 2011

16 Jul 2011

16 June 2011

Rice

17 May 2011

Water salinity (ppt)

Lower threshold of salinity – shrimp

Date

Figure 14.2 One-year evolution of water salinity in the Ganges Delta’s Polder 3 and the possible time slots for growing rice (water salinity below 2 ppt), allowing for up to two or three cycles with shortcycle cultivars, adapted to the different polders, and for producing shrimp (water salinity above 4 ppt)

219

Alain Vidal and Larry Harrington

salinity monitoring and control needed to be able to combine multiple rice croppings, crop diversification, and fisheries (Dewan et al. 2014). Making available such a basket of smart moves will require investments in infrastructure, but of course no public investments will be made until the understanding of causalities and the narrative on water and food security has changed.

The Limpopo River basin: the goats that save water In the Gwanda district of Zimbabwe, a long-standing project, originally led by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and carried forward by CPWF, has enabled the development of a diverse and active innovation platform,1 which has created a strong local market for goats. This market was developed based on roving, competitive auctions. With suitable facilities for weighing, inspection and bidding, these auctions fostered competition among buyers, which in turn helped raise the value of high-quality goats from US$10 to around US$60 per animal. This increase in value served as an incentive for farmers to invest in the quality and survival of their goats. Therefore, farmers began growing their own improved fodder, purchasing commercial stock feed, and improving rangeland management, especially during the dry season. An improved year-round supply of quality fodder, plus investments in improved goat housing and veterinary care, helped guarantee a more reliable supply of high-quality animals (van Rooyen and Homann-Kee Tui 2009). Farmers who adopted livelihood strategies based on goat production and sales experienced a significant rise in incomes – more than tenfold – compared to what they made from the previous main agricultural activity, rainfed maize production. While one hectare of land can support an annual production of three goats, worth US$180, producing one hectare of maize results in a mere US$16 earning per year.

Local markets Producers self-esteem Improved rangeland production replacing US$15/goat of stock feed value

S

Improved livestock US$60 per goat Goat mortality down to 10%

Recurrent droughts, increasing climate variability, poor connection to markets

S

Rainfed maize cropping: US$16/ha Livestock: US$10 per goat

Figure 14.3 Schematic representation of how Gwanda district’s agro-ecosystems’ resilience declined under the effects of climate change and poor connection to markets, and how it was restored through the development of local goat markets, which are not only more profitable than rainfed maize cropping, but also more sustainable

220

Water resources for food and nutrition security

The innovation platform has engendered a virtuous cycle in which a more biodiverse and productive farming system has emerged. And the system is more resilient than before: the rainwater that falls on the improved production systems is now adding a comparatively greater value to the system, and the sharp reduction in goat mortality is also resulting in water savings. Figure 14.3 sketches how this combination of changed practices, or smart moves, improved the agro-ecosystem’s resilience. Again, simply improving rainwater management for maize cropping (which would have been consistent with the accepted discourse) would never have brought such significant improvements to farmers’ livelihoods. Local actors enabled the change in practice through technical and institutional innovations including roving auctions for better marketing and improved livestock and pasture husbandry practices.

Lessons from the cases Many water infrastructure projects are designed around a single use only, such as for irrigation or domestic use. However, rural families usually prefer to use water systems for multiple purposes, e.g., for irrigation, domestic use and livestock watering. Rural livelihoods can be improved by designing water systems to accommodate multiple uses of water from multiple sources from the beginning (van Koppen et al. 2009). CPWF, in collaboration with 150 partners, implemented several multiple use systems and scaled them up at regional and national levels in eight countries. Action research highlighted the benefits people derive from multiple use systems, measured in terms of improved per capita annual water availability and increased water-derived yearly incomes. Learning alliances fostered learning and sharing among multiple use system subprojects distributed around the world. In some countries, e.g., Nepal, these learning alliances helped break down institutional barriers between the agricultural and domestic water supply sectors (Mikhail and Yoder 2008). The cases described above have a number of factors in common. First, none of the research highlighted focused primarily on improving aggregate production. Rather, it dealt with the wicked problems of water and food: how hydropower is interrelated with fisheries; sustainable intensification with institutions and investments; shifts in livelihood strategies with markets; and actual water uses with water system designs. Second, in all cases, water was rarely physically scarce but was nonetheless ‘scarce’ from a certain point of view. In the Mekong region, water for fish migration and spawning will become scarce under certain dam and reservoir construction scenarios. In the Ganges Delta, water as such is not scarce – but in the dry season, water with low salinity is very scarce. In the Limpopo basin, a shift toward high-quality animal production means that water scarcity is redefined in terms of water needed for dry season stover production, i.e., water creates greater value. Where multiple uses of water systems are not allowed, water for either domestic use or for irrigation may be artificially scarce simply due to the design of water systems. Third, none of the examples outlined above had improved water productivity as an objective. Rather, higher water productivity emerged as a natural consequence of innovations designed for other purposes, largely for improvement of livelihoods. Fourth, in all cases, technical, institutional, and policy change were closely linked. As discussed in the examples above, livelihood improvements in the Mekong basin through more productive fisheries depend on decisions made on appropriate spatial placement of dams and reservoirs and on suitable investments in constructed wetlands. Livelihood improvements in the Ganges Delta depend on institutional decisions on canal and polder maintenance, rehabilitation, and redesign – and in particular within-polder infrastructure that facilitates farm level on-demand water 221

Alain Vidal and Larry Harrington

control. In the Limpopo basin, they depend on the institutional innovation of organized and properly run livestock auctions. With regard to multiple use systems, progress can be greatly accelerated by designing water systems for multiple uses from the very beginning. Fifth, understanding and utilizing power relationships is essential. Progress in the Mekong basin depends on successful dialogues among hydropower investors and the affected communities. Progress in the Ganges Delta depends on successfully sorting out institutional roles and responsibilities for polder and canal construction, rehabilitation, redesign and maintenance – a responsibility that can only be fulfilled by higher authorities. Progress in multiple use systems depends on a willingness to design and implement water system policies and protocols that favour and promote such systems. Finally, the examples given in this chapter illustrate that wicked water and food problems are not amenable to quick fixes. While CPWF made substantial progress in defining the complexity of water and food problems, by exploring solutions and fostering dialogue through innovation platforms and other spaces, it also showed that finding solutions to such problems requires time and continuity. CPWF’s research built on the achievements of past research for development, was supported by concurrent efforts, and aimed to provide a new and better-informed departure point for new projects that take up where the program left off. In particular, CPWF provided the evidence for a new discourse on the role of water resources in development: improved water productivity does not necessarily equal food security. The attainment of food and nutrition security is intertwined with many other factors – markets, institutions, infrastructure and more – and therefore it cannot be achieved only by improving water management and increasing food production. Fostering smart investments that consider this plethora of factors and match the local geographic and political economy takes longer than the three years typically allowed by a research project, especially when aiming to achieve impact at scale. However, such smart investments do promise to pay off and to improve food security and livelihoods for very large numbers of the poor.

Acknowledgements We wish to thank the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food, and Marianne Gadeberg for chapter editing.

Note 1 An innovation platform consists of a group of farmers, traders, rural development agencies, and extension officers, all of who meet at regular intervals to discuss the main challenges facing them.

References Alam, M. J., Islam, M. L., Saha, S. B., Tuong, T. P. and Joffre, O. 2010. Improving the productivity of the rice–shrimp system in the south-west coastal region of Bangladesh. In: Tropical deltas and coastal zones: food production, communities and environment at the land and water interface. Hoanh, C. T., Szuster, B., Kam, S., Ismail, A. and Noble, A. (eds.), pp. 93_105. Wallingford: CABI. Clayton, S. 2013. Catching up in southwestern Bangladesh. Rice Today, 12(3): 30–33. Clayton, T. and Victor, M. 2014. From research outputs to development outcomes – selected stories. In: Water scarcity, livelihoods and food security: research and innovation for development. Harrington, L. and Fisher, M. (eds), pp. 178–199. Abingdon: Routledge. Collis, W., Sultana, P., Barman, B. and Thompson, P. 2011. Scaling out enhanced floodplain productivity by poor communities – aquaculture and fisheries in Bangladesh and eastern India. In: Proceedings of the

222

Water resources for food and nutrition security 3rd CPWF International Forum on Water and Food (IFWF3) 14-17 November 2011, Tshwane, South Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. Dewan, C., Buisson, M.-C. and Mukherji, A. 2014. The imposition of participation? The case of participatory water management in coastal Bangladesh. Water Alternatives, 7(2): 342–366. Easthom, J., Kirby, M., Mainuddin, M. and Thomas, M. 2010. Water use accounts in CPWF basins: simple water use accounting of the Ganges Basin. CPWF Working Papers, Basin Focal Project Series BFP05. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. Ellis, F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste – extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO. FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2014. The state of food insecurity in the world 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome: FAO. Harrington, L. and Fisher, M. (eds.). 2014. Water scarcity, livelihoods and food security – research and innovation for development. Abingdon: Routledge. Harrington, L., and Vidal, A. 2014. Messages and meaning. In Water scarcity, livelihoods and food security: research and innovation for development. Harrington, L. and Fisher, M. (eds.), pp. 200–216. Abingdon: Routledge. Humphreys, E., Tuong, T. P., Khan, Z. H., Buison, M. C. and George, P. 2014. Messages from the Ganges Basin Development Challenge (GBDC): unlocking the production potential of the polders of the coastal zone of Bangladesh through water management investment and reform. CPWF Research for Development (R4D) Series 09. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. IFAD. 2011. Rural poverty report 2011. New realities, new challenges: new opportunities for tomorrow’s generation. Rome: IFAD. IHA. 2010. Hydropower sustainability assessment protocol. London: International Hydropower Association. Lebel, L., Bastakoti, R. C. and Daniel, R. 2010. Enhancing multi-scale Mekong water governance. CPWF Project Report Series, PN50. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. Mainuddin, M., Kirby, M. and Chen, Y. 2011. Fishery productivity and its contribution to overall agricultural production in the Lower Mekong River Basin. CPWF Research for Development (R4D) Series 03. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. Mikhail, M. and Yoder, R. 2008. Multiple use water service implementation in Nepal and India: experience and lessons for scale-up. Lakewood, CO: International Development Enterprises. Mukherji, A. 2012. Project Ganges 3: water governance and community-based management. CPWF Six Monthly Project Reports for April 2012–September 2012. Unpublished. Pukinskis, I. and Geheb, K. 2012. The impacts of dams on the fisheries of the Mekong. State of Knowledge Papers Series SOK 01. Vientiane, Laos: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. Sajor, E. 2012. Project Mekong 4: water governance. CPWF Six Monthly Project Reports for April 2012–September 2012. Unpublished. Sellamuttu, S. S. 2012. Project Mekong 1: optimizing reservoir management for livelihoods. In CPWF Six Monthly Project Reports for April 2012–September 2012: Unpublished. Sellamuttu, S. S., Mith, S., Hoanh, C. T., Johnston, R., Baran, E., Dubois, M., Soeun, M., Craig, I., Nam, S. and Smith L. 2010. Commune agroecosystem analysis to support decision making for water allocation for fisheries and agriculture in the Tonle Sap wetland system. CPWF Project Report Series. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Challenge Program on Water and Food. Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stone, R. 2011. Mayhem on the Mekong. Science 12(333): 814–818. doi: 10.1126/science.333.6044.814. van Koppen, B., Smits, S. and Mikhail, M. 2009. Homestead- and community-scale multiple-use water services: unlocking new investment opportunities to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Irrigation and Drainage, 58: 73–86. van Rooyen, A. and Homann-Kee Tui, S. 2009. Promoting goat markets and technology development in semi-arid Zimbabwe for food security and income growth. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 11: 1–5. Vidal, A. and Geheb, K. 2012. Rebutting extremism: a comment on the debate surrounding the Xayaburi Dam in Laos. CPWF Director’s Blog, November 2012. Available from http://waterandfood. org/2012/11/12/rebutting-extremism-a-comment-on-the-debate-surrounding-the-xayaburi-damin-laos/#sthash.5lYq9dtV.dpuf. World Bank. 2007. World development report 2007: agriculture for development. Washington DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2012. Investing in water infrastructures: capital, operations and maintenance. Water papers, November 2012. Washington DC: World Bank. Available from http://water.worldbank.org/sites/water.worldbank. org/files/publication/water-investing-water-infrastructure-capital-operations-maintenance.pdf.

223

This page intentionally left blank

PART II

Economic and social access to food

This page intentionally left blank

15 FAMINES Causes and impact Eric Vanhaute

Introduction Famines are caused by a cumulative failure of production, distribution and consumption systems. That is why famines are ‘community crises’, where scarcity and human suffering is accompanied and aggravated by social breakdown. Communities lose their ability to support a significant portion of their members, causing accelerated destitution and fearful reactions related to one’s decreasing ‘command over food’. Famines are unique experiences that occupy a finite span of historical time and human experience. At the same time, they are recurring patterns that reveal insight into a society’s deeper and more enduring tensions and difficulties. The notion of famine as an event (sudden crisis), process (accelerated destitution) and structure (inequalities within societal networks) creates the need for an integrated and historical-comparative approach. I explore this approach through four guiding questions: 1 2 3 4

How do we detect and measure famines? How do we explain famines? How do we assess the impact of famines? How is the historical trajectory of famines related to contemporary hunger and food crises?

Detecting and measuring famines: from event to process and structure Famine literature distinguishes between the related concepts of famine, food crisis, hunger and malnutrition. Famine is mostly understood as an event, food crisis as a process, whereas hunger or malnutrition point to structural features in society. In reality, they are interwoven concepts: ‘The term famine indeed represents the upper end of the continuum whose average is “hunger”. Malnutrition, which eight hundred to nine hundred million people still endure every day, might be seen as slow-burning famine’ (Ó Gráda 2009: 6). Famines are mostly described as sudden shocks, often but not always linked to natural disasters (drought, temperature), ecological shocks (eruptions, blights, plagues) or man-made calamities (violent conflicts, war, genocide). Famines cause excess mortality induced by either starvation or hunger-induced diseases. A simple dearth might cause hunger, but it does not kill people; a proper famine is an event that kills. As such, it requires an acute and prolonged period of hunger since the human body can resist a lack of food 227

Eric Vanhaute

intake for long periods (Livi-Bacci 1991). The relationship among famines, surplus mortality and infectious diseases is a much disputed topic. At least until the nineteenth century this causality is virtually non-existent (Rotberg and Rabb 1985; Bengtsson 2004: 43–44). Most so-called Ancien Régime diseases, such as smallpox, plague, malaria and typhus, are non-related nutrition diseases, in contrast to typical nineteenth-century killer diseases such as cholera and tuberculosis. Besides significant numbers of actual or imminent deaths from starvation and/or the outbreak of famineinduced infectious diseases, common symptoms of famine crises include rising market prices, social disruption (often including food riots and increased crime against property), long-term resource depletion and an increase in temporary migration. Contemporary famine research has shifted the perception of hunger crises as natural or technical problems related to the disruption of a food system to famines as processes rooted in long-term social, economic, and political inequalities, aggravated by a lack of accountability and failed responses by public actors, and sharply exacerbated by violent conflict and war (Devereux 2007; Baro and Deubel 2006). That is why, according to this line of thinking, ‘new famines’ are almost always political events because they are almost always preventable. Devastating famines, which kill more than a small percentage of the population, are rare in a world-historical perspective (Ó Gráda 2009: 8). Some famines, such as the Great European Famine in the early fourteenth century and the Irish Famine in the 1840s, stand out as exceptional in this respect. Recent research on the frequency of famines in pre-industrial Europe confirms the exceptionality of widespread famines, despite frequent crop failures and war-related disruptions to the food system (Alfani and Ó Gráda, 2016). In Europe, classic famine crises have been in retreat for three or four centuries. England and northern Italy witnessed their last famines in the seventeenth century. Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century mortality peaks in France and the Low Countries were modest relative to previous centuries, even in years when food prices were expensive. In many European regions mortality remained sensitive to short-term variations in food prices or harvest outcomes well into the nineteenth century, but conditions rarely deteriorated to famine levels. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Europe seemed to have escaped from what Malthus called ‘the last, the most dreadful resource of nature’ (Bengtsson and Saito 2000; Malthus 1798). Nevertheless, a European history of (peacetime) famines extended into the nineteenth century with the Irish Famine of 1846– 1850 and the Great Finnish Famine of 1867–1868. It is plausible to link the long-term reduction of the risk of famine in Europe to gradual improvements in agricultural productivity, better communications, a strengthening of local entitlement support and some gains, although modest and slow, in economic growth and living standards (Vanhaute et al. 2007: 35–36). Changes to the social and economic order in Early Modern and Modern Europe gradually transformed the pattern and degree of vulnerability from ‘exogenous’ epidemics and local subsistence crises to new, structural forms of poverty and disease including airborne infections (Walter and Schofield 1989: 66–67). Proletarianization of labour and commercialization of goods and services created new forms of vulnerability such as insecure labour exchange entitlements and a growing dependency on often unstable markets. This created the need for new public goods and better, more inclusive protective systems, and established the foundations for Europe’s twentiethcentury welfare states. Europe’s ‘escape from famine’ after 1850 was accompanied by a massive increase in food availability, better food security, declining relative food prices and a shrinking agricultural population. Within a rapidly changing, globalizing and ever more unequal world, Europe could support its process of de-agrarianization with massive and cheap imports of raw materials and basic foodstuffs and an impressive export of tens of millions of surplus labourers to the ‘neoEuropes’. In some of these peripheries, local and regional food systems collapsed. The 228

Famines: causes and impact

commodification of smallholder production, the addition of millions of tropical cultivators into the world market, and the weakening or destruction of local and state-level autonomy by colonialism and imperialism tended to undermine traditional food security outside Europe (Davis 2001; McMichael 2013). Due to this round of imperialist globalization, counted in absolute numbers, the damage wrought by famine was higher than ever in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Famine mortality in India and China amounted to at least 30 million people between 1870 and 1910. It seems like the world history of famine had its final ‘big bang’ in the twentieth century. Absolute numbers of famine victims have never been higher (estimated at 70 to 80 million), with outliers in the USSR in 1921–1922 (six per cent of the population) and 1932–1933 (four per cent), Bengal in 1942–1944 (three per cent), China in 1959–1961 (two per cent) and North Korea in 1995–2000 (three to four per cent) (Ó Gráda 2009: 25–30). The damage caused by poor harvests was greatly exacerbated by political action, especially twentieth-century totalitarianism. Famine-related mortality declined rapidly after 1960. Famines that killed more than a small percentage of the total population became unusual. This, in turn, gave rise to the dream that hunger and famine could be finally eradicated on a global scale. This is not yet the case. Famines still threaten large populations in the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa. Hunger, often referred to in terms of food insecurity, is still affecting around 11 per cent of humanity, mostly small-scale farmers in developing countries, and is most prevalent in subSaharan Africa (FAO 2014). This highlights the discrepancies and inequalities that are part and parcel of the global food system as it functions today.

Explaining famines: from crop failure to community crisis Famines are regional crises. One might even claim that famines are regional crises that can only be understood via the ‘local story’ (Solar 1997: 123; Maharatna 1996: 179–195). The European Potato Famine in the 1840s was an enormous shock because of the widespread and massive increase in potato consumption after 1750 (Mokyr 1985; Vanhaute et al. 2007). Nevertheless, the impact of the potato blight differed widely within Western Europe. There were marked differences between Ireland and the rest of northwestern Europe and between eastern and western Ireland, between the Scottish Highlands and Lowlands, between Inner-Flanders and South Belgium, between clay and sandy regions in the Netherlands, and between East and West Prussia. This implies that the causes and effects of the subsistence crisis of the 1840s cannot be evaluated on a national or international scale. Moreover, these regional stories have to be understood within different spatial dynamics: international (the dispersion of the blight, international trade, market integration); national (state policies); regional (regional socio-agrosystems); and local (local communities, local elites, households). By combining the regional stories, the impact of the European Potato Famine can be attributed to five proximate factors that contributed to a diversification of the effects of the famine: 1

2

3

The first important trigger was the failure of the 1846 wheat and rye harvests. Those failures extended all over Europe, and grain prices everywhere were affected. The price increases led to panic, popular unrest, and privation. Most of the excess mortality was due to the failure of the potato crop in combination with the failure of grain crops. The timing and size of the harvest losses varied greatly across regions and countries. Wherever the potato was omnipresent in the people’s diet, its failure resulted in severe hardship and in excess mortality (Ireland, Flanders, the Scottish Highlands, the Netherlands, and Prussia). 229

Eric Vanhaute

4

5

Vulnerability to famine was severely aggravated when rural household incomes were less diversified (e.g., in Ireland) or when alternative income possibilities were decimated (e.g., the disappearance of household-based flax industries). The strength of local relief systems and the entitlements status of the poor, together with the impact of protective state action, were paramount in reducing the direct impact of the famine.

Hence, famines are regional events that can only be understood within long-term socioeconomic processes that accelerate destitution of society’s most vulnerable groups. Persistent food insecurity in nowadays sub-Saharan Africa, most importantly with the rural populations, is rooted in structural vulnerabilities that limit their access to resources (Baro and Deubel 2006). In the last decades the Sahel has become the most infamous famine-prone region worldwide, frequently invoked as a classic model of uncontrolled demographic growth, poor land use, long- and short-term climatic change, and corrupt regimes. Others have stressed that drought and famine have been part of a lengthy process of ecological deterioration that is directly related to the growing impact of global capitalism and to the lack of accountability of local, national, and global governmental and nongovernmental agencies (Frank and Chasin 1980; Watts 1983 (2013); De Waal 1997). Strategies of adapting household farming and income practices in the face of climatic variability have to be understood within the historical process of incorporation of African peasants into the global circuits of capitalism and the imbalance between peasant subsistence and consumption. These examples clarify that famines are related to ecological and institutional dynamics, structural vulnerability, social inequalities and struggles over land and natural resources. Scales of analysis, both in space and time, should be multiple. Central are the household and community livelihoods – the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living. They comprise multiple sources of entitlement, based on the household’s and community’s endowments and their position in the legal, political, economic and social fabric of society (Baro and Deubel 2006). For many years, the central focus in historical famine research (triggered by a Malthusian and a Marxist perspective) was on macro processes such as the relationship between famine crises and demographic crises, and the impact of subsistence crises on revolutionary political events (Vanhaute 2011). This approach encouraged research to identify and measure crop failures, price fluctuations, demographic crises and political uprisings. In the 1970s, following E.P. Thompson’s moral economy approach, attention in food crisis research shifted to urban markets and the dialectical relationship between collective and public actions (Tilly 1975; Walter and Wrightson 1976). Historians and social scientists redefined famines as intertwined communal processes. The vulnerability of local societies to economic distress is not solely a function of population numbers, markets and prices. It is related to a cluster of at least three critical factors: the impact of the crisis; the existing social and economic order; and the way people are able to keep control of their own fate, within the household and in the local and regional communities. The collective level includes the impact of social differentiation and power relations (along the lines of income, gender and age), the strength of local institutions, and the organization of the regional economy. This more comprehensive interpretation of famines was largely triggered by publications written by the Indian economist Amartya Sen who, in his famous work Poverty and Famines, shifted the focus of famine research from the availability of food to the entitlement of food: ‘Starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat’ (Sen 1981: 1) (see also Pritchard, chapter 1, this volume). To understand famine we need to understand both ownership patterns and exchange entitlements, and the forces that lie behind them. Like the paradigm of the moral economy, this approach highlights individual agency, the actions and reactions of women and 230

Famines: causes and impact

men with regard to a decreased ‘command over food’ (Ravallion 1997: 1206–1207). The entitlement approach stresses the meso-level of command over food that is inserted between the macro and micro-levels of availability of food and individual suffering. This shifted the prime focus from the availability of food (a production-based approach) to the distribution of food (a market-based approach). One new line of research favoured the individual actor, with the lack of purchasing power and/or property rights and entitlements as a main cause of vulnerability. Another one looked at the functioning of food (grain) markets. A disturbance of the ‘Smithian’ open and competitive markets is seen as one of the main causes for a decline in food entitlements (Persson 1999). Sen first applied this entitlements approach to the Great Bengali Famine of 1943–1944 (Sen 1981; for a revision see Ó Gráda 2015). He argued that hoarding, speculation and misjudgment on the part of the producers and merchants, at the expense of the rural poor, caused the crisis. This forced prices much higher than justified by food availability, closing the markets for the poor and killing over two million of them. Later on, the importance of institutions (such as households and village communities) in determining entitlements has also been taken into account (Devereux 2007). This transfer-based approach highlights internal household power relations, community networks, entitlements generated from communal property regimes, and rights or claims over resources that are held collectively. All these debates reinforced the interpretation of famines as community crises, where scarcity and human suffering is accompanied and aggravated by a social breakdown, causing communities to lose their ability to support their vulnerable members. That is why famines are unique experiences that occupy a finite span of historical time and human experience while also being recurring patterns that reveal insight into a society’s deeper and more enduring tensions and difficulties (Murton 2000: 1414). Modern famines are typically regarded as avoidable humanitarian crises, or more bluntly, as crimes against humanity. That is why contemporary famine research has moved towards a political theory of famine prevention (De Waal 1997). When looking at the relationship between famine, hunger and poverty, new questions arise. The fact that fighting famines did not prevent the spread of endemic hunger remains one of the most puzzling paradoxes of our times. According to Amartya Sen (1990: 376), endemic hunger ‘kills in a more concealed matter… It all happens rather quietly without any clearly visible deaths from hunger… While regular hunger is largely a result of inadequate entitlements on a continuing basis, famines are the result of disastrous declines of entitlements that typically occur rather suddenly’. Over time, the predominant character of hunger seems to have shifted from frequent food shortages to chronic food poverty. This change of scale has placed an unprecedented number of people at peril of hunger at the same time (Newman 1990: 394–401; Dando 1980: 90–91). By placing famine in a broader perspective of societal changes and global food security, the very character and perception of the concept changed. From ‘an endemic disease in peasant societies’ (Arnold 1988: 50) and ‘incorporated into man’s biological regime’ (Braudel 2002: 73), famine and hunger have shifted to powerful weapons in the ideological debate about contemporary society.

Assessing famines: from natural disaster to resilience and vulnerability The notion of famine as an event (sudden crisis), process (accelerated destitution) and structure (inequalities within societal networks) creates the need for an integrated and historicalcomparative approach. This includes individual and household coping strategies that deal with acute forms of stress as well as reactions from public authorities (Howe and Devereux 2004). It is often assumed that during famine crises existing market and non-market institutions for assistance, credit and insurance perform less well, or even collapse. Patronage lineages succumb and alternative, ‘anti-social’ behaviour increases. This is certainly not always the case. What is 231

Eric Vanhaute

the role played by these networks in periods of severe social stress? To answer this question, famine research must also concentrate on cases where food crises did not kill on a massive scale, or where crop failures did not result in a genuine famine. Limiting research to extreme situations risks narrowing the focus to the character of the event rather than to structural variables such as mechanisms of resistance and adaptability (Vanhaute and Lambrecht 2011). Why do famines occur, and what is their impact? On the most basic level, the direct impact of a subsistence crisis is expressed in measures of food availability decline (crops and livestock production, market provisioning), human suffering (mortality, health and disease), and demographic adaptive strategies (marriage, fertility, migration). On a second level, we need to understand formal and informal collective coping strategies. How do local populations, as a group, cope with the sudden stress of a (possible) hunger crisis, and how do local, regional, and national authorities react to this threat of famine? We differentiate between collective risk management strategies for coping with shocks and for mitigating risk, and public actor interventions. Shortterm and long-term collective strategies include adaptations of demographic behaviour and consumption patterns, intensification and diversification of the use of family labour, selling assets and land, and reconfiguring relief, credit and protection systems. Public interventions range from direct intervention and public investment to market regulation and revised entitlement structures. Coping is defined as the manner in which people act within the constraints of existing resources on the one hand and the entitlements they receive to command them on the other hand. Coping strategies are embedded in existing societal agreements such as accessing markets, exercising rights, calling upon obligations or moral duties, and strengthening and enlarging networks of patronage and social support. Household resources for coping with famine include labour, land, tools, seed for crops, livestock, draft animals, storable food stocks, cash and valuables that can be sold. The most common household strategies are adaptations of demographic behaviour and consumption patterns, intensification and diversification of the use of family labour, and selling assets and land. Group-based coping strategies point at relationships related to exchanging these assets. These strategies can be either defensive and protective or active and offensive. Securing basic needs goes together with an appeal to guarantee the basic rights of entitlement. If this fails, new forms of coping strategies can break the former rules by circumventing legal and moral laws or by physically leaving the livelihood. They point at a (partial) breakdown of societal structures. Research on the impact of contemporary crises and natural disasters on household coping strategies reveals a multitude of risk management arrangements on both a household and a collective level. In most famine-prone regions, rioting and petty theft rose sharply; the character of crime changed too. Collective food riots were more likely the product of minor hunger and deprivation than of real starvation. Table 15.1 summarizes the range of choices households and groups have for managing risk in crisis situations (immediate shocks and longer-term crisis situations). The use and effectiveness of these protection strategies depend on the impact of the crisis, the compatibility of individual and household-based choices and the efficiency of public actions. Strategies may also conflict with short-term and long-term goals: reallocation of intra-household labour input and/ or food intake can save assets but can harm long-term health, especially of children; selling assets can jeopardize the survival of the farm; violating moral standards in using collective goods can harm future participation in credit networks or group-based insurance regulations; and adjustments in fertility strategies can affect long-term household labour supply. Public interventions during a period of sudden crisis also have multiple dimensions, as shown in Table 15.2. We distinguish between short-term actions (relief transfers, market regulation and price subsidies), middle-term interventions (investments in public works and employers business), and long-term initiatives (strengthening credit networks, schooling and healthcare facilities). They all put serious pressure on public assets, so choices are often weighted in favour of immediate implementation and effects. 232

Famines: causes and impact Table 15.1 Collective risk management strategies in crisis situations Household based

Group based Strategies for coping with shocks

Reducing food consumption

Relief systems, transfers from networks of mutual support

Intensification of labour input

Common property resource management

Temporary and definitive migration

Collective actions

Loans Sales of land/assets Insurance mechanisms/strategies for mitigating risk Family and demographic strategies

Social and reciprocal networks

Crop and plot diversification

Protection and insurance mechanisms

Income diversification

Credit associations and relations Securing rights of property, tenancy and access

Source: Adapted from Skoufias (2003: 1090) and Vanhaute and Lambrecht (2011: 158). Table 15.2 Public actor interventions in crisis situations Type of intervention and beneficiaries

Possible advantages

Possible disadvantages

Short term Immediate relief transfers (food aid, cash transfers, allowances)

Meet critical household needs, can be implemented quickly

Can distort labour markets, can thwart existing assistance networks

Meet critical household needs, can be implemented quickly

Can distort commodity markets and price setting

Can be quickly implemented, and reduced after crisis Investment in land/infrastructure

Can distort labour markets, administrative overview

Can be quickly implemented, securing/rising employment

Can distort labour markets and employer incentives

Long term Strengthening credit networks (supporting credit systems), small credit funds

Can sustain and promote human and physical capital, can strengthen community networks

Difficult to implement in crisis situations, administrative costs

Targeting human development (schooling, healthcare)

Supports long-term human and physical capital

Dependent on existing infrastructure, high investment and monitoring costs

Commodity price subsidies, market regulation (food, housing, energy) Medium term Public investments/public works Employer subsidies

Source: Adapted from Skoufias (2003: 1094–6) and Vanhaute and Lambrecht (2011: 159).

233

Eric Vanhaute

Why are some communities vulnerable to crisis? Why do some cope better with famine than others? Much of the existing scholarship on the resilience or vulnerability of communities focuses on exogenous conditions. Communities that are vulnerable to crisis have to contend with an assortment of difficult environmental, political, or economic conditions, such as ecological disasters, famine and war (Curtis 2012: 18–34). However, the roots of the level of resilience and vulnerability are internal. Vulnerability, the link between risk and the precariousness of people’s livelihoods, has always been part of human societies. Throughout history, the most powerful answers have been found in diversifying income and coping strategies and safeguarding access to resources, land and common goods. Food shortages only become a famine when an accelerated process of rising individual malnutrition and household destitution occurs simultaneously with (partial) societal breakdown. In most cases in history, the impact of famines could be absorbed within the local and regional communities. They seldom had lasting effects on societal developments and population growth (Devereux 1993; Howe and Devereux 2004; Ó Gráda 2009: 1–25). The threats to individual ‘lives’ (malnutrition, suffering) are usually countered by adaptations in peasant ‘livelihoods’ (informal and formal coping and protection systems). Famines triggered by harvest failures only occur when societal institutions fail. The faltering or breakdown of markets, labour, credit and protection systems cut households off from their income and endowments. Individual, household and local coping strategies such as public credit, insurance and support systems (in other words, peasant survival systems) determine the outcome of a decline in food availability (Osmani 1998: 172–174; Skoufias 2003: 1087–1102). In short, vulnerabilities to food shortages depend on three critical factors: the scope of the food crisis; the resilience of systems of collective risk management (household and local community); and the impact of public actor interventions (social and economic organization via institution arrangements and social power relations). This can be expressed via three questions: • • •

What are the problems related to the supply and availability of food (a production-based approach)? What are the problems related to the distribution of food (a market-based approach; markets and entitlements)? What are the problems related to the control and regulation of food (a transfer-based approach; local and extra-local public institutions, rules of access, control and extraction/taxation)?

Recent research has pointed at the positive role of social and economic equality and public accountability, allowing societies to better deal with potentially disastrous shocks and calamities (Bankhoff et al. 2004). The way society is organized has a big impact on the strategies those societies devise for exploiting and managing their resources. This in turn dictates the extent to which some communities are stable and resilient over the long term while others are vulnerable to failure and even collapse (Curtis 2012: 79–80). Recent famine research has substantially increased our understanding of the way famines, or the threats of famine, ‘work’ within specific societal contexts. It shows that the impact of hunger crises in rural societies is directly, but inversely, related to the level of stress absorption and risk spreading within the local village communities (Vanhaute and Lambrecht 2011). In Flanders for example, intra-village distributional networks changed profoundly between the middle of the eighteenth and the middle of the nineteenth centuries. Local management strategies shifted from predominantly informal networks to predominantly formal institutions. This transition is rooted in structural changes in Flemish rural society in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and it contradicts the traditional vision of a more or less straightforward shift in crisis management from rural, local and informal to urban, supra-local and formal. The food crises of 1740 and 1845–1847 in 234

Famines: causes and impact

the southern Netherlands were severe, but did not turn into famines in the traditional sense. The peasant economy and village society were able to absorb the main shocks of these crises. Further comparative research must deepen our knowledge regarding the impact of peasant versus commercialized agriculture on a society’s vulnerability to famine. Over time, the continued erosion of the family basis of livelihoods has created new forms of vulnerability. In large parts of the Global South, vulnerability has switched from a temporary to a structural state of being in the last few decades (Ellis 2006: 393). This is countered by an intensification of old and an introduction of new forms of livelihood diversification such as taking up non-farm activities and relying on non-farm income transfers. The income of rural households has become less based on farm activities and the exploitation of households’ own assets. This erodes former household and village security mechanisms and affects peasants’ ability to overcome short-term economic stress, such as harvest shortages or variations in income or food prices from one year to the next or within even shorter time spans (Bengtsson 2004: 33–35; Vanhaute 2012). Three decades of economic liberalization and institutional restructuring – and an intensified involvement in markets for commodities, credit, technology, land, and services of all kinds – have created growing and interconnected vulnerabilities and new risks. New forms of more politicized representations of smallholders and organized peasant reactions such as la Via Campesina try to formulate an answer to the dominant framing of agricultural modernization and the neoliberal mode of food production (Desmarais 2007) (see McMichael, chapter 22, this volume). Food sovereignty, control over one’s own food production and food markets, is put forward as an alternative for food security; a concept agnostic about food production systems. A call for localizing food power implies support for domestic food production and promotion of the return to smallholder farming (Holt-Giménez 2008: 13–14).

Then, now and next: from famines to food crisis By historical standards, the famines of the past few decades have been small crises. Regional crop failures remain a threat, but a combination of public action and food aid is able to mitigate immediate mortality. Although non-crisis death rates in hunger stricken regions like subSaharan Africa remain high, excess mortality due to famine tends to be low unless linked to war. The fact that contemporary famines have become less frequent and less severe is a success story of world historical proportions. However, it is only a partial success story. Famine has not been eradicated yet, and remains an imminent threat in parts of Africa. Moreover, food security is threatened by new forms of vulnerability. The globalization of the problem of hunger and a proliferation of the largest famines ever between 1870 and 1960 is closely related to the emergence of a global food system from the second half of the nineteenth century (Davis 2001; Ross 2003; McMichael 2013). This food system intensified after 1950 with the internationalization of inputs to the food system and of food itself, with the rise of agribusiness, and with the seductive call for open markets and agricultural specialization as engines of development from the 1980s. The liberalization of food markets and the expansion of this ‘corporate food regime’ over the last three decades have thoroughly affected the nature of food chains and the peasantry’s position herein. The policy of deregulating and opening up markets served the goal of fighting hunger by multiplying supplies and lowering prices. The stretching (and commodification) of food chains, the delinking of production from consumption and the concentration of control and decision making have generated an unprecedented flow of cheap foodstuffs while aggravating vulnerabilities within the food regime (Akram-Lodhi and Kay 2010; Exenberger and Pondorfer 2013). It has become clear that unstable markets and price volatility affect the food security of millions of families, both in cities and the countryside. The remaining world 235

Eric Vanhaute

peasantries are not protected in the integrated global market and have to rely on ever more insecure income resources. These changes affect the entitlement position (of food, income, access to land and credit, etc.) of an unprecedented number of people. Even though the average per capita food supply rose by one fifth between 1960 and 2000, the number of undernourished people doubled. This means that the ratio has been stabilizing at around 12–15 per cent of the world population for some decades now.1 On top of this, rapidly rising prices of agricultural commodities triggered in 2007–2008 a new twenty-first-century food crisis (raising the number of undernourished people but not causing new famines). At the start of the new millennium, food was cheaper than at any time in modern world history (Moore 2015). After 2002 world food prices ticked upwards, slowly at first, then accelerating. Prices peaked in 2008, and again in the early months of 2011. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2014 average real food prices are 50 per cent higher than before 2007–2008. According to many observers, the new global food crisis symbols the end of ‘cheap food’ and the persistence of higher and more fluctuating retail prices of agricultural foodstuffs, turning into a structural and even systemic crisis (Johnston et al. 2010: 69–71; Moore 2015). This challenges one of the basic pillars of the European development project, which is based on a combination of open labour markets, generalized national protection systems and general access to cheap food. While the prospect of access to a fair (family) wage income and to guaranteed social protection dissolved in the ‘lost decades’ of the 1980s and 1990s (when the funding of agricultural research fell dramatically), the structural break in the food price index in recent years demystifies the promise of an end to hunger via unrestricted global food markets. This recent food price crisis reveals the vulnerability of global food chains in the early twenty-first century. Rising prices are not the result of disturbances in local supply and demand; they are triggered by global market fluctuations and price settings. According to international organizations, the first twenty-first-century food crisis is man-made. Short-run overshooting (bad harvests, low food stocks, export bans, speculation) interferes with long-run negative shifts (population growth, declining stocks, rising demand for animal feed, biofuel policies). This combination is intensified because agriculture has been neglected in development theory and policies over the last 30 years (the ‘lost decades’), because productivity gains are declining, and because the impact of climate change is rising. Whatever the causes, it becomes clear that the ‘green revolutions’ of the 1970s and 1980s have run out of steam (see Vaarst, Panneerselvam and Halberg, chapter 7, this volume). The question as to whether new technological fixes can revitalize agricultural productivity gains remains unanswered.

Conclusion Famine, hunger and food crises are related societal phenomena, but most of the time they have been analyzed and interpreted from different viewpoints or realities. Temporal impacts and spatial scales differ enormously between short-term famines, middle-term food crises and long-term hunger and food insecurity. New famine and food studies have the potential to incorporate these different scales of analysis (local and global, event, process and structure). The first global food crisis of the twenty-first century is a powerful incentive to bring this knowledge and these insights together. It teaches us that sustainable food security in a globalizing world cannot be obtained by a further expansion or intensification of the twentieth century global food market. The extent of a lingering global food crisis calls for answers on a global level. However, these global answers are rooted in local knowledge. The appropriate site for reshaping global food relations in more sustainable ways lies outside the global scale of nowadays food regimes. It is sited at the local, regional, communal and ecologically-embedded level of food relationships (Friedmann 1993). 236

Famines: causes and impact

The fight against world hunger in the twentieth century has shifted the notion of protection or food security from the preservation of peasant-bound production systems to general access to cheap market goods. This change came at a high price; it primarily affects the remaining peasant populations and the global natural commons. The twenty-first-century food crisis reveals that the policies of high production growth rates and low world prices are a dead-end solution. It amplifies the call for new, more powerful institutional arrangements that strengthen the accountability of public authorities and reinforce rural communities and national regulations in order to facilitate and empower the interests of small farmers and agricultural labourers. What is needed is not less but more protection of rural producers, local agricultural production systems and sustainable ecological development. This observation fundamentally questions the traditional conceptualizations of development, food production, famine prevention and social protection.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Bill Pritchard, Cormac Ó Gráda, Isabelle Devos, Thijs Lambrecht and an anonymous referee for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

Note 1 Estimates of ‘undernourished population’ from FAO statistics: 300 to 500 million in the 1960s (10–15 per cent of the world population), 535 million in 1972–1974 (14 per cent), 580 million in 1979–1981 (13 per cent), 840 million in 1990 (16 per cent), 820 million in 2000 (13 per cent), about one billion in 2009 (15 per cent), and 805 million in 2014 (11 per cent). Earlier estimates are from David Grigg (1985), and from Lucile F. Newman (1990: 395–396). Due to the numerous revisions in the FAO definitions of undernourishment and malnourishment, the figures keep fluctuating and lose reliability (e.g., the adaptation of the 1980 numbers from 580 to 900 million, and of the 1992 numbers from 786 million to 1015 million in the latest FAO reports; see The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014, FAO World Food Programme, and M. Caparros, ‘Counting the Hungry’, New York Times, September 28, 2014).

References Akram-Lodhi, H. and Kay, C. 2010. Surveying the agrarian question. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1): 177–202; 37(2): 255–284. Alfani, G. and Ó Gráda, C. (eds.) 2016. Famine in Europe: a history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnold, D. 1988. Famine. Social crisis and historical change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bankoff, G., Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D. (eds.). 2004. Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development and people. London: Earthscan. Baro, M. and Deubel, T. F. 2006. Persistent hunger: perspectives on vulnerability, famine, and food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35: 521–538. Bengtsson, T. 2004. Living standards and economic stress. In: Life under pressure. Mortality and living standards in Europe and Asia, 1700–1900. Bengtsson, T., Campbell, C. and Lee, J. Z. (eds.), pp. 27–59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bengtsson, T. and Saito, O. (eds.). 2000. Population and economy. From hunger to modern economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Biesalski, H. K. and O’Mealy, P. 2013. Hidden hunger. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Braudel, F. 2002. Civilization and capitalism 15th–18th century. Volume 1. The structures of everyday life. London: Phoenix Press. Curtis, D. 2012. Pre-industrial societies and strategies for the exploitation of resources. A theoretical framework for understanding why some societies are resilient and some settlements are vulnerable to crisis. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Curtis, D., Dijkman, J., Lambrecht, Th. and Vanhaute, E. 2016 (forthcoming). The Northern and Southern Netherlands. In: Famine in Europe: a history. Alfani, G. and Ó Gráda, C. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dando, W. 1980. The geography of famine. New York: Winston.

237

Eric Vanhaute Davis, M. 2001. Late Victorian holocausts. El Niño famines and the making of the Third World. London: Verso. Desmarais, A. A. 2007. La Vía Campesina. Globalization and the power of peasants. Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing. Devereux, S. 1993. Theories of famine. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Devereux, S. 2007. Sen’s entitlement approach. Critiques and counter-critiques. In: The new famines. Why famines persist in an era of globalization. Devereux, S. (ed.), pp. 66–89. London and New York: Routledge. De Waal, A. 1997. Famine crimes: politics and the disaster relief industry. London: African Rights and the International African Institute, in association with James Currey, Oxford and Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Ellis, F. 2006. Agrarian change and rising vulnerability in rural sub-Saharan Africa. New Political Economy, 11(3): 387–397. Exenberger, A. and Pondorfer, A. 2013. Climate change and the risk of mass violence. Africa in the 21st Century. Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, 19(3): 381–392. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition: the state of food insecurity in the world. Rome: FAO. Frank, R. W. and Chasin, B. H. 1980. Seeds of famine: ecological destruction and the development dilemma in the West African Sahel. New York: Allenheld, Osmun and Co. Friedmann, H. 1993. After Midas’s feast. In: Food for the future. Conditions, contradictions of sustainability, Allen, P. (ed.). New York: Wiley. Grigg, D. 1985. The world food problem 1950–1980. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Holt-Giménez, E. 2008. The world food crisis. What’s behind it and what can we do about it? Policy Brief (Food First: Institute for Food and Development Policy), 16. Available from http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2264. Howe, P. and Devereux, S. 2004. Famine intensity and magnitude scales. A proposal for an instrumental definition of famine. Disasters, 28: 356–358. Johnston, D., et al. 2010. Symposium. The 2007–2008 world food crisis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10(1): 69–129. Livi-Bacci, M. 1991. Population and nutrition. An essay on European demographic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maharatna, A. 1996. The demography of famines. An Indian historical perspective. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Malthus, T. R. 1992 [1798]. An essay on the principle of population. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McMichael, P. 2013. Food regimes and agrarian questions. Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing. Mokyr, J. 1985. Why Ireland starved. A quantitative and analytical history of the Irish Economy 1800–1850. London and Boston: Allen and Unwin. Moore, J. W. 2015. Cheap food and bad climate. From surplus value to negative value in the capitalist world-ecology. Critical Historical Studies, 2(1). Murton, B. 2000. Famine. In The Cambridge world history of food: volume 2. Kiple, K. F. and Ornelas, K. C. (eds.), pp. 1141–1426. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Newman, L. F. (ed.). 1990. Hunger in history. Food shortage, poverty, and deprivation. Oxford: Blackwell. Ó Gráda, C. 2009. Famine. A short history. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Ó Gráda, C. 2015. Sufficiency and sufficiency and sufficiency. Revisiting the Great Bengal Famine of 1943–1944. In: Eating people is wrong, and other essays on famine, its past and its future. Ó Gráda, C. (ed.), pp. 38–91. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Osmani, S. 1998. Famine, demography and endemic poverty. In: A world without famine? New approaches to aid and development. O’Neill, H. and Toye, J. (eds.). Houndmills, Basinstoke: McMillan. Persson, K.-G. 1999. Grain markets in Europe 1500–1900: integration and regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ravallion, M. 1997. Famines and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 1206–1207. Ross, E. B. 2003. Malthusianism, capitalist agriculture, and the fate of peasants in the making of the modern world food system. Review of Radical Political Economics, 35(4): 437–461. Rotberg, R. and Rabb, K. (eds.). 1985. Hunger and history. The impact of changing food production and consumption patterns on society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines. An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. 1990. Food entitlement and economic chains. In: Hunger in history. Food shortage, poverty, and deprivation. Newman, L. F. (ed.), pp. 374–386. Oxford: Blackwell. Skoufias, E. 2003. Economic crises and natural disasters. Coping strategies and policy implications. World Development, 31(7): 1087–1102. Solar, P. 1997. The potato famine in Europe. In: Famine 150. Commemorative Lecture Series. Ó Gráda, C. (ed.), pp. 113–127. Dublin: UCD.

238

Famines: causes and impact Tilly, C. 1975. Food supply and public order in modern Europe. In: The formation of national states in Europe. Tilly, C. (ed.), pp. 380–455. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Vanhaute, E. 2011. From famine to food crisis. What history can teach us about local and global food crises. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38 (1): 47–65. Vanhaute, E. 2012. Peasants, peasantries and (de)peasantization in the capitalist world-system. In: Routledge handbook of world-systems analysis. Chase Dunn, C. and Babones, S. (eds.), pp. 313–321. London and New York: Routledge. Vanhaute, E. and Lambrecht, Th. 2011. Famine, exchange networks and the village community. A comparative analysis of the subsistence crises of the 1740s and the 1840s in Flanders. Continuity and Change, 26(2): 155–186. Vanhaute, E., Ó Gráda, C. and Paping, R. 2007. The European subsistence crisis of 1845–1850. A comparative perspective. In: When the potato failed. Causes and effects of the last European subsistence crisis, 1845–1850. Ó Gráda, C., Paping, R. and Vanhaute, E. (eds.), pp. 15–42. Turnhout: Brepols (CORN Publication Series). Walter, J. and Wrightson, K. 1976. Dearth and the social order in early modern England. Past and Present, 71(1): 22–42. Walter, J. and Schofield, R. 1989. Famine, disease and crisis mortality in early modern society. In: Famine, disease and the social order in early modern society. Walter, J. and Schofield, R. (eds.), pp. 1–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watts, M. 1983 (reprint, University of Georgia Press 2013). Silent violence: food, famine and peasantry in Northern Nigeria. Berkeley: University of California Press.

239

16 NUTRITION SENSITIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH What it is, why it matters and how to encourage it Lawrence Haddad

Introduction Economic growth is something that all national leaders are keenly interested in promoting. Unfortunately economic growth does not always drive the broader set of development outcomes that are of concern to many communities and families. Good nutrition status is one of those development outcomes. Economic policymakers should be more concerned with malnutrition. The human costs of malnutrition are significant: 45 per cent of all under-five mortality is due to undernutrition (Black et al. 2013) and underweight is the most important risk factor in the burden of disease for sub-Saharan Africa, and the fourth most important risk factor for South Asia (Lim et al. 2013). The economic costs of malnutrition are large and the economic returns to improved nutrition are high: undernutrition is estimated to reduce GDP in Africa and Asia by 11 per cent; stunted children are 33 per cent more likely to live in poverty as adults, all other things being equal; and obesity — another form of malnutrition — costs 10 per cent of median income in the USA (Haddad, Achadi et al. 2014). This chapter does three things. First, it describes what we know about the relationship between economic growth and nutrition status. Second, it explores what we know about which types of economic growth drive nutrition status. Finally, the last section of the chapter identifies some policies that have been proposed to make economic growth better at improving nutrition.

What do we know about economic growth and nutrition? Here we focus on two forms of malnutrition: undernutrition and obesity. Chronic undernutrition tends to be assessed by under-five stunting rates. It measures the accumulation of multiple deficits experienced by the child, and is a marker for impaired immune system development and impaired cognitive achievement. Obesity is defined as body mass index over 30 and this is a risk factor for non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and is a growing public health concern worldwide (Roberto et al. 2015). We would expect income growth to affect malnutrition in several ways. Undernutrition is caused by the interaction of several deficits: food consumption, healthy environment and caring behaviours and resources. Increased income can help meet these deficits. We know that at low 240

Nutrition sensitive economic growth

incomes, food consumption responds well to increases in income both in terms of improved quantity and quality (Strauss and Thomas 1998). Increases in income can improve access to health and hygiene services and improved water and sanitation sources, although due to the quasi-public nature of these goods, an increase in household income does not always improve the ability to access improved public services. Improved income has an ambiguous impact on the provision of caring services. On the one hand, improved income often entails trade-offs for mothers in terms of time taken away from child care, but on the other hand, the improved income can offset this and could provide access to adequate child care substitutes, at least for children that no longer require exclusive breastfeeding (over six months of age). For overweight, obesity and diet related non-communicable diseases, the relationship with income is more complex. Improved income usually comes from jobs that require less physical activity — a known risk factor for obesity. Improved income also allows for a diet of improved quality (which can be more expensive, but does not have to be), but often is associated with the increased purchase of food that requires less time for preparation (or no time) and these foods tend to be high in salt, sugar and saturated fat — highly processed or otherwise. How do these pathways play out empirically? Macro cross-sectional evidence suggests that the long run elasticity of stunting with respect to GDP per capita growth is approximately 0.6 (Smith and Haddad 2015; Ruel and Alderman 2013). In other words, an increase of 10 per cent in GDP per capita will decrease stunting rates by 6 per cent. As can be seen from Figure 16.1, the relationship is slightly steeper at lower incomes, but approximates linearity. This elasticity has remained remarkably stable over the 1970–2010 period (Smith and Haddad 2015). In the short run, the elasticity is smaller (Smith and Haddad 2015; Headey 2013; Heltberg 2009) and some have suggested it is indistinguishable from zero (Vollmer et al. 2014). This implies that increases in GDP per capita take some time to work through into improved household income, access to improved nutrition inputs such as water, sanitation and health services and, ultimately improved child nutrition status. The long run association between GDP per capita and obesity rates is significant and positive at 0.5. For a 10 per cent increase in GDP per capita, obesity rates increase by 5 per cent (Figure 16.2). This bi-functional relationship of malnutrition with income growth highlights the new complexities that policymakers need to grapple with. We will return to this complexity in the final section of this chapter. Delving further into the empirical evidence within countries for income and obesity, Figure 16.3 shows how complex the relationship is. In low-income countries, as income rises, obesity tends to rise (Dinsa et al. 2012). In high-income countries, obesity tends to be associated with lower income groups (Wang et al. 2007). In these countries, healthier food is more expensive or less accessible in poorer locations which are often dominated by fast food outlets. In middleincome countries under-five obesity is rising rapidly but adult obesity rates show no common pattern as income rises (Dinsa et al. 2012). Compared to the macro cross-country estimates on income and undernutrition, estimates derived from household surveys are lower. The association between income and standardized height-for-age measurements ranges from 0 to 0.2 (Haddad et al. 2015). It is not clear why they are smaller than estimates calculated from macro cross-country approaches. Most of these household estimates are derived from cross-sections and it is possible that cross-sections do not display the same heterogeneity in range of determinants as observed over time. At the present time, however, the exact reasons for these discrepancies remain unclear. Interestingly there are not as many good quality micro estimates of the height for age–income relationship as one might expect. So clearly income is important for undernutrition reduction, although the relationship with obesity is more complex and requires more research. 241

0

Haiti

Ghana China

IDN

PHN IRQ

Moldova

4000

Colombia

Algeria

Egypt

DOM

Peru

6000

Predicted poverty line

Syria

Guatemala

Thailand

Ecuador

South Africa

GDP per person (2005 international $)

Uzbekistan Sri Lanka

2000

Kyrgyzstan

Senegal

KEN

VTN

NGA

India

Yemen Angola

SDN PAK

MDG Nepal

BGD

CIV

MMR

DRC

ETH

Niger

Burundi Afghanistan

8000

Turkey

Belarus

Brazil

10 000

Kazakhstan

Predicted stunting line

Botswana

Prevalence of stunting in children aged 0–5 years and GDP per person (size of the circles represents estimates of the population of stunted children aged 0–5)

0

20

40

60

Source: Ruel and Alderman 2013.

Figure 16.1

Stunting prevalence in children aged 0–5 years

0

20

40

60

80

0

Congo (DRC)

Sierra Leone China

6000

Armenia

Swaziland

GDP per person (2005 PPP$)

4000

Indonesia

Philippines

Vietnam

India

Pakistan

Nigeria

2000

Bangladesh Ethiopia

Kenya

Ghana Cameroon

Guatemala

Morocco

Honduras

Kyrgyzstan Moldova

Lesotho

Nicaragua

Bolivia

Jordan

Egypt

Turkey

8000

Thailand

Dominican Republic

Peru

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Brazil

10 000

South Africa

Serbia

Source: Ruel and Alderman 2013.

Figure 16.2 Prevalence of women overweight and GDP per person, for low-income and middle-income countries (size of the circles represents estimates of the population of overweight women aged 15–49 years)

Women overweight prevalence, BMI>25 (%)

Lawrence Haddad

Individuals Low SES

High SES

women

High GDP/cap

men

obesity

adults

Countries Med GDP/cap

children

obesity

adults

Low GDP/cap obesity

Figure 16.3 Income and obesity: a complex relationship Source: Stylized and derived by author from data in Dinsa et al. (2012) and Wang et al. (2007).

When is economic growth more nutrition sensitive? When does economic growth or income growth have a stronger association with stunting? If we know this it might give us some clues on how to increase the sensitivity of nutrition to economic growth. Using household data from 10 countries, Haddad et al. (2003) estimated the elasticity of underfive standardized weight for age levels with respect to income, but could not find any pattern to the magnitude of the estimates and country characteristics. Haddad et al. (2015) found a negative association between household data estimates of standardized height for age–income elasticities and income inequality levels. At lower inequality levels, elasticities tend to be higher, although the number of estimates available mitigated against finding a statistically significant relationship (see Figure 16.4). This result is consistent with the growth–poverty literature where poverty reduction is larger for a given unit of GDP growth at lower income inequality levels (Haddad 2015). Another way of exploring the nutrition sensitivity of economic growth is to ask whether growth is more or less effective at reducing malnutrition in different governance regimes. It is reasonable to expect governance regimes to modify the relationship between nutrition and growth. If we define governance using International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) indicators published by the Political Risk Services Group (PRS 2013) we would focus on five dimensions of governance: (1) bureaucratic quality; (2) law and order; (3) political stability; (4) restraint of corruption; and (5) democratic accountability. (The actual names of the ICRG indicators are: Bureaucracy quality, law and order, government stability, corruption, and democratic accountability.) How might these five dimensions be relevant to facilitate or impede efforts to accelerate reductions in child undernutrition? Smith and Haddad (2015) briefly survey the literature and conclude the following: Bureaucratic quality concerns the quality of public services and the civil service, including policy formulation and implementation, and regulation of the private sector. It is important 244

Nutrition sensitive economic growth

0.18 0.16 HAZ-income elasticity

0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 y = –0.0067x + 0.3241 R2 = 0.0946

0.06 0.04 0.02 0 28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

Gini coefficient in survey year

Figure 16.4 Elasticities (absolute values, vertical axis) for HAZ levels and PC HH expenditure by Gini coefficient in survey year (horizontal axis) Source: Haddad, Masset and Smith (2015).

for effectively providing public services and programs that support children’s nutrition status such as safe water, sanitation, education and public food safety net programs. Effective functioning of countries’ bureaucracies is particularly important to child undernutrition because addressing it requires a multi-sectoral effort and vertical integration of different levels of government. It thus puts strong demands on public agencies. Similarly, a strong regulatory environment is necessary as the private sector produces a number of products that if marketed irresponsibly can harm the nutrient consumption of children under two years of age — effective regulation and enforcement of that regulation is vital for the nutrition status of the most vulnerable. A strong system of law and order is founded on a solid and impartial legal system in conjunction with popular observance of the law. Political stability rests on a government’s ability to carry out its declared programs when in office and to gain office and stay in office through constitutional and non-violent means. Both are essential for providing reliable public services, creating an environment conducive to the economic stability of households, and the functioning of markets for essential nutrition inputs such as food. Much like natural disasters, violence due to conflict is estimated to have large and permanent effects on nutrition status. Both law and order and political stability allow governments to fulfill their role of protecting citizens from such violence. Restraint of corruption, that is, restraint of the exercise of public power for private gain, is important as many nutrition interventions involve the transfer of valuable commodities, such as food and drugs, at subsidized rates, which creates multiple opportunities for leakage. Finally, democratic accountability, including respecting and protecting the rights and civil liberties of all citizens, represents how responsive a government is to its people. The irreversibility of early childhood undernutrition means that public responsiveness in supporting families to meet the needs of young children is vital. Democratic accountability and its herald, transparency, are particularly important for nutrition as most forms of undernutrition are invisible, both 245

Lawrence Haddad

because the clinical signs are not obvious unless at their most extreme and because of infrequent collection of nutrition data. Hence public awareness of the magnitude and consequences of the problem is low, and voice is essential to stimulate timely action. In addition, nutrition resource flows, being fragmented across multiple authorities, are also notoriously nontransparent, undermining accountability mechanisms. Using variables defined in this way, Smith and Haddad (2015) found that governance and income have separate effects on stunting. In terms of the six determinants of stunting explored, governance seemed to work mainly through improving the access to cleaner drinking water. Haddad et al. (2015) took this work further, exploring interactions between income and governance variables. They found that none of the interaction terms were significantly different from zero. In other words, the governance variables used did not seem to modify the relationship between stunting and income. These results suggest no governance modification to the stunting–income relationship. Whether this signals an absence of a relationship or insufficiently refined indicators remains to be determined by future studies. A third way of exploring the sensitivity of nutrition to growth is to drop the standard measure of economic growth and replace it with something that more fully captures the different dimensions of sustainable development. We would expect such a fuller measure of growth to better able drive nutrition status. Using a small country level dataset, Haddad et al. (2015) replace GDP per capita with the per capita Inclusive Wealth Index developed by UNEP and the UNU. The index comprises human capital, produced capital, natural capital and health capital. A comparison of the elasticities for stunting with respect to GDP per capita and IWI per capita shows that the stunting–IWI per capita elasticity is more negative than the stunting–GDP per capita elasticity. This suggests that when we measure economic growth more fully we are measuring something that is more strongly associated with undernutrition (specifically, stunting).

Policies and programs that might help make economic growth more nutrition sensitive The previous two sections suggest that the relationship between income and nutrition outcomes such as stunting is fairly stable over time, although it does vary by country. Unfortunately we cannot determine the key features of the countries that are associated with the magnitude of the elasticity. There are clues that greater income equity and better ways of measuring growth might be important, but the statistical power to test those hypotheses convincingly is too low. If we cannot convincingly identify country contexts where nutrition is more sensitive to growth, then can we focus on how to make policies that drive growth more nutrition sensitive? The literature for agriculture, education and social protection is well reviewed by Ruel and Alderman (2013). Other studies have combed similar terrains. The conclusions of these reviews are summarized in Table 16.1, adapted from Haddad, Achadi et al. (2014). The evidence base for the impact of nutrition sensitive interventions is weaker than it is for direct nutrition interventions (Ruel and Alderman 2013; Bhutta et al. 2013). Nevertheless the recommendations in Figure 16.5 are widely accepted as worth trying and evaluating. The sectors that are proximate to nutrition — health, agriculture, education, water, sanitation and hygiene — are the ones to focus on in attempts to make them more nutrition sensitive. The evidence suggests that the commonalities in the design of nutrition sensitivity include the need to plan for nutrition impact, a strategic focus on the parts of the lifecycle that are to be affected, and the involvement of women in all aspects of prioritization, design and implementation. 246

Improvements in dietary diversity and quality of entire households diet

Women’s time is a scarce good Women’s increased control may lead to recriminations against them Increased energy expenditure of women

Make the case to other sectors that they can further their own sectoral goals by using a nutrition lens; Include nutrition goals, indicators and targets Work with partners to use the nutrition lens to develop specific nutrition enhancing practices and actions within their intervention Work in high malnutrition areas; Engage women in design & implementation; Focus on key stages in lifecycle; Incorporate nutrition specific interventions within broader platforms

Impacts to aim for

Considerations

What all sectors can do to strengthen nutrition outcomes

Ensure safety nets do not negate nutritional objectives, e.g. by inadvertently promoting obesity

Improvements in dietary diversity and potentially nutritional status of children under two, women of reproductive age, pregnant and lactating women

Social norms need to be understood, respected and taken into account

Potentially, nutritional status of children under two

Screening of early risk factors of obesity and NCDs

Potentially, nutritional status of pregnant women and children under two years of age

School-based interdisciplinary interventions to decrease overweight and obesity risk (including physical activity and healthy eating)

Potentially, birth outcomes: small-for-gestational age (SGA) and pre-term

Formal education (primary, secondary and beyond) Literacy workshops Media campaigns Community-based education

Community health workers SBCC community campaigns

WASH programmes Agriculture extension for food safety Social and Behaviour Change Communication community campaigns CMAM programmes

Food for work/cash/ voucher (asset programmes) Schools Health clinic services

Agriculture extension and rural advisory services Farmer field schools Distribution centers of technology & inputs Microcredit and Insurance mechanisms Market-based approaches

Delivery channels

Family planning School meals and take home rations Ensuring girls have separate toilets in school Learn about child care skills in schools

Embed as many nutrition specific interventions as possible within health systems Peer counseling and facility based promotion for the uptake of exclusive breastfeeding Improve position of nutrition within health curricula and health professional training

Prevent feces ingestion Safe feces disposal Total Sanitation programmes to focus on minimizing open defecation Proper storage and handling of complementary foods Water treatment kits

Conditional cash transfers School meals and conditional take home rations (girls’ attendance at school) Food supplements: Nutritional supplements (protein and energy), micronutrient powders, fortified foods

Adolescent girls

First 1000 days

Children under two years of age and pregnant and lactating women

Women and girls First 1000 days

Behaviour change around specific nutrition practices Crop choices - factor in nutrition value to choices around crops grown Breeding choices - factor in nutrient content (e.g. biofortification) Post-harvest choices - storage, processing and preservation Food safety practices - minimize contamination (e.g. Aflatoxin & E.Coli)

Education

Types of interventions

Health systems

Producer families and women farmers

WASH

Target groups

Social protection

Agriculture

Ways to make sector investments more nutrition sensitive

Examples of

Table 16.1

Lawrence Haddad

Overweight, obesity and nutrition related NCDs

Hunger and undernutrition

Food systems that generate healthy and sustainable diets

Sustainable resource use and emissions

Figure 16.5 Which policies can move the food system towards hunger and undernutrition reduction, control of overweight and obesity, and sustainable resource use?

Conclusion While we may not be that far along the journey of identifying what is and is not nutrition sensitive growth, we do know more about the importance of economic growth. While it is not sufficient to improve nutrition status quickly enough, and while it may not even be necessary in the short run, it is incredibly helpful. Every successful country and state study of malnutrition declines takes place in the context of rapid income growth: Maharashtra (Haddad, Nisbett et al. 2014); Bangladesh (Headey et al. 2015); Ethiopia (Headey 2014); Nepal (Headey and Hoddinott 2014); Brazil (Monteiro et al. 2010); and Vietnam (O’Donnell et al. 2009). As the 2014 Global Nutrition Report (Haddad et al. 2014a) notes, 45 per cent of all countries now have to address serious levels of overweight and obesity in addition to undernutrition. While overweight and obesity tends to affect all income groups within a country, its rates tend to be associated with increases in GDP per capita, even if the absolute levels of overweight and obesity are not that high. This new complexity makes it even more important that research continues to unpack the relationship between income and nutrition status. Where are the positive (negative) deviance cases where improved nutrition status seems very positively (unresponsive) linked to income growth? Given the constraints of sample sizes at the macro level, much of this work will have to be undertaken at the micro level, using household data that is representative at a high level of disaggregation. The picture for overweight and obesity is less well evidenced. We know that obesity is driven by personal choice and by the extent to which the environment is obesogenic (i.e., makes unhealthy choices easier), but we know less about how income feeds into both of these sets of factors (Hawkes et al. 2015). In particular there needs to be a focus on food systems and diets — which policies and incentives, if any, can guide us towards the centre of the three overlapping circles in Figure 16.5? The current state of knowledge is no excuse for ignoring nutrition sensitivity of economic 248

Nutrition sensitive economic growth

growth. Growth that is broad based, that invests revenues in the sectors we know underlie nutrition, that does not discriminate against women, and which is governed transparently, accountably and capably will be more likely to generate undernutrition and overweight/obesity reductions. These nutrition improvements will, in turn, mean that economic growth is more likely to be realized in future generations.

References Alderman, H., Haddad, L., Headey, D. D. and Smith, L. 2014. Association between economic growth and early childhood nutrition. The Lancet Global Health 2(9): e500. Bhutta, Z. A., Das, J. K., Rizvi, A., Gaffey, M. F., Walker, N., Horton, S. and Webb, P. 2013. Evidencebased interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? The Lancet, 382(9890): 452–477. Black, R. E., Victora, C. G., Walker, S. P., Bhutta, Z. A., Christian, P., De Onis, M. and Ezzati, M. 2013. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet, 382(9890): 427–451. Dinsa, G. D., Goryakin, Y., Fumagalli, E. and Suhrcke, M. 2012. Obesity and socioeconomic status in developing countries: a systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 13(11): 1067–1079. Haddad, L. 2015. Equity: not only for idealists. Development Policy Review, 33(1): 5–13. Haddad, L., Achadi, E., Bendech, M. A., Ahuja, A., Bhatia, K., Bhutta, Z., Blossner, M., Borghi, E., Colecraft, E., de Onis, M., Eriksen, K., Fanzi, J., Flores-Ayala, R., Fracassi, P., Kimani-Murage, E., Nago Koukoubou, E., Krasevec, J., Newwby, H., Nugent, R., Oenema, S., Martin-Prevel, Y., Randel, J., Requejo, J., Shyam, T., Udomkesmalee, E. and Reddy, K. S. 2014. The global nutrition report 2014. Actions and accountability to accelerate the world’s progress on nutrition. The Journal of Nutrition, 145: 663–671. Haddad, L., Alderman, H., Appleton, S., Song, L. and Yohannnes, Y. 2003. Reducing malnutrition: how far can income growth take us? World Bank Economic Review, 17(1): 107–131. Haddad, L., Masset, E. and Smith, L. 2015. Does the quality of income growth affect child nutrition status? In: Growth is dead! Long live growth: the quality of economic growth and why it matters. Haddad, L., Kato, H. and Meisel, N. (eds.). Tokyo: JICA Research Institute. Haddad, L., Nisbett, N., Barnett, I. and Valli, E. 2014. Maharashtra’s child stunting declines: what is driving them? Findings of a multidisciplinary analysis. IDS Research Report. Hawkes, C., Smith, T. G., Jewell, J., Wardle, J., Hammond, R. A., Friel, S., Thow, A. M. and Kain, J. 2015. Smart food policies for obesity prevention. The Lancet, 385(9985): 2410–2421. Headey, D. 2014. An analysis of trends and determinants of child undernutrition in Ethiopia, 2000–2011. Ethiopia Strategy Support Working Paper, 70. Washington, D.C. & Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Research Development Institute and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Headey, D. D. 2013. Developmental drivers of nutritional change: a cross-country analysis. World Development, 42: 76–88. Headey, D. D., and Hoddinott, J. 2014. Understanding the rapid reduction of undernutrition in Nepal, 2001–2011. IFPRI Discussion Paper, 1384. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Headey, D. D., Hoddinott, J., Ali, D., Tesfaye, R. and Dereje, M. 2015. The other Asian enigma: explaining the rapid reduction of undernutrition in Bangladesh. World Development, 66: 749–761. Heltberg, R. 2009. Malnutrition, poverty, and economic growth. Health Economics, 18(S1): S77–S88. Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., et al. 2013. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859): 2224–2260. Monteiro, C. A., D’Aquino Benicio, M. H., Lisboa Conde, W., Konno, S., Lovadino, A. L., Aluisio, Barros, J. D. and Gomes Victora, C. 2010. Narrowing socioeconomic inequality in child stunting: the Brazilian experience, 1974–2007. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88(4): 305–311. O’Donnell, O., López Nicolás, A. and Van Doorslaer, E. 2009. Growing richer and taller: explaining change in the distribution of child nutritional status during Vietnam’s economic boom. Journal of Development Economics, 88(1): 45–58. Roberto, C. A., Swinburn, B., Hawkes, C., Huang, T. T. K., Costa, S. A., Ashe, M., Zwicker, L., Cawley, J. H. and Brownell, K. D. 2015. Patchy progress on obesity prevention: emerging examples, entrenched barriers, and new thinking. The Lancet, 385(9985): 2400–2409.

249

Lawrence Haddad Ruel, M. T., Alderman, H. and Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. 2013. Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: how can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? The Lancet, 382(9891): 536–551. Smith, L. C. and Haddad, L. 2015. Reducing child undernutrition: past drivers and priorities for the postMDG era. World Development, 68: 180–204. Strauss, J. and Thomas, D. 1998. Health, nutrition, and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 766–817. Vollmer, S., Harttgen, K., Subramanyam, M. A., Finlay, J., Klasen, S. and Subramanian, S. V. 2014. Association between economic growth and early childhood undernutrition: evidence from 121 Demographic and Health Surveys from 36 low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet Global Health, 2(4): e25–e234. Wang, Y. and Beydoun, M. A. 2007. The obesity epidemic in the United States – gender, age, socioeconomic, racial/ethnic, and geographic characteristics: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Epidemiologic Reviews 29(1): 6–28.

250

17 THE TRANSFORMATION OF FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS Implications for food and nutrition security C. Peter Timmer

Introduction Food marketing systems need to move commodities ‘from the plow to the plate’. The ability of particular systems to do this efficiently varies widely from country to country and even within. Some systems have modernized rapidly; others remain quite traditional. The pace and impact of change also varies widely within countries and regions, but in Asia and Latin America the majority of food purchases in urban areas are now from modern retail establishments, especially supermarkets. Since the 1990s, food systems in developing countries have been undergoing technological and institutional changes as vast and rapid as any in history. Three intersecting trends are reinforcing these changes: 1

2

3

Entire food systems are becoming more private, with a far larger role for market forces and a much smaller role for government-owned parastatals and cooperatives. Policy efforts to isolate domestic food economies from the world market have increasingly been unsuccessful in the face of market incentives for private traders. Food systems are becoming more integrated, with the same firm often dealing with farmers, traders, processors, and consumers. This integration is a stark change from food marketing sectors that traditionally had been highly decentralized, very small scale and labourintensive, and usually extremely competitive, although often operating at high cost because of poor infrastructure and high commercial risks. Food systems are becoming more global, with foreign direct investment (FDI) bringing state-of-the-art management and logistical techniques, as well as access to (and competition from) global markets. Globalization is more than a ‘buzzword’ in developing countries; it is a day-to-day reality for many farmers and consumers.

The rapid spread of supermarkets, with their associated modern supply chains, is the key to understanding all three forces and how they are interacting. The rise of supermarkets and the changed role of governments in domestic food systems raise serious questions in three domains: 1

The fate of small farmers who need to diversify into higher valued products than staple grains, because ‘market-led diversification’ now means ‘supermarket-led’. 251

C. Peter Timmer

2

3

The impact on welfare of consumers (including nutritional impact) because consumers increasingly face a confusing array of new choices when shopping in supermarkets, not all of which are nutritious. Who plans for a country’s food security, the government or supermarkets? Who should be responsible for ensuring stable supplies of staple foods, politicians or the market? Who has responsibility for improving the quality of diets?

These issues need to be addressed from a broad, dynamic perspective that relates historic processes of structural transformation to the changes inside the rural economy as it transitions from local self-sufficiency and its associated poverty to integration into an expanding urban and modern industrial/service economy. From a long-run perspective, these changes are simply part of the process of economic growth and are ‘the natural course of things’, to quote Adam Smith’s observation in the eighteenth century.1 The structural transformation causes entire societies to undergo the wrenching changes associated with agricultural modernization, migration of labour from rural to urban areas, and the emergence of urban industrial centers. As part of this process, both effect and cause, the demographic transition moves a society from the equilibrium of high birth and death rates to a ‘modern’ equilibrium of low birth and death rates. The center of gravity of economic activity moves from rural to urban areas. The structural transformation has taken as long as three centuries in England and the United States (and is still continuing) and as little as a century in Japan and its East Asian followers. The process takes a long time. That said, modern food supply chains are changing very rapidly.

Structural transformation as the pathway out of poverty The structural transformation has been the historical pathway out of poverty (Timmer 2009). Two other transformations – agricultural and dietary – accompany the structural transformation. They also have lives of their own. Accompanying these three basic transformations have been rapid changes in the entire food marketing system (see Figure 17.1). Without a revolution in the food marketing system, rapid changes in the rest of the economy would not be possible. Figure 17.1 illustrates the interconnections among five main elements of this growth process – transformations in diets and agricultural productivity that drive the structural transformation, and accompanying dynamics of urbanization and linkages through factor markets. The food marketing system is the arena for the three critical functions which markets must play if economic growth is going to be both efficient and sustainable: (1) transforming food commodities in time, place and form; (2) price discovery to determine which resources are scarce and which are abundant; and (3) signaling to farmers and consumers, via these prices, efficient choices of what to produce and what to buy and eat. Modern supply chains have evolved primarily to provision supermarkets – traditional supply chains and markets provisioned local consumers. Concerns for food safety and origin are increasingly reflected in the purchasing decisions of affluent consumers in urban areas. The development of modern supply chains, which change the nature of farm–market–consumer interactions, can be an important source of income growth and job creation in both rural and urban areas. But the spread of modern supply chains can also be a challenge to food security (Reardon et al. 2003; Reardon 2010; Reardon and Timmer 2014). The experience of Asia offers the best evidence and diversity of these complex relationships. Quantifying the linkages and interactions in Figure 17.1 is complicated at best, but many of them are reflected in the changing role of rice in production and consumption in the region. It is useful to let the changing role of rice be a ‘storyline’ to carry the analysis of structural, agricultural and 252

The transformation of food supply chains

Supply chain and retail revolution

Urbanization

Factor market integration • labour productivity • land markets and farm size • financial intermediation

• rural-urban migration • internal population growth • rising middle class

Structural transformation “The pathway out of poverty”

Agricultural transformation • diversification • commercialization • scale of operations

Dietary transformation • diversified • processed • convenience

Figure 17.1 Five components of the agri-food system that are drivers of structural transformation

dietary transformations as they foster changes, indeed improvements, in food security (Timmer 2013). Changes in wheat consumption in northern India and China and in the Middle East, or in maize consumption in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, convey many of the same messages. Traditionally, farmers were connected to consumers by a number of marketing steps, often locally by small traders operating with minimal capital and primitive technology (Reardon and Timmer 2007, 2012). The goal of modern supply chains is to reduce the number of transactions between the farmer and the consumer as a way to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of the marketing system. Four important trends emerge from this process. First, within a particular commodity system, such as for rice or corn, the different levels in the marketing system are increasingly connected by market and non-market forces. Suppliers of technology in the private sector cannot expect effective demand for inputs unless farmers are able to sell surpluses into the market. Successful efforts to reduce the transactions costs of incorporating small farmers into modern supply chains can simultaneously pay dividends by making these same farmers more accessible to suppliers of modern inputs. Second, emphasis on marketing starchy staples as the primary source of food security has shifted to the ‘diversified and processed foods’ sector. This shift reflects Bennett’s Law (Bennett 1954). Diversification of diets tends to improve the nutritional quality of the diet, although more processed foods and industrialized production of meat raise nutritional, environmental, and food safety concerns. Table 17.1 shows the growing share on non-rice foods in consumer diets in Southeast Asia between 1961 and 2009. 253

C. Peter Timmer Table 17.1 Dietary transformation in Southeast Asia 1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2010 2011 Avg % change/ year 1961 to 2011 Food supply, (kcal/cap/day)–Total Cereals (ex. Beer) Rice Rice kcal as % of total kcal Starchy roots Wheat Starchy Staple Ratio (SSR) Food supply, gm/cap/day Animal protein Fat Wheat as % of rice

1841 1189 1071 58.2 187 31 74.7

1953 1308 1162 59.5 133 62 73.8

2136 1407 1218 57.0 145 82 72.7

2178 1379 1193 54.8 102 66 68.0

2377 1462 1232 51.8 89 107 65.3

2609 1518 1241 47.6 99 126 62.0

2646 1531 1239 46.8 103 134 61.8

2678 1536 1244 46.5 104 129 61.2

0.75% 0.51% 0.30%

8.5 27.6 2.89

10.2 29 5.34

10.6 32.8 6.73

13.0 40.7 5.53

16.8 46.2 8.69

22.8 23.5 24.1 2.11% 58.8 59.2 60.5 1.57% 10.15 10.82 10.37

–1.17% 2.89%

Third, this increasingly diversified, market-driven food economy is more reflective of supply chain dynamics and consumer demand than in the past. The food marketing system is more sensitive to rapid income growth and somewhat less sensitive to population growth. Global population growth is now just one per cent per year, half the rate of 30 years ago, and Asia has been a leader in that slowdown. Income growth continues at a rapid pace. In such environments, understanding how demand for individual items responds to growth in incomes will be necessary for effective planning of investments – by both the public and private sectors – all the way back the chain to input supply. Other factors that shape consumer demand for food will also be important, such as advertising, age structure, urbanization and globalization of tastes. Fourth, as consumers increasingly use supermarkets as the source of their purchased food staples, some surprising implications arise for food security. Traditionally, staples have been purchased in small retail shops with multiple grades and varieties available. Prices fluctuated according to local supply and demand conditions and often changed daily during periods of instability. The concentration of purchasing power into a handful of supermarket chains raises the possibility that procurement officers for food staples will encourage (force) their suppliers to maintain large enough stocks so that supplies will be reliable and that prices can be kept reasonably stable. Indeed, it is easy to imagine supermarkets, especially in East and Southeast Asia, where unstable rice prices remain a threat to food security, beginning to compete for customers with a promise of ‘safe, reliable rice supplies, at a stable, fair price’. Stable rice prices could become a private good rather than the public good they have been historically (Timmer 1989, 2004 and 2010). When most food is purchased in supermarkets, the debate over how to provide food security – even in settings where volatile food prices can threaten it – will be transformed. We are a long way from that situation in 2015, but supermarkets are increasingly important as a supplier of basic food staples, and hence food security, in developing countries.

The supermarket revolution: a brief overview2 Traditional food markets in developing countries are characterized by a preponderance of small shops, wet markets, and central markets. Although (mainly domestic) supermarket chains were 254

The transformation of food supply chains

present in the 1980s and even before, in most of these countries, the supermarket sector was a tiny niche, at most 5–10 per cent of national food retail, serving mainly upper income consumers in a few large cities. However, starting in the early 1990s, and accelerating markedly in the mid and late 1990s, domestic food markets began to be transformed by a rapid rise in the role of supermarkets. While there is significant variation in trends over countries in a given area such as Latin America, and within individual countries over zones and between rural and urban areas, several broad patterns are observed. From earliest to latest adopter of supermarkets, there have been three waves of diffusion. The first-wave countries include much of South America and East Asia outside China (examples include Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Korea, and Taiwan) where the share of supermarkets in food retail went from roughly 10–20 per cent in 1990 to 50–60 per cent on average by the early 2000s. Compared with the 70–80 per cent share that supermarkets have in food retail in the US, UK, or France, a process of convergence is apparent. The second-wave countries include much of Southeast Asia, Central America and Mexico, where the share went from 5–10 per cent in 1990 to 30–50 per cent by the early 2000s. Examples include Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Thailand, and the Philippines. The third-wave countries include some countries in Central and South America (such as Nicaragua and Peru), Southeast Asia (such as Vietnam and Indonesia), and China, where supermarkets were either a tiny niche or non-existent in 1990, and have come to have 10–20 per cent of national food retail by the early 2000s. Because of continuing restrictions on FDI in the retail sector, India is a clear laggard in this trend (Economist 2014). In general, the ‘waves’ are correlated with socioeconomic characteristics of the countries. Thus consumers’ demand for supermarket services, product diversity and quality are related to income and urbanization. These, in turn, are correlated with the opportunity cost of time, in particular that of women, reduction in transaction costs through improvements in roads and transport, and increasing ownership of refrigerators. These demand-side factors are necessary, but not sufficient, to explain the very rapid spread of supermarkets in the 1990s and 2000s in these countries, most of which had at least a very small supermarket sector before 1990. Thus, supply-side factors must also have been of significant importance in explaining the rapid rise of supermarkets. The first ‘supply-side’ factor was the massive influx of retail FDI (and competitive investment by local chains) that arrived in the first- and second-wave countries around the mid-1990s, and in the third-wave countries in the mid to late 1990s and into the 2000s. The liberalization of retail FDI stimulated this influx, but such liberalization was, at the time, merely the ‘little brother’ of trade liberalization that occurred with structural adjustment programs and the Uruguay Round trade negotiations in the late 1980s and early 1990s. FDI from global multinationals based in Western Europe, the US, Japan, and regional multinationals surged into the retail sectors of the emerging markets. The FDI was driven by push factors – in particular saturation and intense competition in home markets – and pull factors such as much higher margins to be made by investing in developing markets. Moreover, initial competition in the receiving regions was weak, generally with little fight put up by traditional retailers and supermarkets funded by domestic capital. Further incentives to rush in are the distinct advantages to early entry, hence occupation of key retail locations. FDI in the food sector, via the profound changes induced in the retail and processing sectors, is having a greater effect on local agrifood economies than is trade liberalization. For example, while much attention has been focused on the boom in fruit and vegetable exports from Latin America since the 1980s, supermarket chains in Latin America buy from local farmers nearly three times as much produce as is exported from the region (Reardon and Berdegué 2002). The ratio is already similar in China, with supermarkets in China buying well over twice the volume of produce as is exported from China (Hu et al. 2004). 255

C. Peter Timmer

The varying role of FDI helps explain some anomalies in the relationship between socioeconomic (demand-side) variables and the pace of supermarket diffusion. For example, while incomes and urbanization rates in China and Vietnam do not differ much from those of Guatemala, the former two countries figure only in the ‘third wave’ of supermarketization because policy reform of FDI in the retail sector lagged that of Guatemala. As retail FDI was progressively liberalized in China, FDI poured in at an amazing rate from around the world in the late 1990s and early 2000s, making it the premier destination for retail FDI in the world. A second ‘supply-side factor’ is the adoption of dramatic organizational changes in the procurement system, and these are linked to institutional changes. The organizational changes – mostly squeezing out traditional layers in the food marketing system – were undertaken mainly in the second half of the 1990s or in the 2000s, and greatly reduced the procurement costs faced by retailers in these countries. The reduction in costs, coupled with stiff competition, allowed (as well as pushed) leading retail chains to move from large cities to secondary cities and even to smaller towns, and from upper- to middle-, then to lower-income segments. The nowcommon image of supermarkets with cheap products aimed at the working poor or in small and medium towns contrasts sharply with the traditional image of the supermarket aimed at the small niche luxury market in big cities. The adoption of the procurement system changes occurred first and fastest in processed foods (where supermarkets had a clear advantage over traditional small stores because of economies of scale) and only later in fresh foods, including fresh meats, fish, and produce. A rough rule of thumb is that in the first- and second-wave countries, the share of supermarkets in sales in the overall retail food market is twice the share of supermarket sales in the fresh produce market – consumers tend to shop at local markets for fresh fruits and vegetables until quite late in the penetration of supermarkets. For example, in Mexico, the share of supermarkets in overall food is 40 per cent, while in fresh produce it is only 20 per cent. Usually the first fresh food categories for the supermarkets to gain a majority share include ‘commodities’ such as potatoes, and sectors experiencing consolidation in first-stage processing and production: often chicken, beef, pork and fish. The competition between supermarkets and wet markets is often stiff, and is based on shopping experience, price, quality, freshness, and variety. In the big cities of Mexico or China the differences in prices between supermarkets and wet markets for commodity produce items are narrowing, and prices are often equal for key items. In India, Minten et al. (2010) found many basic staples cost less in Delhi supermarkets than in traditional shops. In the Asia-Pacific region, supermarkets have been making significant inroads into these categories only since 2000, and usually only after cost-cutting and quality-increasing procurement system changes, which are at the heart of the supermarket revolution. A key change has been in the use of private standards. While food retailing previously operated in the informal market, with little use of certifications and standards, the emerging trend indicates a rapid rise in the implementation of private standards in the supermarket sector (and other modern food industry sectors such as medium/large scale food manufactures and food service chains). The rise of private standards for quality and safety of food products, and the increasing importance of the enforcement of otherwise-virtually-not-enforced public standards, is a crucial aspect of the imposition of product requirements in the procurement systems. In general, these standards function as instruments of product quality differentiation, and coordination of supply chains by standardizing product requirements over suppliers, who may cover many regions or countries. Standards specify and harmonize the product and delivery attributes, thereby enhancing efficiency and lowering transaction costs. Of course, smaller and less knowledgeable farmers can have a difficult time meeting these high standards. 256

The transformation of food supply chains

An important element of this is the reduction of coordination costs in procurement systems that become progressively broader in geographic scope. Regional and global chains cut costs by standardizing over countries and suppliers, which induces a convergence with the standards of the toughest market in the set, including with European or US standards. Again, many suppliers in less-developed contexts have a difficult time meeting such standards. The development implications emerging from this rapid supermarketization produce both hope and worry. There is certainly major opportunity implied by the expansion and diversification of the food market induced by the spread of supermarkets, and there is evidence that this can raise producer incomes relative to selling in traditional markets. Meeting transaction requirements implied by the organizational change in supermarket procurement systems, and the product requirements implied by institutional change in the form of private standards, can present clear opportunities for producers. Adopting the new practices can open the door to suppliers to sell through supermarket chains that are ‘growing’ the market in terms of volume, value added, and diversity. A supplier can move from being a local supplier to a national, regional, or global supplier. Moreover, private process standards can increase efficiency of firm operations and raise profitability. The market scope could also increase, compensating for per-unit profit decreases arising from costs incurred to meet the standards (Reardon and Timmer 2012). However, meeting these non-traditional market requirements implies changes in production practices and investments, such as coordinating to aggregate volumes, reducing pesticide use, or investing in ‘electric eyes’ in packing sheds and cooling tanks in dairies. Some of these investments are quite costly, and are simply unaffordable by many small firms and farms. It is thus not surprising that the evidence from the early wave of supermarket penetration is that the changes in standards, and the implied investments, drove many small firms and farms out of business over the past 5–10 years, and accelerated industry concentration. The evidence from the third-wave countries, however, especially in Asia, is not so clear. Because of the preponderance of small farms in Asia, supermarkets have found it necessary to use creative institutional arrangements to source produce from these small farms (Reardon, Chen, Minten and Adriano 2012). Whether these arrangements can be used in other parts of the world to include small farmers in supermarket supply chains remains an important question. The task will be difficult. The supermarket chains, locked in a struggle with other chains in a highly competitive industry with low margins, seek constantly to lower product and transaction costs and risk. Thus procurement officers select only the most capable farmers, and in many developing countries that means mainly the upper-tier of small farmers, and medium and large farmers. Moreover, as supermarkets compete with each other and with the informal sector, they will not allow consumer prices to increase in order to ‘pay for’ the farm-level investments needed. Who will pay for safe-water wells? Latrines and hand-washing facilities in the fields? Record keeping systems? Clean and proper packing houses with cement floors? The supplier does, and will bear the financial burden. As small farmers lack access to credit and large fixed costs are a burden for a small operation, this will be a huge challenge for small operators.

An analytical perspective on the impact of supermarkets Who gains and who loses from the supermarket revolution? In a market economy, profits tend to accrue to the relatively scarce resource in the system under analysis, and to whoever controls those resources. Thus to answer the question, an economist asks, what are the scarce resources, and who controls them, because scarcity has value?3 There are three basic possibilities for what resource is scarcest in the food system (although these extend outside the traditional factors of 257

C. Peter Timmer

production of land, labour and capital): access to farm output; access to marketing technology; or access to consumers. First, despite concerns that population growth will outstrip growth in food supplies, the historical evidence is that the capacity to produce basic food commodities is not scarce on a global level. Modern agricultural technology is land-saving – there is abundant rural labour (again, on a global level), rural finance is readily available when there is a profit to be made in lending it, and water is becoming scarce only because it is provided free in most cases. What might be scarce at the farm level is the management ability to meet high quality standards and to deliver reliably a safe product that meets environmental requirements and is fully traceable to its point of production. There are likely to be significant economies of scale to this management ability, even if there are few scale economies in the physical production of most agricultural commodities. It is possible that growing demand for bio-fuels will change this scarcity equation, but this demand growth is driven mostly by politics rather than by economics, so it is difficult to judge its future impact. A second possibility for what is scarce is access to marketing and information technology that improves coordination.4 However, the technology for managing supply chains – in the food system and elsewhere – is changing rapidly, even in the United States. This technology is changing especially rapidly in the modern logistics area that uses information technology to manage inventories. In general, these technologies drive down transactions costs throughout the supply chain. But further, by reducing the need to hold large inventories, these marketing and logistics technologies reduce capital costs and risks. Since inventory is basically a form of ‘dead capital’, improved logistics and inventory management generate real capital savings as well as lower transactions costs. And both contribute to higher productivity and faster economic growth. The important question is whether access to this technology is sufficiently restricted that it is ‘scarce’, i.e., can excess profits be earned by controlling it? The evidence suggests that it is easily duplicated as computer power becomes cheaper and local managers learn to imitate the market leaders. Intellectual property rights (IPR) seem not to be a serious impediment to this imitation, despite supermarket chains’ efforts at proprietary control. It is the knowledge that such techniques are feasible and available that is important, not the specific code written for a particular supermarket’s computers. The parallel to the ‘technological treadmill’ so familiar to American farmers is striking. First adopters of new technology have a temporary cost advantage, but competition leads all market players to adopt it quickly. This seems to be the story for marketing technology. The third possibility for what is scarce is access to consumers themselves, and especially to knowledge of how consumers behave – what they want, and therefore, how best to serve them. As concentration in food retailing rises, there seems to be an opportunity for the leading firms – Carrefour, Wal-Mart, Metro, Tesco, etc. – to control this access and thus to earn higher marketing margins and profits. This has been a long-standing worry in the United States, at least since the 1940s. The evidence so far, both in rich and poor countries alike, is that access to consumers has been highly competitive. Market power is used to drive down costs, which are then passed along to consumers as lower prices. Why? Because supermarkets need to increase market share to achieve the economies of scale that permit their costs to be even lower. So far, this whole system has been highly contestable. Economists know that contestable markets pass nearly all the benefits of the marketplace (the sum of producer and consumer surplus, to be technical) through to consumers. Thus the main winners in the supermarket revolution are consumers. It is important to remember that part of this consumer benefit comes from supply chains exerting stiff cost pressures on farmers, who typically see few of the broader savings generated by the supermarket revolution except in their role as consumers. 258

The transformation of food supply chains

This analysis and the conclusions stemming from it have powerful implications for what policy recommendations make sense for dealing with the impact of the rapid spread of supermarkets. There are three key areas to consider: (1) consumers and public health; (2) the role of and impact on small farmers; and (3) food security at the local and national level.

Consumers and public health Health professionals are either pessimistic about the political reality of using economic variables to influence dietary choices or are doubtful that economic incentives will actually change dietary behaviour where affluence permits a wide array of choices (see also Dixon, chapter 25, this volume). Consequently, there is much more focus on trying to change lifestyle through improved health knowledge and nutrition education (Block 2003; Timmer 2015). Supermarkets are both the purveyors of the food abundance and a possible vehicle for bringing about dietary change, either through improved nutrition education within stores, health warnings on particular foods that cause nutritional damage, or even regulations on what kinds of foods are available for purchase. The rapid spread of private standards on food safety and aspects of production technologies shows that public policy is not necessarily the fastest or most effective way to bring about changes in food marketing. These private standards could easily incorporate health dimensions as well, especially if lawsuits over the contributions of fast food to obesity begin to be won by litigants. As consumers become more urbanized and divorced from the production of their food, the vast array of choices in modern supermarkets can, paradoxically, lead to worsened nutritional status. The double burden of malnutrition, with under-nutrition existing side-by-side with obesity and diet-related problems such as heart disease and diabetes, is already facing many developing countries (Popkin et al. 2012). The policy options for responding to this problem are limited, but one approach is to use the ‘focusing power’ of supermarkets to provide nutrition education to their shoppers. Nutritional labeling is one component of this education, but supermarkets could also use their sophisticated knowledge of consumer behaviour to shape their dietary patterns in healthier directions. It is, however, hard to see how incentives can be created for supermarkets to undertake ‘healthy foods’ campaigns when such a large share of their profits come from highly processed and decidedly unhealthy foods.

Smallholder farmers Smallholder farmers are obviously a major point of concern. The evidence so far from other countries, especially in Latin America, is that smallholder farmers tend to be squeezed out of supermarket supply chains fairly rapidly because of the high transactions costs of dealing with them. This is not likely to be an optimal response in the densely settled parts of Asia or parts of Africa still dependent on small farms for basic food production, and the early evidence from China and Indonesia suggests that institutional innovations – often involving cooperatives or dedicated buying agents working jointly with supermarket procurement officers and farmer representatives – offer some hope for ensuring that small farmers retain access to food supply chains in their own countries (Wang et al. 2006; Natawidjaja et al. 2007; Reardon et al. 2012). Still, the important question is what policymakers can do to help smallholder farmers without raising costs and hurting consumers. The World Development Report, 2008 on Agriculture for Development, recognizes this as a critical challenge facing small farmers, and offers a number of suggestions (World Bank 2007). Providing useful technical assistance to farmers, serving as a ‘catalyst’ for the formation of farmer associations, and conducting research, extension and 259

C. Peter Timmer

training activities – increasingly as joint ventures with private sector participants – seems to be promising activities.

Food security In those large, densely populated societies where half the average daily food energy still comes from staple cereals, how will food security be managed when most of these cereals are sold in supermarkets? In the past, managing food security at the national level has meant guaranteeing availability of basic grains in local markets, and keeping the prices of these grains reasonably stable. Can supermarkets take over these tasks? Price stabilization has traditionally been a public sector role because there is no private market where producers and consumers can ‘purchase’ price stability. But if food sales become sufficiently concentrated in a few dominant supermarket chains, it is entirely possible that consumer demands for price stability of staple cereals could be ‘internalized’ and provided by these private sector players. From a policy perspective, much of the underlying motivation for examining the impact of modern supply chains has been a concern for rural poverty and the fear that the rapid spread of supermarkets might actually make it worse. It is very important to remember, however, that rural poverty cannot be solved by keeping all small farmers on their farms, whether or not they are supplying supermarkets. To solve the problem of rural poverty the entire economy must continue to grow rapidly, jobs must be created off the farm, and countries must find a way onto the path of structural transformation (Timmer 1988, 2002 and 2009). Supermarkets are only a small part of this transformation, but by pushing competitive pressures from consumers downward throughout the food system, they can play a surprisingly important role in improving productivity, and consumer welfare, for the economy. This perspective provides little guidance on how to assist small farmers as they compete for contracts from supermarket procurement officers. Assisting small farmers is turning out to be a very site-specific task, where the potential for local institutional innovation is driven by asset distributions (including human capital as well as land and financial capital), history, culture, and ecological setting. Thus the diversity of the global food system, rather than its common themes and forces, needs to be understood in any effort to assist small farmers, a task well beyond the scope of this chapter, but see Fanzo et al., chapter 20, this volume.

The development dimensions of the supermarket revolution Even without discussing details of farmer interaction with supermarket procurement officers, several basic issues for development are raised by the supermarket revolution. These issues cut across the entire economy, from agricultural technology and farmer responsiveness; to concentration in processing and retailing channels; to standards for food quality and safety; and to food security at both micro and macro levels. The focus needs to be on how to achieve and sustain rapid reductions in poverty and hunger through interventions (or ending interventions) in the food system. The supermarket revolution cuts both ways in this, offering greater consumer choice and lower prices for the retail services provided, but with a track record of consolidating supply chains to a handful of reliable producers able to meet quality, safety and cost standards, and thus excluding many small farmers from access to supermarket customers. The issue is whether policymakers have an opportunity – in the face of very serious challenges – to leverage the impact of supermarkets on consumers in ways that do not increase rural poverty. To answer that, a better understanding of the impact of supermarkets on the overall economy is needed. 260

The transformation of food supply chains

Modern supply chains: complements or substitutes for a public role in marketing? Supermarkets are increasingly playing both the coordinating role of markets, and their role in price discovery and determination. How will this increasing dominance of supermarkets influence performance of the overall marketing system? First, there will be a concern for both the efficiency and equity of price formation, as more and more transactions are internalized by supermarket procurement officers. Such transactions are not open and transparent, and hence concern will grow over the shift in market power toward a few, large buyers, and over the likely exclusion of many suppliers from these arrangements. Second, however, and partially offsetting the first concern, supermarkets can also internalize consumers’ desires for food safety and price stability and hence can manage procurement contracts with these desires in mind. Finally, if supermarkets in developing countries are as competitive as in rich countries, fears about monopoly control and market power will turn out to be ill-founded. The market for the food consumer’s dollar seems to be highly contestable, even when only a small handful of players are able to survive the cost competition. Consumers are the winners from such competition; farmers often have their incomes squeezed as procurement officers insist on low prices. The primary functions of the marketing sector are inherently ‘coordination’ tasks. They require an adroit combination of public and private investments if they are to be carried out efficiently because there are substantial ‘public goods’ dimensions to a smoothly functioning marketing system (Timmer 2014). Historically, these investments have been made very gradually as farmers evolved from subsistence activities toward a more commercial orientation. Now that commercial activities are the norm, even in economies in which efficient marketing networks have not had time to emerge, policymakers are actively seeking new models and approaches to speed the creation of these networks. Supermarkets might already be performing this function, with little input from the public sector. This is an example where private supermarkets are supplanting the public sector in the (sub-optimal) provision of public goods. The agricultural sector as a whole is likely to become much more diversified over the course of the agricultural transformation, when compared with a representative individual farm, but significantly less diversified than patterns of food consumption. This increasing specialization of farms is consistent with greater diversity at more aggregate levels because of the commercialization of agriculture. Commercialization of agricultural systems leads to greater market orientation of farm production; progressive substitution out of non-traded inputs in favour of purchased inputs; and the gradual decline of integrated farming systems and their replacement by specialized enterprises for crop, livestock, poultry and aquaculture products. The farm level determinants of increasing commercialization are the rising opportunity costs of family labour and increased market demand for food and other agricultural products. Family labour costs rise due to increasing off-farm employment opportunities, while positive shifts in market demand are triggered by urbanization and/or trade liberalization. (Pingali and Rosegrant 1995: 171–72) Likewise, patterns of food consumption become more diversified than patterns of domestic agricultural production because of the rising significance of international trade – that is, globalization. The growing roles of commercialization and globalization in connecting diversity of production at the farm level with diversity of consumption at the household level spawn new problems, however. In particular, increased commercialization requires that farmers learn how to cope with a type of risk that is of little concern to subsistence farmers: the risk of fluctuating 261

C. Peter Timmer

prices. At the same time, specialization in crop production increases their risk from yield fluctuations. Mechanisms for coping with risk, including contractual arrangements with supermarkets, thus play an important role in understanding the commercialization of agriculture and the government’s role in it. The interplay among price fluctuations, increasing reliance on international trade, specialization of farmers in production for the market in response to profitable new technology, and continued failure of market-based mechanisms for risk management in rural areas accounts for much of the policy interest of governments in the process of rural diversification. Such diversification is impossible without a modern food marketing system. Most countries want to speed up the gradual process of regional specialization and the development of efficient marketing systems, but they have found that government investments alone are inadequate. Well-developed, low-cost marketing systems require sufficient supplies of the specific commodities being marketed to justify the full investments needed to capture any economies of scale to the system. Achieving this balance is a simultaneous process, which historically has meant the gradual evolution of both the supply and demand side of the market. Supermarkets are internalizing this coordination process and speeding the rate of specialization. A private marketing system that is closed to outside parties will expand in a coordinated way to stimulate specialized production in a region, but it will be less of a public good. The lower costs generated by specialization can confer very significant competitive advantages on regions that are both lowcost producers of a commodity and have an efficient marketing system that has adequate volume to capture the economies of scale implicit in the forward and backward linkages (Krugman 1993).

Macroeconomic and growth issues Most effects of modern supply chains in developing countries are likely to play out at the firm and sector level, but macroeconomic effects will not be trivial, especially as lower food costs translate into greater real purchasing power for consumers. By passing on lower costs, or improving food quality and convenience, supermarkets can actually speed up the structural transformation as well as the agricultural dietary transformations that are part of it (Timmer 1988). There will also be significant efficiency effects. The mantra of supermarket procurement officers is to ‘drive costs out of the food marketing system’. Although these ‘costs’ are also someone’s income, especially farmers and traders in the traditional agricultural marketing chain, lowering costs of food marketing not only allows lower costs to consumers, but they also free up productive resources that can be used in more profitable activities. This is the process by which total factor productivity improves, and this improvement is the basic long-run source of economic growth (Timmer 2002). A final growth effect might in the long-run be the most important, the effects from technology spillover that result from the use by supermarket managers of imported information technology and modern management techniques honed in the fierce competition of food markets in rich countries. Most of this technology arrives as part of foreign direct investment, which has been the main vehicle of rapid penetration by supermarkets into developing countries (Reardon et al. 2003; Reardon and Timmer 2007, 2012 and 2014). The technology is often proprietary, and supermarket owners go to great lengths to keep it internal to the company. But like most technologies, the knowledge that these tools and techniques exist is the key to rapid emulation, as local managers trained by the first wave of foreign supermarkets leave to establish their own companies and consulting firms. Thus the spillovers from introducing modern information technologies and management techniques can occur fairly rapidly and have widespread effects across the entire economy, not just in food retailing. 262

The transformation of food supply chains

Modern supply chains will affect not only the efficiency of the food marketing chain, but also the distribution of benefits from the value added in the process. In general, it is very difficult to say whether these distributional changes will be positive or negative – that is, whether income distribution will improve or not. There are two important offsetting effects. On the negative side, rapid penetration of supermarkets into traditional food marketing systems can quickly displace family-run, often informal retail shops, traders in traditional wet markets, and small-scale wholesalers. The people displaced usually earn relatively low incomes and will have to make significant adjustments to find new livelihoods. The distributional effect is likely to be negative and can be substantial if these small-scale food marketing firms are numerous and widely visible. Their imminent demise can also generate significant political resistance to the spread of supermarkets, an effect already seen throughout Asia, but with historical antecedents in the United States, Europe and Japan. The impact of supermarket penetration on the farm sector has tended to be the most vocal issue. Experience suggests that small farmers can rapidly lose access to supermarket supply chains and thus be cut off from the growing ‘value added’ component of retail food baskets (Reardon et al. 2009). These farmers might fall further into poverty. But this experience is not uniform. There are circumstances in which small farmers have gained profitable access to modern supply chains. Keeping a significant number of small farmers in the supply chain of supermarkets in the short- to medium-run is likely to be essential for poor countries to reap widespread social benefits from the rapid domination by modern food supply chains. The impact on the traditional food marketing sector will be small relative to this impact on small farmers. Potential social benefits also have positive distributional effects. The extraordinary spread and speed of supermarket penetration suggests that affluent consumers find them time-saving and convenient. Low-income consumers do not benefit differentially, at least initially. But lower real costs of food across the board (corrected for quality, safety, and convenience, all of which consumers value) have an impact of greatest importance to the poor. Efforts to slow the penetration of supermarkets on behalf of small farmers and traditional agents in the food marketing system need to keep this widespread consumer benefit in the calculus. At the same time, significantly more evidence is needed on whether poor consumers have access to these benefits (Asfaw 2007; Michelson 2013).

Transformations and food security As Figure 17.1 illustrates, ‘five interlinked transformations’ of the agrifood system are occurring rapidly in Asia and are well along in Latin America and emerging in Africa. In the face of such complex and interlinked transformations, policymakers need to be careful not to ‘choose winners’ or ‘reward losers’. The process of economic development is dynamic and unpredictable, full of ‘creative destruction’ (McCraw 2007). There will be winners and losers in the process, but only innovation and technical change can raise living standards in the long run. The drivers of change in modern food systems might now be multinational corporations rather than domestic marketing boards. The policy levers might be nutritional education and emphasis on activity levels in schools to prevent childhood obesity. Agricultural choices may be more influenced by quality standards and relationships with procurement officers than price policies and extension agents. These changes require that policy analysts and policymakers also have a broader perspective – and a broader set of skills – than before. The food system is more consumer-driven than before. The marketing system is even more important as the efficient vehicle for transmitting desires of consumers back to farmer opportunities. There are fewer players in the new marketing system. However, the old problems 263

C. Peter Timmer

– building human capital through education, improving the institutional environment for risk management, and stimulating technical change while managing its consequences – remain front and center on the agenda.

Conclusion The central role of the structural transformation has been understood for some time: the longrun, integrated modernization of the agricultural, industrial and service sectors underlies economic growth. The convergence of labour productivity in the agricultural and nonagricultural sectors, as that productivity increases over time, provides higher standards of living in both sectors. The ‘endpoint’ of the structural transformation – the full integration of factor markets between rural and urban areas – is now within sight in the richest transition countries, but remains a challenge to poor- and middle-income countries. A ‘failed’ structural transformation, where many poor rural households move to slums in cities because productive work is no longer available on their farms or there are too many mouths to feed from the small amount of land controlled by the household, has been characteristic of many countries in sub-Saharan Africa as well as several in South Asia (Badiane 2011; Binswanger-Mkhize 2012). Failed structural transformations are always accompanied by failed agricultural transformations. It is often hard to see the role of public sector policies and investments in such a complex and rapidly changing system. The story here has focused on the rapid changes and key drivers that link the various components of a modernizing food sector. Public investments in infrastructure, especially rural roads, communications systems, power grids and irrigation are clearly essential ingredients to all of the five transformations under way. Still, the impact of policy has also been pervasive, if somewhat unnoticed. First, despite the role of local supplies filling local demand, the openness of economies to international trade, investment, and global price signals has been essential to productivity growth on the farm and along the entire supply chain. Providing stability to domestic food systems is a worthy goal, but local self-sufficiency campaigns have a poor track record even on this score. Second, the public sector budget allocated to agriculture and the food system is not a reliable guide to effective public support if subsidies for ‘private’ goods such as fertilizer and power are substantial. Effective public budget support needs to be for public goods such as agricultural research and development, high-quality public education reaching to the PhD level to train local researchers and analysts, and transparent regulation of financial and commodity markets to provide equal access and greater stability are far more important. Finding the appropriate balance between an effective public role and an efficient private role, in the modernization of agriculture narrowly and the entire food system more broadly, has always been a difficult challenge. It requires careful analysis and a technocratic capacity, even within the most vigorous of democratic governments, to do the ‘right’ things and not do the ‘wrong’ things. The political economy of this is, of course, tricky (Timmer 2012). But finding this balance has always been the essential ingredient in starting this dynamic set of transformations rolling and keeping them on a path of inclusive economic growth that is the only way to provide food security in a sustainable fashion. Several key analytical lessons also emerge for food security strategy formulation. First, significant inter-dependence now exists among the downstream (urbanization and diet change as sources of food demand change); midstream/intermediation (the supply chain); and upstream (the combination of rural factor/service markets and the farm segment). Any food security strategy that focuses on one of these points of the triangle and neglects the others will fail in this 264

The transformation of food supply chains

new era of large urban markets, rural–urban linkages, and the need for farm intensification and commercialization. Neither urbanization per se nor farm technology per se will be sufficient. Second, the corollary of the first point is that productivity growth in all five components is important for overall food security. The immediate source of productivity growth is nearly always via private sector investments, but these are significantly, often critically, conditioned by the nature of public policies and investments. Third, because of their interrelation and mutual facilitation, the overall transformation of the agrifood sector can be very rapid and complex. The new situation is not linear and easily predictable, but there remains the need to act – by both the private and public sectors – in this rapidly changing environment. Having an informed vision of these dynamic interrelationships can sharply improve the potential to act appropriately. Finally, it is important to move the food security debate out of its silos – rural development and food security, food supply chains/agri-business and food security, urbanization versus rural development (and where to invest for food security). In the modern world these are bundled and interconnected. The food security debate should be too.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my long-time colleague, Tom Reardon, for extensive discussions over the years on these topics. I first started thinking about these issues more than a decade ago, in a paper presented at the Sixth National Workshop on Food and Nutrition, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, (LIPI), Jakarta, Indonesia, May 17–19, 2004.

Notes 1 The full citation runs as follows: ‘Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism than peace, easy taxes, and tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things’. Lecture by Adam Smith in 1775, cited in E. L. Jones, 1981: 235. The perspective here also draws heavily on Jones’ Growth Recurring, published in 1988. 2 This section draws on work that Tom Reardon and his many colleagues started in the 1990s. My involvement began with Reardon, Timmer, Barrett, and Berdegué, 2003. A recent review is in Reardon and Timmer, 2014. 3 This is a particularly economic view of the world, where something has a ‘value in exchange’ that can be completely different from its ‘value in use’. Diamonds are at one end of the spectrum and air at the other. Or, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing. 4 The food marketing system is the ‘narrow point in the funnel’ between many farmers and many consumers. Because there are relatively few of them, the ‘middleman’ is universally subject to the charge of exploiting both ends of the food chain (Timmer, Falcon and Pearson 1983).

References Asfaw, A. 2007. Supermarket purchases and the dietary patterns of households in Guatemala. IFPRI discussion paper, 696. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Badiane, O. 2011. Agriculture and structural transformation in Africa. Stanford symposium series on global food policy and food security in the 21st century, April 7. Palo Alto: Stanford University. Bennett, M. K. 1954. The world’s food. New York: Harper. Berdegué, J. A., Balsevich, F., Flores, L. and Reardon, T. 2005. Central American supermarkets’ private standards of quality and safety in procurement of fresh fruits and vegetables. Food Policy 3: 254–269. Binswanger-Mkhize, H. P. 2012. India 1960–2010: structural change, the rural non-farm sector, and the prospects for agriculture. Stanford symposium series on global food policy and food security in the 21st century, May 10. Palo Alto: Stanford University.

265

C. Peter Timmer Block, S. A. 2003. Nutrition knowledge, rice prices, and the micronutritional effects of Indonesia’s crisis in 1997-98. In: Rice science: innovations and impact for livelihood. Proceedings from the international rice research congress, 16–19 September, 2002. Mew, T. W., Brar, D. S., Teng, S., Dawe, D. and Hardy, B. (eds.), pp. 789–805. Beijing: International Rice Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Engineering, and Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Economist. 2014. A long way from the supermarket. October 18: 63. Hu, D., Reardon, T., Rozelle, S., Timmer, P. and Wang, H. 2004. The emergence of supermarkets with Chinese characteristics: challenges and opportunities for China’s agricultural development. Development Policy Review, 22(4): 557–586. Jones, E. L. 1981. The European miracle: environments, economics and geopolitics in the history of Europe and Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, E. L. 1988. Growth recurring: economic change in world history. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Krugman, P. 1993. Geography and trade. New York: Norton. McCraw, T. 2007. Prophet of innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and creative destruction. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Michelson, H. C. 2013. Small farmers, NGOs, and a Walmart world: welfare effects of supermarkets operating in Nicaragua. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(3): 628–649. Minten, B., Reardon, T. and Sutradhar, R. 2010. Food prices and modern retail: the case of Delhi. World Development, 38(12): 1775–1787. Natawidjaja, R. S. and Reardon, T. (with T. Perdana, E. Rasmikayati, T. Insan Noor, S. Bachri, T. and R. Hernandez). 2007. The impact of the rise of supermarkets on horticulture markets and farmers in Indonesia. Jakarta: UNPAD/MSU Report to the World Bank. Pingali, P. L. and Rosegrant, M. W. 1995. Agricultural commercialization and diversification: processes and policies. Food Policy, 20(3): 171–185. Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S., and Ng, S. W. 2012. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1): 3–21. Reardon, T. 2010. Linking food market transformation to improved food security in Asia. Unpublished presentation at the ASEAN Food Security Conference, Singapore, June 17. Nathan Associates, Arlington, VA with support from USAID. Reardon, T. and Berdegué, J. A. (eds.). 2002. Supermarkets and agrifood systems: Latin American challenges: theme issue. Development Policy Review, 20(4): 371–388. Reardon, T. and. Timmer, C. P. 2007. Transformation of markets for agricultural output in developing countries since 1950: how has thinking changed? In: Handbook of agricultural economics, 3: agricultural development: farmers, farm production and farm markets. Evenson, R. E. and Pingali, P. (eds.), pp. 2808–2855. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press. Reardon, T. and. Timmer, C. P. 2012. The economics of the food system revolution. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 4(14): 1–40. Reardon, T. and. Timmer, C. P. 2014. Five inter-linked transformations in the Asian agrifood economy: food security implications. Global Food Security, 3: 108–117. Reardon, T., Barrett, C. B., Berdegué, J. A., and Swinnen, J. F. M. 2009. Agrifood industry transformation and small farmers in developing countries: introduction to a special issue. World Development, 37(11): 1717–1727. Reardon, T., Timmer, C. P. and Minten, B. 2012. The supermarket revolution in Asia and emerging development strategies to include small farmers. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 109(31): 12332–12337. Reardon, T., Berdegué, J. A. and Timmer, C. P. 2005. Supermarketization of the emerging markets of the Pacific Rim: development and trade implications. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 36(1): 3–12. Reardon, T., Codron, J-M., Busch, L., Bingen, J. and Harris, C. 2001. Global change in agrifood grades and standards: agribusiness strategic responses in developing countries. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 2(3): 195–205. Reardon, T., Timmer, C. P., Barrett, C. B., and Berdegué, J. A. 2003. The rise of supermarkets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(5): 1140–1146. Reardon, T., Chen, K., Minten, B. and Adriano, L. 2012. The quiet revolution in staple food value chains: enter the dragon, the elephant and the tiger. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Timmer, C. P. 1988. The agricultural transformation. In The handbook of development economics. Chenery, H. and Srinivasan, T. N. (eds.), pp. 275–331. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Timmer, C. P. 1989. Food price policy: the rationale for government intervention. Food Policy, 14(1): 17–27.

266

The transformation of food supply chains Timmer, C. P. 2002. Agriculture and economic growth. In: The handbook of agricultural economics. Gardner, B. and Rausser, G. (eds.), pp. 1487–1546. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Timmer, C. P. 2004. Food policy in the era of supermarkets: What’s different? Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics (e-JADE), 1(2): 50–67. Timmer, C. P. 2009. A world without agriculture: the structural transformation in historical perspective. Wendt Distinguished Lecture. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Timmer, C. P. 2010. Reflections on food crises past. Food Policy, 35(1): 1–11. Timmer, C. P. 2012. Behavioral dimensions of food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) (Agricultural Development and Nutrition Security Special Feature), 109(31): 12315–12320. Timmer, C. P. 2013. Food security in Asia and the Pacific: the rapidly changing role of rice. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, 1(1): 1–18 (Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University). Timmer, C. P. 2014. Food security, market processes, and the role of government policy. In: Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems. Alfen, N. V. (ed.), pp. 324–337. San Diego: Elsevier. Timmer, C. P. 2015. Food security and scarcity: why ending hunger is so hard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Timmer, C. P., Falcon, W. P. and Pearson, S. R. 1983. Food policy analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank. Wang, H., Dong, X., Rozelle, S., Huang, J. and Reardon, T. 2006. Producing and procuring horticultural crops with Chinese characteristics: a case study in the Greater Beijing area. Staff Paper 2006–05, Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. World Bank. 2007. World development report, 2008: agriculture for development. London and New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.

267

18 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION Sophia Murphy

Introduction International trade is a vital part of food and nutrition security. At the same time, it generates significant controversy. The exchange of physical goods has been an important component of food security for centuries in some parts of the world. But international trade in the early twenty-first century is also associated with particular rules, international institutions, and theories of economic growth and well-being that have not always accorded well with food security needs and challenges. The linkages between trade and food security are hotly debated, and some would prefer to limit international trade as much as possible. But trade is too important to food and nutrition security to ignore. This chapter will explore different aspects of the debate and explain both the importance of trade and why strong and broadly accepted international trade rules for food and nutrition security remain elusive.

What is international trade? If there is one idea on which just about every economist agrees, it is that international trade is a powerful economic tool. International trade can significantly increase the total material wealth available to societies. It increases efficiency and simultaneously allows a smarter allocation of resources, lowers prices and maximizes profits. International trade is an expansion of the market. The market is a mechanism that distributes goods between producers and consumers using millions of individual decisions to set prices in a way no conscious decision-making structure could ever replicate. From the time that agriculture made human settlement possible over 10,000 years ago, the production of surplus food for exchange and the ability of consumers to exchange their skills or wages to buy food has shaped human culture and society, as well as political and economic organization. The availability of surplus food for exchange or purchase frees people to choose to do something other than produce food for a living. International trade is not the instrument of any particular economic or political regime. At different times in history, feudal societies, monarchies, communist governments and totalitarian dictatorships have all relied upon international trade. But of course, twenty-first-century capitalism relies heavily on international trade. International trade is a central component of 268

International trade, food security and nutrition

globalization. The discussion in this chapter is about international trade as it is structured by this dominant economic paradigm, a paradigm that has its origins with the Scottish Enlightenment of the late eighteenth century and in particular the work of Adam Smith.

The theory of trade Adam Smith coined the phrase ‘the invisible hand’ as a metaphor to explain the market as an exchange mechanism that sets prices collectively yet unconsciously through millions of individual transactions (Smith 1982). Smith saw public virtue in free markets in their ability to cumulate selfish and individual decisions into a social outcome that rewards industry and innovation over inherited wealth and privilege (Hirschman 2013; Smith 2009). David Ricardo, writing in the early nineteenth century, provided another core piece of classical trade theory, which he called ‘comparative advantage’ (Ricardo 1817). Natural resources are not evenly distributed across countries; neither is capital, labour or technological capacity. Those differences translate into differentiated productive capacities. Ricardo observed that even a country that is less efficient than its trading partners in all it produces will have some products that it produces relatively less inefficiently. By specializing in the production of goods for which opportunity costs are lowest, and getting trading partners to specialize in what they produce most efficiently, trade can enhance the wealth of all the countries involved. All the trading nations can benefit from specialization and efficiencies of scale while maintaining access to a diversity of goods (Krugman 1996). These ideas are core to what today is often called neo-classical economics (‘neo’ because it is a revival of classical economic theory, which of course reflects the changes and learning of the intervening two hundred years). This economic philosophy is dominant today, however it is worth noting that in the course of the nineteenth and then twentieth centuries, other economic theories emerged, and it is worthwhile to briefly assess their contributions. The first of these was Marxism, which argued that economics was dominated by a struggle between capital and labour in which the ultimate outcome (the moment of equilibrium) would come with the triumph of workers over capital. Workers would assume control of production and ensure an equitable distribution, captured in the slogan ‘from each according to his means to each according to his needs’. In Marxist theory, the state is subservient to the dominant economic interests: initially those of capital and then, after the revolution, those of the workers. For Marxists, international trade is an instrument that the capitalist class uses to increase its wealth at the expense of other, poorer countries (and people). Marxist thinking is evident in dependency theory, which views international trade as one of the ways the centre (typically the former colonial powers) exploit the periphery (the former colonies). Dependency theory originates with the works of Hans Singer and Raúl Prebisch, both of whom independently published papers in 1950 that argued that the value of raw commodities relative to manufactured goods in international markets were steadily deteriorating, with the effect of concentrating wealth in the already industrialized countries. The second highly influential broad school of economic thought to emerge was centred on the work of John Maynard Keynes (1888–1945), a British economist whose thinking dominated much of the middle decades of the twentieth century in non-communist industrialized countries. Keynes argued that governments should intervene in the economy to disrupt the creation of vicious circles in which unemployment and recession spiralled into intractable problems rather than being limited and counteracted by timely intervention. He believed governments could play this intervention role effectively. Moreover, he argued that unregulated markets were unlikely to distribute the costs and benefits of market adjustments evenly, creating 269

Sophia Murphy

potentially significant inequalities that a government would then have to address. Keynes scoffed at the notion, suggested by Smith, that the self-interested greed that motivated capitalism would somehow unwittingly yield social good. He did not share the classical economists’ confidence that the market should be left to correct itself: But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again. (Keynes 2013) These various economic theories have provided powerful insights into how to understand the social–material world that concerns economics. All have been influential at different times and in different ways. But in the early twenty-first century, as noted above, it is the thinking of the neo-classical economists that dominates international trade practice and theory. This school was given new impetus by Milton Friedman and his highly influential Chicago School of Economics, which in turn informed the policies of both Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan in 1980s Britain and the United States respectively. Neo-classical economists argue for free trade and open markets as the public policy objectives that will best maximize wealth and human well-being. Many economists accept the importance of neo-classical economics but few treat it as gospel. The economist Alan Blinder makes an analogy with Galileo and his claim that a feather and a brick will fall from a great height and land at the same time: Galileo was right, and his insight tells us something important about how our universe works. But it does not mean that you can expect to actually drop a brick and a feather and see them land together; they only behave this way in a vacuum, in other words, in a highly controlled and artificial environment (Blinder 2014). The same is true of the invisible hand: it is a powerful metaphor that can help make sense of what is happening in the market, but there are many sources of friction and the ideal is not always evident in what the observer sees. To create the equivalent of a frictionless universe for a neo-classical economist, buyers and sellers must have perfect information about supply and demand. There must be no barriers for new entrants to the market. Production inputs, including labour and capital, should be perfectly free to move from one sector of the economy to another, and across borders if the system includes international trade. The theory assumes decisions to buy or sell are based on ‘rational self-interest’, such that all actors are maximizing their utility (i.e., getting as much as they can of what they want for the least cost). It is obvious that the world people inhabit is far from this ideal and filled with many kinds of friction. The usefulness of the theory is thereby curtailed. Blinder lists a number of ways that real markets fall short of the idealized model. The more we learn about human behaviour, the more complex ‘rational self-interest’ turns out to be (Timmer 2012; Tversky and Kahneman 1981). Market competition is far from perfect (monopolies and oligopolies are not uncommon). There are numerous ‘externalities’ – the costs the market price leaves out, including environmental damage and cultural significance. Markets are not able to provide public goods – the things that everyone gains from but no one can provide individually. The so-called factors of production (land, labour and capital) are not perfectly mobile: arable land not at all; labour hardly so (especially across borders); and capital moves much more freely than it could in Smith’s day, but is still not perfectly free. Inequality is also a significant problem. The market works by allocating goods to those who are prepared to pay the most. This responsiveness to effective demand in a world marred by inequality has resulted in international markets in which 270

International trade, food security and nutrition

any least developed country dependent on wheat or rice imports for its food security struggles to compete against livestock operators and biofuel processors. These sources of friction that separate the real world from the ideal universe of the neoclassical economist are also evident in the politics of trade. It is not easy for governments to act on economists’ advice. Governments seek legitimacy in balancing competing domestic interests. They typically respond to the concerns of social and political élites while at a minimum limiting possible dissatisfaction among the wider population. Very often such politics militate against the demands of free trade, which, e.g., requires that governments treat foreign goods and foreign investors on a par with domestic counterparts. The resulting political tensions create a gulf between the policy advice offered by neo-classical economists and the political risks politicians are willing to run, in turn creating a gap between talk and action when it comes to free trade and open markets (evident in most of the talk) and any one government’s policies (which invariably deviate significantly from the free trade ideal) (Anderson et al. 2005). Confronted with the failure of existing models to describe accurately a world in which friction, not vacuums, is the norm, economists are exploring other ways to model economies. Instead of assuming that an equilibrium between supply and demand is the norm, as classical economics does, or achievable with some government intervention, as Keynesians do, some economists are exploring what they call ‘complexity economics’. Complexity economics assumes economies are in constant flux. In this model, economies create systems akin to ‘ecologies’ that are continuously adapting and evolving, with many possible points of equilibria (Arthur 2013; Gunderson and Holling 2002). As the name suggests, these new theoretical approaches propose more complex models, yet they are models that promise to make better sense of the social–material world people actually inhabit. The models also give rise to new and more integrated indicators with which to assess human well-being, including the achievement of food and nutrition security. Economics is the study of social relationships to the material world. It is often presented as descriptive (e.g., see the Wikipedia definition) and yet it is also inescapably normative. Economists do not just describe what they observe but cannot influence; their models are not just making sense of the universe, but providing actors with ideas on what institutions they should build and what rules should govern them. As the economist Larry Summers said in a recent speech: Economics is not physics – economic theories do not just describe the world – they can change it. Rigorous modeling, effective polemic, or elegant mathematics can be very dangerous when they are not informed by wisdom and good sense and a willingness to learn from experience. (Summers 2015) An analysis of trade in relation to food and nutrition security illustrates the importance of economic outcomes for human life and well-being, as well as some of the real world complexity of how trade works in practice.

Food security and trade Food security has historically been measured by the availability of food, assessed in calories, at the national level (Shaw 2007) (see also Pritchard, chapter 1, this volume). Food security was a macroeconomic concept, measured by a simple calculation of per capita availability that ignored distribution patterns within countries. International trade plays a relatively clear role in this definition of food security: food imports make up the gap between domestic production and 271

Sophia Murphy

domestic demand. If a country has a large population, however, and if that population relies on staple foods for which the international market is thin or nonexistent, the food security logic of trade changes. Take rice, for example. Only seven per cent of global rice production is traded internationally. The largest countries in Asia, such as India, China and Indonesia, have chosen to limit their reliance on imports and instead invested heavily in domestic production, realizing their demand could otherwise overwhelm the international market. In theory, were rice growers willing to trade more rice internationally, the market would grow and price stability should ensue. But the governments with large populations who eat rice as a staple food face big risks if they make international trade their granary because the existing international market is far too small to provide more than residual help in case of a domestic production shortfall. Free trade theorists assure governments that given time, production and consumption will adjust in a free market to provide all the rice needed and more cheaply. But during that adjustment, of course, people risk hunger and even starvation. Countries with large populations are not prepared to make an experiment of this kind. They argue they are not only protecting their own interests by protecting domestic food production, but that they are also protecting other, smaller countries who could not compete with the demand were the biggest consumers to become big importers, too. Smaller countries have a different calculus. For example, Bangladesh is a relatively small (and poor) country next to a very large one (India). Both countries eat rice as a staple food, and both grow large amounts of rice. The evidence suggests that the decision to deregulate Bangladesh’s rice trade, which allowed private traders a much more important role in rice imports and exports, was important in stabilizing rice prices from the mid-1990s until the international food price crisis in 2007–2008 (Dorosh and Rashid 2012). Domestic production is vital to Bangladesh, but as a relatively small consumer next to a very large producer and exporter, trade offers a cheap and attractive tool with which to stabilize prices when domestic production fluctuates. It is expensive and inefficient for every country to try to grow its own food – for some it is not even physically possible. At the same time, opening their markets is not without risk for small countries. Bangladesh has almost no leverage over the trade or production policies of India, or over the private traders based outside of Bangladesh that engage in the actual trade. A change of national policy, such as India’s decision to curtail some rice exports during the 2007–2008 food price crisis, can leave Bangladesh without a supplier (Timmer 2015). Small countries have a big stake in the ability of a multilateral system to impose rules that protect transparency and predictability if they are to use trade to protect their food supply. The costs and benefits of open trade for food staples from the perspective of a relatively small and poor country can be set against some dramatic global trends. An estimated 16 per cent of people on Earth (roughly one in six) depend on international markets for their supply of basic foods (Fader et al. 2013). The trend is steeply upward: the combined effects of climate change, population growth and stresses on natural resource systems suggest to some modellers that by 2050 more than three times as many people – some 51 per cent of humanity – could be dependent on imports for their staple foods (Fader et al. 2013). And whether or not trade will actually take on such an important role in global food distribution 35 years from now, it is unrealistic to imagine a world without any international trade – political borders are so arbitrary in relation to watersheds and ecosystems, let alone in relation to the history of human exchange of food. Nor has the importance of trade in the world’s economies ever been so great. Between 1948–2013, the value of world merchandise trade grew from US$58 billion (UNCTAD 2015) to US$18.8 trillion (WTO 2014), a 3000 per cent increase. International trade now accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GDP (Economist 2014). These trends make it vitally important for 272

International trade, food security and nutrition

governments to understand the costs and benefits of trade, especially for low-income net-food importing countries. Analysts points to two distinct causes for the increase in the number of countries, and people, dependent on international trade for their food in recent decades. One cause is rising incomes and changing diets; many countries are now richer than they were a generation ago. These middle-income countries are importing more, and more varied, food and they have little trouble paying for it (Valdés and Foster 2012). The other cause is the steadily increasing demand from the world’s poorest countries as their population increases. For these countries, imports represent a much smaller share of total food consumption than in richer countries. But lowincome countries struggle to pay for imports because they have so little foreign exchange. The richest countries in Africa import the equivalent of US$185 per person per year in food while low-income African countries import just US$17 per person per year. Yet it is the low-income countries that are food insecure (Rakotoarisoa et al. 2011). Food security is not just about supply, of course. Already 30 years ago the simple supplybased definition of food security was broadened by the work of the philosopher and economist Amartya Sen. Sen explained the importance of access as a central component of food security (Sen 1981). He showed empirically that famines are rarely the result of an absolute scarcity of food. Instead they are typically the result of a relative scarcity. Sen’s analysis underscored the importance of relationships: prices are not just a reflection of total supply divided by the number of people making a demand but also about relative purchasing power. So, for instance, if one group in the population increases its wealth and starts to buy more food, it is possible they will price less fortunate buyers out of the market. International trade changes the composition of the market: who is buying, what they are buying, and from where? Sen explored microeconomic concerns: household and even intra-household food security, particularly the differences between men’s and women’s access to food. His work made the point that trade does not just affect the absolute supply of food available, but has implications for employment and economic growth that change people’s relative position in society, including relative purchasing power. These relationships are central to understanding the role of trade in food and nutrition security. This broader understanding of food security affords a broader view of the role of trade as well. There is strong empirical evidence of the benefits of international trade for food security in this wider sense. Enlarging the market through trade can raise demand and increase investment in agricultural productivity, which raises rural wages, in turn reducing poverty not just among producers but also among mostly very poor landless rural workers (Wiggins and Keats 2014). International trade also creates opportunities for a country to adopt and adapt technologies from elsewhere, allowing rapid productivity gains that the domestic economy alone would be unlikely to provide. It also creates the possibility, albeit without guarantees, that the resulting wealth will be distributed in ways that reduce disparities, such as those that exist between urban and rural areas (Eswaran and Kotwal 1994; Rodrik 2007). More broadly, open markets can disrupt traditional patterns of economic, social and political power, creating a force that can free individuals from traditions that restrict choices. For example, open markets can create opportunities for women, immigrants and other excluded groups to challenge the discrimination they face in traditional societies when they seek employment, fair wages and a political voice. Both the proponents and the critics of free trade acknowledge this capacity of international trade to be disruptive. On the one hand, more positively, the disruption can take the form of eroding domestic oligopolies and creating opportunities for new entrepreneurs and new jobs to emerge. Women have been important beneficiaries of the employment created by trade, e.g., even as they have struggled with discrimination and unsafe working conditions (Joekes 1999). On the other hand, the disruption can destroy domestic industries and jobs while consolidating 273

Sophia Murphy

the market power of multinational oligopolies. In many countries, structural adjustment programmes that emphasised production for export and unregulated imports resulted in a deindustrialization that increased unemployment and reduced domestic investment in the economy (Chang 2003; Rodrik 2015). The dumping of food at less than cost of production prices, which depresses local production and has been a chronic problem in a number of developing countries for years, is another example of trade’s ability to cause damaging disruption (Morrison and Mermigkas 2014; Murphy et al. 2005). Empirical experiences illustrate both kinds of disruption. An example that shows both the positive and the negative results can be found in the conflicting reports of the effects of a rapidly expanding international market for quinoa. The argument, which played out recently in the media, is between claims that the demand for quinoa in rich countries has put a nutritious and affordable traditional food out of reach of poor people in quinoa-producing regions (primarily the highlands of Bolivia and Peru) (Blythman 2013) and the reply that in fact the demand for quinoa has injected much-needed cash into some very poor communities, and created the possibility of economic, political and social organization (LeVaux 2013). One ethnographic study in Bolivia found the international market for quinoa had supported the establishment of new marketing channels for growers even in remote communities (Ofstehage 2012). The research found that one of the benefits of the relatively new national co-operative that controls a large share of the quinoa export market has been an improvement in the quality of service offered by the traditional village traders, who remain important because they give farmers options that the national co-operative does not (Ofstehage 2012). Quinoa is not like the heavily traded tropical commodities that were introduced in colonized countries, such as tea and cacao. Instead, quinoa is indigenous to the areas where it is grown. This difference implies a different balance of power between the producers and their buyers, and the situation creates possibilities to use international markets to the benefit of economically marginalized regions. The expansion of the quinoa trade also illustrates tensions among different definitions of food and nutrition security. Some researchers focus on the decline in quinoa consumption in the producer communities, in areas that are already relatively food and nutrition insecure. The research suggests that producer communities are replacing quinoa with less nutritious processed foods, such as pasta and instant noodles (Giuliani et al. 2012). Yet others emphasise the growth in the economic and institutional power for farmers that higher prices have brought in their wake, including the establishment of a national marketing co-operative in which farmers have a voice. With more money in their pockets, farmers and their households have more choices over what to eat. This quinoa example describes the food and nutrition security and trade debate from the perspective of an exchange of a physical good on local and international markets. The outcomes from such trade is in part shaped by national laws and international treaties, in a series of sometimes conflicting legal frameworks that originate at the local, national, regional and global levels. These rules are fundamental in shaping the opportunities, risks and costs associated with international trade and food security. The highest order of rules, in the sense of having the widest reach, is those codified in the agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The governance of trade and food security and the World Trade Organization The WTO is housed in Geneva, Switzerland. It is the intergovernmental organization with a mandate to negotiate international trade rules. Although the WTO’s membership is not universal (as of June 2014 it had 160 member states whereas the UN counts 192), its treaties 274

International trade, food security and nutrition

govern virtually all of international trade. The WTO was established in 1995, as one of the Uruguay Round Agreements (URA). The URA were negotiated under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which in turn was one of the international agreements that governments signed after World War II in a bid to avoid a return to the economic isolationism that preceded the war. Trade and food security debates are centred on the 1995 Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), another of the URA and overseen by the WTO. The AoA was the first multilateral trade agreement specifically on agriculture. The GATT rules did not exclude agriculture from the more general category of goods, but in the 1950s the US and then the European Economic Community (today the European Union) declared that their agricultural policies would not be subject to GATT rules. In effect, though not in law, agriculture was thus excluded from the GATT. The AoA thus ended agriculture’s exceptional status in one sense: the Agreement ensured that multilateral trade rules would apply to agriculture. But in another way the AoA entrenches agriculture’s separate status by explicitly removing the sector from the aegis of the rules that govern all other goods. This outcome is another illustration of the friction that exists in the world of food markets: governments tried and failed to make agriculture like any other good under the GATT. Now they have acknowledged, at the heart of the international trade system, that agriculture is special, and requires its own rules. With the AoA, agriculture is no longer an anomaly in the trade rules so much as a world unto itself. The AoA rules address three broad areas of policy: market access; export subsidies; and domestic support. Domestic support is the term used for government programmes that are directed at the domestic economy, such as price supports for producers, or subsidies for inputs, or transportation, or commodity processors. Both tariffs and export subsidies have been the subject of trade negotiations for decades, but the inclusion of domestic support was new and marked an expansion of the international trade system rules into domestic policy. There was a clear logic behind the expansion. For example, if a government provides a price floor for producers that is higher than prevailing market prices, producers can produce more than they would without the support. In turn, if traders sell that surplus production in international markets without having to pay back the costs covered by the government programme, producers in other countries face unfair competition and the market will be distorted. If the surplus is exported, the domestic programme becomes a legitimate concern of both would-be importers and competing exporters and they will demand a say in the rules that govern those exports. This is why the socalled Cairns Group argued strongly for disciplines on domestic support during the Uruguay Round. The Cairns Group is a mix of developed and developing countries that all want to expand their share of agricultural commodity export markets. (Cairns Group membership has varied over the years. During the URA the group comprised 15 or so countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Chile, Brazil, Thailand, the Philippines and South Africa.) However logical, the inclusion of domestic support provisions in negotiations triggered fierce resistance, particularly from farmers in Europe. The farmers found common cause with peasant and farm organizations from around the world, united around the conviction that food and agriculture are different from other economic sectors. Farmers rejected the neo-classical model that treats all goods alike. They formed an alliance, Via Campesina (VC), as a voice for farmers in international policy debates and rejected the positions of already established, more export-oriented, farmers’ organizations (see also McMichael, chapter 22, this volume). The organization introduced the term ‘food sovereignty’ into food and trade debates. If many farmers rejected the assumptions of the AoA, so too, did some negotiators. In theory, international trade increases efficiency and lowers consumer prices. But this assumes countries are starting from a position of food self-sufficiency and that international markets are 275

Sophia Murphy

not distorted. Of course, in practice most countries were already deeply enmeshed in international markets, especially most of the least developed countries. And those markets were not undistorted. Many developing countries had shaped their food consumption around staple foods that were available in international markets for less than market prices, because of food aid programmes, or export subsidies, or domestic support in the exporting country. Given this situation at the outset, most economists predicted that food prices would increase on international markets once the AoA caused export subsidies and domestic support to be reduced. In particular, the prices of the cereal imports that low-income net-food importing countries needed were expected to rise while the tropical products, many of them exported, were not, because tropical commodities were already traded freely. Again, the government negotiators acknowledged the gap between the free market promise (of cheaper food for all consumers) and the international market reality (that the attempt to reform price distortions with the AoA was going to make the poorest consumers less well off): at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, governments signed the Marrakech Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries. The Decision put the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in charge of deciding if countries needed help to pay for imports as prices increased with trade liberalization. In the event, the IMF never judged that price changes could be attributed to the AoA and no money was ever disbursed. Despite the bold predictions of change from economists and the political fears they gave rise to, in the event the policy and regulatory changes imposed by the AoA were slow to take effect. Overall spending levels in developed countries hardly changed. Prices for agricultural commodities on international markets continued to fall until 2004, almost a decade after the AoA came into effect. Nor were the AoA rules symmetrical. They favoured the policies and programmes that industrialized countries relied upon. For example, tariff reductions were assessed using an average level, allowed richer countries to shelter very high tariffs on a few sensitive products while taking advantage of their relatively low tariffs on the large majority of imports. In contrast, poorer countries typically relied on quantitative restrictions, which were banned outright by the AoA, and moderately high tariffs across most imports, which meant they had a relatively high average tariff to cut. Moreover, many poorer country governments were dependent on tariffs for public revenue (Ackerman and Gallagher 2008; Gallagher and Wise 2008). The AoA was quickly dubbed unfair by many developing countries, as well as farmers’ organizations and a range of civil society organizations (Murphy 1999; Wilkinson 2014). Yet if the AoA was slow to take effect, take effect it did. The agreement put in motion important changes to the structure of agricultural trade whose effects become evident from around 2004 (Daviron and Douillet 2013). These changes included the decision by the EU and the US to eliminate most of their price floor policies, adopting income support programmes that were less tightly linked to current production levels. They also mostly eliminated export subsidies in practice, especially as international prices began to rise in 2004. The dominance of the US as the producer for international commodity markets began to slip, while the Cairns Group members successfully increased their market share of non-tropical food in international markets (Daviron and Douillet 2013). The effects of the AoA were not just evident in government policy changes. The four big grain traders that have dominated international commodity markets for much of the past century (Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus, sometimes called the ABCD) maintained their dominance. If anything, they increased their market power. Oxfam estimates the ABCD today handle between 75–90 per cent of all international grain transactions (Murphy et al. 2012). These multinational firms were active in the AoA negotiations, pushing 276

International trade, food security and nutrition

for adoption of the agreement. They had reason to be content with the outcome: they no longer had to outbid government-managed price floors to acquire grain, while their access to new import markets grew appreciably under the rules (Murphy 2008). Moreover, their persistent attacks on the legitimacy of the state-owned grain boards began to show results. The AoA did not prohibit state trading, but it undermined the legitimacy of the institutions and made the creation of new state traders improbable. By establishing a national monopoly for farmers who exported their grain, the Australian and Canadian Wheat Boards had been able to compete with the private grain giants in international markets. Both boards have been dissolved in the last five years. The AoA has clearly had some effect on food and nutrition security. But the WTO agreements affect food and nutrition security beyond the scope of the AoA. As Sen reminded us 30 years ago, food security depends on many relationships, not just a relationship with agricultural production. And trade affects many of those relationships.

The 2007–2008 food price crisis The wide-ranging effects of trade on food and nutrition security were brought squarely into view with the 2007–2008 international food price crisis. The food price crisis was the sharpest increase in food prices on international markets since the oil price shocks of the early 1970s. Between January 2007 and June 2008, rice prices increased 224 per cent, wheat rose 118 per cent, and maize rose 77 per cent (Daviron et al. 2011). Prices then fell sharply, only to rise again by an average of 57 per cent in the first half of 2010. Prices spiked again in 2011 and in 2012. Prices not only rose sharply, but volatility also increased markedly. The theory of open markets and free trade suggest that international trade is a source of price stability, which is an important component of food security (Timmer 2015). A larger market should be inherently more stable than a smaller one because it provides more production and more consumers, reducing variation in both. Stable food prices allow producers to make rational investments in production while giving consumers the confidence to use their money for other investments, secure that they will continue to be able to afford what they need to eat. When prices are volatile, both producers and consumers are inclined to be risk-averse and efficiency is lost. Stable food prices are crucial for inclusive economic growth, as many economists have shown in their empirical work (Dawe 2001; Galtier and Vindel 2013; Timmer 2015). International trade can provide a cheap and efficient stabilizing mechanism in many situations, limiting the need for governments to hold stocks or from having to try to anticipate future supply and demand trends. But if international trade is a promising source of food price stability, it is not invariably reliable. In recent decades, developing countries’ food import bills mostly varied because domestic production was unstable (which meant some years required far more imports than others), while international prices were relatively stable. The agricultural economist Panos Konandreas found on average only 25 per cent of the change in domestic food prices in developing countries was due to international price movements in the 1960s and 1970s. This is no longer the case, however. By 2012, Konandreas calculated that most of the total increase in food import bills was due to international prices, and in some cases all of it was (Valdés and Foster 2012). Nor was the 2007–2008 food price crisis just a painful shock; a recurrence of the food price crises that have hit international markets at roughly 30 year intervals throughout the twentieth century (Timmer 2010). The crisis also shook many people from their complacency – especially those governments who had assumed food prices could only ever go down. The crisis revealed underlying problems in the production and distribution of food through international markets, 277

Sophia Murphy

many of them the consequence of fairly recent policy changes. These changes included the rapid emergence of a significant biofuels industry from 2004, encouraged by public subsidies and mandates in the US, Canada and the European Union. The tightening links between food commodity and energy prices, because of the importance of oil in food production as well as the growing importance of food in fuel production, was also a cause of food price inflation. Fertilizer prices increased more than any other commodity during the crisis. Higher fertilizer and oil prices do not just reduce food production, but also commodity export production and foreign exchange reserves (Future Agricultures Consortium 2008). The 2007–2008 food price crisis was also tied to the deregulation of commodity and financial markets in the 1990s and, in particular, the repeal in the US of the Glass-Steagall Act in 2000. The elimination of public stocks of grains in exporting as well as most importing countries through structural adjustment programmes in developing countries, and changes to the domestic agricultural policies of the US and the European Union was also important (Abbott et al. 2008; Daviron et al. 2011; Murphy 2009). As for international trade, few analysts saw it as an important trigger of the food price crisis. Trade did exacerbate the problem, however. When production fell and prices started to rise in 2007, a number of exporting countries imposed export taxes or bans. Although the material impact of the bans and taxes on the available supply was small, the psychological effect was huge, as was the resulting price spike, particularly in rice. Importing countries had been told for a decade by their trading partners at the WTO to reduce their tariffs, cut their spending on agriculture and increase their imports. And just when their needs as importers were greatest, those same exporters, unconstrained by WTO disciplines, chose to cut their supply so as to quieten domestic political concerns (Sharma 2011). Public investment in agricultural production increased sharply. Net food importers began to invest again in public storage systems (Lines 2011; Murphy 2012). Richer importing countries such as Saudi Arabia began to invest in agricultural production abroad, as part of a broader surge in foreign direct investment in land in developing countries (Margulis et al. 2013). Once again, a friction-filled political universe was rearing its head, to the dismay of free trade believers. Although the food price crisis highlighted the extent to which the WTO trade rules were one-sided in favour of exporters and thus in need of reform, exporters at the WTO refused to consider new export restrictions as part of the rules. Importers’ concerns are to this day left unaddressed at the WTO. In the meantime, the food price crisis has given rise to other food security fights at the WTO. In 2013, ahead of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali, a group of developing countries (called the G33) put forward a proposal to update the formula used to calculate how much developing countries may spend on domestic support. The G33 also asked that developing countries be allowed to exempt the cost of public management of commodities for public stocks from the limit set on their domestic support, even if purchases were at prices above ‘prevailing market prices’ or the disposal of the stocks was at less than prevailing market prices. None of these WTO issues has been resolved. India passed a new food security law in 2014 that expands its system of public purchases of staple foods at set minimum prices and the distribution of those stocks to poorer consumers (those eligible are now more than half the population). The legislation has been challenged at the WTO and there is now a negotiation on the role that food stocks should be allowed to play, with the US arguing that the stocks are prone to disrupt prices in international markets and India insisting it needs the stocks as an integral part of its strategy to tackle the depth and breadth of hunger in the country. Several short-term negotiating crises have been forestalled in the last two years, yet no meaningful solution has found traction with the negotiators. 278

International trade, food security and nutrition

Conclusion Economics is not just a description of how social and material worlds interact, but also an attempt to guide human behaviour towards better outcomes, measured by improved human welfare, including the realization of food and nutrition security. It is perhaps therefore not coincidental that finding agreement over what rules should govern international trade in food is so hard at a time when the definition of food security itself is changing and expanding. Beyond questions of food supply and access to food, and beyond the importance of stable prices, food security is also about nutrition and sustainable development. In country after country, public health crises have erupted, linked to rising levels of overweight and obesity in numbers that are now greater than the number of people who live with hunger. Industrialized countries’ food security is also increasingly challenged by environmentalists, who have tied agricultural practices to such problems as the erosion of renewable but finite resources, the loss of biological and genetic diversity, and the pollution caused by excessive or poorly managed use of inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides (IAASTD 2009). Over the last decade, malnutrition has come to be increasingly understood as a ‘triple burden’, encompassing not just energy and protein deficiencies (measured in calories); but also micronutrient deficiencies, which can have devastating effects on people’s ability to think and work productively; and, third, overweight and obesity, which are leading causes of a number of chronic, non-communicable diseases (such as diabetes) (Gómez et al. 2013). The ‘triple burden of malnutrition’ is not a phrase commonly heard in the corridors occupied by trade negotiators. But other institutions, including the World Health Organization through its Trade and Health Programme (WHO 2014) and a number of academic researchers (Clark et al. 2012; Hawkes 2006; Hawkes et al. 2012; Lang et al. 2009) have explored the connections between globalization, trade and uneven health outcomes. Access to international markets has been promoted in free trade theory as a way to give consumers everywhere cheaper, more diverse diets. Yet in practice international markets are neither comprehensive in their food offerings nor equally accessible to all. Trade in an open market reflects the purchasing power of consumers, not their relative need. Growth in international food trade is not coming from staple food crops but from vegetable oil and animal feed, processed foods, biofuel feedstock, meat and horticulture (Clark et al. 2012; Hawkes 2006). International trade is not the cause of these poorly managed dietary and ecological decisions but it does exacerbate them. Markets have no way to signal the externalities that societies all across the world are increasingly aware they must address, and soon, including climate change and malnutrition in all its forms. For instance, there is good evidence that it does matter where food is grown because food production is an important source of employment for many of the people who are the least food secure; they cannot buy food if they are not working (De Schutter 2014). And yet the WTO prohibits discrimination on this basis. Agriculture has also proven itself to be a powerful, often an indispensible, engine for economic growth (Chang 2011; Mellor 1995; World Bank 2007). Even economists whose vision of the future is a structural transformation that reduces agriculture to a vanishingly small role in a growing economy argue the transformation is not possible without carefully managed government interventions (Timmer 2009 and 2015). Yet many of these government interventions are either prohibited or made more difficult by the rules of the AoA. For example, countries are locked into the tariff schedules they presented upon signing the URA in 1994 (or upon their accession to the WTO if that came later). Many countries have since undergone significant structural economic change. The role of agriculture in their economies has changed. Still the WTO has not established any mechanism to enable countries to update their commitments to reflect these new realities. 279

Sophia Murphy

The WTO is only one piece of the international trade puzzle within food and nutrition security. But it is important. It is multilateral and reasonably democratic in form, though it struggles to give equal weight to all its members in practice. The organization works by consensus, with a one-country, one-vote model rather than the weighted voting systems of the global financial institutions. As a multilateral institution for the negotiation of international trade rules, the WTO offers a much preferable alternative to plurilateral agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), in which the member countries are carefully chosen (as much for political as economic or geographical reasons), and in which effects on non-parties to the exclusive agreement are not discussed. If a multilateral forum for the negotiation of international trade rules is important, the economic thinking that dictated the outcome of the Uruguay Round and that continues to dominate trade negotiations has to change. That thinking ignores too much of the friction that complicates the situations in which most WTO members find themselves, not least with regard to food and nutrition security. Multilateral trade rules need to be grounded in an ethics that respects the needs and possibilities of the smallest and poorest of the member states, as well as the interests of the marginalized within larger, richer member states. The rules also need to be legally and practically binding on the more powerful countries. The WTO is only one small piece but it has a contribution to make, and the institution should make that contribution, all the while acknowledging the limits of its expertise and engaging fully, and respectfully, with the other organizations in the international system. More broadly, the realization of food and nutrition security is almost certainly going to depend in some part on international trade. We need twenty-first-century economic models, and due respect for the politics and culture of food and agriculture, to get the rules for that international trade right.

Acknowledgements Sophia Murphy’s graduate research is supported by a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship and she is also a 2013 scholar with the Trudeau Foundation. She is grateful to IATP for long-lasting and ever stimulating relationship. Many thanks to Kim Burnett, Jennifer Clapp, Stuart Clark, Steve Suppan, Tim Wise and Hannah Wittman for their comments.

References Abbott, P. C., Hurt, C. and Tyner, W. E. 2008. What’s driving food prices? Oak Brook, IL: Farm foundation. Ackerman, F. and Gallagher, K. P. 2008. The shrinking gains from global trade liberalization in computable general equilibrium models: a critical assessment. International Journal of Political Economy, 37(1): 50–77. Anderson, K., Martin, W. and Van der Mensbrugghe, D. 2005. Distortions to world trade. Washington D.C.: World Bank. Arthur, W. B. 2013. Complexity economics: a different framework for economic thought. Santa Fe: Santa Fe Institute. Blinder, A. S. 2014. What’s the matter with economics? The New York Review of Books, LXI(20): 55–57. Blythman, J. 2013. Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? The Guardian. 16 January 2013. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatabletruth-quinoa (Accessed 9 February 2015). Chang, H.-J. 2003. Kicking away the ladder. London: Anthem Press. Chang, H.-J. 2011. Public policy and agricultural development. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Clark, S. E., Hawkes, C., Murphy, S. M. E., Hansen-Kuhn, K. A. and Wallinga, D. 2012. Exporting obesity: US farm and trade policy and the transformation of the Mexican consumer food environment. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 18(1): 53–64. Daviron, B. and Douillet, M. 2013. Major players of the international food trade and the world food security. Food Secure Publications, 12. Wageningen.

280

International trade, food security and nutrition Daviron, B., Dembele, N. N., Murphy, S. and Rashid, S. 2011. Price volatility and food security. Rome: HLPE / UN Committee on World Food Security. Dawe, D. 2001. How far down the path to free trade? The importance of rice price stabilization in developing Asia. Food Policy, 26(2): 163–175. De Schutter, O. 2014. Final Report: the transformative potential of the right to food (No. A/HRC/25/57). Geneva: UN General Assembly. Dorosh, P. A. and Rashid, S. 2012. Bangladesh rice trade and price stabilization. IFPRI Research Report 01209. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Economist. 2014. A troubling trajectory. 13 December 2014. Available at: http://www.economist.com/ news/finance-and-economics/21636089-fears-are-growing-trades-share-worlds-gdp-has-peaked-far (Accessed 11 May 2015). Eswaran, M. and Kotwal, A. 1994. Why poverty persists in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Fader, M., Gerten, D., Krause, M., Lucht, W. and Cramer, W. 2013. Spatial decoupling of agricultural production and consumption: quantifying dependences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1): 15. Future Agricultures Consortium. 2008. The global fertiliser crisis and Africa. Brighton: Future Agricultures Consortium. Gallagher, K. P. and Wise, T. 2008. Back to the drawing board: no basis for concluding the Doha Round of negotiations. RIS Brief, 36. New Delhi: Research and Information System for Developing Countries. Galtier, F. and Vindel, B. 2013. Gérer l’instabilité des prix alimentaires dans les pays en développement. Paris: CIRAD/ AFD. Giuliani, A., Hintermann, F., Rojas, W. and Padulosi, S. (eds.). 2012. Biodiversity of andean grains: balancing market potential and sustainable livelihoods. Rome: Biodiversity International and the Bern University of Applied Sciences. Gómez, M. I., Barrett, C. B., Raney, T., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Meerman, J., Croppenstedt, A., et al. 2013. Post-green revolution food systems and the triple burden of malnutrition. Food Policy, 42: 129–138. Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Hawkes, C. 2006. Uneven dietary development: linking the policies and processes of globalization with the nutrition transition, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases. Globalization and Health, 2(1): 4. Hawkes, C., Friel, S., Lobstein, T. and Lang, T. 2012. Linking agricultural policies with obesity and noncommunicable diseases: a new perspective for a globalising world. Food Policy, 37(3): 343–353. Hirschman, A. O. 2013. The passions and the interests. Princeton: Princeton University Press. IAASTD. 2009. International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Joekes, S. 1999. Trade, sustainable development and gender. Doc: UNCTAD/EDM/Misc.78. Geneva: UNCTAD. Keynes, J. M. 2013. A tract on monetary reform [1923]. In: The collected writings of John Maynard Keynes (chapter 3). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Economic Society. Krugman, P. 1996. Ricardo’s difficult idea. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm (Accessed 8 May 2014). Lang, T., Barling, D. and Caraher, M. 2009. Food policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LeVaux, A. 2013. It’s okay to eat quinoa. Slate, 25 January 2013. Available at: http://www.slate.com/ articles/life/food/2013/01/quinoa_bad_for_bolivian_and_peruvian_farmers_ignore_the_media_ hand_wringing.single.html (Accessed 9 February 2015). Lines, T. 2011. The potential establishment of emergency food reserve funds. Geneva: UNCTAD. Margulis, M. E., McKeon, N. and Borras, S. M. 2013. Land grabbing and global governance: critical perspectives. Globalizations, 10(1): 1–23. Mellor, J. W. 1995. Agriculture on the road to industrialization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Morrison, J. and Mermigkas, G. 2014. Import surges and the Special Safeguard Mechanism revisited (no. 15). Rome: UN FAO. Murphy, S. 1999. Trade and food security: an assessment of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. London: Catholic Institute for International Relations. Murphy, S. 2008. Globalization and corporate concentration in the food and agriculture sector. Development, 51(4): 527–533. Murphy, S. 2009. Strategic grain reserves in an era of volatility. Minneapolis: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Murphy, S. 2012. Cobwebbed. ActionAid International. Available at: http://www.actionaid.org/publications/ cobwebbed-international-food-price-crisis-and-national-food-prices. (Accessed 1 September 2015).

281

Sophia Murphy Murphy, S., Burch, D. and Clapp, J. 2012. Cereal secrets. Oxford: Oxfam. Murphy, S., Lilliston, B. and Lake, M.-B. 2005. WTO agreement on agriculture: a decade of dumping. Minneapolis: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Ofstehage, A. 2012. The construction of an alternative quinoa economy: balancing solidarity, household needs, and profit in San Agustín, Bolivia. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4): 441–454. Rakotoarisoa, M. A., Iafrate, M., Paschali, M. and Elbehri, A. 2011. Why has Africa become a net food importer: explaining Africa agricultural and food trade deficits. Rome: Trade and Markets Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Ricardo, D. 1817. On the principles of political economy and taxation. London: John Murray. Rodrik, D. 2007. One economics – many recipes. Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rodrik, D. 2015. Premature deindustrialization. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and famines. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharma, R. 2011. Food export restrictions. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Shaw, D. J. 2007. World food security. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, A. 1982. The wealth of nations. London: Penguin. Smith, A. 2009. The theory of moral sentiments. London: Penguin. Summers, L. 2015. 40 Years Later – the relevance of Okun’s equality and efficiency: the big tradeoff. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution. Timmer, C. P. 2009. A world without agriculture. The Henry Wendt lecture series. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. Timmer, C. P. 2010. Reflections on food crises past. Food Policy, 35(1): 1–11. Timmer, C. P. 2012. Behavioral dimensions of food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(31): 12315–12320. Timmer, C. P. 2015. Food security and scarcity: why ending hunger is so hard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481): 453–458. UNCTAD. 2015. Trade statistics. Available at: http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/ tableView.aspx?ReportId=101 (Accessed 10 February 2015). Valdés, A. and Foster, W. 2012. Net food-importing developing countries. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2012/08/net-foodimporting-developing-countries-who-they-are-and-policy-options-for-global-price-volatility.pdf. Wiggins, S. and Keats, S. 2014. Rural wages in Asia. London: Overseas Development Institute. Wilkinson, R. 2014. What’s wrong with the WTO and how to fix it. Cambridge: Polity Press. WHO. 2014. Trade and health. Available at: http://www.who.int/trade/trade_and_health/en/ (Accessed 17 May 2015). WTO 2014. Statistics. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2014_e/its14_toc_e. htm, (Accessed 27 January 2015). World Bank. 2007. World development report 2008: agriculture for development. World Bank.

282

19 FOOD VALUE CHAINS AND NUTRITION Exploring the opportunities for improving nutrition Aulo Gelli, Corinna Hawkes and Jason Donovan

Introduction A major question from the nutrition perspective is how to sustainably improve the quality of diets, as well as other health–nutrition related behaviours, across different low-income population groups. One emerging framework within which to identify interventions for improved nutrition involves value chains. The value chain framework focuses on actors that are involved in the production, processing and consumption of agrifood products, and asks what opportunities exist to achieve beneficial nutrition outcomes through changes in the structures, systems and relationships within chains. In this chapter we explore how the value chain framework can inform the design of interventions for achieving improved nutrition. Conceptually, we identify three main channels for improving nutrition: 1) through increasing consumption of nutritious foods (a demand side pathway); 2) through increasing incomes from value chain transactions (a supply side pathway); and 3) through changes in value chain organization and performance. These three pathways are interlinked and involve complex dynamics that are context specific. We introduce an innovative typology for conceptualizing and assessing these value chain interventions. The typology divides value chain interventions according to the adequacy of supply and demand. For example, where adequate supply and demand for a specific food exists, interventions should focus on optimizing the efficiency and flow of ‘nutrition’ added-value along the chain. Where demand is constrained or where overconsumption is a problem, interventions should focus primarily on changing consumption patterns, either directly (e.g., food transfers) or indirectly (e.g., social marketing). Where supply is constrained, interventions should focus on enhancing supply-side capacity by improving production practices, organizing production and post-harvest activities to increase efficiency, and facilitating the expansion of market opportunities. We conclude with a summary of key research areas in this emerging field.

Rationale Undernutrition causes over three million child deaths per year and was implicated in the stunting of at least 165 million children under five (Black et al. 2013). Micronutrient deficiencies, 283

Gelli et al.

including zinc and vitamin A, contribute to increased child and maternal mortality, while deficiencies of iron and iodine, coupled with stunting, also impair the development of infants and young children. In parallel, an estimated 43 million children under five years of age were overweight – a 54 per cent increase from 1990. The increasing rates of childhood overweight and obesity are likely to have important impacts on adult obesity, diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases. The prevalence of overweight and obesity doubled since 1980 (from 6 to 12 per cent globally), and the increase has accelerated (Stevens et al. 2012). Cross-country evidence indicates that income growth is associated with decreasing maternal and child undernutrition (Figure 16.1, this volume; see also: Haddad et al. 2003). Ruel and Alderman (2013) conclude that a 10 per cent increase in GDP was associated with a 6 per cent decrease in stunting and a 4 per cent decrease in women underweight. At the same time, a 10 per cent increase in GDP was associated with a 7 per cent increase in overweight and obesity in women (Figure 16.2, this volume). The coexistence of over- and under-nutrition has been captured in the literature as the result of the ‘nutrition transition’, which involves rapidly changing diets (increased consumption of calories, saturated fat and sugars), coupled with reductions in physical activity and increases in sedentary lifestyle (Anand et al. 2015). Analysis of the drivers of these trends is an active area of research. Particular attention has been drawn to the role of the changing food system and its influence on energy intake, although many other environmental and individual factors are involved (Swinburn et al. 2011). It is clear that economic growth alone cannot resolve the problem of under-nutrition and that it may, in fact, create other problems such as overweight and obesity, and increased risks of associated chronic diseases. Optimal nutrition is determined by dietary, behavioural and health determinants, influenced by underlying food security, caregiving resource and environmental conditions (Black et al. 2013). With regards to food intake in low-income settings, households typically subsist on monotonous staple-based diets. Lack of diet diversity is strongly associated with inadequate intake and risks of deficiencies of essential micronutrients (Ruel 2003; Arimond et al. 2010). Agricultural production is just one factor in the consumption and availability of nutrients (FAO 2011). Food is stored, distributed, processed, marketed, prepared, and consumed in a range of ways that affect the access, acceptability, and nutritional quality of foods for the consumer. Since the mid-1990s, value chain concepts have featured prominently in rural development discourse (Altenburg 2007; Humphrey and Navas-Alemán 2010; Stoian et al. 2012). As an approach to rural development, the value chain concept focuses on the governance of relations between actors along a chain, with particular reference to their impacts on smallholders and other, relatively powerless, chain participants. It is also important to distinguish between value chain development and value chain analysis. Value chain analysis is a method of analysis for understanding how lead firms (downstream large-scale traders, processors and retailers) influence the conditions under which smallholder participation in chains is structured. Value chain development is the application of this analysis to the poverty-reduction strategies of development agencies, donors, and governments. Interest in value chain development stems largely from an increased awareness among development organizations that success in increasingly complex agrifood markets often requires stronger collaboration among value chain actors, including producers, processors and retailers (Hobbs et al. 2000; Humphrey and Memedovic 2006). Value chain analysis and development have historically not considered nutrition, either in terms of improved nutrition of smallholder producers or of final consumers (Hawkes 2013). Because value chains play a key role in determining food availability, affordability, quality and acceptability, they provide opportunities to promote nutrition (Hawkes and Ruel 2011). Central to this approach is to identify opportunities where consumers and chain actors benefit from the production, marketing, and consumption of agricultural products of higher nutritional 284

Food value chains and nutrition

value. The potential for value chain framework to enhance nutrition lies in its ability to identify win–win outcomes for consumers (e.g., improved nutrition) and chain actors (e.g., increased income, market share). To date, however, the prospects of achieving improved nutrition through interventions in markets and value chains have been largely ignored. As a result, there is very little empirical evidence on the role of value chains in improving nutrition. However, what we do know, is now explored.

What we know about the links between value chains and nutrition Only a few case studies have focused on the value chain and the implications for food and nutrition outcomes. Maestre et al. (2014), with a focus on Tanzania, and Robinson et al. (2014b) with a focus on Nigeria, examine the potential for actors in chains for ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) to expand their sales. In both cases, expansion of RUTF sales was limited by weak demand, the inability to signal nutritional quality of the products to consumers, and limited access to high-quality inputs, among other factors. Drawing on the value chain analysis of groundnut and complementary foods, Anim-Somuah et al. (2013b) examine the constraints that inhibit private-sector involvement in value chains of nutritious foods in Ghana. Ubiquitous aflatoxin contamination, the inability to signal nutritional value, and a lack of traceability of foods were important areas for policy intervention. In addition, though a range of complementary foods was available on the market that met nutrition and safety standards, they were generally not affordable to the poor, highlighting the potential role of the public sector to promote pro-poor outcomes. Using the same framework in Nigeria, Robinson et al. (2014a) examined policy options for reducing undernutrition through market-based approaches. The study identified five major market constraints in the provision of nutrient-dense foods that were beyond the control of individual businesses, including low awareness of nutrition among low-income populations; absence of quality-signalling mechanisms; poorly organized supply chains for nutrient-dense foods, resulting in higher prices and low quality; expensive distribution networks for low-income populations; and complex business environments alongside low levels of trust in institutions. Frameworks that incorporate value chain concepts and nutrition-related objectives have also been evolving, with several important contributions published in recent years (Hawkes and Ruel 2011; Gómez and Ricketts 2013; Henson et al. 2013; Anim-Somuah et al. 2013a; Padulosi et al. 2014). Value chains for nutrition (VCN) are seen as a framework to understand the constraints, or market failures, in terms of the supply and demand for nutritious foods, and to design multi-stakeholder, multi-dimensional interventions to overcome the constraints. The constraints may be on the demand side of the chain (e.g., weak consumer demand) or supply side (e.g., nutrient loss through processing). While the public sector may be an important player in the design and implementation of interventions, what sets this approach apart is the strong focus on leveraging markets – which for the most part, involve the private sector – to improve food environments and help attain nutrition goals. VCN have the potential to link activities from stakeholders at different levels across agriculture, nutrition and health sectors within an integrated system. In particular: •

•

As value chains include activities from food production, post-harvest through to consumers, they provide useful lenses to characterize the broader food system and identify entry points for policies and interventions to improve nutrition. Conceptually, economic value can be examined alongside other added-value, including nutrition but also other potential effects along the value chain, including, e.g., environmental sustainability. 285

Gelli et al.

•

•

A broader perspective of a value chain (inclusive of public sector and NGO functions) can provide a window to intervene in areas where markets do not yet exist, fail to function adequately, or act counter to nutritional goals. By focusing on improving the quality of diets, VCN also provide a framework that is relevant to both overnutrition and undernutrition perspectives.

Pathways linking value chains and nutrition The scope of VCN interventions is both extensive and context specific. To help to understand the implications of the inherent complexity and begin to understand some of the trade-offs involved, we draw on previous work by Hawkes and Ruel (2011) to identify three generalized pathways through which value chain interventions could impact on nutrition: 1) leveraging demand; 2) leveraging supply of foods; and 3) increasing value chain efficiency as a whole. These pathways are interlinked and include important feedback effects. Moreover, they can be used as a basis on which to theorize the impact pathways of specific interventions in specific contexts, and, therefore, to collect evidence of impact (Rossi et al. 2004; Habicht et al. 1999). The pathways recognize that food-related nutritional impacts are derived from changes in the quality of the overall diet, not just the nutrient content of an individual food. The focus of value chain interventions has generally been on a specific food, rather than integrating a bundle of chains that would effectively contribute to enhanced quality of the diet (Henson 2013). Here we recognize there may be offsetting impacts from interventions in a single value chain such that, if a critical bottleneck to a particular value chain is removed and consumption of the associated food increases as a result, then consumption of other foods may decline. We thus enable the pathways to be used in a way that can improve dietary quality overall.

Impact pathways for improved nutrition through changes in food demand This pathway applies when food-related nutritional challenges arise as a result of issues on the demand side: under-consumption of, or low demand for, nutritious food, or excessive demand for unhealthy foods. In these cases, interventions can be implemented to influence demand and thereby improve food consumption patterns. Increased consumption of nutritious foods can be achieved through a combination of (‘b’ in Figure 19.1): 1 2

direct transfers, such as transfer of nutritious food through school meals, or vouchers, subsidies for consumption; and/or indirect market channels involving behaviour change campaigns or social marketing that promotes the consumption of, or willingness to pay for, the nutritious food, or discourages excess consumption of unhealthy food.

Potentially, VCN interventions can also act to dampen demand where consumption is unhealthily excessive. The food may be produced by the same households consuming the food (‘c’ in Figure 19.1) or may be purchased on the market (‘d’ in Figure 19.1). The availability (quantity available on the market), affordability (price) and quality (e.g., nutrient profile and safety) are key issues that influence consumption at the interface between the value chain and the food environment. The intake of the food complements the consumption of other foods in the diet (‘e’ in Figure 19.1), which may be self-produced or purchased on the market. The food may be shared within the household or consumed by only a few household members. It may also substitute for other foods that would have been normally consumed or for foods with 286

[h]

[i]

[…]

Changes in market opportunities and risk

Changes in production and post-harvest practices

[…]

[c]

[e]

Note: [c] = Production to consumption [d] = Income to consumption

[…]

Changes in production systems

Changes in sales and profits

[f] Changes in women’s time allocation and decision-making

[…]

Changes in feeding practices

Changes in health and hygiene practices

Changes in quantities of single (VC specific) nutritious food consumed [a]

Distal

Changes in diets

[c]

Outcomes

Changes in nutrition, health and care knowledge

Proximal

Typology of value chain intervention contexts based on the supply and demand of nutritious foods

[…]

Access to improved inputs and credit

Organizing producer groups for better supply side management

Training on production, post-harvest and marketing practices

Expansion of market opportunities

[g]

– nutrition content – food safety risk – price – quantity

Examples of interventions to influence supply

Interventions to enhance nutrition value

Food chain

Food environment & interface between supply and demand

[…]

Subsidies for consumption

Institutional feeding

Social marketing campaigns

Behaviour change communication campaigns

Source: Gelli et al. 2015.

Figure 19.1

Activities

Examples of interventions to influence demand [b]

[d]

Changes in income and economic status

Changes in health and nutrition status

Impact

Gelli et al.

similar properties. This point highlights the need to examine changes in overall diets and not just assess consumption of one food. All these effects are mediated to some degree by women’s role in the household, time allocation and decision-making (‘f’ in Figure 19.1). Improved diets, when accompanied by adequate feeding, health and hygiene practices can then contribute to improved health and nutrition. The impact of interventions on the nutrition and health status of consumers will depend on the nature of the needed dietary changes within the target populations. As a proxy for diet quality, one key potential change is to improve individual-level dietary diversity, which is strongly associated with micronutrient adequacy of diets for women (Arimond et al. 2010) and in children (FANTA 2007). Addressing micronutrient deficiencies can improve a range of health, nutrition and developmental outcomes in infants and young children, particularly if implemented alongside other demand-side value chain interventions like behaviour change on health and nutrition practices (Bhutta et al. 2013). Another key potential change is to reduce over-consumption of unhealthy foods while providing healthier alternatives. School-based behaviour change campaigns, for example, have been used to promote consumption of fruits and vegetables (Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2010), and reduce the intake of processed foods and beverages. Behaviour change campaigns can also be used to influence knowledge, attitudes and practices that are relevant to obesity, such as physical activity and the development of healthy eating habits. This pathway can also influence agriculture-based stakeholders involved in value-addition since greater effective demand for nutritious foods can lead to expanding marketing opportunities (‘g’ in Figure 19.1). This increased demand can play an important role in terms of stimulating agricultural production, particularly for smallholders who face market access constraints, especially as increased demand may be regular and predictable, providing a relatively stable revenue channel and seen as a low-risk venture for producers. The extent of the effect of the increased demand on prices will depend on the level of market integration. The potential effects on producers are captured in the following section, while the effects of provision of information regarding nutrient quality and food safety risks are examined further on.

Impact pathway for improved nutrition through changes in food supply This is the more recognizable value chain pathway, where interventions target one or more chain actors in the upstream segment of a value chain (e.g., producers and primary processors) who often face multiple constraints in responding to demand from actors further downstream (e.g., retailers and food processors). VCN interventions can target supply at any point along the value chain: from agricultural production, to production by processors; manufacturers and the foods made available in retailers or institutional settings. A similar results chain applies wherever the supply issue is found. Where there are constraints in supply, interventions would look to alleviate these constraints, and strengthen market channels while increasing production volumes, reducing transaction costs and risk, leading to increased efficiency and profits, and in time leading to improved incomes. With regard to agricultural production possible interventions include increasing overall yields or efficiencies through input provisions or training on improved management practices. Interventions include promoting the adoption (‘h’ in Figure 19.1) of advanced production technologies, or mechanisms to reduce input costs so production of those crops is relatively more profitable. The supply of particular foods can also be promoted through institutional reforms. The provision of insurance, access to credit and land titling, e.g., can stimulate increased investment in farming activities. 288

Food value chains and nutrition

VCN interventions can also influence the basket of products (e.g., crops for local consumption, rather than export, and crops with relatively high nutritional value) that are produced, supporting the production of higher-value crops and/or more nutritious crops through, e.g., the provision of seeds. The targeting of particular crops has to be undertaken in the context of the substitution between crops for production and consumption and the longterm impacts for both incomes and nutrition at multiple scales (i.e., from the household and village level to regional or national levels). As for the first pathway, the potential impacts extend beyond nutrition to agricultural producers and value chain enterprises. If supply-side constraints are not alleviated, additional demand could cause an increase in prices. The extent of this effect will depend on the level of market integration. Increased prices could create additional opportunities for smallholder producers (‘i’ in Figure 19.1). However, these relationships are complicated given that producers are often consumers as well (some being net food buyers rather than net food sellers at different points of the year). The social and nutritional effects of food price increases for net food-buyer smallholders are not straightforward. It depends upon the basket of goods being produced and how responsive production is to changes in prices. In addition to the increased supply of foods, increased production and incomes for smallholders could mean that some additional income feeds back into dietary decisions, further increasing consumption and demand for nutritious foods (‘d’ in Figure 19.1).

Impact pathway for improved nutrition through changes in value chain organization and performance Value chain governance determines the character of the links between the demand and supply pathways described in Figure 19.1, including the distribution of profits between value chain actors. In addition, value chain organization and efficiency mediates nutrient intake and diets. These processes occur through three mechanisms: supply volumes, price, and quality (including nutrition content and food safety). In this framing, both the nutrition content and food safety of a particular food can be enhanced or diminished at key points along the value chain. Conceptually, this is equivalent to internalizing these ‘pro-nutrition’ characteristics within an extended notion of value within the chain. However, for ‘nutrition added-value’ to influence the behaviour of chain actors (especially firms), requires: 1) reliable information on both nutrition quality/content and safety risk to be transmitted along the chain; and 2) a means to convert this information into price premiums recognizing nutrition content and food safety. This is extremely difficult, particularly in low-income settings. As nutrition value includes properties that are akin to those of credence goods, there are no incentives to pay for quality unless there is some form of visible, third-part activity which may be undertaken publicly (e.g., information campaigns) or privately (e.g., consumer reporting) (Minot 2014).

Gender: an important mediator of potential impact It is important to also examine the influence of a number of other crosscutting issues that influence value chain processes and impact pathways. Primary amongst these is gender. There is growing evidence that women’s empowerment is a fundamental driver of improving nutritional outcomes (van den Bold 2013), especially when women are involved in agricultural production and value addition (Quisumbing et al. 2014). At the same time, agricultural development, especially related to expansion and formalization of markets, may inadvertently disempower women by adding to their time burden and/or reducing their control over income, 289

Gelli et al.

which could have negative consequences for diet and nutrition outcomes. Participation in value chains carries tremendous opportunities to expand benefits to women by increasing women’s assets, skills, and decision-making power within both household and community (see also Tanimichi Hoberg, chapter 28, this volume).

Identifying and designing value chain interventions to improve nutrition Building on the analysis of the VCN impact pathways, we can define a ‘value chain for nutrition approach’ as the process of developing strategies to address nutrition problems through interventions that alleviate constraints in demand and supply in specific value chains. The structure of strategies is based on the pathways through which VCN interventions can be expected to improve nutrition, based on the three main channels discussed above. We can develop this approach further through a series of steps outlined below, including diagnostics of the problem and the context, followed by the development of possible solutions (including the identification of entry points for intervention across one or more value chains).

Diagnostics to enable identification of appropriate value chain interventions The aims of the diagnostics are to link a set of nutrition problems of target populations to possible constraints in the supply and demand of specific foods that can then be addressed by interventions. In this framework, these diagnostics can be broken down into a series of five key steps, building on that described in Timmer et al. (1983) and more recently in WHO (2013b). It is important to note that some of the data requirements involved are complex and it is essential to be pragmatic in terms of the detail and intensity of the analysis involved. Drawing on existing data sets will be particularly relevant. Steps 1 to 3 involve mainly secondary data analysis on nutrition, diets, and food systems, providing the basis for primary data collection centred on value chain analyses (Step 4), and cost-effectiveness simulations (Step 5).

Step 1: identifying the nutrition problem to be addressed This step provides evidence on the factors that are contributing to nutrition problems and the extent of their contribution, some of which may be dietary while others may not. The starting point is to characterize the ‘nutritional problem’, including nutritional status, dietary patterns and feeding practices (UNICEF 1990). This will also broadly identify existing gendered constraints and opportunities in terms of access, intake and utilization of nutritious foods, including nutrition knowledge, preferences, attitudes and practices. Both under- and overnutrition should be considered. Potential target groups would also be identified for intervention.

Step 2: analysis of the macro-level food systems context This step includes both examining the macro-level context, or the ‘enabling environment’, and characterizing secular and seasonal trends in food systems. The range of dimensions involved includes policy and governance, political environment, socio-cultural norms and practices, and climatic and other environmental conditions. This step also includes an analysis of food balance sheets, e.g., in order to capture secular trends in terms of food supply. A detailed analysis of these dimensions is beyond the scope of this work and remains an important area for future research. 290

Food value chains and nutrition

Step 3: characterizing diets, identifying constraints and relative contributions of key foods This step involves examining data on diets and consumption patterns, comparing actual intake to the requirements and recommended intake for specific target groups, generally defined by age and sex. Understanding the dietary constraints in a specific location involves the development of typologies of diets, including, e.g., food baskets or bundles based on location-specific dietary data and dietary guidelines, that are converted to equivalent nutritional bundles using food composition tables. The different bundles can be compared to the dietary requirements for specific groups. The analysis would also need to be disaggregated by nutrient type to enable the identification of nutrient deficiencies or excesses (Ferguson et al. 2004). This type of analysis provides data on the relative contributions and prioritization of different commodities in terms of their contribution to overall diets and nutritional intake, as well as providing an understanding of the gaps that can be filled and the recommended diets to meet these needs. Costing these diet-based food bundles using market prices provides insights on the costs of an actual diet, the potential market opportunity and also provides a basis for cost per nutrient metrics against which the cost-efficiency of interventions can later be benchmarked (Maillot et al. 2008). As collecting dietary data is resource intensive, it is important to identify existing data sources as well as gaps that would require further investments. This step can be used to also identify foods that are: 1) nutrition-poor or contaminated (through loss of nutrition value or increased food safety risks across a chain); 2) under-consumed; 3) ‘missing’ (e.g., new varieties); and 4) over-consumed (e.g., foods that are being consumed but are not healthy).

Step 4: value chain analyses also examining nutrition and food safety value addition This step identifies the constraints in supply and demand of nutritious foods. In addition, it also identifies potential entry points for intervention along relevant chains. Once commodities have been prioritized in the context of the total diet, the focus shifts to undertaking supply and value chain analyses for the target foods. In this step, the value chain analysis is broadened to include assessments of ‘nutrition value’, including nutrient density and food safety alongside measures of food quantity, prices and margins at key points along the chain. In this framing, both the nutrition content and food safety of a particular food can be enhanced or diminished at key points along the value chain. Additionally, this analysis involves identifying market failures and/or constraints in the supply and demand. For example, smallholder farmers may not grow optimal amounts of nutritious foods from an economic perspective because they lack access to inputs or output markets. This supply gap may also be related to the inability to insure against the risks of producing such foods or potentially because of health impacts from consuming unsafe foods due to inadequate regulations or enforcement of food safety regulations. There are a range of other factors that can impact the supply of these foods. The gender of the producer may contribute to different constraints to producing nutritious foods. For example, women producers may not be inclined to supply the market if they are not able to control the income from crop sales. Traders and processors in the informal sector may not have access to information and technology to maintain the quality and safety of perishable foods. While advances are needed in this regard, it is also important that it is balanced, since initiatives to meet food safety standards for access to export markets might lead to inappropriate regulation in domestic markets that is ineffective in terms of improving food safety and may harm the poor. 291

Gelli et al.

Step 5: prioritizing intervention options This final step provides the evidence to prioritize and justify investments in specific interventions. Once the constraints and opportunities have been identified within specific value chains, including identifying different target groups for intervention, the emphasis shifts towards guiding investment decisions, including the development of criteria to prioritize the range of interventions identified in Step 4. This can include the development of business and investment case models that simulate the potential costs, effects and returns to investment for scaling-up the interventions. These models will need to consider short-term effects as well as long-term effects on these sectors and the feedback loops that exist between them.

Designing relevant value chain interventions Once the diagnostics are complete and a target value chain has been identified, the focus shifts to designing interventions aimed at alleviating the constraints in demand and supply within that specific value chain. The range of possible interventions is broad, including research to address critical knowledge gaps, direct public and/or private investment to build capacity of value chain actors or to influence consumption patterns, and government policy and regulation. In some cases, interventions along a chain will be relatively straightforward. This may be the case, e.g., when solutions involve providing nutritional information on a given food that is already widely produced and consumed, or fortifying selected foods. In other cases, interventions along a value chain will be relatively intensive, requiring long-term investments to stimulate changes in production, processing, and marketing. The most intensive interventions will be required when major gaps or barriers exist in both the supply and demand of a specific food. This situation may emerge, e.g., for a new product with considerable nutritional value as it is introduced to consumers, but adequate sources of supply have yet to evolve, as in the case of ready-to-use complementary foods. This case could also apply to specific pro-poor interventions in both supply and demand, where, e.g., smallholders are targeted to supply foods for public distribution programmes. The variation in intensity of investments on the supply and demand sides can be used to characterize a set of typologies for specific value chain interventions. An example is shown in Figure 19.2. In this figure, the vertical axis represents the variation in existing demand (i.e., high or low demand for foods). The horizontal axis represents the differences in the production and post-harvest supply chain for these foods. Here we use the term ‘adequate supply’ to refer to the condition where there is no major supply-side constraint. Where adequate supply and demand for a specific food exists, interventions would focus on optimizing the efficiency and flow of nutrition added-value along the chain. Where there is a demand-side constraint, interventions would work primarily to influence consumption, either directly (e.g., food transfers) or indirectly (e.g., social marketing) changing market demand. Where supply is constrained, interventions would focus on enhancing supply-side capacity by improving production practices, organizing production and post-harvest activities to increase efficiency, and facilitating the expansion of market opportunities. Where demand and supply are excessive, interventions would focus on reducing demand and supply.

Interventions to change the supply of food In some contexts, ample demand for a specific nutritious food from consumers may exist but the supply side is constrained (quadrant B of Figure 19.2). In this case, interventions would mainly aim to relax these constraints by, e.g., improving the organization of production or introducing new production technologies to enhance the supply. The more immediate intended effects of 292

+

Potential problems may relate to limited awareness of health benefits, costs, competition from unhealthy snacks…etc.

Value chains for fruits and vegetables in areas where fruit and vegetable consumption is not prioritized by local consumers

Example:

+

Possible interventions: • Social marketing to stimulate demand • Adjustments in the regulatory framework • Subsidies for consumption • Support for marketing by retailers • Public purchasing programmes

C) Low demand and adequate supply

Potential problems may relate to high costs, inconsistent quality, limited attention to food safety etc. or overconsumption of unhealthy foods

Possible interventions: • Improved business and regulatory environment (food safety) • Upgrades in technologies • Improved mechanisms for coordination between chain actors • Taxation of unhealthy foods

A) High demand and adequate supply

Dairy and meat products, where there is an existing ample base of suppliers. Sugar sweetened beverages, where demand has been created through marketing and supply is ample

Example:

Supply

Possible interventions: • Building capacities for primary production • Producer organization • Social marketing to stimulate demand • Subsidies for consumption • Incentives for risk taking by processors and retailers

Impact theory of supply and demand side value chain interventions

–

Potential problems may relate to production capacity, inefficient aggregation and other post-harvest coupled with limited awareness of health benefits, costs…etc.

Value chains for lesser-know fruits and vegetables, or bio-fortified crops, with exceptional nutritional qualities, but with limited production for markets

Example:

D) Low demand and inadequate supply

Potential problems may relate to low production capacity, inefficient aggregation and other post-harvest processes…etc.

Possible interventions: • Innovation in production technologies • Innovation in the formulation of inputs for production (and improved access to inputs) • Organization of producers to supply higher volumes • Facilitation for the expansion of market outlets

B) High demand and inadequate supply

Beans and legumes in India, steady increase in demand not followed by supply side investments

Example:

Source: Gelli et al. 2014.

Figure 19.2

–

Demand

Gelli et al.

interventions involve changes in production and post-harvest practices, risks from climate and markets, prices and price stability. In other cases, interventions could introduce new types of nutritious foods (quadrant D of Figure 19.2). When introducing a new food within the target population, interventions would aim to develop a functioning and stable source of supply while at the same time investing in demand promotion for the food. This quadrant captures interventions that generally require the most intensive investments on both the production and consumption sides. The introduction of fortified foods are examples of interventions in this quadrant. In other cases, the intervention would aim to reduce the supply of unhealthy foods. For example, by setting nutrient- and food-based standards for the foods available in institutional settings like schools.

Interventions to change demand for food Where the context includes value chains for foods that are widely produced but are not consumed by the target populations (quadrant C of Figure 19.2), interventions would strive to enhance the demand for the nutritious foods, through social marketing campaigns or public procurement programmes like school meals. Behaviour change campaigns can combine the promotion of both the consumption of specific foods, and healthy behaviours and feeding practices. The immediate effects of interventions in this quadrant centre on changes in consumption, health and nutrition practices and women’s time allocation and role in household decision-making. Behaviour change campaigns can also be used to reduce demand for unhealthy foods (Quadrant B of Figure 19.2), as can fiscal measures like taxes.

Interventions to enhance value chain organization and performance Where demand and supply exist for a nutritious food, interventions would focus on optimizing transactions in the existing chain and enhancing the ‘nutrition’ added-value along the chain (quadrant A of Figure 19.2). This could be achieved by reducing the overall costs per nutrient output (through, e.g., fortification), by combining different foods, or by reducing contamination and food safety risks. Interventions in this quadrant can target specific points in the value chain where efficiencies can be introduced, or where nutritional/food safety leakages exist. Alternatively, interventions in this quadrant may look to provide information at key points in the chain or enhance overall flows of information along the chain. Interventions involving the provision of quality assurance and improved regulatory frameworks are also relevant in this quadrant and can lead to important gains in efficiency. This is demonstrated in the case of the school meals programme in Chile where improved tendering regulations increased transparency of financial flows and reduced transaction costs considerably (Epstein et al. 2004). The main immediate results of these types of intervention include increased efficiency (e.g., enhanced nutrient content or reduced contamination per unit price of food), or increased knowledge and willingness to pay for a nutritious and safe food.

Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of the potential direct and indirect effects of value chain activities across agriculture, nutrition, and health. We contend the VCN approach can address a set of nutrition problems by framing these issues around supply and demand characteristics in specific value chains. We now conclude by summarizing some of the major research themes in this emerging multi-disciplinary field. 294

Food value chains and nutrition

Influencing demand and supply of foods On the demand side, a central issue is how to promote consumption of nutritious foods to target populations that may or may not be able to afford a healthy diet. Another issue is how to reduce demand for unhealthy foods. The emphasis on the consumer side centres on understanding the ‘nutrition problem’. Understanding consumers and intra-household dynamics, including gender roles, however, is not straightforward. Data on diets, a starting point for planning and adopting a VCN approach, are expensive to collect. An evidence gap on costs of diets is a major barrier in terms of understanding economic constraints in terms of achieving healthy diets and the potential market opportunities for value chain products. In contexts where interventions aim to increase the consumption of nutritious foods, important questions remain on how to reach the most vulnerable at scale, not only from a short-term public health perspective but also from a long-term sustainability standpoint. This also applies to demand-side considerations around the issue of over-consumption. Understanding the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of scale-up of alternative strategies to promote improved health and nutrition behaviour is another important area for research. From the agricultural production side, the focus is on involving smallholder farmers, supporting diversification, and increasing output of nutritious foods while developing reliable marketing channels for these products. However, there is considerable heterogeneity and multiple factors to consider; with many smallholders being net buyers throughout the year, price effects could have a range of impacts on these producers. On the supply side, key questions surround the feasibility of targeting the poorest smallholders and informal enterprises for intervention along the value chain; these are also more likely to involve women. Where the supply and demand for nutritious products already exists, the key focus is on interventions that enhance the nutrition added-value along the chain, including, at a minimum, nutrition content, food safety risks, prices, and quantities. Questions remain on how to provide credible, effective and affordable means of certification for nutrition value and food safety, particularly in low-income settings.

Managing trade-offs At a strategic level, win–win outcomes for smallholders and consumers may be possible but not certain, and the trade-offs across different outcomes require careful, context-specific analysis. For example, putting consumers first might not be compatible or cost-efficient, at least in the short term, with sourcing from smallholders. However, by examining the costs and effects of interventions explicitly, it may be possible to justify any additional resources required for pro-smallholder engagement, or at least provide insights on longer-term solutions involving smallholders. For smallholders, an important trade-off is reflected in the tension between increasing incomes and enhancing consumption of nutritious foods: the most profitable crops may be those with lower nutritional value (Henson et al. 2013). Understanding the effects of seasonality across demand and supply pathways, including health, dietary, and production variations, will be important (Devereux et al. 2008). It will also be important to understand the trade-offs involving household-level decisions and gender relations that mediate the effects on the nutrition, health, and agriculture pathways. On one hand, value chain activities involving processing may involve new products that are easier to prepare and have enhanced nutritional content. On the other hand, women’s labour involvement in the value chain activities, including food production and processing, may reduce the time available for caring for younger children. Considering these gender-related trade-offs will be an important priority for impact evaluations in this field. 295

Gelli et al.

Multidisciplinary tools and methods Finally, the complex and context-specific nature of VCN highlights the need for a set of comprehensive and flexible assessment tools to support the design and evaluation of interventions. Appropriate evaluation methods are required to suit the breadth and complexity involved (LCIRAH/N-CRSP 2012). In terms of metrics, capturing overall performance of VCN interventions also requires the collection of indicators from all the relevant stakeholders involved in value chain activities. The breadth of indicators that are required to examine the whole system is clearly considerable, and in practical terms this poses another challenge to evaluators. In this context, prioritizing different indicators across the relevant disciplines, particularly in choosing primary evaluation outcomes, will be critical.

Acknowledgements This chapter draws on content from previous work developed by an interdisciplinary group working under the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH). This research was supported by the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), led by IFPRI.

References Ahmed, A. and Sharma, M. 2007. Home grown school feeding programs to support farmers in Africa: economic modeling and supply response. Project report prepared for the UN World Food Programme. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Altenburg, T. 2007. Donor approaches to supporting pro-poor value chains. Donor Committee for Enterprise Development. Available at: www.enterprise-development.org/page/library-item?id=386. Anand, S., Hawkes, C., de Souza, R. J., Mente, A., Dehghan, M., Nugent, R., Zulyniak, M. A., Weis, A., Bernstein, A. M., Krauss, R. M., Kromhout, D., Jenkins, D. J. A., Malik, V., Miguel, A., MartinezGonzalez, A., Mozaffarian, D., Yusuf, S., Willett, W. C. and Popkin, B. M. 2015. Food Consumption and its Impact on Cardiovascular Disease: Importance of Solutions Focused on the Globalized Food System: A Report From the Workshop Convened by the World Heart Federation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 66(14): 1590–1614. Anim-Somuah, H., Henson, S., Humphrey, J. and Robinson, E. 2013a. Policy guidelines: enhancing markets for nutrient-dense foods in Ghana. Institute of Development Studies evidence report, 28. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Anim-Somuah, H., Henson, S., Humphrey, J. and Robinson, E. 2013b. Strengthening agri-food value chains for nutrition: mapping value chains for nutrient-dense foods in Ghana. Institute of Development Studies evidence report, 2. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Arimond, M., Hawkes, C., Ruel, M., Sifri, Z., Berti, P., LeRoy, J., Low, J., Brown, L. and Frongillo, E. 2011. Agricultural interventions and nutrition: lessons from the past and new evidence. In Combating micronutrient deficiencies: food-based approaches. Thompson, B. and Amoroso, L. (eds.). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/CAB International. Arimond, M., Wiesmann, D., Becquey, E., Carriquiry, A., Daniels, M. C. and Deitchler, M. et al. 2010. Simple food group diversity indicators predict micronutrient adequacy of women’s diets in 5 diverse, resource-poor settings. Journal of Nutrition, 140(11): 2059S–2069S. Bacon, C. 2005. Confronting the coffee crisis: can fair trade, organic, and specialty coffees reduce smallscale farmer vulnerability in northern Nicaragua? World Development, 33(3): 497–511. Bhutta, Z. A., Das, J. K., Arjumand, R. M., Gaffey, F., Walker, N. and Horton, S. et al. 2013. Evidencebased interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? The Lancet, 382(9890): 452–477. Black, R. E., Victora, C., Walker, S. P., Bhutta, Z. A., Christian, P. and De Onis, M. et al. 2013. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low- and middle-income countries. The Lancet, 382(9890): 427–451. Bundy, D. A. P., Burbano, C., Grosh, M., Gelli, A., Jukes, M. and Drake, L. 2009. Rethinking school feeding: social safety nets, child development, and the education sector. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

296

Food value chains and nutrition Carletto, C., Gourlay, S. and Winters, P. 2013. From guesstimates to GPStimates: land area measurement and implications for agricultural analysis. World Bank policy research working paper, WPS 6550. Caldes, N. and Ahmed, A. U. 2004. Food for education: a review of program impacts. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. De Carvalho, F., Dom, B. S., Fiadzigbey, M., Filer, S., Kpekpena, I. and Lin, C. et al. 2011. Ghana school feeding program: retooling for a sustainable future. London: Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration and University of California Berkeley Haas School of Business. Devereux, S., Vaitla, B. and Hauenstein-Swan, S. 2008. Seasons of hunger: fighting cycles of starvation among the world’s rural poor. London: Pluto Press in association with Action Against Hunger, ACF International Network. Diskin, P. 1999. Agricultural productivity indicators measurement guide. Arlington, VA: Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring Project, ISTI, for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Drewnowski, A. 2005. Concept of a nutritious food: toward a nutrient density score. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82(4): 721–732. Epstein, R., Henriquez, L., Catalan, J., Weintraub, G., Martinez, C. and Espejo, F. 2004. A combinatorial auction improves school meals in Chile: a case of OR in developing countries. International Transactions in Operational Research, 11: 593–612. FANTA (Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance). 2007. Developing and validating simple indicators of dietary quality of infants and young children in developing countries: additional analysis of 10 data sets. Washington, D.C.: Working Group on Infant and Young Child Feeding Indicators. Ferguson, E. L., Darmon, N., Briend, A. and Premachandra, I. M. 2004. Food-based dietary guidelines can be developed and tested using linear programming analysis. J Nutr, 134(4): 951–957. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2011. Rural households’ livelihood and well-being statistics on rural development and agriculture household income. Rome: FAO. Gelli, A., Cavallero, A., Minervini, L., Mirabile, M., Molinas, L. and de la Mothe, M. R. 2011. New benchmarks for costs and cost-efficiency of school-based feeding programs in food-insecure areas. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 32(4): 324–332. Gelli, A., Hawkes, C., Donovan, J., Harris, J., Allen, S., de Brauw, A., Henson, S., Johnson, N., Garrett, J. and Ryckembusch, D. 2014. Value Chains and Nutrition: A Framework to Support the Identification, Design, and Evaluation of Interventions. IFPRI Discussion Paper, 01413. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Gelli, A., Hawkes, C., Donovan, J., Harris, J., Allen, S., de Brauw, A., Henson. S,, Johnson, N., Garrett, J. and Ryckembusch, D. 2015. Value Chains and Nutrition: A Framework to Support the Identification, Design, and Evaluation of Interventions. IFPRI Discussion Paper, 01413. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Gelli, A., Kretschmer, A., Molinas, L. and de la Mothe, M. R. 2013. A comparison of supply chains for school food: exploring operational trade-offs across implementation models. London: Partnership for Child Development. Gómez, M., Barrett, C., Buck, L., De Groote, H., Ferris, S., Gao, O. et al. 2011. Research principles for developing country food value chains. Science, 332(6034): 1154–1155. Gómez, M., and Ricketts, K. D. 2013. Food value chain transformations in developing countries: selected hypotheses on nutritional implications. Food Policy 42: 139–150. Habicht, J. P., Victora, C. G. and Vaughan, J. P. 1999. Evaluation designs for adequacy, plausibility and probability of public health programme performance and impact. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28(1): 10–18. Haddad, L., Alderman, H., Appleton, S., Song, L. and Yohannes, Y. 2003. Reducing child malnutrition: how far does income growth take us? World Bank Economic Review, 17(1): 107–131. Hawkes, C. 2009. Identifying innovative interventions to promote healthy eating using consumptionoriented food supply chain analysis. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 4: 336–356. Hawkes, C. 2012. Identifying effective policy to address the multiple burdens of malnutrition. Presented at the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2), Preparatory Technical Meeting. Rome: FAO. Hawkes, C. 2013. Applying food supply and value-chain concepts for achieving positive nutrition outcomes. Presentation at the Meeting of the Minds on Nutrition Impact of Food Systems, Geneva. Hawkes, C., and Ruel, M. 2011. Value chains for nutrition. 2020 Conference: Leveraging agriculture for improving nutrition and health: Conference paper, 4. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Hawkes, C., Friel, S. Lobstein, T. and Lang, T. 2012. Linking agricultural policies with obesity and noncommunicable diseases: a new perspective for a globalizing world. Food Policy, 37: 343–353. Henson, S. 2013. Understanding how value chains create food system outcomes: Bangladesh. Presentation at the A4NH workshop. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

297

Gelli et al. Henson, S., Humphrey, J. and McClafferty, B. 2013. Nutritious agriculture by design: a tool for program planning. GAIN-IDS discussion paper. Washington, D.C.: Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition. Hobbs, J., Cooney, A. and Fulton, M. 2000. Value chains in the agri-food sector: What are they? How do they work? Are they for me? Saskatchewan, Canada: University of Saskatchewan. Humphrey, J. and Memedovic, O. 2006. Global value chains in the agrifood sector. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Humphrey, J. and Navas-Alemán, L. 2010. Value chains, donor interventions and poverty reduction: a review of donor practice. IDS research report, 63. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. LCIRAH/N-CRSP. 2012. Integrating agriculture and nutrition actions to improve maternal and child nutrition: Research on program impact pathways. Report of an LCIRAH/N-CRSP workshop, London, June 28–29. Maestre, M., Robinson, E., Humphrey, J. and Henson, S. 2014. The role of businesses in providing nutrient-rich foods for the poor: a case study in Tanzania. IDS evidence report, 52. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Maillot, M., Ferguson, E. L., Drewnowski, A. and Darmon, N. 2008. Nutrient profiling can help identify foods of good nutritional quality for their price: a validation study with linear programming. J Nutr, 138(6): 1107–1113. Minot, N. 2014. Value chains for nutrition: market environment and chain performance. Presentation at the workshop on developing a theory based framework to support the M&E of value chains for nutrition. Washington D.C.: IFPRI. Padulosi, S., Amaya, K., Jäger, M., Gotor, E., Rojas, W. and Valdivia, R. 2014. A holistic approach to enhance the use of neglected and underutilized species: the case of Andean grains in Bolivia and Peru. Sustainability, 6: 1283–1312. Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T. L., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J. A. and Peterman, A. 2014. Closing the knowledge gap on gender in agriculture. Netherlands: Springer. Robinson, E., Akinyele, I., Humphrey, J. and Henson, S. 2014a. Policy options to enhance markets for nutrient-dense foods in Nigeria. IDS evidence report, 66. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Robinson, E., Nwuneli, N., Henson, S. and Humphrey, J. 2014b. Mapping value chains for nutrientdense foods in Nigeria. IDS evidence report, 65. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. and Freeman, H. E. 2004. Evaluation: a systematic approach. London: Sage. Ruel, M. T. 2003. Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of measurement issues and research priorities. Journal of Nutrition, 133(11): 3911S–3926S. Ruel, M. T., Alderman, H. and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Study Group. 2013. Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programs: how can they help to accelerate progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? The Lancet, 382(9891): 536–551. Stevens, G. A., Singh, G. M., Lu, Y., Danaei, G., Lin, J. K., Finucane, M. M., and Ezzati, M. 2012. National, regional, and global trends in adult overweight and obesity prevalences. Population Health Metrics, 10(22): 10–22. Stoian, D., Donovan, J., Fisk, J. and Muldoon, M. 2012. Value chain development for rural poverty reduction: a reality check and a warning. Enterprise Development and Microfinance, 23(1): 54–69. Swinburn, B. A., Sacks, G., Hall, K. D., McPherson, K., Finegood, D. T., Moodie, M. L. and Gortmaker S. L. 2011. The global obesity pandemic: shaped by global drivers and local environments. The Lancet, 378(9793): 804–814. Timmer, C. P., Falcon, W. P., Pearson, S. R. 1984. Food policy analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. UNICEF. 1990. Strategy for improved nutrition of children and women in developing countries. Geneva: UNICEF. Van Cauwenberghe, E., Maes, L., Spittaels, H., van Lenthe, F. J., Brug, J., Oppert, J. M. et al. 2010. Effectiveness of school-based interventions in Europe to promote healthy nutrition in children and adolescents: systematic review of published and ‘grey’ literature. British Journal of Nutrition, 103(6): 781–797. van den Bold, M., Quisumbing, A. R. and Gillespie, S. 2013. Women’s empowerment and nutrition: an evidence review. IFPRI discussion paper, 1294. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). World Bank. 2007. Moving toward competitiveness: a value chain approach. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Health Organization (WHO). 2013a. Changing mindsets: strategy on health policy and systems research. Geneva: WHO. World Health Organization (WHO). 2013b. Guiding principles and framework manual for the development or adaptation of nutrient profile models. Geneva: WHO.

298

20 SMALLHOLDERS, AGRO-BIODIVERSITY AND MIXED CROPPING AND LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS Jessica Fanzo, Roseline Remans and Celine Termote

Introduction The contribution of family farms and in particular smallholder farms to food and nutrition security (FNS) has been gaining global attention in low-, middle- and high-income countries. With more than 500 million family farms in the world out of 570 million farms, family farming is the predominant mode of agricultural production in the world, producing about 80 per cent of the world’s food in value terms, and collectively the largest source of employment worldwide (FAO 2014). The United Nations General Assembly declared 2014 the International Year of Family Farming (IYFF) in order to raise the profile of family farming in national policy agendas. While small farms, as well as other small and micro-sized food businesses, have an important role to play in supporting the local economy and food security in rural areas, this is often placed in contrast with the perceived benefits of large farm structures. This comparison, arguing for the benefits of economies of scale however, tends to downplay the efficiency of smallholdings and the environmental and social aspects of sustainability (FAO 2014). These aspects include the ability of small farms to maintain more diverse mixed production systems and mosaic landscapes, which offer potential higher resilience for food and nutrition security under climate change, market and political instabilities. Safeguarding agro-biodiverse systems for current and future options is becoming a critical challenge in a globalized food system with increasing homogeneity in national food supplies (Khoury et al. 2014). It is therefore important to gain a better understanding of the role and mechanisms of smallholders’ contributions to food and nutrition security. Within this context, this chapter focuses on the nexus of smallholders, agro-biodiversity and human nutrition. First, we formulate a suite of working definitions on related concepts, from smallholders to agrobiodiversity and systems diversity. Second, the nutritional and multi-functionality of agrobiodiversity from smallholder systems is explored and illustrated with case studies from a variety of settings. This is followed by a discussion of current trends and constraints to leverage the potential of smallholders’ agro-biodiversity for nutrition security. Finally, looking to the future, we formulate policy options of how food systems can benefit from empowering smallholders through agro-biodiversity management to improve nutrition and environmental health. 299

Fanzo et al.

Concepts: defining smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed system diversity Smallholders and family farms The term ‘smallholder’ refers to limited resource endowments, particularly land size, relative to other farmers in the sector (Dixon et al. 2004). Therefore, the working definition of smallholders differs between countries and between agro-ecosystems. Land tenure systems and history, as well as social, political and economic factors, have influenced the types of farming systems that shape the landscape. In favourable areas with high population densities they often cultivate less than one hectare of land, whereas in semi-arid areas, they may cultivate 10 hectares or more, or manage 10 head of livestock. Not only does smallholder farm size vary, but also their allocation of resources for food, cash crops, livestock and off-farm activities, their use of external inputs and hired labour, the proportion of food crops which are sold, and their household expenditure pattern. Most smallholders have diverse sources of livelihood, including significant off-farm income. Their farming systems, household strategies and behaviour, and livelihood patterns, are determined by resource endowments and institutional environments. The gender of decision makers also counts. It is therefore essential to analyze the farm household as a unit within the context of the local economy, community and agro-climatic environment (Dixon et al. 2004; Ellis 2000). The term ‘family farm’ has been defined as farms that rely primarily on family labour (FAO 2014). Smallholders are mostly family farms and the terms are sometimes used alternately. Smallholders and family farms can be found along the whole spectrum of food producers: from livestock to crop production, and from staple food to cash crop producers. They produce for both subsistence and local markets and sometimes as cooperatives for wider reaching national and international markets (FAO 2014). It is often said that the Asia-Pacific region is the global home of small-scale family farmers. The region holds 60 per cent of the world’s population and 70 per cent of its smallholders. Small-scale food producers, farmers, fishers and herders produce 80 per cent of the region’s food (FAO 2014). In sub-Saharan Africa, about 60 per cent of the farms are smaller than one hectare, and these farms make up close to 20 per cent of the farmland. Further, 95 per cent of farms are smaller than five hectares and make up the majority of farmland in sub-Saharan Africa. In Latin America and the Caribbean, family farmers currently produce up to 70 per cent of the basic food basket of various countries in the region. In the European Union, apart from France, family farms account for more than 85 per cent of all farms. In North America, the number of farms is reducing rapidly. The dominant North American production model, based on capital and technology, is reducing the number of smallholders and family farms and emptying the countryside. The number of farms has decreased by 10 per cent between the last two censuses, both in the United States and Canada (FAO 2014).

Agro-biodiversity Agricultural biodiversity, or agro-biodiversity (Figure 20.1), is defined as the variety of animals, plants and microorganisms that are used directly or indirectly for food and agriculture, including crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries (FAO-PAR 2011). It comprises the diversity of genetic resources (varieties, breeds) and species used for food, fodder, fibre, fuel and pharmaceuticals. It also includes the diversity of non-harvested species that support production processes (soil microorganisms, predators, pollinators), and those in the wider environment that support agroecosystems (agricultural, pastoral, forest and aquatic) as well as the diversity of the agro-ecosystems. Agro-biodiversity is the result of natural continuous selection processes and the careful selection and inventive developments of farmers, herders, fishers, consumers and landscape managers over millennia. Agro-biodiversity is a vital subset of biodiversity. Many people’s food 300

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems

Biodiversity

Mixed agro-ecosystems Crop species and varieties Livestock and fish species Plant and animal germplasm Soil organisms in cultivated areas Biocontrol agents for crop and livestock species Wild species as landraces or with breeding Cultural and local knowledge of diversity

Agrobiodiversity

Figure 20.1 Agricultural biodiversity Source: Adapted from FAO-PAR 2011.

and livelihood security depend on the sustained management of various biological resources and their evolutionary processes that are important for food and agriculture. There are several distinctive features of agro-biodiversity, compared to other components of biodiversity: • •

•

• •

•

Agro-biodiversity is actively managed by male and female farmers. Many components of agro-biodiversity would not survive without this human interference; local knowledge, culture, land tenure and management practices are integral parts of agrobiodiversity management. Many economically important agricultural systems are based on ‘alien’ crop or livestock species introduced from elsewhere (e.g., horticultural production systems or Friesian cows in Africa). This creates a high degree of interdependence between countries for the genetic resources on which our food systems are based. With regard to crop diversity, diversity within species is at least as important as diversity between species. Because of the degree of human management, in-situ conservation of agro-biodiversity in production systems is inherently linked to sustainable use – preservation through establishing protected areas is less relevant. In industrial-type agricultural systems, much crop diversity is now held ex-situ in gene banks or breeders’ materials rather than on-farm. This allows safeguarding of existing biodiversity but does not contribute to the evolutionary processes happening in agricultural landscapes and that play a role in adaptation to changing conditions.

Throughout the course of human history, humans have used roughly 7,000 plant species as food in addition to a wide array of animal, insect and other species including fungi, algae, yeasts and bacteria (Wilson 1992) (see also de Vicente, chapter 4, this volume). Around the world there are currently thousands of plant species used for food; however, only around 200 of these supply most plant-derived human nutrition (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002). While several varieties of the same crop may be grown, only a small number of crops provide the majority of human nutrition at the global level. Wheat, rice and maize alone contribute roughly 56 per cent of the global dietary energy (calories) supply derived directly from plants (FAO 1997; Hunter et al. 2015). Agro-biodiversity also provides ecosystem services on farms, such as pollination, fertility and nutrient enhancement, insect and disease management, and water retention (Thrupp 2000). Nonetheless, predominant patterns of agricultural growth have eroded biodiversity in, e.g., plant 301

Fanzo et al.

genetic resources, livestock, insects and soil organisms (Thrupp 2000). Agro-biodiversity furthermore includes species with underexploited potential for contributing to food security, health, income generation, and ecosystem services. Terms such as underutilized, neglected, orphan, minor, promising, niche, local and traditional are frequently used interchangeably to describe these potentially useful plant and animal species, which are not mainstream, but which have a significant local importance as well as a considerable global potential for improving ecosystems, livelihoods, resiliency and potentially food and nutrition security. The major causes of neglect and underuse of these important species are often related to factors that include poor economic competitiveness with commodity cereal crops, a lack of crop improvement, poor cultivation practices, inefficiencies in processing and value addition, disorganized or non-existent market chains as well as a perception of these foods as being ‘food of the poor’ (Jaenicke et al. 2009).

Agro-ecosystems An agricultural ecosystem – or agro-ecosystem – is an ecosystem that is managed to produce food or fibre. It is used as the basic unit of study in agroecology, and is somewhat arbitrarily defined as a spatially and functionally coherent unit of agricultural activity, inclusive of living and non-living components. Hence, an agro-ecosystem can be viewed as a subset of a conventional ecosystem. As the name implies, the core of an agro-ecosystem rests with human agricultural activity. However, an agro-ecosystem is not restricted to the immediate site of agricultural activity (e.g., the farm), but rather includes the region that is impacted by this activity, usually by changes to the complexity of species assemblages and energy flows, as well as to the net nutrient balance. Additionally, agro-ecosystems, particularly those managed intensively, have traditionally been characterized as having a simpler species composition and simpler energy and nutrient flows than ‘natural’ ecosystems (Braun and Van De Fliert 1999), and with elevated nutrient input, much of which exits the farm, leading to eutrophication of connected ecosystems not directly engaged in agriculture (Peden 1998).

Mixed or integrated farming systems A mixed or integrated farming system is one in which a farmer combines different agricultural practices and commodities (Rota 2010). This is different from a diversified system. Diversified systems consist of components such as crops and livestock that coexist independently from each other. In a diversified but not integrated system, the diversity of crops and livestock serves primarily to minimize risk and not to recycle resources. The key attribute of an integrated system is that crops and livestock interact to create synergy, by recycling allowing the maximum use of available resources (Figure 20.2). Crop residues can be used for animal feed, while livestock and livestock by-product production and processing can enhance agricultural productivity by intensifying nutrients that improve soil fertility, reducing the use of chemical fertilizers. The benefits of an integrated system include: • • • • • • •

Improved soil health. Nutrient recycling. Increased economic gains while potentially improving productive gains. Less expense in buying inputs. Diverse income sources. More species diversity which can lessen climate risk. More access to nutrient diversity for consumption. 302

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems

Livestock production

Nutrient cycling

Integrated crop–livestock farming system

Forage crops

Crop residues

Figure 20.2 Key aspects to the integrated crop–livestock farming system Source: Rota 2010.

The nutritional and dietary roles of agro-biodiversity in smallholder farming systems It is well understood that the sustainability of the global ecosystem in general and of agriculture in particular, is dependent on the conservation, enhancement and utilization of agro-biodiversity (Frison et al. 2011). However, the implications of this loss of agro-biodiversity for the biodiversity and quality of the global food supply are not well understood. We now explore these issues under three headings: 1) agro-biodiversity, diets and nutrition; 2) situating agrobiodiversity within landscape systems; and 3) the role of mixed agro-biodiversity systems for dietary diversity.

The importance of agro-biodiversity for diets and nutrition A shared axiom of ecosystems, diets and nutrition is that, within certain ranges, diversity enhances the health and function of complex biological systems (DeClerck et al. 2011; Khoury et. al. 2014). In ecosystems, species diversity has been shown to stimulate productivity, stability, ecosystem services, and resilience in natural (Cadotte et al. 2012; Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Hooper et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2013; Hooper et al. 2012) and agricultural (Kremen and Miles 2012; Davis et al. 2012; Kirwan et al. 2007; Picasso et al. 2008; Bonin and Tracy 2012; Mijatovi´c et al. 2013; Hajjar et al. 2008) ecosystems. Likewise, variation in food species contributing to diets has been associated with nutritional adequacy (Shimbo et al. 1994; Hatloy et al. 1998; Steyn et al. 2006; Moursi et al. 2008; Arimond and Ruel 2004) and food security (Ruel 2003). There is a strong association between dietary diversity and nutritional status, particularly micronutrient density of the diet (Arimond and Ruel 2004; Hoddinott and Yohannes 2002; Kennedy et al. 2007; Moursi et al. 2008; Rah et al. 2010; Ruel 2003; Sawadogo et al. 2006; Thorne-Lyman et al. 2010; World Bank 2006 303

Fanzo et al.

and 2007). By way of contrast, low diversity of diets is a major contributing cause of micronutrient deficiencies such as iron, zinc, and vitamin A (Shimbo et al. 1994; Hatloy et al. 1998; Steyn et al. 2006; Moursi et al. 2008). This is problematic because, globally, national food supplies are becoming increasingly homogeneous and dependent on a couple of truly ‘global crops’, including major cereals and oil crops (Khoury et al. 2014), and current agricultural practices are moving further towards intensified monocultures, which increase grain yields in the short term, but limit dietary and biological diversity (Harlan 1975; Gepts 2006; Negin et al. 2009; Khoury et al. 2014). In addition, population growth, land tenure conflicts, climate change and changing consumer preferences add pressure to these already vulnerable agro-ecosystems. Agro-biodiversity within food systems provides not only a wide and varied range of nutrientrich foods and dietary components with important health properties, but can be a locally available resource linked to populations’ food culture, joy, traditions and practices. Inter-species and intra-species variability represents a considerable wealth of local biodiversity and, with a better understanding of their contributions and use, could have potential for contributing to food security and nutrition. Studies have shed light on the associations between farm diversity and dietary diversity (Jones et al. 2014; Remans et al. 2011) and a clear link between vegetable diversity on farm and diversity in the diet has been demonstrated (Figueroa et al. 2009; Masset et al. 2012; Jaenicke and Virchow 2013). Crucially, traditional, often non-commercial, foods frequently play a key role in dietary diversity. Box 20.1 provides examples of species that are highly nutritious and have multiple uses. These foods can be strongly linked to the cultural heritage of their places of origin, or highly adapted to marginal, complex and difficult environments, thus contributing to diversification and resilience of agro-ecological niches. Many may be collected from the wild or produced in traditional production systems with little or no external inputs (Padulosi et al. 2011; Bharucha and Pretty 2010).

Box 20.1

Food species with nutritious and multiple uses

Case 1: African green leafy vegetables Sub-Saharan Africa contains an enormous variety of leafy vegetables, estimated to comprise between 800–1,000 species. However, few of these are commonly consumed. In Kenya, for example, among 210 species only about 10 find their way to markets. Working with 300 resource-poor vegetable farmers on the outskirts of Nairobi in peri-urban areas, leafy vegetable species were inventoried and the key issues hindering their cultivation, conservation and marketing identified. Other activities included nutritional and agronomic studies, distribution of seeds to farmers and dissemination of local recipes featuring leafy vegetables. With support and training from the project, farmers on the outskirts of Nairobi soon began growing leafy vegetables. The largest supermarket chain in Kenya agreed to sell the vegetables. The vegetables quickly became fashionable and shed their lower-class status – they are now the most consumed vegetables in the country. Produce delivery to market outlets increased from 31 tons to 400 tons/month. There was a 2- to 20-fold increase in incomes of the 300 monitored farmers. The campaign for traditional vegetables has taken advantage of both, resulting in their reinstatement as a valuable part of people’s diets throughout sub-Saharan Africa (Cernansky 2015; Ngugi et al. 2007; Van Rensburg et al. 2004).

304

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems

Case 2: vitamin A rich bananas Vitamin A deficiency is globally one of the most important micronutrient deficiencies, affecting in particular the populations of developing countries. It leads not only to an increased mortality and disease susceptibility, but also to a reduced capacity for work and delayed physical development. Annually, vitamin A deficiency (VAD) afflicts close to 20 million pregnant women and 110 million preschool children and results in the death of up to 250,000 children each year. Within sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, bananas, including plantains and cooking bananas (Musa spp.), are a primary staple food, with per capita consumption levels as high as 400 kg/year in some regions. Musa fruit are thus a major source of energy and essential micronutrients for these populations. Recent work has demonstrated that there is a huge range of variation in the provitamin A carotenoids (pVACs) contents of Musa fruit (Musa cultivars grown and consumed locally, including, for example, the plantains of West Africa and Latin America, the East African highland bananas in East Africa and the Silk bananas in India), with levels approaching those found in the best-performing sweet potatoes and carrot varieties. It is thus clear that the introduction of new (or non-indigenous) high pVACs Musa cultivars in these regions has great potential to help tackle the problems of VAD in a cost-effective and sustainable manner (Englberger et al. 2003).

Several traditional varieties of plants are known to have a higher micronutrient content compared with the intensively cultivated ones (Burlingame et al. 2009). In a systematic review, locally available foods were found to be important sources of energy, micronutrients, and dietary diversification for rural and forest communities in highly biodiverse ecosystems (Penafiel et al. 2011; cf. Termote et al. 2012). Clearly, more research is needed to better understand the role of biodiversity and within that, agro-biodiversity in dietary and nutritional outcomes.

The importance of landscape systems for diets and the food environment Landscape systems approaches have gained prominence in the search for solutions to complex conservation and development trade-offs (Sayer 2009). In general, ‘landscape approaches’ seek to provide tools and concepts for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic, and environmental objectives in areas where agriculture, mining, and other productive land uses compete with environmental and biodiversity goals (Sayer et al. 2013). Applying a landscape approach to the biodiversity–nutrition relationship can be called a nutrition-sensitive landscape (NSL) approach. This does not imply that the environment can produce all nutrients required for adequate human nutrition or that every farm needs to produce a whole range of different crops and animals; it does, however, mean a focus on building biological diversity into the landscape and food system to provide multiple sources of nutrients, and contribute to environmental and population resilience. Adopting this approach brings into perspective the spatial extent that influences both nutrition and the environment, including socio-economic features such as locations of markets and transportation networks and biophysical features such as watersheds. The merit of the NSL approach lies with the increasing evidence that small changes in food and eating environment can have significant impacts on dietary choices (Chadwick et al. 2013; Powell et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2014; Hirvonen and Hoddinott 2014; Remans et al. 2014). Diversity within rural, agricultural landscapes may provide a food environment that supports 305

Fanzo et al.

healthy dietary choices. Creating changes in the food environment has to go hand in hand with creating awareness at community level on the benefits of the available agro-biodiversity for healthy diets and landscapes (Johns and Sthapit 2004). A study in Tshopo District (DR Congo) showed that dietary patterns were inadequate and study participants did not make use of the huge diversity of wild edible plants with interesting nutritional characteristics (e.g., Gnetum africanum and Treculia africana) freely available in the forest, the fallow lands or around the homesteads (Termote et al. 2012). Similar results were found in southern Benin (Boedecker et al. 2014). There is thus often much more edible biodiversity available in the landscape than what is actively used due to many different context-dependent reasons. Some of the most frequently cited reasons for the decline in use of indigenous food species that have been reported from regions all over the world are: declining availability of wild foods due to overharvesting and land clearing for agriculture; difficulties in access to land and land tenure; local populations’ perceptions about wild foods as being ‘food for the poor’; loss of traditional knowledge; high workload to collect, process and prepare traditional foods; and weak integration in market economies and globalization etc. (Kuhnlein et al. 2009; Bharucha and Pretty 2010). Women participating in the DR Congo study basically felt that wild edible plants were ‘food for the poor’ as nobody ever told them these foods are good for health. While being very proud to share their indigenous knowledge on wild edible plants with the researchers, so far they were convinced only foods grown and consumed by the ‘white’ people during colonization were healthy foods. Ensuring landscapes, along with markets, are nutrition-sensitive is thus a necessary, but not always sufficient condition for healthy dietary choices in rural communities. Another study recently carried out in western Kenya, a region with high agro-biodiversity, but non-optimal diets (lacking several micronutrients), showed that simple nutrition education for mothers/ caregivers was able to improve the diversity of complementary foods given to children (Bioversity International 2015). Infants and children from 6–23 months received a more diverse diet after their mothers had been informed about better food choices. It is thus possible to improve the quality of the diet provided to infants and young children using combinations of local foods.

Econutrition: mixed systems for dietary diversity Agro-biodiversity and diet diversity linkages perceived within a landscape perspective encompasses the concept known as ‘econutrition’. This approach focuses on synergies of different species across nutrition and ecological realms. For instance, several large-scale grassland studies in the US and in Europe have demonstrated that as the number of species in a grassland area increases, so does the net primary productivity. In addition, increasing species richness has increased the stability of the community; as indicated during drought years, species rich communities exhibited less reduction in biomass produced than the species poor communities (Rees et al. 2001). The mechanisms that drive these relationships between species richness and enhance ecological performance are still heavily debated, but are largely due to two processes. The first is known as the sampling effect, which is that as you increase the number of species in a plot, the probability of including a highly productive species is greater. From a nutritional point of view, this is analogous to considering that as you increase the number of crops produced on a farm, or in a region, the probability that one of those crops be high in a particular nutrient, e.g., Vitamin A, also increases. Thus, simply by chance, if we increase the number of crops available 306

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems

to local communities, we increase the probability that they will obtain the nutrients needed for healthy, productive lives. The second mechanism is known as the complementary effect, where interactions between species result in a yield or function greater than expected by chance, also called over-yielding. There are numerous possible interactions that can lead to complementarity. These interactions range from resource partitioning where different organisms use resources differently thus reducing competition, to symbiotic and mutual interactions where species facilitate the presence or success of another. Probably one of the best-known examples of such ecological complementarity that also results in net nutritional benefit comes from the Mesoamerican ‘three sisters’. The combination of corn (a grass), beans (a nitrogen-fixing legume) and squash (a low-lying creeper) maximizes trait differences for growth and resource use efficiency between species (Risch and Hansen 1982), resulting in higher yields compared to those obtained through three monocultures of these crops. The corn is a grass species particularly efficient in maximizing photosynthesis in warm environments. In structure, the corn grows straight and tall adding a vertical dimension to the system. The vine-like bean takes advantage of the growth form of the corn for structural support that also enables it to reach more sunlight. The beans are also unique in their capacity to bring atmospheric nitrogen in the system by symbiotic nitrogen fixation, this nitrogen becomes available to the corn in subsequent cropping seasons. The interaction between the corn and beans is an example of complementarity where the over-yielding is due to a positive interaction between the species. The third member of this assemblage, squash, does not perform as well as corn in direct sunlight, and thus occupies the remaining space near the ground where light is somewhat reduced, and humidity is increased, reducing photorespiration (Gliessman 2006). The addition of squash can decrease the amount of soil lost to erosion by its low-lying nature and broad leaves, ensuring greater soil coverage. The added productivity from squash does not so much come from positive interactions with the beans and maize, but rather comes from the capacity of the squash to use resources (namely light) that are not captured by the corn and beans, an example of resource partitioning. It is not only that these crops are ecologically complementary that is notable, but also that they are nutritionally complementary. The corn is an important source of carbohydrates and some amino acids. By adding the beans, the set of essential amino acids for a human diet becomes complete and important contributions in carbohydrates, dietary fibre, vitamin B2 and B6, zinc, iron, manganese, iodine, potassium, magnesium and phosphorus are made. Squash, in contrast, can be an important source of vitamin A depending on the variety. It is important to note that each of these crops can make an important contribution to the human diet, however none of these crops in isolation provides total nutrition. Another example of complementarity and synergies for ecological and nutritional functions can be found in mixed animal–crop systems. The integrated rice–fish system in Asia is one of the oldest and best known. Wild fish enter flooded rice fields naturally, but this situation has been depleted due to reduced stocks of wild fish, fish diseases, toxic effects of chemical inputs and also degeneration for water resources. These circumstances have increased attention to research on the natural association between rice and fish. The demonstrated advantages associated with this type of farming system include: reduced cost of rice cultivation through the removal of weeds, insects and pests that are consumed by the fish; increased fertilization of the rice plants; provision of feed for fish, including the pollen from the rice flowers; and increased production of rice and fish and nutritional diversity (rice and fish) (Devendra 2007). Similarly, although a bit more complex in terms of management, is the integrated fish–pig–duck–vegetable system (Figure 20.3) that is particularly important as an integrated system in China and Vietnam and considered highly efficient in terms of natural resource recycling. 307

Fanzo et al.

Fresh water pond

Pig sales and quality source of protein, and micronutrients

Piggery

Water plants

Washing water

Supplementary feed

Waste Fish sales and quality source of protein, fatty acids and micronutrients

Fish

Main pond

Duck sales and quality source of protein and micronutrients

Ducks

Residues

Irrigation

Vegetables

Vegetables sales and source of dietary fibre and micronutrients

Figure 20.3 Integrated pig–fish–duck–vegetable system, very common in China and Vietnam Source: Adapted from Devendra 1997.

To build and elaborate on benefits of integrated systems, a global Consultation on Integrated Crop Livestock Systems for Development (IC-LSD) was held in 2010 (FAO 2010). Although integrated crop–livestock systems have been a foundation of agriculture for thousands of years, in recent decades, they have gained renewed resurgence in the context of Conservation Agriculture (CA). CA is a system of agronomic practices that include reduced tillage (RT) or no-till (NT), permanent organic soil cover by retaining crop residues, and crop rotations, including cover crops. Together, these practices aim to increase crop yields by enhancing several regulating and supporting Ecosystem Services (ESs). CA is not an integrated system by itself but aspects of CA, such as reduced tillage are being used in mixed systems that harness synergies between the production sectors of crops, livestock and agroforestry and increase the economic and ecological sustainability while providing ecosystem services (FAO 2010; Palm et al. 2014). Biodiversity has been found to be higher in CA compared to conventional practices (Palm et al. 2014), in general, because of an increase in ecosystem services such as pest control and pollination; however, strong evidence of cause and effect or good estimates of magnitude of impact are few and these effects are not consistent.

Metrics for measuring agro-biodiversity and mixed systems in the context of diets To better understand how agro-biodiversity and mixed landscape systems contribute to livelihoods, food security and nutrition requires metrics to measure agro-biodiversity, its change over time, and its connection to diets. There is no consensus on how to do this. Below are two recent metrics that have potential for use in the field.

308

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems

Nutritional functional diversity To study the nutritional value of the system as a whole, and how sensitive it is to change e.g., upon adding or removing certain species or varieties, a metric coined nutritional functional diversity (Nut FD), was developed (DeClerck et al. 2011; Remans et al. 2011). The Nut FD metric builds on ecological science, which has demonstrated that increases in biodiversity can lead to increases in plant community productivity when species complement each other, or use resources differently. The Nut FD metric captures the diversity of nutrients provided by the biological diversity of a farm, landscape or market. It combines measures of biological diversity (diversity of species and/or varieties) with measures of functional traits (diversity in performance for a certain function) – in this case the food composition (amount of dietary energy, vitamins and minerals) of species or varieties. The Nut FD metric thereby reflects the complementarity in nutrients among species in the unit of measurement. The value of the Nut FD score increases when a species with a unique combination of nutrients is added and decreases when such a species is lost. Changes in the presence or absence of species with similar nutritional composition do not change the value of FD, but adds buffer capacity to the system, in case other species with the same nutritional composition are lost or removed. Household-, landscape- and national-level assessments using this tool (DeClerck et al. 2011; Remans et al. 2011; Jones et al. 2014; Remans et al. 2014) illustrate the importance of diversity in local and national food systems for dietary diversity and key nutrition health outcomes. These studies offer potential intermediate indicators in the biodiversity–nutrition nexus based on a systems approach. In addition, the studies show that these diversity metrics can be applied at different spatial scales, from farm, to landscape to national scale, and thereby also serve as a bridge between scales.

Linear programming Linear programming is another useful tool to study the potential of a landscape to provide adequate diets using locally available foods, and to assess what would be the lowest cost of such an adequate diet. In some tools, such as the Cost of Diet (CoD) linear programming tool developed by Save the Children, users can also add additional constraints on minimum or maximum number of times a certain food should be consumed to make the modeled diets more culturally sensitive (Save the Children UK 2012). Bioversity International recently applied the CoD tool to study the role of wild, neglected, and underutilized species in achieving a cost reduction of a nutritionally adequate diet for women, pregnant women, lactating women, and young children 6–23 months of age during the dry and wet seasons in the eastern region of Baringo District in Kenya (Termote et al. 2014). The study innovatively brought together the fields of ethnobiology, nutrition and food security. However, to increase the power of this type of study in the future, better food composition data is required for wild and neglected foods. Such data would be extremely helpful to further explore synergies between biodiversity and nutrition (Burlingame et al. 2009). Linear programming as in the study cited above was able to answer three basic questions: is it theoretically feasible to meet energy and nutrient requirements in all seasons using only locally available food?; if this is possible, what are the food combinations that make this possible and at what cost?; and what is the effect of adding five selected wild edible plants to the modeled diets on dietary adequacy as well as cost? Linear modeling can thus give decision makers an idea about the minimum cost of a nutritious diet and the effect of wild/neglected foods on the cost and nutrient adequacy of diets. 309

Fanzo et al.

The various roles of agro-biodiversity and mixed systems for smallholder farmers and their multi-functionality Diversity in farming and food systems is important not only for nutrient-related outcomes, but for wider, multiple aspects of the food system. As mentioned above, species diversity has been shown to stimulate productivity, stability, ecosystem services, and resilience in natural and in agricultural ecosystems (Cadotte et al. 2012; Gamfeldt et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2012; Kremen and Miles 2012; Khoury et al. 2014). Further, crop plants that depend on pollinators are key sources of vitamin A, C and folic acid and ongoing pollinator decline may exacerbate current challenges of accessing a nutritionally adequate diet (Myers et al. 2014; Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2014). In general, increasing the number of species in a community or system will enhance the number of functions provided by that community, and will reinforce the stability of provision of those functions (DeClerck et al. 2011). By incorporating diversity metrics in agriculture and nutrition strategies, synergies with other outcomes, e.g., environmental benefits, can be evaluated and become more likely. In view of national food supplies that have become more homogeneous in composition (Khoury et al. 2014), monitoring and ensuring biological diversity for nutrition and wider functions at the systems level seems increasingly important. Benefits include: • • • • • • •

Genetic variability reduces vulnerability of agro-ecosystems and increases resistance to pests and diseases. Genetic diversity is an important resource in breeding. Genetic variety and diversity increases choices for the food basket and dietary diversity. Traditional landraces and diversified mixed cropping systems contribute to rural culture and diversity. Agricultural diversity allows for complementary use of resources including natural resources like light, water and soil nutrients as well as labour and capital. Diversified agro-ecosystems produce constant and stable yields, relevant to risk averse subsistence oriented small-scale farmers. Diverse agro-biologies serve more readily as habitat for other species.

New decision-support tools are increasingly being used by researchers and policy-makers to explore the co-benefits, synergies and feedback loops from agro-biodiversity (Groot et al. 2010, 2013; Daily et al. 1997, 2009; Foley et al. 2005; Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010a, 2010b). These tools can help guide management of biodiversity for multiple goals and services, including nutrition (Remans and Smukler 2013; Herforth et al. 2014). By combining nutritional traits with environmental traits, such as tolerance to drought and salinity, as well as to seasonal availability, researchers, businesses and development practitioners can start to understand the relationship between environment and human nutrition, and be better able to work with communities on matching environmental capabilities to nutritional needs.

Trends and constraints to leverage potential of agro-biodiversity in smallholder systems for food and nutrition security Trends Two recent studies (Khoury et al. 2014; Remans et al. 2014) used FAOSTAT data to look at global patterns and trends of biodiversity in food systems. Khoury et al. (2014) assessed trends over the past 50 years in the richness, abundance, and composition of crop species in national food supplies worldwide. Over this period, national per capita food supplies expanded in total 310

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems

quantities of food calories, protein, fat, and weight, with increased proportions of those quantities sourcing from energy-dense foods. National food supplies worldwide became more similar in composition, correlated particularly with an increased supply of a number of globally important cereal and oil crops, and a decline of other cereal, oil, and starchy root species. This increase in homogeneity worldwide portends the establishment of a global standard food supply, which is relatively species-rich in regard to measured crops at the national level, but species-poor globally. It is unclear how changes in smallholder farms and their mosaic landscapes are relating to such changes in diversity of the global food supply. Many low- and middle-income countries, with predominance in smallholder agriculture, are undergoing economic transitions to higherincome wealth brackets. Remans et al. (2014) examined time–series data of production and supply diversity of country case studies (including Malaysia and Ghana), as examples of different trajectories for acquiring nutritional diversity of national food supplies during economic transitions (Figure 20.4). In the case of Malaysia, a decoupling between production and supply diversity over time was observed, as the country transitioned from low-income to high middleincome wealth status. During this period, Malaysia shifted to large oil palm plantations, resulting in lower production diversity (Fitzherbert et al. 2008). This transition coincided with a period of sudden rise in export and import values as a per cent of GDP, suggesting that changes in macroeconomic policies drove the divergence between supply and production diversity. Malaysia’s ability to maintain supply diversity suggests that it compensated for low production diversity by purchasing its nutritional diversity through trade, but at the same time this raises questions about the environmental and economic vulnerability of the new monoculture-based system in Malaysia (Remans et al. 2014). In Ghana, a slight decrease in supply diversity between about 1970 and 1997 was paired with a decrease in production diversity during a period of limited international trade. Food and cacao production declined in Ghana during the 1970s, along with total area under cultivation and per capita income (Tabatabai 1988). International trade began increasing around 1997, followed by an increase in supply diversity and an uncoupling from production diversity. The Ghana case study illustrates a decline in nutritional diversity of national food supplies under cash-crop (cacao) oriented agricultural production when national income was low; but the decline was halted when Ghana’s GNI increased and Ghana’s food supply became more diverse through trade. These case studies illustrate multiple trajectories for nutritional diversity of national food supplies as countries move through economic transitions (Brinkman et al. 2010; Webb 2010; Webb and Block 2012).

Constraints There are two core constraints for leveraging the potential of agro-biodiversity in smallholder systems for food and nutrition security. The first of these relates to poverty. It is often assumed that if farmers are given a choice, they will reorient their landscape, in both production and consumption to ensure income generation (Isakson 2011; Druker et al. 2015). It also assumed that farmers exposed to high risk have less options, turning more towards market-based approaches, reinforcing a poverty cycle or trap (Christiaensen et al. 2010; Druker et al. 2015; Scherr 2000). Barrett et al. (2011) define four mechanisms that demonstrate the linkages between biodiversity and poverty traps. They are: dependence on inherently limited natural resources; shared vulnerabilities; lack of informed adaptive management; and failure of social institutions. However, recognition of the role that agro-biodiversity plays in the livelihoods of the poor, suggests that complementary niche market product/value chain development and agro-biodiversity-related payments for ecosystem services approaches could be used to enhance the private value of traditional or local plant–animal genetic resources and the capture of the 311

A

C

Shannon diversity

0 1965

1

2

3

0 1965

1

2

3

1985

1975

1985

Supply diversity

Production diversity

1975

Supply diversity

Production diversity

1995

1995

2005

2005

B

D

0

10

20

30

1965

1965

40

0

10

20

30

40

1985

1975

1985

Imports (USD value)

Exports (USD value)

GNI per capita (USD value)

1975

Imports (USD value)

Exports (USD value)

GNI per capita (USD value)

1995

1995

2005

2005

Source: Adapted from Remans et al. 2014.

Figure 20.4 Patterns of change over time for country case studies including Malaysia (a, b) and Ghana (c, d) showing Shannon entropy diversity (a, c) of food production and supply and relative changes in economic indicators compared to 1965 (b, d)

Shannon diversity

% Relative change % Relative change

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems

public good values associated with their maintenance. In such a context, the maintenance of agro-biodiversity may be viewed as an instrument for development rather than constituting a poverty trap (Drucker et al. 2015). The second core constraint relates to planetary boundaries. This is the central concept in an Earth system framework designed to define a ‘safe operating space for humanity’ as a precondition for sustainable development. This framework is based on scientific research indicating that once human activity has passed certain tipping points, defined as ‘planetary boundaries’, there is a risk of irreversible and abrupt environmental change (Rockstrom et al. 2009). Humans are rapidly changing and impacting agro-ecosystems, which is causing increasing risk of irreversible changes. The main drivers of these changes are demand for food, water and natural resources. This in turn puts biodiversity loss at an accelerated rate which not only impacts ecosystems themselves but also the diversity available to humans in their diets. Lands such as forests, grasslands, and wetlands, are being converted by humans to farmland to feed the hungry planet. This too, is impacting the loss of biodiversity along with precious water and nutrient flows. Food systems contribute 19–29 per cent of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Agricultural production, including indirect emissions associated with landcover change, contributes 80–86 per cent of total food system emissions, with significant regional variation (Vermeulen et al. 2012). It has been modeled that the impacts of climate change on food systems will be widespread, geographically and temporally variable, and influenced by socioe-conomic conditions. There is strong evidence that climate change will affect agricultural yields and livelihoods, food prices, reliability of delivery, food quality, and safety (Vermeulen et al. 2012).

Conclusion Moving forward, a central research question is whether ‘diversifying food systems through employing and generating demand for agro-biodiversity can significantly contribute to healthier diets and more sustainable production practices’. To tackle this question, the following strategies are proposed: • •

•

• • •

Increasing the evidence base on how biodiversity in food systems can be managed to increase the livelihood of smallholders as well as the healthiness and sustainability of diets. Introducing practices of smart biodiversity management, like integrated systems that increase productivity while also allowing management for other outcomes including nutritional value and ecosystem services. Strengthening value chains for a diversity of nutritious food items, not just for the major staples or cash crops that is currently mostly the case. Added market value of such biodiversity can help lift smallholders out of the poverty trap. In order to do so, consumer demand for biodiversity on the plate – in urban and rural settings – will need to be increased, potentially through nutrition education, marketing and campaigns. Supporting local food systems and encouraging links between producers and consumers in order to mutually reinforce the desire for more healthy and sustainable food items. Empowering food system processes through advocating ‘biodiversity champions’ that link, promote and demonstrate the potential synergistic benefits to a diversity of stakeholders. Finally, developing metrics and guidelines that form the basis for wider application are needed to aid decision-making processes at regional and national scales (Prosperi et al. 2014), and to better understand the synergies and trade-offs between dietary diversity, agrobiodiversity and associated ecosystem functions (Remans et al. 2014). 313

Fanzo et al.

References Arimond, M. and Ruel, M. T. 2004. Dietary diversity is associated with child nutritional status: evidence from 11 demographic and health surveys. Journal of Nutrition, 134(10): 2579–2585. Barrett, C. B., Travis, A. J. and Dasgupta, P. 2011. On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. PNAS, 108(34): 13907–13912. Bharucha, Z. and Pretty, J. 2010. The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365: 2913–2926. Bioversity International. 2015. Diversifying local diets: nutrition education for mothers/caregivers improved the diversity of complementary foods of children in Western Kenya. Improving nutrition through local agricultural biodiversity in Kenya. Scientific brief, 1. Rome: Bioversity. Boedecker, J., Termote, C,. Assogbadjo, A. E., Van Damme, P. and Lachat, C. 2014. Dietary contribution of wild edible plants to women’s diets in the buffer zone around the Lama forest, Benin – an underutilized potential. Food Security, 6(6): 833–849. Bonin, C. L. and Tracy, B. F. 2012. Diversity influences forage yield and stability in perennial prairie plant mixtures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 162: 1–7. Braun, A. R. and Van De Fliert, E. 1999. Evaluation of the impact of sweetpotato weevil (Cylas formicarius) and of the effectiveness of Cylas sex pheromone traps at the farm level in Indonesia. International Journal of Pest Management, 45(2): 101–110. Brinkman, H. J., de Pee, S., Sanogo, I., Subran, L. and Bloem, M. 2010. High food prices and the global financial crisis have reduced access to nutritious food and worsened nutritional status and health. Journal of Nutrition, 140: 153S–161S. Burlingame, B., Charrondiere, R. and Mouille, B. 2009. Food composition is fundamental to the cross-cutting initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 22: 361–365. Cadotte, M. W., Dinnage, R. and Tilman, D. 2012. Phylogenetic diversity promotes ecosystem stability. Ecology, 93: S223–S233. Cernansky, R. 2015. The rise of Africa’s super vegetables. Nature, 522(7555): 146–148. Chadwick, P. M., Crawford, C. and Ly, L. 2013. Human food choice and nutritional interventions. Nutrition Bulletin, 38: 36–43. Chaplin-Kramer, R., Dombeck, E., Gerber, J., Knuth, K. A., Mueller, N. D., Mueller, L., Ziv, G. and Klein, A. M. 2014. Global malnutrition overlaps with pollinator-dependent micronutrient production. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281: 1794. Christiaensen, L., Pan, L. and Wang, S. 2010. Drivers of poverty reduction in lagging regions: evidence from rural Western China. Working paper 2010/35, World Institute for Development Economics Research. Daily, G. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Daily, G., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P., Mooney, H., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T., Salzman, J. and Shallenberger, R. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7: 21–28. Davis, A. S., Hill, J. D., Chase, C. A., Johanns, A. M. and Liebman, M. 2012. Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLoS ONE 7(10): e47149. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047149 DeClerck, F. A. J., Fanzo, J., Palm, C. and Remans, R. 2011. Ecological approaches to human nutrition. Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 32: S4–S13. Dercon, S. and Christiaensen, L. 2010. Consumption risk, technology adoption and poverty traps: evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Development Economics, 96(2): 159–173. Devendra, C. 1997. Integrated farming systems. Mixed farming and intensification of animal production systems in Asia. Outlook on Agriculture, 26: 255–265. Devendra, C. 2007. Small farm systems to feed hungry Asia. Outlook on Agriculture, 37: 7–20. Dixon, J., Tanyeri-Abur, A. and Watten, H. 2004. Framework for analyzing impacts of globalization on smallholders. FAO Corporate document repository. Rome: FAO. Dormon, E. N. A., Van Huis, A., Leeuwis, C., Obeng-Ofori, D. and Sakyi-Dawson, O. 2004. Causes of low productivity of cocoa in Ghana: farmers’ perspectives and insights from research and the sociopolitical establishment. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 52: 237–259. Druker A, Bellon, M, and Pagani, G. 2015. Fact or fiction: does the maintenance of agrobiodiversity constitute a poverty-trap or can it be a mechanism for poverty alleviation and improving livelihoods? Forthcoming. Ellis, F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Englberger, L., Darnton-Hill, I., Coyne, T., Fitzgerald, M. H. and Marks, G. C. 2003. Carotenoid-rich bananas: a potential food source for alleviating vitamin A deficiency. Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 24(4): 303–318.

314

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems FAO. 1997. The state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2010. An international consultation on integrated crop–livestock systems for development: the way forward for sustainable production intensification. Integrated Crop Management, 13. Rome: FAO. FAO. 2014. Towards stronger family farming. Rome: FAO. FAO-PAR. 2011. Biodiversity for food and agriculture. Rome: FAO. Figueroa, B. M., Tottonell, P., Giller, K. E., and Ohiokpehai, O. 2009. The contribution of traditional vegetables to household food security in two communities of vihiga and major districts, Kenya. Act Horticulturae, 806: 57–64. Fitzherbert, E., Struebig, M., Morel, M. J., Danielsen, A., Bruhl, F., Donald, C. A. and Phalan, B. 2008. How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends in Ecological Evolution, 23: 538–545. Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway, T., Howard, E. A., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J. A., Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P. K. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309: 570–574. Frison, E. A., Smith, I. F., Johns, T., Cherfas, J., and Eyzaguirre, P. B. 2006. Agricultural biodiversity, nutrition, and health: making a difference to hunger and nutrition in the developing world. Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 27(2): 167–179. Frison, E., Cherfas, J. and Hodgkin, T. 2011. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food and nutrition security. Sustainability, 3: 238–253. Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson, M., Gustafsson, L. and Kjellander, P. 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature Communications, 4: 1340. Gepts, P. 2006. Plant genetic resources conservation and utilization. Crop Science, 46(5): 2278–2292. Gliessman, S. 2006. The ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Groombridge, B. and Jenkins, M. D. 2002. World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth’s living resources in the 21st century. London: UNEP-WCMC. Groot, J. C., Jellema, A. and Rossing, W. A. H. 2010. Designing a hedgerow network in a multifunctional agricultural landscape: balancing trade-offs among ecological quality, landscape character and implementation costs. European Journal of Agronomy, 32: 112–119. Groot, J. C. J., Klapwijk, C., Timler, C., Bekunda, M., Mourik, T. van, Descheemaeker, K., Tittonell, P., Giller, K., Snapp, S. and Vanlauwe, B. 2013. Rising to the challenge of sustainable intensification of agricultural production in Africa – farming systems design to support action research for development. Presented at the 4th International Symposium for Farming Systems Design. Lanzhou, China. Hajjar, R., Jarvis, D. I. and Gemmill-Herren, B. 2008. The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 123(4): 261–270. Harlan, J. R. 1975. Crops and man. American Society of Agronomy, Washington, D.C. Hatloy, A., Torheim, L. and Oshaug, A. 1998. Food variety – a good indicator of nutritional adequacy of the diet? A case study from an urban area in Mali, West Africa. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 52: 891–898. Herforth, A., Frongillo, E. A., Sassi, F., Seneclauze Mclean, M., Arabi, M., Tirado, C., Remans, R., Mantilla, G., Thomson, M. and Pingali, P. 2014. Toward an integrated approach to nutritional quality, environmental sustainability, and economic viability: research and measurement gaps. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1332(1): 1–21. Hirvonen, K. and Hoddinott, J. 2014. Agricultural production and children’s diets: evidence from rural Ethiopia. International Food Policy Research Institute working paper. Hoddinott, J. and Yohannes, Y. 2002. Dietary diversity as a food security indicator. International Food Policy Research Institute discussion paper, 136. Hooper, D. U., Adair, E. C., Cardinale, B. J., Byrnes, J. E., Hungate, B. A., Matulich, K. L., Gonzalez, A., Duffy, J. E., Gamfeldt, L. and O’Connor, M. I. 2012. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature, 486(7401): 105–108. Hooper, D. U., Chapin III, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J. H., Lodge, D. M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S. and Schmid, B. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1): 3–35. Hunter, D., Burlingame, B. and Remans, R. 2015. Biodiversity and nutrition. Chapter 6 In: Convention on biodiversity (CBD), biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Isakson, S. R. 2011. Market provisioning and the conservation of crop biodiversity: an analysis of peasant livelihoods and maize diversity in the Guatemalan highlands. World Development, 39(8): 1444–1459. Jaenicke, H. and Virchow, D. 2013. Entry points into a nutrition-sensitive agriculture. Food Security, 5: 679–692.

315

Fanzo et al. Jaenicke, H., Ganry, J., Hoeschle-Zeledon, I. and Kahane, R. (eds). 2009. Proceedings of the international symposium on underutilized plants for food security, nutrition, income and sustainable development. Acta Horticulturae, ISHS(I-II): 806. Johns, T. and Sthapit, B. R. 2004. Biocultural diversity in the sustainability of developing country food systems. Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 25(2): 143–155. Jones, A., Shrinivas, A. and Bezner-Kerr, R. 2014. Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi: Findings from nationally representative data. Food Policy, 46: 1–12. Kennedy, G. L., Pedro, M. R., Seghieri, C., Nantel, G. and Brouwer, I. 2007. Dietary diversity score is a useful indicator of micronutrient intake in non-breast-feeding Filipino children. Journal of Nutrition, 137: 472–477. Khoury, C. K., Bjorkman, A. D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L. H. and Struik, P. C. 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11): 4001–4006. Kirwan, M. L., Murray, A. B. and Boyd, W. S. 2008. Temporary vegetation disturbance as an explanation for permanent loss of tidal wetlands. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(5). Kremen, C. and Miles, A. 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4): 40. Kuhnlein, H., Erasmus, B. and Spigelski, D. 2009. Indigenous peoples’ food systems: the many dimensions of culture, diversity and environment for nutrition and health. Rome: FAO/CINE. Laliberté, E., Paquette, A., Legendre, P. and Bouchard, A. 2009. Assessing the scale-specific importance of niches and other spatial processes on beta diversity: a case study from a temperate forest. Oecologia, 159: 377–388. Masset, E., Haddad, L., Cornelius, A. and Isaza-Castro, J. 2012. Effectiveness of agricultural interventions that aim to improve nutritional status of children: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 344: 1–7. Mijatovi´c, D., Van Oudenhoven, F., Eyzaguirre, P. and Hodgkin, T. 2013. The role of agricultural biodiversity in strengthening resilience to climate change: towards an analytical framework. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 11(2): 95–107. Moursi, M., Arimond, M. and Deweg, K. G. 2008. Dietary diversity is a good predictor of the micronutrient density of the diet of 6- to 23-month-old children in Madagascar. Journal of Nutrition, 138: 2448–2453. Myers, S. S., Zanobetti, A., Kloog, I., Huybers, P., Leakey, A. D., Bloom, A. J., Carlisle, E., Dietterich, L. H., Fitzgerald, G., Hasegawa, T., Holbrook, N. M., Nelson, R. L., Ottman, M. J., Raboy, V., Sakai, H., Sartor, K. A., Schwartz, J., Seneweera, S., Tausz, M. and Usui, Y. 2014. Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition. Nature, 5: 139–142. Negin, J., Remans, R., Karuti, S. and Fanzo, J. C. 2009. Integrating a broader notion of food security and gender empowerment into the African Green Revolution. Food Security, 1(3): 351–360. Ngugi, I. K., Gitau, R. and Nyoro, J. 2007. Access to high value markets by smallholder farmers of African indigenous vegetables in Kenya. Regoverning markets innovative practice series, London: IIED. Padulosi, S., Heywood, V., Hunter, D. and Jarvis, A. 2011. Underutilized species and climate change: current status and outlook. Crop adaptation to climate change, 1st edn. New York: Wiley, 507–521. Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H., DeClerck, F., Gatere, L. and Grace, P. 2014. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: an overview. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187: 87–105. Peden, D. G. 1998. Agroecosystem management for improved human health: applying principles of integrated pest management to people. In Blair, R., Rajamahendran, R., Stephens, L.S., and Yay, M. Y. (eds.) New Directions in Animal Production Systems. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science. Vancouver, British Columbia. Penafiel, D., Lachat, C., Espinel, R., Van Damme, P. and Kolsteren, P. 2011. A systematic review on the contributions of edible plant and animal biodiversity to human diets. EcoHealth, 8: 381–399. Picasso, V. D., Brummer, E. C., Liebman, M., Dixon, P. M. and Wilsey, B. J. 2008. Crop species diversity affects productivity and weed suppression in perennial polycultures under two management strategies. Crop Science, 48(1): 331–342. Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., McMullin, B., Jamnadass, S. R., Padoch, C., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., and Sunderland, T. 2013. The role of forests, trees and wild biodiversity for improved nutrition-sensitivity of food and agriculture systems. Expert background paper for the International Conference on Nutrition 2. Rome: FAO. Rah, J. H., Akhter, N., Semba, R. D., de Pee, S., Bloem, M. W., Campbell, A. A., Moench-Pfanner, R., Sun, K., Badham, J. and Kraemer, K. 2010. Low dietary diversity is a predictor of child stunting in rural Bangladesh. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 64: 1393–1398. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D. and Bennett, E. M. 2010a. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing trade-offs in diverse landscapes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107: 5242–5247.

316

Smallholders, agro-biodiversity and mixed cropping and livestock systems Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., Tengö, M., Bennett, E. M., Holland, T., Benessaiah, K., MacDonald, G. K. and Pfeifer, L. 2010b. Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? Bioscience, 60: 576–589. Rees, M., Condit, R., Crawley, M., Pacala, S. and Tilman, D., 2001. Long-term studies of vegetation dynamics. Science, 293(5530): 650–655. Remans, R., Flynn, D., DeClerck, F., Diru, W., Fanzo, J. et al. 2011. Assessing nutritional diversity of cropping systems in African villages. PLoS ONE 6(6): e21235. Remans, R. and Smukler, S. 2013. Linking biodiversity and nutrition, Research Methodologies. In: Fanzo, J, and Hunter, D. (eds) Diversifying food and diets. New York: Routledge, chapter 7. Remans, R., Wood, S., Anderman, T. L., Saha, N. and DeFries, R. 2014. Measuring nutritional diversity of national food supplies. Global Food Security, doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2014.07.001. Risch, S. J., and Hansen, M. K. 1982. Plant growth, flowering phenologies, and yields of corn, bean and squash grown in pure stands and mixtures in Costa Rica. Journal of Applied Ecology, 19: 901–916. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F. and Foley, J. A. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263): 472–475. Rota, A. 2010. Integrated livestock and farming systems. Rome: IFAD. Ruel, M. T. 2003. Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of measurement issues and research priorities. Journal of Nutrition, 133(11): 3911S–3926S. Save the Children UK. 2012. The cost of the diet: a practioner’s guide. London: Save the Children UK. Sawadogo, P. S., Martin-Prevel, Y., Savy, M., Kameli, Y., Traissac, P. and Traore A. S. et al. 2006. An infant and child feeding index is associated with the nutritional status of 6- to 23-month-old children in rural Burkina Faso. Journal of Nutrition, 136: 656–663. Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J. L., Sheilb, D., Meijaard, E. et al. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210595110. Sayer, J. A. 2009. Reconciling conservation and development: are landscapes the answer? Biotropica 41(6): 649–652. Scherr, S. J. 2000. A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy, 25: 479–498. Shimbo, S., Kimura, K., Imai, Y., Yasumoto, K., Yamamoto, K., et al. 1994. Number of food items as an indicator of nutrient intake. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 32: 197–206. Steyn, N. P., Nela, J. H., Nantela, G., Kennedy, G. and Labadariosa, D. 2006. Food variety and dietary diversity scores in children: are they good indicators of dietary adequacy? Public Health Nutrition, 9: 644–650. Tabatabai, H. 1988. Agricultural decline and access to food in Ghana. International Labour Review, 127: 703–734. Termote, C., Raneri, J., Deptford, A. and Cogill, B. 2014. Assessing the potential of wild foods in reducing the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet: an example from eastern Baringo District, Kenya. Food & Nutrition Bulletin, 35: 458–479. Termote, C., Bwama Meyi, M., Dhed’a Djailo, B., Huybregts, L., Lachat, C., Kolsteren, P. and Van Damme, P. 2012. A biodiverse rich environment does not contribute to better diets. A case study from DR Congo. Plos One 7(1): e30533. Thorne-Lyman, A. L., Valpiani, N., Sun, K., Semba, R. D., Klotz, C. L., Kraemer, K. et al. 2010. Household dietary diversity and food expenditures are closely linked in rural Bangladesh, increasing the risk of malnutrition due to the financial crisis. Journal of Nutrition 140: 182S–188S. Thrupp, L. A. 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: the valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. International Affairs, 76: 283–297. Van Rensburg, W. J., Venter, S. L., Netshiluvhi, T. R., Van Den Heever, E., Vorster, H. J., De Ronde, J. A. and Bornman, C. H. 2004. Role of indigenous leafy vegetables in combating hunger and malnutrition. South African Journal of Botany, 70(1): 52–59. Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., and Ingram, J. S. 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1): 195. Webb, P. 2010. Medium- to long-run implications of high food prices for global nutrition. Journal of Nutrition, 140: 143S–147S. Webb, P. and Block, S. 2012. Support for agriculture during economic transformation: impacts on poverty and undernutrition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 109: 12309–12314. Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. World Bank. 2006. Repositioning nutrition as central for development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. 2007. Pathways from agriculture to nutrition: pathways, synergies and outcomes. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

317

Fanzo et al. Zhang, Y., Chen, H. Y. H. and Reich, P. B. 2012. Forest productivity increases with evenness, species richness and trait variation: a global meta-analysis. Journal of Ecology, 100: 742–749. Zhang, R., Tang, J., Li, J., Zheng, Q., Liu, D., Chen, Y., Zou, Y., Chen, X., Luo, C. and Zhang, G. 2013. Antibiotics in the offshore waters of the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea in China: occurrence, distribution and ecological risks. Environmental Pollution, 174: 71–77.

318

21 THE IMPLICATIONS OF LAND GRABS AND BIOFUEL EXPANSION FOR FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Anna Locke and Giles Henley

Introduction Global biofuel markets have grown significantly over the past two decades.1 In 2007, global consumption stood at 0.99 million barrels per day (mb/d); by 2012 this had risen to 1.87 mb/d (EIA 2014). The production side saw growth on a similar scale, rising from 1.1 mb/d in 2007 to 1.9 mb/d in 2012 (EIA 2014). Most growth in production and consumption was concentrated in industrialized countries and Brazil; however, the expanding market generated considerable interest in the prospects of producing biofuels in developing countries. This rise has led to several concerns about the possible negative impact on food security at both local and global level. Empirical analysis of the link between biofuels and food security has so far focused mainly on estimating the impact on global food prices of the developed world’s – notably the US’ and EU’s – extensive use of maize and wheat for ethanol production and vegetable oil for biodiesel (De Gorter and Just 2010; Babcock 2011; DEFRA 2012; Helming et al. 2010). This was brought to the fore again following supply shocks in the maize market in 2011 (Locke and Henley 2013). Less well-documented is the impact of biofuel production on local food production or food security in low-income countries (LICs). Some academics and development practitioners are concerned that producers will switch land, labour, water or other factors of production to biofuel production or divert existing food crop output to use as biofuel feedstock (HLPE 2013). Destination LICs for biofuels projects tend to have large agriculture-dependent populations and low food security (Anseeuw et al. 2012; von Braun and Meinzen-Dick 2009). Seventy-three per cent of investment has been made in countries where agriculture accounts for more than 5 per cent of GDP and where hunger is a serious or alarming problem (Anseeuw et al. 2012). On the other hand, others argue that increased demand for sustainable biofuels will encourage investment in agricultural production and there could be synergies between biofuel and food production by bringing investment into relatively undeveloped areas with poor access to input and output markets (e.g., UN-Energy 2007). This chapter addresses the impact on local food security of expanding biofuel production in developing countries. It explores how biofuel projects are predicted to affect food security in theory and whether the evidence supports those predictions. Within this, we highlight the issue of large-scale land acquisition (LSLA) and the risks this poses, particularly where this is not 319

Anna Locke and Giles Henley

carried out in a transparent manner with due regard for human rights, and social and environmental impacts. First, we discuss critically the concept of land grabs and analyze the trends in LSLAs and biofuels LSLAs in particular. Then, a conceptual framework is set out to explore the pathways linking biofuels production and different dimensions of food security. This leads to a review of findings from the academic literature on the actual impact of biofuel projects on food security. Finally, conclusions are presented.

Land grabs and large-scale land acquisition What’s in a name? The term ‘land grab’ is often used loosely as a negative way to denote a broad range of largescale land acquisitions. Used more precisely, it indicates a violation of land tenure or broader human rights, implying deals that are not transparent and undertaken without due assessment of potential social and environmental impacts. The International Land Coalition’s (ILC) Tirana Declaration of 2011 (ILC 2011) defines large-scale land grabbing as ‘acquisitions or concessions that are one or more of the following’: i ii iii iv v

in violation of human rights, particularly the equal rights of women; not based on free, prior and informed consent of the affected land-users; not based on a thorough assessment, or are in disregard of social, economic and environmental impacts, including the way they are gendered; not based on transparent contracts that specify clear and binding commitments about activities, employment and benefits sharing; and not based on effective democratic planning, independent oversight and meaningful participation.

Based on this, Oxfam summarizes a land grab as a ‘land deal that violates human rights, fails to consult affected people, does not get proper consent and happens in secret. Land-grabbers overlook the social and environmental impacts of the land deal’ (Oxfam 2012). In this chapter, we use the more neutral term of large-scale land acquisition (LSLA), which allows us to extend our discussion of impacts beyond those deals that may (perhaps contentiously) be categorized as land grabs to discuss the impacts of land deals for biofuels more broadly.

Trends in LSLA The heightened pace and scale of LSLAs in Africa, Asia and Latin America after the 2007–2008 spike in food prices suggested that a global surge in LSLA was under way. While initial media articles were inconsistent in their reporting of the number of deals and land area involved, more systematic monitoring and analysis since has produced more authoritative figures on the size and drivers of the land deals. Two major initiatives track and catalogue information on LSLAs. The first of these is the Land Matrix, an open-source inventory run by the International Land Coalition and partners that collects information from media and research reports, and submissions from informed individuals.2 The database provides information on the location, size, year and intended land use of acquisitions anywhere in the world that are above 200 hectares. Since 2013 and where information is available, the database distinguishes deals according to whether they are intended, concluded or have failed, their state of implementation and how much land is under production. The second initiative is a CIFOR research project on land acquisitions that examines forestry and farmland investments in 320

The implications of land grabs and biofuel expansion

Africa that use plantation models, are above 2000 hectares and were entered into after 2005. Although the database is not publicly available, key findings have been published (Schoneveld 2014). Unlike the Land Matrix, it categorizes deals by the reliability of the data source, and analyzes more and less reliable datasets separately. It does not categorize projects by their stage of implementation nor does it report land under production. Although it does not distinguish between active projects and failed projects, Schoneveld (2014) claims that most land underpinning failed deals was either reallocated or at least was not returned to the original occupants. Recent analysis of these datasets reveals that the period from 2000–2014 saw a large number of LSLAs agreed in developing countries with a global estimated total area of 60.5 million hectares (Land Matrix 2014). Many investors sought deals once it became clear that returns to food and biofuel were set to increase, i.e., once the extent of EU demand for biofuels became clear, and food and energy prices started to rise. The Land Matrix records that from 2000–2014, around 950 deals were concluded: 90 per cent through signed contracts and the remainder through oral agreements (Land Matrix 2014). The area of land formally transferred to investors under these deals was around 36 million hectares, less than 60 per cent of that potentially agreed (Land Matrix 2014). In many cases, contracts did not grant transfer of the full area to investors immediately, but rather left open the possibility to transfer more land at a later date. As of 2014, 187 deals recorded in the database were yet to be concluded, covering an intended area of 14.8 million hectares (Land Matrix 2014). These data, however, record the size of land intended to be transferred to investors, and often, this has not been utilized. Deals frequently fail. The Land Matrix considers projects to have failed if they do not reach a final contract stage or if contracts are cancelled. Some 80 failed deals covering 1.9 million hectares of land under contract appeared in the Land Matrix in 2014, many of which were added in 2013–2014 as new information on failing projects came to light. In many cases, having a contract does not mean projects ever break ground. Around half of all concluded projects are reported to be operating; the remainder are either not in production or their status is unknown. The total area of land reported to be under production is 4.1 million hectares, around 11 per cent of the area under contract (Land Matrix 2014), however this figure must be treated with caution as data on production may not be up to date. It aggregates land in production over a long time period, and is not a snapshot of production at any one time. Geographically, the largest number of concluded and operational projects (117) recorded between 2000 and 2014 was Southeast Asia. Africa follows (110), with most deals in East Africa (56) and West Africa (33). South America’s 82 deals placed it third (Land Matrix Global Observatory 2014). Going by the contracts, Africa also hosts many of the largest deals by land area. Fourteen of the 30 largest contracts (by land area) were in African countries, with South Sudan, DR Congo and the Republic of Congo home to the largest of these (Land Matrix 2014). However, a different picture emerges when looking at where projects in production are. A ranking of the top 50 projects by area of land under production for the period 2000–2014 includes only two African deals: a 300,000 hectares forest plantation in Gabon (ranked fifth) and a (now-defunct) 58,000 hectares jatropha plantation in Madagascar. Brazil, Indonesia, Ukraine, Malaysia and the Russian Federation have the largest area of land leased to LSLAs under production, in descending order (Land Matrix 2014). Furthermore, there is often a striking mismatch between the land apparently ‘available’, and the reality. When investors reacted to the oil and food price spikes by searching for large tracts of land, they gravitated towards countries that appeared to have substantial areas of land available. However, it has become apparent that some of the largest recipients of land deals have no or little ‘spare’ land to turn over to agricultural investments. Looking at land availability in regions of Africa where preferred crops (notably, jatropha, rice, sugar and oil palm) return acceptable yields, Schoneveld (2014) calculates that only between 9–22 per cent of this area is free of competing 321

Anna Locke and Giles Henley

land uses. The rest is protected, forested, built on, under cultivation or with a population density of over 20 persons per square kilometre. Across sub-Saharan Africa, of all land suitable for crop production around 75 per cent is already under competing uses. Moreover, for some countries the area of land leased out through LSLA contracts approaches or exceeds the area that is nominally free from competing claims (Table 21.1). In the cases of Nigeria and Ghana, the areas of land available are equal to the area of land already leased out. For Liberia and especially Sierra Leone, far more land has been leased out than is free from competing land uses.

Biofuels and LSLA The picture for biofuel LSLAs is similar to that described above. CIFOR analysis (Schoneveld 2014) and recent analysis of Land Matrix data by Nolte et al. (2014) finds that of the 190 transnational LSLAs concluded by investors from industrialized countries, 44 (or 23 per cent) were for biofuels production. These contracts cover 3.8 million hectares of land, which is just under 11 per cent of the total area under LSLA contracts. Inclusion of deals that intend to grow crops partly for biofuels markets would add another 4.4 million hectares (Nolte et al. 2014). The largest total area contracted for biofuels has been in Brazil with 896,307 hectares. Ten countries account for 80 per cent of contracted area: six African countries host contracts for half of the global total, or 1.44 million hectares. Madagascar has leased out 569,558 hectares of land for biofuels production, Table 21.1 Land availability in countries that have seen important investment (2008–2013) Country

Sierra Leone Liberia Nigeria Ghana Ethiopia Senegal Mozambique Gabon Republic of the Congo Zambia Tanzania South Sudan Mali Cameroon Madagascar DR Congo Kenya Sub-Saharan Africa

Total area potentially available (ha) 389,450 700,650 769,850 2,076,400 7,750,050 3,209,150 12,456,300 2,456,600 6,816,200 15,699,950 7,144,900 22,860,000 10,630,850 5,510,050 28,216,300 17,810,350 17,302,100 361,284,550

Land acquired, as % of total available land (%) Official data

All data categories

305.48 153.56 86.74 93.35 28.54 14.72 14.82 16.28 12.23 11.7 8.33 6.36 6.77 5.47 5.39 1.61 1.81 5.33

332.47 153.56 101.81 99.53 28.54 19.24 16.88 16.28 13.11 12.39 12.07 8.38 6.9 6.74 6.26 2 1.85 6.29

Source: Schoneveld (2014). The author uses his own data to calculate land acquisitions between 2008 and 2013, and data from European Space Agency, United Nations Environment Programme, and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis to calculate land availability. Note: The third column – headed ‘Official data’ – corresponds to the column ‘Category 1’ data in Schoneveld (2014). This includes data from official government and company documentation, or direct communication with government and company officials.

322

The implications of land grabs and biofuel expansion

followed by Senegal at 207,500 hectares. Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya and Mozambique have all leased between 125,000 and 200,000 hectares. The remainder is split between Asian countries led by Indonesia at 400,000 hectares. Investors have favoured three biofuel feedstocks: jatropha has been the most popular crop, cited in 104 of 254 concluded transnational deals. Sugarcane and oil palm follow as popular crops with 54 and 52 deals respectively. Compared to all LSLAs, proportionally more biofuels projects have not reached production stage. Of concluded deals, more are idle (62 per cent) than are in production (38 per cent). They have also experienced a higher rate of failure (i.e., the government cancels the contracts) than other LSLAs (Nolte et al. 2014). As of 2015, the Land Matrix recorded one million hectares as under production of biofuels feedstocks. Most of these were in Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil, and produce sugarcane and oil palm. Ethiopia is the only African country reported to have a biofuels project (sugarcane) over 25,000 hectares in operation. The next largest projects in Africa are of around 1,400 hectares each in Angola and Ghana, producing sugarcane and jatropha respectively. While some of the projects that formerly intended to produce biofuels have collapsed, others now aim to use the land for other crops or products. Although this may be unviable for projects that have dedicated processing facilities, it seems to be feasible for early-stage projects to reorient production towards sugar or vegetable oil markets. Hence, this is a common strategy for oil palm sugarcane-based biofuel projects to pursue. Biofuel projects in developing countries have been set up using different models, ranging from NGO-supported smallholder projects to large plantation models (Smalley 2013), but they can be categorized into four types (Gasparatos et al. 2012): • • • •

Type 1: local, small-scale biofuel projects for local use (e.g., rural electrification) where the feedstock is usually produced by local farmers and sold to a local generating plant. Type 2: large industrial farms producing for their own use (e.g., commercial farms or mines). Type 3: small-scale outgrowers linked to nucleus estates producing the same feedstock or supplying commercial processing plants that do not produce their own feedstock. Type 4: large-scale commercial plantations, which may or may not process their own output. Large-scale plantations use extensive areas of land and decisions on land use are centrally managed (Smalley 2013). Plantation establishment typically involves clearing a contiguous area of land of existing vegetation to plant a single crop.

Of these, Types 3 and 4 are most common (Gasparatos et al. 2012).

Linking LSLA, biofuel expansion and food and nutrition security The concept of food and nutrition security (FNS) is discussed extensively in other chapters of this handbook, and in particular, Pritchard, chapter 1. To briefly recap, it is understood to encapsulate the four pillars of availability, access, utilization and stability. Although an analysis of households’ nutritional status is crucial to understanding their food security, little research has explored the impact of LSLAs on nutrition outcomes (Tanner 2013). Since no single indicator captures all dimensions of food security and nutrition, those researching food security draw on several proxy indicators and methods, which are described in greater detail in Marks, chapter 26, this volume (also see Locke and Henley 2013). Table 21.2 sets out a conceptual framework to analyse the linkages between biofuel projects and food security at the local level, which focuses on Type 4 but also refers to Type 3 projects (see also, Locke and Henley 2013). We have drawn on existing theoretical and modelling literature that highlights both the positive and the negative impacts biofuel production might have on food security (ActionAid 2012; Beall et al. 2012; Clancy 2013; Diaz-Chavez et al. 2010; Elbehri et al. 2013; Hall and Paradza 2012; 323

Anna Locke and Giles Henley Table 21.2 Biofuels and household food security – potential pathways Pillar of food security

Impact of biofuel plantation

Availability

A1. Land to food crops is reduced, which leads to less food grown locally; may lead to higher food prices if transport costs of imported food are high. A2. Plantation leads to better local access roads, more agro-dealers that make farm inputs cheaper and more available —> marketing of crops of all kinds becomes cheaper. A3. Plantation uses improved farm methods that can be imitated and applied to other local farms.

Access

B1. Loss of land to local farmers leads to loss in farm income – were they compensated? B2. Jobs on plantation, processing plant —> changes to local labour market. May raise wages, time worked and incomes (but may not if land loss increases pool of those seeking jobs).

Utilization

C1. Time spent on farms or in refineries by women decreases time for childcare, food preparation and feeding. C2. Loss of jobs for women, as most jobs on plantation and in a factory are for men, reduces female income, status.

Stability

D1. Mono-cropping and specialization of local economy increases exposure to effects of weather, pest and disease, and changes to biofuel markets —> less stable incomes. D2. Imported food may be subject to more or less variability and certainty of supply and price.

Wiggins et al. 2008; Rossi and Lambrou 2008; UN Energy 2007; Vanwey 2008). A biofuels operation is likely to generate a mixture of positive and negative impacts on different elements of household food security. As such, the important question is whether the gains offset the losses (German et al. 2011b) and how these gains and losses are distributed. Table 21.2 provides a basis for analysing gains and losses by mapping major pathways through which biofuels LSLAs may affect the four dimensions of food security at local level. As mentioned above, we have left out potential effects on international prices, assuming that the LICs that are the main targets for biofuel operations are price takers on the world market. The main paths identified in the literature to date are those grouped under A and B; C and D perhaps are either less likely, or have less impact on food security. Analysing how households’ food availability and access change because of the calendar of biofuel cultivation (e.g., when biofuel cultivation competes for labour or provides an extra source of income during a slack season) can indicate changes in effects on food consumption across seasons. Of particular note, and identified in the Table, there are concerns that engagement in biofuel production may adversely affect women within households more than men. For instance, if land used for food production switches to biofuel production, this can increase the burden on women to source food elsewhere, and reduce their control over land (Rossi and Lambrou 2008). Women may disproportionately lose land as a result of biofuels acquisitions if their security of tenure over plots they farm is weaker than that of menfolk.

What does the evidence say? Nature of the evidence Our analysis uses findings from a review of five recent studies across eight project sites that explicitly studied the link between biofuel plantations and food security (Table 21.3). Because 324

Loss of agricultural land; loss of forest land and agro-biodiversity in forests that households indicated as important to their diets; analysis of ability to purchase food in the absence of subsistence cultivation. Nine focus group discussions with 8–10 individuals in 10 affected, and soon-to-be-affected communities (n=84) and semi-structured interviews with community members (n=14). Resource inventories in seven villages with a single informant (n=7). Before and after assessment of food availability. Cost–benefit analysis, based on imputed value of destroyed crops and trees.

Baxter and Schaefter (2013); oil palm; Sierra Leone Agriculture, Socfin and Addax Bioenergy; Sierra Leone

Households also invested more in their own agriculture.

19 of 25 affected farmers were employed on the plantation. Income sources increased indirectly through stimulated demand from the biofuel project.

Food consumption, income generation and transfers, education, health and nutrition indicators. Purposive sampling of 50 household heads in three villages, and migrant workers. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with 106 informants.

Boamah (2010); BioFuel Africa; Yendi and Central Gonja districts, northern Ghana

Respondents reported that yields of rice grown through the Farmer Development Programme (FDP) were low.

Community assessments of the Addax Farmer Development Programme were ‘not positive’ with participants complaining of the singular focus on rice and lack of appreciation of crop diversity by trainers who did not encourage intercropping rice with other foods.

Reduction in the amount of agricultural land available to local households; loss of half of the available resources important for diets and incomes (including loss of all surplus production in some cases).

Some incomes sources (e.g. Shea nut trees) were destroyed, possibly affecting women in particular.

Across indicators, food insecurity is unambiguously higher in affected communities.

For those without access to roads, no alternative employment opportunities materialised.

Access to land to grow food decreased significantly in Grand Cape Mount, as did access to forests, which are important sources of food.

Some positive employment benefits for households and communities with good road access, depending on household.

Food consumption (quantity and quality); access (incomes, spending); production (size and productivity of plots). Comparison between households in affected and non-affected communities. Stratified sampling and random selection of 20 households in four communities for household surveys (n=80). Focus group discussions were used to understand local perceptions of household food security. Semi-structured interviews were also used with stakeholders.

Balachandran et al. (2012); oil palm; Sime Darby; Gbarpolu and Grand Cape Mount, Liberia

Negative

Findings Positive

Aspect of food security investigated; methodology

Study; crop; company and location

Table 21.3 Studies of recent biofuel plantation projects

Households in ‘treatment’ villages spent more on food but higher incomes (that came mainly from the household head’s plantation work) compensated for this loss.

Some households reduced food production, but partly because of switching to other higher income opportunities in the tourism sector. Some compensation was given in one of the two areas.

Household food production, income from plantation wages and expenditure on food and changes in labour. Analysis of before and after for (treatment) villages that supplied labour to the plantation, and comparison with a (control) village that did not. Eighty-four households were surveyed.

Peters (2009); jatropha; Emergen plantations (Chilengue and Nzeve), Bilene Macia district, Mozambique

Some ‘treatment’ households lost agricultural land.

Few households were able to diversify their livelihood sources to overcome loss of agricultural incomes. Loss of access to important forest products, increased time collecting firewood and loss of income were also important impacts.

Agriculture remained important to food security for all including plantation workers but access to good-quality land was reduced for all households as a result of company acquiring land.

120 well-paid jobs were created for local people; 67% of whom felt the stable incomes improved their livelihoods.

Replacement of food crops by biofuel crops. Reliance on forest/communal land and loss.Ten focus group discussions in three communities with groups employed at the plantation and those who lost land in three communities (disaggregated into native inhabitants, women and settlers). Household surveys were conducted with 31 employees (out of 120) and 63 land-losing households (out of 69).

Schoneveld et al. (2011); jatropha; Not-specified; Pru district, Brong Ahafo, Ghana

Negative

Findings Positive

Aspect of food security investigated; methodology

Study; crop; company and location

Table 21.3 Continued

The implications of land grabs and biofuel expansion

plantations established for biofuel production are relatively new, most of the literature investigates impacts related to the displacement of land and livelihoods of local communities that used the land prior to conversion. This does not take into account other causal pathways influencing the availability of and access to food. Longer-standing projects producing sugarcane and oil palm – common biofuel feedstocks albeit for other markets – shed more light on impacts on food security that emerge once projects are producing output and hiring labour. To capture these impacts, we have drawn on the longer-standing literature on sugarcane and oil palm for sugar and palm oil production. The nature of the literature makes it difficult to compare results across different studies and evaluate the balance and distribution of such impacts, as different studies have a wide range of focus (geographical, crop and target population) and methodologies. However, looking at these studies together enables us to pull out broad findings.

Key findings: impacts in the establishment phase Availability of food Despite many projects failing to progress past the land acquisition phase, the impact of LSLAs has not been negligible. Where they have been measured, impacts on food security of largescale biofuel plantations have largely been negative in the establishment phase. In all instances, communities have lost land; in some cases, this has displaced agricultural production or access to land for foraging, which has not been compensated through adequate payment or alternative livelihoods. Low project profitability during this phase may mean that projects have to defer paying promised compensation to a later date, with local communities losing out. In villages surrounding the Sime Darby plantations in Liberia, the number of households without access to farmland increased fivefold after the project entered the local area (Balachandran et al. 2012). A survey measuring food insecurity access indicated that affected communities were in a highly food-insecure environment, compared with a moderately insecure environment for the non-affected communities. A study in northern Ghana by Schoneveld et al. (2011) found that approximately 19 per cent of land converted to a jatropha plantation was previously important for staple food production (e.g. yams) for households in the project area. A further 24 per cent of land converted to jatropha was land largely considered fallow by men in the community, but on which women grew subsistence crops mainly for household consumption. Because the 69 households affected were not consulted during land negotiations, they did not receive any compensation for their land from the company or local authority. Only 18 per cent of households were able to gain access to alternative land in compensation. In Peters’ (2009) study site in Mozambique, land on which households cultivated food prior to the plantation establishment was replaced elsewhere but this was deemed too distant by some households to access, and was hardly used. Households also lost access to firewood because of clearance of woodland for the plantation. There are also cases of biofuel plantations at early stages of establishment that negatively affected access to foraged food through forest clearance, which was not adequately compensated. Of these, the most comprehensively assessed is Baxter and Schaefter’s (2013) case studies of three plantations in Sierra Leone. Focus group discussions with affected communities indicated significant losses of all types of land (including productive agricultural and fallow/bush land). Crops lost included both food and medicinal plants. In one case, the company established a Farmer Development Programme to safeguard food production by preparing community lands for rice cultivation, raising productivity through providing inputs and training farmers. However, Baxter and Schaefter (2013) note differing assessments of the success of this initiative 327

Anna Locke and Giles Henley

between the company and some community members in terms of whether rice production in the programme adequately compensated farmers, and whether the three-year length of the programme was sufficient (ActionAid 2013; cf. Addax 2013). Case study research into local communities affected by the Sun Biofuels project in Kisaware, Tanzania, found households lost access to foraging land, as the company cleared bush land that was important for fuelwood, charcoal, wild fruits and meat (Oakland Institute 2012). Although the company created jobs, the low remuneration provided was not sufficient to purchase goods households previously foraged, and all income was spent on food. Some plantation workers’ household incomes were lower than when they had previously farmed their land, but they had taken on plantation work because communications from the company had convinced them of greater benefits.

Changes in incomes and expenditure Balachandran et al. (2012) note that some households in the biofuel project area in Liberia were able to get well-paid jobs with the plantation that increased their income. However, for some, rising costs and reductions in other household revenue streams offset the benefits of employment. Expenditure on food, schooling and charcoal rose for project-affected communities because of their displacement. Affected households had higher debt levels, and many households borrowed to buy food and medicines. Schoneveld et al.’s (2011) study of a jatropha plantation in northern Ghana found community members incurred major economic losses because they produced smaller surpluses or lost access to foraging resources. Women’s incomes were particularly affected by the loss of access to trees and crops they relied on for incomes, which were destroyed during the plantation’s establishment. The plantation provided well-paid jobs for 120 local people, and 67 per cent of employees felt employment was overall positive, given the stability of income flows it provided. None of the employees assessed it as having a negative contribution. However, only three of the 69 individuals who had lost land were able to secure employment, and for others there was no compensation. Peters’ (2009) study of the Energem jatropha plantations in Mozambique found plantation workers received wages comparable with other opportunities in the local tourist or services sector. In general, households in communities with few opportunities prized the permanent jobs on the plantation, and hired in seasonal labour for their own farms during peak seasons. For households with other seasonal labour opportunities, absenteeism from plantations was high during these seasons, indicating workers could gain more income elsewhere. Overall, households working on the plantations were better off in terms of their disposable income than households that did not work on the plantation, but, because households worked in multiple occupations, this is not wholly attributable to the plantation jobs. Although work on plantations meant households produced less of their own food, many preferred this option, given the risks of shocks to food production in the area and preference for cash incomes among households. Only two studies reported generally improved local benefits, including on food security; however, both projects subsequently collapsed. Boamah (2010) studied a jatropha plantation in northern Ghana where food production increased in project villages, and employment on the plantation and in petty trading created more income opportunities on a more regular basis than alternatives. Because few households farmed during the dry season, the plantation provided local jobs as an alternative to travelling to cities for itinerant work. Villages spent most of their additional income on food. Although the project displaced some agricultural land, it secured alternative land and established maize farms for the project villages. However, the project collapsed in 2011 as a consequence of financial problems stemming from negative local campaigning and the effects of 328

The implications of land grabs and biofuel expansion

the international financial crisis, resulting in a loss of employment for the local community. The Sun Biofuels project in Mozambique is also reported to have generated a high number of seasonal jobs prior to its closure in 2011 due to bankruptcy (Schut and Florin 2015).

Key findings: impacts over the longer term Changes in incomes and expenditure Over time, benefits provided by plantations may improve the livelihoods of employees. Oil palm projects in Indonesia and Malaysia have generally had a positive effect on incomes and, where studied, on some other indicators of food security, although they also displaced habitats that contributed to food security. Driven by government policies to provide jobs and incomes to farmers, almost all projects in the two countries have relied on outgrower production to supplement production of a core nucleus estate. Buoyed by high palm oil prices, those with access to land have profited from growing oil palm across the two countries (Rist et al. 2010; Feintrenie et al. 2010; McCarthy 2010; Andriani et al. 2011; Bunidarsono et al. 2013). Sugarcane outgrower schemes attached to sugar plantations have often made positive contributions to household incomes and household spending. In cases in Zambia (Shumba et al. 2011) and Malawi (Hermann et al. 2013) skilled sugarcane outgrowers have seen impressive incomes, earning more than other farmers and even some service sector jobs. In Kenya, where incomes were not as high, farmers who earned most of their income from sugarcane production still did better than neighbouring farmers (Kennedy and Cogill 1987). Some outgrower schemes have also been associated with positive spillovers on local food production; being part of a Kenyan outgrower scheme allowed households to buy more fertiliser to use on their crops (Govereh et al. 1999). However, concerns that outgrowers grow less food are borne out by experiences in Mozambique and Zambia, where outgrowers preferred to plant sugarcane on land set aside for producing food (Jelsma et al. 2010; Tyler 2008). In these cases, outgrowers appeared to do earn enough to cover the cost of food; however, commentators elsewhere (e.g., Kenya) have raised concerns that low sugar prices received by outgrowers may make dependence on buying food a risky strategy (Waswa et al. 2012). The little evidence that exists on employees on sugarcane plantations does not discuss food security in depth. Studies in Zimbabwe and Malawi suggest workers’ wages were low, but may be better than the alternatives that exist in the poor rural areas (Jackson and Cheater 1994; Hermann et al. 2013; Tyler and Dixie 2011). However, pay on sugarcane plantations is not always high enough for employees to purchase adequate food: research of workers’ conditions on a Tanzanian plantation found under-nutrition to be common, especially among the lower paid female workers (Mbilinyi and Semakafu 1995). This chimes with wider evidence of the developmental impact of plantations, which suggests they have rarely provided well-paying jobs for large numbers of people (Smalley 2013; Cotula et al. 2014).

Distribution of benefits Benefits generated from large-scale plantations are not necessarily equally distributed, and some households affected by projects may lose out. In the studies reviewed, the livelihoods of indigenous communities and women who relied on forests for food were particularly affected by forest clearance (Nayang Dorwana et al. 2011; White and White 2012; Andriani et al. 2011). Although some jobs are created, these do not always go to those who have borne the costs of land loss. For example, indigenous people in Indonesia who once occupied land that is now planted to oil palm were less likely to be employed than immigrants from other islands as they 329

Anna Locke and Giles Henley

were less familiar with the crop than new migrant settlers (Obidzinski et al. 2011). Moreover, if plantations face bankruptcy, this creates potential shocks to the livelihoods of employees.

Gendered impacts Women are more vulnerable to the negative impacts on food security. Women are often among the greatest losers when plantations are established, and there was evidence in some studies that women’s livelihoods were particularly badly affected by the conversion of forest and swidden systems to oil palm or jatropha. Again, although the information was not a major part of the studies on food security reviewed here, where this was highlighted the findings on wage income and employment conditions confirmed the wider literature that women received lower wages than men and were usually hired only on short-term contracts.

Insights from the existing literature on the impacts of biofuel investments for food security The way land is made available for projects is crucial. Negative impacts on access to land for agricultural production or foraging resulted largely from poorly implemented transfers of land and the lack of negotiations with local communities, especially when companies provided little or no compensation in the form of alternative land, employment or payments for affected community members. In terms of longer-term effects, much depends on whether the project remains profitable. For sugarcane and oil palm – the only cases where we have enough evidence to gauge what has happened over time – the results are often positive for estate workers because of the high returns to cane for sugar production and oil palm, particularly when compared to a crop such as jatropha, which has been unprofitable. Whether these higher incomes are transformed into higher levels of food consumption and better nutrition is, however, less clear-cut. On the flipside, an uncertain market environment for biofuels can undermine profitability and have a knock-on effect on local food security. However, creating a stable and profitable market for biofuels does not reduce the risks of negative impacts on food security if projects are designed and implemented without taking into account the welfare of affected communities. Finally, the synthesis so far of studies examining biofuel investments raises obvious questions about parallel processes in other cropping sectors. What seems to matter is: the production model used; the timing of impact measurement; the profitability of production; and the terms and conditions under which entitlements to land, wages and prices are defined, and if productivity is raised. However, biofuels do have some specific characteristics that can make their initial impacts more marked and unpredictable. These are linked to the high level and pace of interest in producing biofuels feedstocks, which was underpinned by the initial assumption that renewable energy policies in developed countries would create substantial and profitable markets for liquid biofuels, and the initial emphasis on the use of an untested and unproven crop, such as jatropha. Most previous large-scale investments have focused on crops for which there was prior evidence of money to be made and better understanding of the agronomy involved, and hence resulted in fewer failures.

Conclusion This chapter has shown that biofuels have been a driver of the recent land rush, with many investors aiming to take advantage of expected growth in global biofuels markets to start up 330

The implications of land grabs and biofuel expansion

projects. However, biofuel projects have faced very high rates of failure, and many are no longer operational. The discussion of land grabs indicates the need for caution against equating all LSLAs with land grabs, as the latter are associated with particular violations of rights. Nonetheless, the weak land governance systems in many countries targeted for LSLA highlight the need for continued vigilance about the way that land is made available for projects and associated levels of transparency and consultation. How can governments, companies and their funders manage biofuels projects based on LSLA to ensure that local food security is not endangered, particularly in areas of weak land governance and poor food security? Our review of the evidence indicates that profitable market conditions are important for providing long-term stability, protecting communities from shocks and providing the basis for adequate employment conditions and returns to outgrowers, for biofuels or any other agricultural project. Concerted action against biofuels can undermine such stability and may be detrimental to the communities affected by local biofuel production. However, any investment based on LSLA must be scrutinized: the evidence reviewed here has demonstrated that profitability itself does not guarantee an improvement or maintenance of local food security, and a profitable venture can have a negative impact on food security of those affected. The way that land is accessed is crucial as is the generation of alternative livelihoods for those displaced. National governments and companies investing in developing countries must prioritize commitments to local consultation through Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), appropriate valuation methods for adequate compensation for any agreed land loss, and a clear strategy to provide alternative livelihoods for those losing land, such as provision of land of comparable quality and support to establish agricultural production. All those involved in supporting or overseeing investments in biofuels projects in developing countries must also look carefully at distributional impacts without assuming that winners and losers are the same. Those affected negatively, such as women or unskilled labour, are often those less equipped to deal with negative impacts and need targeted support. Efforts to establish guidelines for best practice are under way with the implementation of the FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGTs), Principles of Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) and other initiatives to improve the process and impact of investing. It will be important to have these well established to deal with any future peaks in market opportunities for biofuels that spark further interest in investment.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Dr Steve Wiggins, Research Fellow at the Overseas Development Institute, UK for his comments on early drafts and inputs into the conceptual framework. Thanks also to DFID for funding the work that underpins the chapter.

Notes 1

Biofuels are mainly plant-based fuels produced by converting solid biomass through chemical or biological processes. Although biofuels are produced in different forms and for different uses, most common are the liquid transport fuels bioethanol and biodiesel. Given present levels of technology, the most common feedstocks are sugar-rich or starch-rich crops for bioethanol, and oil-bearing crops for biodiesel. 2 There are also other ongoing initiatives implemented by the ILC (through country-based Land Observatories) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) to track and further investigate land deals in more detail, including the contracts underpinning the deals. The Land Deals Politics Initiative, a network of researchers exploring land deals, compiles published research on land deals on its website.

331

Anna Locke and Giles Henley

References ActionAid. 2011. Fuelling evictions. Community costs of the EU biofuels boom: Dakatcha Woodlands, Kenya. London: ActionAid. ActionAid. 2012. Biofuelling the global food crisis: why the EU must act at the G20. London: ActionAid. ActionAid. 2013. Broken promises. The impacts of Addax Bioenergy in Sierra Leone on hunger and livelihoods. London: ActionAid. Addax Bioenergy. 2013. Open letter to ActionAid. 2 September 2013. Available at: www.pangealink. or g/addax-bioenergy-open-letter-to-action-aid/. Andriani, R., Andrianto, A., Komarudin, H. and Obidzinski, K. 2011. Environmental and social impacts from palm-based biofuel development in Indonesia. Available at: http://www.cifor. org/library/3596/environmental-and-social-impacts-from-palm-based-biofuel-development-inindonesia/ (Accessed December 2015). Anseeuw, W., Alden Wily, L., Cotula L. and Taylor, M. 2012. Land rights and the rush for land: findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project. International Land Coalition, Rome. Ariza-Montobbio, P. and Lele, S. 2010. Jatropha plantations for biodiesel in Tamil Nadu, India: Viability, livelihood trade-offs, and latent conflict. Ecological Economics, 70(2): 189–195. Babcock, B. 2011. The impact of US biofuels policies of agricultural price levels and volatility. Geneva: ICTSD. Balachandran, L., Herb, E., Shahbano, T. and O’Reilly, E. 2012. Everyone must eat? Liberia, food security and palm oil. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing II, Ithaca, NY, 17–19 October. Baxter, J. and Schaefter, E. 2013. Who is benefitting? The social and economic impact of three large-scale land investments in Sierra Leone: a cost-benefit analysis. Report for action for large-scale land acquisition transparency. London: ChristianAid. Available at: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/ who-is-benefitting-Sierra-Leone-report.pdf. Beall, E. 2012. Smallholders in global bioenergy value chains and certification: evidence from three case studies. Rome: FAO. Beall, E., Cadoni, P. and Rossi, A. 2012. A compilation of tools and methodologies to assess the sustainability of modern bioenergy. Rome: FAO. BEFS. 2010. Bioenergy and food security. The BEFS analysis for Tanzania. Edited by: Irini Maltsoglou and Yasmeen Khwaja. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1544e/i1544e.pdf. Boamah, F. 2010. Competition between biofuel and food? The case of a Jatropha biodiesel project and its effects on food security in the affected communities in Northern Ghana. Masters Thesis, University of Bergen. Boamah, F. 2011. Competition between biofuel and food? Re-thinking biofuel narratives, evidence from a Jatropha biodiesel project in Northern Ghana. In: Biofuels, land grabbing and food security in Africa. Matondi, P., Håvnevik, K., and Beyene, A. (eds.). London: Zed Books. Bunidarsono, S., Susanti, A. and Zoomers, A. 2013. Oil palm plantations in Indonesia: the implications for migration, settlement/resettlement and local economic development. In: Biofuels – economy, environment and sustainability. Fang, Z. (ed.). New York: InTech. Clancy, J. 2013. Biofuels and rural poverty. London: Routledge. Cotula, L., Dyer, N. and Vermeulen, S. 2008. Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor people’s access to land. London: IIED. Cotula, L., Oya, C., Codjoe, E. A., Eid, A., Kakraba-Ampeh, M., Keeley, J., and Rizzo, M. 2014. Testing claims about large land deals in Africa: findings from a multi-country study. Journal of Development Studies, 50(7): 903–925. Diaz-Chavez, R. A., Mutimba, S., Watson, H., Rodriguez-Sanchez, S. and Nguer, M. 2010. Mapping food and bioenergy in Africa. Report for FARA. Accra: Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2012. Can biofuels policy work for food security? Draft Discussion Paper. London: DEFRA. De Gorter, H. and Just, D. R. 2010. The social costs and benefits of biofuels: the intersection of environmental, energy and agricultural policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 32(1): 4–32. Dyer, J., Stringer, L. and Dougill, A. 2010. Jatropha Curcas: sowing local seeds of success in Malawi. Journal of Arid Environments, 79: 107–110. EC (European Commission). 2009. The promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Directive 2009/28/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 23 April. Ehrensperger, A., Kiteme, B., Portner, B. and Grimm, O. 2012. Impacts of Jatropha Curcas on local food security in Kenya, in IFSA Building a Sustainable Rural Future. Proceedings of the 10th European IFSA Symposium, Aarhaus, 1–4 July.

332

The implications of land grabs and biofuel expansion Elbehri, A., Segerstedt, A., and Liu, P. 2013. Biofuels and the sustainability challenge: a global assessment of sustainability issues, trends and policies for biofuels and related feedstocks. Rome: FAO. Energy Information Administration. 2014. International energy statistics database. United States Department of Energy. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=79&pid=79&aid=2 (Accessed 18 January 2015). FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 1996. World food summit, Rome 1996. Available at: http:// www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2008. The state of food and agriculture 2008. Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities. Rome: FAO. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2012. Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. Rome: FAO. Favretto, N., Stringer, L. C. and Dougill, A. J. 2013. Unpacking livelihood challenges and opportunities in energy crop cultivation: perspectives on Jatropha Curcas projects in Mali. Sustainability research institute paper 45. Leeds: University of Leeds. Feintrenie, L., Schwarze, S. and Levang, P. 2010. Are local people conservationists? Analysis of transition dynamics from agroforests to monoculture plantations in Indonesia. Ecology and Society 15(4): 37. Gasparatos, A., Lee, L. Y., von Maltitz, G., Mathai, M. V., Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. and Willis, K. J. 2012. Biofuels in Africa. Impacts on ecosystem services, biodiversity and human well-being: policy report. Yokohama: UNU-IAS. German, L. and Schoneveld, G. 2011. Social sustainability of EU-approved voluntary schemes for biofuels: implications for rural livelihoods. Working paper, 75. Bogor: CIFOR. German, L., Schoneveld, G. C and Gumbo, D. 2011a. The local social and environmental impacts of smallholder-based biofuel investments in Zambia. Ecology and Society 16(4): 12. German, L., Schoneveld, G. C. and Pacheco, P. 2011b. The social and environmental impacts of biofuel feedstock cultivation: evidence from multi-site research in the forest frontier. Ecology and Society, 16(3): 24. Govereh, J., Jayne, T. S. and Nyoro, J. 1999. Smallholder commercialization, interlinked markets and food crop productivity: cross-country evidence in Eastern and Southern Africa. Lansing, MI: University of Michigan. Hall, R. and Paradza, G. 2012. Pressures on land in sub-Saharan Africa: social differentiation and societal responses. Background Paper for the European Report on Development. Available at: http://erdreport.com/erd/report_2011/documents/dev-11-001-11researchpapers_hall-paradaza.pdf. Helming, J. F. M, Pronk, A. and Woltjer, G. 2010. Stabilisation of the grain market by flexible use of grain for bioethanol. LEI Report, 2010–039. Wageningen: Wageningen University. Hermann, R., Grote, U. and Brüntrup, M. 2013. Household welfare outcomes of large-scale agricultural investments: insights from sugarcane outgrower schemes and estate employment in Malawi. Conference Paper presented at the Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, The World Bank, Washington D.C., April 8–11, 2013. Available at: http://www.die-gdi.de/en/others-publications/ article/household-welfare-outcomes-of-large-scale-agricultural-investments-insights-from-sugarcaneoutgrower-schemes-and-estate-employment-in-malawi/. HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition). 2013. Biofuels and food security. Rome: FAO, Committee on World Food Security. International Land Coalition. 2011. Tirana Declaration. Available at: http://newsite.landcoalition.org/ en/tirana-declaration (Accessed December 2015). Jackson, J. and Cheater, A. 1994. Contract farming in Zimbabwe: case studies of sugar, tea and cotton. In: Living under contract: contract farming and agrarian transformation in sub-Saharan Africa. Little, P. D. and Watts, M. (eds.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Jelsma, I., Bolding, A. and Slingerland, M. 2010. Smallholder sugarcane production in Xinvane, Mozambique – report from the field. Wageningen: Wageningen University. Kennedy, E. T. and Cogill, B. 1987. Income and nutritional effects of the commercialization of agriculture in Southwestern Kenya. IFPRI research report, 63. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI. Land Matrix. 2014. Land matrix newsletter N.3 – October 2014. Available at: http://www.landmatrix. org/en/get-the-detail/. Land Matrix Global Observatory. 2014. Land Matrix Newsletter – October 2014. Available at: http://www. landmatrix.org/media/filer_public/b2/48/b24869d1-ff17-4cb2-8bc3-5c55ef6a3e0c/lm_newsletter_3-4. pdf (Accessed December 2015). Locke, A. and Henley, G. 2013. Scoping report on biofuels projects in five developing countries. London: ODI. Mbilinyi, M. and Semakafu, A. M. 1995. Gender and employment in sugarcane plantations in Tanzania. Sectoral and Working Discussion Papers, SAP, 2.44/WP.85. Geneva: International Labour Organisation. McCarthy, J. 2010. Processes of inclusion and adverse incorporation: oil palm and agrarian change in Sumatra, Indonesia. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(4): 821–850.

333

Anna Locke and Giles Henley Nayang Dorwana, A. et al. 2011. The local impacts of oil palm expansion in Malaysia: an assessment based on a case study in Sabah state. CIFOR working paper, 78. Bogor: CIFOR. Nolte, K., Ostermeier, M. and Schulze, K. 2014. Food or fuel: the role of agrofuels in the rush for land. GIGA Focus, 5. German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Oakland Institute. 2012. Understanding land investments in Africa. Tanzanian villagers pay for Sun Biofuels investment disaster. Land Deal Brief. Oakland, CA: Oakland Institute. Obidzinski, K., Andriani, R., Komarudin, H. and Andrainto, A. 2011. Environmental and social impacts of oil palm plantations and their implications for biofuel production in Indonesia. Ecology and Society, 16(3): 24. Orth, M. 2007. Subsistence foods to export goods. The impact of an oil palm plantation on local food sovereignty. North Barito, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. London: Biofuelwatch. Oxfam. 2012. Land freeze campaign guide. Available at: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/~/media/Files/OGB/ Get%20involved/Campaign%20with%20us/How%20to%20campaign/Campaign%20tools%20 resources/Land%20Grabs%20Activist%20Guide.ashx. Peters, F. 2009. Socio-economic impact study of biofuel plantation on farm households in Mozambique. MSc Thesis, Wageningen University. Rist, L., Feintrenie, L. and Levang, P. 2010. The livelihood impacts of oil palm: smallholders in Indonesia. Biodiversity Conservation, 19: 1009–1024. Rossi, A. and Lambrou, Y. 2008. Gender and equity issues in liquid biofuels production: minimizing the risks to maximize the opportunities. Rome: FAO. Schoneveld, G. C. 2014. The geographic and sectoral patterns of large-scale farmland investments in subSaharan Africa. Food Policy, 48: 34–50. Schoneveld, G. C., German, L. and Nutakor, E. 2011. Land-based investment for rural development? A grounded analysis of local impacts of biofuel feedstock plantations in Ghana. Ecology and Society, 16(4): 10. Schut, M. and Florin, M. J. 2015. The policy and practice of sustainable biofuels: between global frameworks and local heterogeneity. The case of food security in Mozambique. Biomass and Bioenergy, 72: 123–135. Shumba, E., Roberntz, P. and Kuona, M. 2011. Assessment of sugarcane outgrower schemes for biofuel production in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Harare: WWF. Smalley, R. 2013. Plantations, contract farming and commercial farming areas in Africa: a comparative review. Working paper, 055. Cape Town/Brighton: FAC. Tanner, C. 2013. Large scale land acquisitions and food security. CEILS PEAK Helpdesk Report. Tyler, G. 2008. The African sugar industry – a frustrated success story. Background paper for the Competitive Commercial Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa Study. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Tyler, G. and Dixie, G. 2011. Investments in agribusiness: a retrospective view of a development bank’s investments in agribusiness in Africa and East Asia. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. UN-Energy. 2007. Sustainable bioenergy: a framework for decision makers. Available at: http://esa. un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf (Accessed December 2015). UNEP (UN Environment Programme). 2011. Biofuels vital graphics: powering a green economy. Geneva: UNEP. Vanwey, L. 2008. Social and distributional impacts of biofuel production. In: Biofuels: environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Howarth, R. W. and Bringezu, S. (eds.). Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, Gummersback, 2–25 September 2008. von Braun, J. and Meinzen-Dick R. S. 2009. “Land Grabbing” by Foreign Investors in Developing Countries: Risks and Opportunities. IFPRI Policy Brief 13. April 2009. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Waswa, F., Gweyi-Onyango, J. P. and Mcharo, M. 2012. Contract sugarcane farming and farmers’ incomes in the Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 52: 3685–3695. WFP (World Food Programme). 2012. Monitoring food security: technical guidance sheet, 2. Rome: WFP. White, B. and Dasgupta, A. 2010. Agrifuels capitalism: a view from political economy. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(4): 593–607. White, B., and White, J. 2011. The gendered politics of dispossession: oil palm expansion in a Dayak Hibun community in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. International conference on global land grabbing. Wiggins, S., Fioretti E., Keane J., et al. 2008. Review of the indirect effects of biofuels: economic benefits and food insecurity: report to the Renewable Fuels Agency. London: ODI.

334

22 FOOD SOVEREIGNTY Philip McMichael

Introduction Food sovereignty is a concept very much for our times. Emerging publicly in the context of universal liberalization of farm sectors across the state system in the 1990s, ‘food sovereignty’ has inspired the largest social movement in the world (Desmarais 2007; Mann 2014), appeared in the constitutions of several states – notably Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia (Rose 2012; McKay et al. 2014; Giunta 2014), helped to frame a growing civil society presence in the United Nations (UN) (McKeon 2009 and 2015), and stimulated a mushrooming of local food system politics (Wittman et al. 2011; Andreé et al. 2014). Perhaps most of all, food sovereignty’s arrival marks a threshold moment in humanity’s relationship to Earth, given the centrality of agriculture to the health of both humans and the environment. A key milestone in the affirmation of this concept was the 2008 publication of the comprehensive UN and World Bank-sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The Report argues that ‘agriculture is at a crossroads’ because of the problem of expanding an unsustainable form of industrial agriculture at the expense of farming livelihoods and practices that could ensure local, domestic food security and ecological health. Observing that ‘business as usual is no longer an option’, in the context of multiple crises at the start of the twenty-first century, the IAASTD questions industrial agriculture and transgenic foods as solutions (to food insecurity, climatic emergency, ecosystem degradation and slum expansion) since markets fail to adequately value environmental and social harm (IAASTD 2008: 20) (see also Vaarst, chapter 7, this volume; Fanzo et al., chapter 20, this volume). The IAASTD Report documented increasingly unfavorable impacts of farm sector liberalization on small producers, recommending national policy flexibility to protect farming communities alongside subsidies for environmental stewardship and a general reorientation to agricultural multi-functionality. Here, farming would perform social, environmental, and nutritional functions rather than be reduced to an industrial input–output activity largely premised on provisioning global supply chains. Further, IAASTD recommended the subordination of current market-centrism and its externalization of environmental impacts to a strong rights-based framework, and full-cost accounting, geared to ‘nonhierarchical development models’ premised on valuing farmer knowledge, agro-biodiversity and common resource management systems (IAASTD 2008: 5–7). 335

Philip McMichael

As a high-water mark in addressing the role of farming in planetary sustainability, the IAASTD Report embodied the substance of food sovereignty principles. Yet, the Report itself was marginalized following scientific journal reaction to the withdrawal from the Assessment by biotech and pesticide firms such as Syngenta and CropLife International (an association of agrochemical firms).1 These interests were uncomfortable with the Report’s cautious approach to transgenic seed technology. Nevertheless, the science and the sentiments that informed the Report remain credible, and have underpinned ‘food sovereignty’ as a mobilizing concept and increasing practice across the world.

Food sovereignty origins The food sovereignty movement emerged in the early days of a global agrarian crisis accompanying the neoliberal era (1980s to the present). While the term appeared in Central America in the 1980s (Edelman 2014), it was in 1992, at a meeting of farmers’ organizations, from Latin America and Europe, in Managua, that the progenitor of ‘food sovereignty’, Vía Campesina was formed.2 As founding member, Paul Nicholson of the International Coordinating Committee of Vía Campesina put it: ‘At that time, we issued a “Managua declaration” where we denounced the “agrarian crisis” and “rural poverty and hunger” resulting from the neoliberal policies’ (Nicholson 2008: 456). Four years later, in Tlaxcala, Mexico, a Vía Campesina working group recommended the term ‘food sovereignty’, to be ‘adopted by the whole movement and then defended publicly for the first time at the FAO World Food Summit in Rome’ (Vía Campesina 1996), at which an NGO Forum declared that ‘food sovereignty’ should take ‘precedence over macro-economic policies and trade liberalization’ (Claeys 2015: 13).3 This was one year after the formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), with its Agreement on Agriculture protocol. The latter helped bring into effect a food regime4 whereby the entry of subsidized US/EU agro-exports into markets in the global South was institutionally strengthened, forcing small producers to compete unfairly with imported foodstuffs. The WTO’s formation followed an extensive period in which Structural Adjustment Policies, deployed by the International Financial Institutions via a debt regime (McMichael 2012), mandated widespread dismantling of farm price supports, rural credit and marketing boards across the global South. These processes contributed to the vulnerability of farm sectors in the global South to US/EU agro-exports, and heightened international competition more generally. For a quarter of a century, the World Bank marginalized agriculture and food provisioning in its annual World Development Reports, deeming food security to be best facilitated through a globally managed operation via trade liberalization and private control of agrifood production and circulation.5 As a result, national food dependency levels arose alongside of an intensifying peasant dispossession and deterioration of the conditions of smallholder farming (GRAIN 2008a: 2; Madeley 2000). Vía Campesina made the connection: ‘The neo-liberal agricultural policies have led to the destruction of our family farm economies and to a profound crisis in our societies’ (Vía Campesina 1999). The programmatic element of ‘food sovereignty’, then, linked the struggle for food policy autonomy with the revaluation of rural communities. Vía Campesina’s definition of food sovereignty emphasized ‘the right of each nation to maintain and develop its own capacity to produce its basic foods respective of cultural and productive diversity’ (Vía Campesina 1996). Later, noting that ‘food sovereignty has become the backbone of our struggle’, particularly in proposing ways out of the crisis. Nicholson, summarized: ‘We propose local food markets, the right of any country to protect its borders from imported food, sustainable agriculture and the defence of biodiversity, healthy food, jobs and strong livelihood in rural areas’ (Nicholson 2008: 457). 336

Food sovereignty

All this came to a head in the first decade of the new century as evidence of degrading ecosystems (United Nations 2005) and rural displacement (Davis 2006) mounted. The long agrarian crisis identified by the early food sovereignty movement was then aggravated by rising food prices in the new century. Higher food prices stimulated by biofuels investment by large agro-corporate entities displacing food crop land for fuel crops, instigated heightened price swings as financial speculators bid for these resources. In these ways, the emergent corporate food regime undermined the social reproductive capacity of peasantries, contributing to a stagnation in food supply manifest in particular during the 2007–08 ‘food crisis’, when small farmers could not take advantage of higher agricultural prices, given the increased burden of rising agro-input costs, notably fertilizers (GRAIN 2008a: 3 and 2008b), that were hinged to food price inflation. At the same time, as the World Bank acknowledged in its 2008 World Development Report, privatization had taken its toll: Structural adjustment in the 1980s dismantled the elaborate system of public agencies that provided farmers with access to land, credit, insurance inputs, and cooperative organization…. Incomplete markets and institutional gaps impose huge costs in forgone growth and welfare losses for smallholders, threatening their competitiveness and, in many cases, their survival. (World Bank 2007: 138) And so: ‘In the food crisis, for example, the governments didn’t have any political mechanisms for recognizing the crisis, of controlling the crisis, or reacting to the crisis. All the instruments were privatized’ (Masioli and Nicholson 2010: 40). In these various ways, twenty-first-century food price inflation registered the accumulation of crisis conditions experienced and anticipated by the emergent food sovereignty movement in the 1990s (cf. Jansen 2014).

Food sovereignty meanings In the shadow of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture’s intensification of exposure of small producers to unfair trade, the initial demand for ‘food sovereignty’ appealed to a conventional understanding of state sovereignty, that is, the right of states to determine their own national food policy, without being subordinated to monopoly trade relations. There was a momentous intervention at the FAO in Rome, 1996, at which Vía Campesina called into question the reigning assumption that ‘food security’ on a global scale could be accomplished privately through market trade, by transnational firms. There were two issues at stake: first, the question of national autonomy; and second, the fact that trade relations were asymmetrical in privileging the corporate food trade at the expense of small producers everywhere, thereby undermining the agrarian foundations of many states, particularly in the global South. Vía Campesina’s vision was for ‘the right of peoples, communities and countries to define their own agricultural, labour, fishing, food and land policies which are ecologically, socially, economically, and culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances’ (quoted in Ainger 2003: 11). In this way, the peasant movement politicized ‘food security’ by challenging the trade architecture via the conventional idiom of ‘sovereignty’ in an act of strategic essentialism, given that the FAO is a UN organization, and therefore anchored in member states. Vía Campesina’s deployment of the terminology of ‘sovereignty’ has been debated widely. McKay et al. (2014) claim a conventional double movement (Polanyi 1957) was at work here – where the counter-movement simply politicized the economistic notion of ‘food security’ via the market, initially demanding the right of nations to food sovereignty, followed later (in 2001) 337

Philip McMichael

by a discursive shift to the ‘rights of peoples’). Other commentators (Hospes 2014; Schiavoni forthcoming) identify this discursive dualism as a contradiction between state and civil society ‘sovereignties’ within the food sovereignty phenomenon. However, since Vía Campesina represented the voice of small producers, the demand for national autonomy was accompanied by an additional desire for grassroots sovereignty in national food systems. Certainly the initial food sovereignty movement had a strategic target to address in the complicity of states in a neoliberal version of market-based food security. But this kind of strategic essentialism was grounded in a grass-roots movement claiming the right to produce staple foods, to reproduce society and manage local resources – expressed in the slogan: ‘not about us without us’. Accordingly, food sovereignty chapters like the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) in Brazil (translated into English, the Landless Workers’ Movement) have been busy constructing sub-national communities in the name of ‘agrarian citizenship’6 as an epistemic challenge to the modernist premise of citizenship as urbanity, including a process of transforming the (meaning of the) state by subordinating markets to social and ecological criteria. Whether simultaneous or sequential, the question of transforming the state from within, and in particular ensuring states recognize and empower their agrarian constituencies, is an enduring issue. That is, it is one thing for the food sovereignty movement to envision moving on both tracks – advocating for national food policy autonomy, and at the same time advocating the rights of small producers within that new framework – but it is another for states to accede to both demands. This is the subject of the following section.

The food sovereignty project At present the relevant food sovereignty vision statement comes from the Nyéléni Declaration of 2007: ‘The right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and the right to define their own food and agricultural systems’, (Nyéléni Declaration 2009: 673). Following this is the advocacy of a Peasants’ Rights Charter in the UN (Claeys 2015), which is emphatic about revising the UN’s International Convention on Economic and Social and Cultural Rights from fulfillment of the right to food, to the more fundamental fulfillment of the right to produce food. While the meaning of food sovereignty is anchored in the struggles of the peasant/farmer coalition, the term has traveled beyond its identification with the countryside, being adopted also by ‘advocacy groups associated with the turn to sustainable/organic/local food systems, as well as development NGOs, faith-based charities, Native American rights organizations, and environmental groups’ (Fairbairn 2012: 218). While not disengaging food sovereignty from its producer origins, the term itself includes political alliances with urban labour and urban consumers, as symbolized in the Slow Food project, which is geared to protecting (selective) farming heritages and reducing distance between producers and eaters (Petrini 2003).7 Various studies show that food sovereignty means different things across classes (McMahon 2014), and that food sovereignty ‘is differently appropriated in local settings, where individuals and groups have embraced it for more unique and domestically shaped acts of contention’ (Ayres and Bosia 2014). A comparison with fair trade (geared to the global market) suggests that local food movements offer a stronger basis from which to articulate a food sovereignty vision, in particular by substituting local for global market relations, that is, substituting short- for long- supply chains. With a community-based politics geared to social justice, exemplified in many Community-Supported Agricultures (CSAs), initially privileged forms of local consumption of quality foods can be transformed in a substantive food sovereignty direction (Zerbe 2014) (see also Schnell, chapter 23, this volume). 338

Food sovereignty

Food market localization is a necessary but not sufficient condition for food sovereignty. Uneven global developments juxtapose an international peasant coalition advocating local markets as a resistance against their elimination by global markets, and Northern locavores building local markets to improve food quality, reduce food miles and environmental stress, and sometimes for food justice. Here, CSAs are certainly a positive step where they sustain local farming, but this depends additionally on public management of surrounding land relations, including mutual recognition of rural and urban social and ecological relations involved in the production, processing and distribution of food (Friedmann 2011). While food sovereignty in the global South begins in the besieged countryside, food sovereignty in the global North tends to be urban/consumer driven.8 Whether the urban point of departure addresses besieged ‘eaters’ (the malnourished) is critical to the food sovereignty vision, and food access needs a sustaining order at the local level. Ultimately the democratic content of food sovereignty is substantiated by close rural/urban alliances around biodiversity and justice, and recognition of the salience of food producer rights for general and durable socio-ecological reproduction. Such alliance building (among producers and consumers, both urban and rural) has potential to reform states from within, from the bottom up (see, e.g., Claeys 2012), and is arguably under way in different forms across the world. In the global South in particular, this means anchoring food sovereignty in land-user rights to stabilize conditions for almost a third of the world’s population. Of course the struggle is broader than ‘peasantism’, thus: ‘How Vía Campesina will take up the challenge to keep advancing new rights while making them relevant for the whole of society is (of) great social relevance’ (Claeys 2012: 855).

Food sovereignty as counter-movement As a Polanyian counter-movement (that is, a mode of popular resistance to the marketization of society), food sovereignty establishes that the global market is instituted in such a way that states serve private interests, reducing food to the status of a commodity. There is an ethical dimension here, with material and practical applications for food and nutrition security: by what right does the global market displace people, knowledge and cultures? Vía Campesina coordinator Henry Saragih noted: ‘By reducing the meaning of food to a commodity only those who have money will be able to have access to food’.9 In shifting the emphasis from market value to social need, Vía Campesina observes: ‘Food is first and foremost a source of nutrition and only secondarily an item of trade’ (Vía Campesina 2001: 8). Of course nation-states are by no means endowed with similar natural and economic ‘resources’, and some are ex-colonies established historically as food exporters, so some food circulation remains necessary for populations currently dependent on food/exporting (Burnett and Murphy 2014). Here the right to food is at once universal but not universally available given the diversity of landscapes and of historical experiences of empire. At the same time, the food sovereignty movement posits a substantive, rather than formal, conception of rights to food, ‘whose content is not necessarily preordained by the state… the right is a right to selfdetermination, for communities to redefine for themselves the substance of the food relations appropriate to their geographies [and ecologies]’ (Patel and McMichael 2004: 249). The claim is that states, and/or other international institutions, should guarantee, but not necessarily author, the content of these rights, allowing multiple forms of realization by environmentalists, through seed savers and landless movements, to community-supported agricultures (Da Vía 2012; Kloppenburg 2014). In this way the movement represents an umbrella of resistance to corporate-led agriculture, with a strategic vision transcending the conventional categories of neoliberal economic development discourse. A key thread of course is the claim to respect and value the ‘peasant way’, rejecting the development narrative that consigns peasants to the 339

Philip McMichael

historical dustbin, and economistic assumptions that humans are separate from nature. Thus the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty states: No agrarian reform is acceptable that is based only on land distribution. We believe that the new agrarian reform must include a cosmic vision of the territories of communities of peasants, the landless, indigenous peoples, rural workers, fisherfolk, nomadic pastoralists, tribes, afrodescendents, ethnic minorities, and displaced peoples, who base their work on the production of food and who maintain a relationship of respect and harmony with Mother Earth and the oceans. (IPC for Food Sovereignty 2006) Put another way, MST leader, João Pedro Stedile observes: From the time of Zapata in Mexico, or of Julio in Brazil, the inspiration for agrarian reform was the idea that the land belonged to those who worked it. Today we need to go beyond this. It’s not enough to argue that if you work the land, you have proprietary rights over it…We want an agrarian practice that transforms farmers into guardians of the land, and a different way of farming, that ensures an ecological equilibrium and also guarantees that land is not seen as private property. (Stedile 2002: 100) In countering formal, and individualized, understandings of land reform, whether state-sponsored or market-sponsored in the ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ version promoted recently by the World Bank (Borras 2003, 2007), ‘food sovereignty’ politics draws on substantive conceptions of rights, economies and ecological relations. It transgresses the liberal conception of rights, rooted in the individual and her/his derivative, private property (Patel 2007; Claeys 2015). There are two consequences: first, neoliberal principles are orthogonal to a politics of (collective) rights (Harvey 2005: 178–79); and second, this politics of rights advocates realization through non-state subjectivities. That is, the right to food sovereignty is a right to self-definition – for communities of producers to ‘redefine for themselves the substance of food relations appropriate to their geographies’, ecologies, and histories (Patel and McMichael 2004: 249). In the discourse of capitalist modernity, food is conceived as a commodified input to enhance accumulation and urban provisioning. Peasant mobilization today conceives of food as comprising social, ecological, cultural and political relationships. As such it is increasingly understood as a source of political identity and substantive rights, to be realized through a substantive understanding of citizenship. In this way the food sovereignty movement reaches beyond a Polanyian double movement to redefine possibility in and beyond the state.10 It also advocates an alternative development narrative to reverse the social and ecological crisis of neoliberal capitalism. Thus the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty declares: In the context of food sovereignty, agrarian reform benefits all of society, providing healthy, accessible and culturally appropriate food, and social justice. Agrarian reform can put an end to the massive and forced rural exodus from the countryside to the city, which has made cities grow at unsustainable rates and under inhuman conditions.… (IPC for Food Sovereignty 2006) The coordinates of the conjuncture, within which ‘food sovereignty’ emerged as a countermovement, have shifted as the food regime has entered a crisis phase. The terms of opposition 340

Food sovereignty

include now a defense of ‘ways of life’ on the land against not only market forces (food surplus dumping), but also organized physical and economic enclosure (Liberti 2013). At the same time, the crisis has precipitated recognition of the false claims of neoliberal ‘food security’, expressing a legitimacy crisis for the international institutional architecture of the food regime. This, in turn, has spawned a power grab to reformulate the conditions of access to farmland, labour and product to feed and fuel the world minority possessing purchasing power (Kerssen 2012; McMichael 2012). In its grounded-heartlands and in global forums alike, the food sovereignty movement is confronted with protecting land-user claims (and rights) to their landscapes and territories, and with reframing the discourse regarding what is really at stake, namely the critical role of low-input, ecological farming in addressing food security, producer rights, and sustainable forms of production and reproduction in an age of climate uncertainty. Protection of land-user rights requires confronting what has been termed the modern ‘land grab’, by which governments, investors, and companies buy or lease land in order to secure access for food and/or biofuel production as (sometimes speculative) insurance against future food price crises and food supply shortfalls (De Schutter 2011). Whether from the global North, the Middle East, or East and South Asia, public and/or private investments offshore represent a new form of agro-security mercantilism (McMichael 2013a). Land deals are twofold: 1) land grabs that retitle and reclassify land as ‘vacant’ or ‘unused’ or ‘unproductive’, leading to the displacement and/or marginalization of small producers from their ancestral lands, including common lands; and 2) incorporating farmers into ‘value-chains’, which are premised on dispossession of producer knowledge and possibly their land. As the Gates Foundation, financier of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), suggests: commercial development of African agriculture ‘will require some degree of land mobility and a lower percentage of total employment involved in direct agricultural production’ (quoted in Xcroc 2009). Either way, the market solution to putative food shortages and the more widespread use of biofuels is to increase energy-intensive industrial agriculture. This includes not only the replacement of smallholdings with large-scale corporate farming, but the mobilization of small farmers as outgrowers within contract farming arrangements. This latter process is not an outright land grab, but serves similar purposes, as it depends on controlling land-based production through the subsumption of farm labour, regardless of whether such land remains nominally in the hands of the contract farmer.11 The term ‘value-chain’ implicitly expresses the power relations at work, since the process of commodification of land, water, labour and product amounts to a longer-term property relation whereby financiers and agribusiness convert land and livelihoods to a universal price metric, allowing the possibility of a wholesale alienation of landscapes and enclosure of futures in the name of market rationality (McMichael 2013b). Such enclosing of possibility by corporate markets converts land-use to singular dimensions serving private interests elsewhere. For example, Lacandon farmers, subjected to the food regime via dumping of subsidized corn in the Mexican markets, move on to practice carbon forestry as a survival strategy (Osborne 2011). There is a double enclosure here: first, through the price form, campesinos find their corn unable to compete with cheapened imported corn, forcing them to seek sources of income other than farming; and second, they resort to carbon forestry as an alternative income via the new value of timber/forestry production subsidized by carbon credits. Lands are alienated via commodification of their material and offset value. Ultimately, the extension of ‘land control’ via corporate markets, displacing milpa labour and elaborating forestry systems as sources of carbon credits, represents the exercise of property relations as ‘new enclosures’ (cf. Peluso and Lund 2011). Under these intensifying circumstances, where the ‘market’ is represented as the rational and neutral arbiter of sustainability, food security and employment (of displaced producers), the 341

Philip McMichael

food sovereignty movement has had to combine its call for political–economic autonomy with a rights-based politics (Mann 2014; Claeys 2015). This centers on the rights of producers, and the (associated) responsibilities of states. Here ‘sovereignty’ is not simply about states’ rights to determine food policy, but also it is increasingly about the rights of small-scale producers to their models of production and social reproduction.12 Producer rights and state responsibilities for protecting such rights in the interests of society are food sovereignty’s most substantial strategic initiatives for the twenty-first century. Beyond a ‘right to food’ politics, the food sovereignty movement makes the claim for the right to produce food, which in turn requires stabilizing the world’s small-producer population. Small-producers are situated within a dual conundrum in the current food regime. They are responsible for producing at least 50 per cent of the world’s food, yet account for about 50 per cent of the world’s hungry people (ETC 2009). Reframing the question of rights in this way connects the agenda of reducing hunger to the contradictions of market-driven assumptions about large-scale agriculture (see also Fanzo et al., chapter 20, this volume). ‘Sovereignty’ is understood in relation to producer rights, productive capacities, and their related infrastructural needs. This refocusing of the meaning and politics of food sovereignty centers increasingly on an ontological distinction between small- and medium-scale family-based farming, and corporateindustrial agriculture. From a food sovereignty perspective, these different forms of agriculture remain separate, notwithstanding attempts by UN/FAO member states and their private sector allies to recast small producers as potential ‘smallholder businesses’, waiting to engage in entrepreneurial agriculture if only provided with sufficient financial investments. The key principle here is ‘productivism’, by which ‘smallholder’ farming is evaluated and found lacking, in terms of ‘yield gaps’ to be resolved via ‘improvement’. Productivism imposes a standardized yield metric on farming, measuring only plant yields (but neither efficiency of water/energy use, nor environmental externalities), rather than the productivity of agroecological farming in terms of what is produced (food and fuel) and what is reproduced (eg, seed, soil fertility, water cycles). This can be understood as wealth itself, with additional socio-cultural value insofar as farming communities are adequately reproduced (Hilmi 2012). A snapshot productivity comparison between farms and agribusinesses ignores the neglect of small-scale farming, particularly in the global South, since the mid-twentieth century – during which industrial agricultural research ‘enjoyed 60 years of massive private and public sector support for crop genetic improvement, dwarfing funding for organic agriculture by 99 to 1’ (Holt-Giménez 2012: 1). This ontological distinction between small producer farming and corporate agriculture is routinely conflated in the UN/FAO’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS) debates, in which the food sovereignty movement is represented by the Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) – a grouping incorporated into the CFS in 2009 in context of the legitimacy crisis of the UN organization during the food crisis (McKeon 2009). Given the intensifying land deal context, in addition to the notion of land as an investment refuge, it serves investor interest to represent ‘smallholders’ as potential entrepreneurs, even as the multi-functional character of small producer communities is documented in CFS reports. The CFS High-Level Panel of Experts’ Report on Investing in Smallholder Agriculture for Food Security defines small-scale farming in the following way: Smallholder agriculture is practised by families (including one or more households) using only or mostly family labour and deriving from that work a large but variable share of their income, in kind or in cash... it includes crop raising, animal husbandry, forestry and artisanal fisheries... Off-farm activities play an important role in providing smallholders with additional income and as a way of diversifying risk... smallholders 342

Food sovereignty

producing only or mainly for subsistence are not uncommon... smallholders’ families are part of social networks within which mutual assistance and reciprocity translate into collective investments (mainly through work exchanges) and into solidarity systems… smallholder agriculture is the foundation of food security in many countries and an important part of the social/economic/ecological landscape in all countries. (CFS 2013: 10–11) Furthermore, the ‘potential efficiency of smallholder farming relative to larger farms has been widely documented, focusing on the capacity of smallholders to achieve high production levels per unit of land through the use of family labour in diversified production systems’ (CFS 2013: 12). In relation to these claims, the CSM argues that there is a significant difference between labour, and financial, investment. Labour investment is the differentia specifica of small-producer/ peasant agriculture (cf. Ploeg 2009), and, according to the CFS, small producers are the ‘main investors’ (2013: 16). This point is barely recognized in mainstream UN/FAO accounts because of the singular understanding of ‘investment’ as financial (no doubt because the powers that be are investors, not farmers). Under these circumstances, sovereignty is ultimately about securing the small-producer mode of farming, as human–nature co-production and as a collective right of a class of land-users who are routinely invisibilized as farmers in their own right. In this sense food sovereignty is a counter-movement posing alternatives to the neo-liberal and agroindustrial path.

Food sovereignty echoes in the UN While the Polanyian counter-movements focused their attention on state regulatory institutions, the food sovereignty movement works at all scales: grass-roots; national; international; and global (Desmarais 2007; Kerssen 2012; Mann 2014; Andreé et al. 2014; Vergara-Camus 2014). Within the UN, the recent Right to Food Rapporteur has recommended deepening domestic production to reduce food dependency, observing that there are ‘approximately 500 million small-scale farmers in developing countries making them not only the vast majority of the world’s farmers but, taking into account their families, responsible for the well-being of over two billion persons’ (De Schutter 2011: 13). Reclaiming this right requires a power rebalance in order to restore integrity to domestic farm sectors and rights to producing communities, and reducing or eliminating agribusiness, grain trader, retailer, and affluent consumer power in order to prioritize food security as a socio-political right, rather than a market relation. Either way, sovereignty is critical to protection or reorientation of small-scale producers. But sovereignty also means ‘epistemic autonomy’ – that is, distinguishing economic/financial and noneconomic values such as sufficiency economy, reciprocity via seed networks, an ecological calculus, and so on. In the UN debates, for example in the 40th Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS 2013: 40), the persisting trade reflex (by which states secure their balance of payments) reproduces the notion that agriculture is a revenue operation and is best left to ‘entrepreneurial farming’. One representative of the Private Sector Mechanism (PSM), from an agro-food network, made the following observations in a debate about small farmers, land, and investments: While there is a consensus that farmers are at the center, farming needs to be understood as a profession, and food security is about economic growth, not just growing food – thus farmers need to break the subsistence cycle and become entrepreneurs, produce more with less land, and stabilize via land ownership, inputs (agro-chemicals), knowledge, and market access.13 343

Philip McMichael

This representation of farmers echoes other such statements in the course of CFS debates regarding smallholders being at the heart of a ‘transition’.14 Ultimately, the representation draws on a form of economic reductionism, reproduced by private sector representatives: ‘we invest in large and small’ – implying scale neutrality that obscures the incommensurability of small farming and industrial agriculture, and: ‘agriculture investments are wonderful job creators’ – suggesting either plantations or agro-industrial estates as job safety nets for displaced farmers where jobs are the currency of modernity. Job provision assumes that small-scale producers are better off earning a wage (assuming that the agri-estate endures), and that small farming is no different from farm working. This reflects considerable ontological ignorance (c.f. Ploeg 2009). The emphasis on a financial calculus similarly discounts local common pool resources, managed by self-organizing land users with shared rules which ‘differ from the logic of capital – they reflect, instead the interests and perspectives of the involved producers, ecological cycles and/ or principles such as social justice, solidarity, or the containment of (potential) conflicts’ (Ploeg et al. 2012: 164). These principles lie at the core of food sovereignty – the term is not simply about autonomy, rather it embodies a historic, ontological alternative to the juggernaut of agroindustrialization, and the trade regime upon which it depends.

Conclusion This chapter notes that the world is at a turning point represented by the conjunction of food, energy and climate crises and the growing recognition that the rampant materialism of twentyfirst-century capitalism is grossly unequal and evidently unsustainable. Managing the future, equitably, is of great urgency just as understanding the future is an issue requiring attention to ecosystem repair and viability. Agriculture works with/on/against nature. Farming practices, when sustainable, nurture nature and provide food. When the food sovereignty movement claims to feed the world and cool the planet, it is reminding us that low-input farming systems regenerate natural processes and sequester carbon, and have the potential (if adequately supported) to provision social diets across the world that are place-based, and healthier than chemicalized and processed global ‘food from nowhere’ (Bové and Dufour 2001; Holt-Giménez, 2012; Badgley et al. 2007). Here, managing the (or in fact ‘a’) future means prioritizing food production that reproduces (rather than disrupts, destroys or suppresses) natural cycles, and sustains human health. As noted, food sovereignty is a contested concept with multiple meanings. Its elasticity reflects both the evolution of the food sovereignty movement itself, from its origins in the early to mid-neoliberal era to the present day, and the centrality of food for a variety of social groupings, livelihoods and places. In addition, food sovereignty potentially reflects the central nerve in the global counter-movement to market rule (Starr 2000; McMichael 2013c), given the growing perception of ecosystem disruption and degradation and the evident dysfunction of the WTO regime with respect to trade in agricultural commodities. At this crisis juncture, global debates about sustaining Earth and its inhabitants inevitably gravitate to the question of food provisioning and environmental/resource conservation. Finally, as a slogan, food sovereignty plays the role of midwife – encouraging the labour contractions of another world. It is not the other world yet. It may be problematic in invoking sovereign states when ultimately we need to transcend a highly unequal state system based on destructive economic competition. Nevertheless, it politicizes the current food system, challenging its epistemic premises, especially ‘scale efficiency’ in production: highly subsidized energy-intensive industrial agriculture that externalizes environmental costs (soil and genetic erosion, GHG, chemical pollution) and social impacts (displacement, food dependence, 344

Food sovereignty

pesticide contamination), supported by asymmetrical trade rules. It resonates with deepening material limits (e.g., water crises, land degradation, toxicities), encouraging recognition of (at least) the environmental and health deficits associated with industrial agriculture. It also resonates with Slow Food, community-supported agriculture and public experiments in municipal food provisioning. The values involved reintegrate ecology (and its knowledges), economy, democracy, and security in a variety of forms of social reproduction reconnecting with natural foundations and social, rather than marketized, visions of human futures.

Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Melissa McCullough and Bill Pritchard for editorial improvements.

Notes 1 See http://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/about-the-iaastd-report/about-iaastd.html 2 An international coalition comprising 150 organizations from 70 countries. In 2000, Vía Campesina joined with 51 other civil society organizations to form the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty, which operates at the international policy level (Desmarais 2007). 3 For elaboration of this history, see: Desmarais (2007); Wittman et al. (2010 and 2011); McKeon (2015); Claeys (2015). 4 ‘Food regime’ refers to the political ordering of food production for, and circulation via, the world market (McMichael 2013c). 5 The Bank’s 2008 Report focused on ‘agriculture for development’. 6 Hannah Wittman defines agrarian citizenship as follows: ‘The idea that rural producers have not only rights to the land and the environment but also responsibilities, connected to these rights, for maintaining the diversity of social–ecological reproduction’ (Wittman 2010: 96). 7 For a critique, see Lotti (2010). 8 Arguably this reflects the settler origins of North America, and Australia, in contrast to the European scene, where there is an active rural food sovereignty movement (Bové and Dufour 2001; McMichael 2011). 9 http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/biodiversity-and-genetic-resourcesmainmenu-37/544-food-sovereignty-to-answer-world-food-and-energy-crisis 10 This is distinct from Polanyi’s ‘double movement’ – whereby social resistance to the disabling effects of ‘market society’ resulted in the market-regulating social welfare state – insofar as the food sovereignty counter-movement posits an ontological alternative of embedding economy in ecological relations, rather than simply embedding economy in society. 11 This is the case in particular for current forms of value-chains, where small producers are being mobilized into corporate markets (cf. Nielson and Pritchard 2009). 12 Here, in addition to championing grass-roots voices in domestic food security policy, the championing is of a different, but related, order, namely the strengthening claims of the salience of small-scale farming and their ecological communities for surviving climate crisis in the twenty-first century. 13 This is a direct quote recorded by the author at the CFS debates on ‘responsible agricultural investment’, at the FAO, Rome, October 2013. 14 One such statement in October, 2013, in CFS 40, was that the implementation of the rai would represent a ‘new deal for smallholders’.

References Ainger, K. 2003. The new peasants’ revolt. New Internationalist, 353: 9–13. Andrée, P., Ayres, J., Bosia, M. and Massicotte, M.-J. (eds.). 2014. Globalization and food sovereignty: global and local change in the new politics of food. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ayres, J. and Bosia, M. 2014. Food sovereignty as localized resistance in France and the United States. In: Globalization and food sovereignty: global and local change in the new politics of food. Andrée, P., Ayres, J., Bosia, M. and Massicotte, M.-J. (eds.), pp. 319–344. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

345

Philip McMichael Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M. J., Aviles-Vazquez, K., Samulon, A. and Perfecto, I. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2): 86–108. Borras, S. M. Jr. 2003. Questioning market-led agrarian reform: experiences from Brazil, Colombia and South Africa. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(3): 367–394. Borras, S. M. Jr. 2007. Pro-poor land reform. A critique. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Bové, J. and Dufour, F. 2001. The world is not for sale. London: Verso. Burnett, K. and Murphy, S. 2014. What place for international trade in food sovereignty? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6): 1065–1084. CFS. 2013. Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. Rome: FAO (High Level Panel of Experts). Claeys, P. 2012. The creation of new rights by the food sovereignty movement: the challenge of institutionalizing subversion. Sociology, 46(5): 844–860. Claeys, P. 2015. Human rights and the food sovereignty movement: reclaiming control. London and New York: Routledge. Da Vía, E. 2012. Seed diversity, farmers’ rights, and the politics of repeasantization. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19(2): 229–242. Davis, M. 2006. Planet of slums. London: Verso. De Schutter, O. 2010a. Addressing concentration in food supply chains. Briefing Note 03. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. De Schutter, O. 2010b. Responsibly destroying the world’s peasantry. 4 June. Available at: farmlandgrab. org/13528. De Schutter, O. 2011. How not to think of land-grabbing: three critiques of large-scale investments in farmland. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2): 249–280. Desmarais, A. A. 2007. Globalization and the power of peasants: La Vía Campesina. Halifax: Fernwood Books. Desmarais, A. A., and Wittman, H. 2014. Farmers, foodies and first nations: getting to food sovereignty in Canada. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6): 1153–1173. Edelman, M. 2014. Food sovereignty: forgotten genealogies and future regulatory challenges. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6): 959–998. ETC. 2009. Who will feed us? ETC Group Communiqué, 102 (November). Available at: www. etcgroup.org. Fairbairn, M. 2012. Framing transformation: the counter-hegemonic potential of food sovereignty in the US context. Agriculture and Human Values, 29: 217–230. Friedmann, H. 2011. Food sovereignty in the Golden Horseshoe region of Ontario. In: Food sovereignty: reconnecting food, nature and community. Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A. and N. Wiebe (eds.). Halifax: Fernwood. GRAIN. 2008a. Making a killing from hunger. Against the Grain. Available at: http://www.grain.org/atg/ (Accessed 18 May 2008). GRAIN. 2008b. Seed aid, agribusiness and the food crisis. Seedling. October. Giunta, I. 2014. Food sovereignty in Ecuador: peasant struggles and the challenge of institutionalization. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6): 1201–1224. Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hilmi, A. 2012. Agricultural transition: a different logic. Rome: The More and Better Network. Holt-Giménez, E. 2012. We already grow enough food for 10 billion people – and still can’t end hunger. The Huffington Post, May 2, 1–2. Hospes, O. 2014. Food sovereignty: the debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour. Agriculture and Human Values, 31: 119–130. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). 2008. Executive summary of the synthesis report. Available at: www.agassessment. org/ docs/SR_Exec_Sum_280508_English.pdf. IPC for Food Sovereignty. 2006. Sovranita Alimentare. Final declaration: for a new agrarian reform based on food sovereignty. 9 March. Available at: http://movimientos.org/cloc/fororeformagraria/show_text.ph. Jansen, K. 2014. The debate on food sovereignty theory: agrarian capitalism, dispossession and agroecology. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 42 (1): 213–232. Kerssen, T. M. 2012. Grabbing power: the new struggles for land, food and democracy in northern Honduras. Oakland: Food First Books. Kloppenburg, J. 2014. Repurposing the master’s tools: the open source seed initiative and the struggle for seed sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6): 1225–1246. Liberti, S. 2013. Land grabbing: journeys in the new colonialism. London and New York: Verso. Lotti, A. 2010. The commoditization of products and taste: slow food and the conservation of agrobiodiversity. Agriculture and Human Values, 27(1): 71–83.

346

Food sovereignty Madeley, J. 2000. Hungry for trade. London: Zed Books. Mann, A. 2014. Power shift: global activism in food politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Masioli, I. and Nicholson, P. 2010. Seeing like a peasant: voices from La Vía Campesina. In: Food sovereignty: reconnecting food, nature and community. Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A. and Wiebe, N. (eds.). Halifax: Fernwood. McKay, B., Nehring R. and Walsh-Dilley, M. 2014. The ‘state’ of food sovereignty in Latin America: political projects and alternative pathways in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6): 1175–1200. McKeon, N. 2009. The United Nations and civil society. London and New York: Zed Books. McKeon, N. 2015. Food security governance: empowering communities, regulating corporations. London: Routledge. McMahon, M. 2014. Local food? Food sovereignty or myth of alternative consumer sovereignty? In: Globalization and food sovereignty: global and local change in the new politics of food. Andrée, P., Ayres, J., Bosia, M. and Massicotte, M.-J. (eds,), pp. 111–138. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. McMichael, P. 2011. Food system sustainability: questions of environmental governance in the new world (dis)order. Global Environmental Change, 21(3): 804–812. McMichael, P. 2012. The ‘land grab’ and corporate food regime restructuring. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3/4): 681–701. McMichael, P. 2013a. Land grabbing as security mercantilism in international relations. Globalizations, 10(1), 47–64. McMichael, P. 2013b. Value-chain agriculture and debt relations: contradictory outcomes. Third World Quarterly, 34(4): 671–690. McMichael, P. 2013c. Food regimes and agrarian questions. Halifax: Fernwood Press. Nicholson, P. 2008. Vía Campesina: responding to global systemic crisis. Development, 51(4): 456–459. Nielson, J. and Pritchard, B. 2009. Value chain struggles. London: Blackwell. Nyéléni Declaration on Food Sovereignty. 2009. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3): 673–676. Osborne, T. M. 2011. Carbon forestry and agrarian change: access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4): 859–884. Patel, R. 2007. Transgressing rights: La Vía Campesina’s call for food sovereignty. Feminist Economics, 13(1): 87–93. Patel, R. and McMichael, P. 2004. Third Worldism and the lineages of global fascism: the regrouping of the global South in the neo-liberal era. Third World Quarterly, 25(1): 231–254. Patel, R. and McMichael, P. 2009. A political economy of the food riot. Review, XXXII(1): 9–35. Patnaik, P. 2008. The accumulation process in the period of globalisation. Economic and Political Weekly 28: 108–113. Peluso, N. and Lund, C. 2011. New frontiers of land control: introduction. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4): 667–682. Petrini, C. 2003. Slow food: the case for taste. New York: Columbia University Press. Ploeg, van der J. D. 2009. The ‘new’ peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. London: Earthscan. Ploeg, van der J. D., Jingzhong, Y. and Schneider, S. 2012. Rural development through the construction of new, nested markets: comparative perspectives from China, Brazil and the European Union. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(1): 133–174. Polanyi, K. 1957. The great transformation: the political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press. Rose, N. 2012. Optimism of the will: food sovereignty as transformative counter-hegemony in the 21st century. PhD dissertation, School of Global Studies, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Schiavoni, C. 2015. Competing sovereignties, contested processes: insights from the Venezuelan food sovereignty experiment. Globalizations, 12(4): 466–480. Starr, A. 2000. Naming the enemy: anti-corporate movements confront globalization. London: Zed. Stedile, J. 2002. Landless battalions. New Left Review, 15: 77–104. United Nations. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Available at: www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx. Vergara-Camus, L. 2014. Land and freedom: the MST, the Zapatistas and peasant alternatives to neoliberalism. London: Zed Books. Vía Campesina. 1996. The right to produce and access to land: food sovereignty: a future without hunger. Statement at the World Food Summit, Rome. Vía Campesina. 1999. Seattle declaration: take WTO out of agriculture, 3 December. Available at: http:// viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57:seattle-declaration-takewto-out-of-agriculture&catid=24:10-years-of-wto-isenough&Itemid=35. Vía Campesina. 2001. Our world is not for sale. Priority to people’s food sovereignty. Bulletin, November 1.

347

Philip McMichael Wittman, H. 2010. Agrarian reform and the environment: fostering ecological citizenship in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 29(3–4): 281–298. Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A. and Wiebe, N. (eds.). 2010. Food sovereignty: reconnecting food, nature and community. Halifax: Fernwood. Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A. and Wiebe, N. 2011. Food sovereignty in Canada: creating just and sustainable food systems. Halifax: Fernwood. World Bank. 2007. World development report, 2008. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Xcroc. 2009. AGRA and Monsanto and Gates, green washing and poor washing. Crossed Crocodiles, April 6. Available at: http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/agra-monsanto-gates-green-washingpoor-washing/. Zerbe, N. 2014. Exploring the limits of fair trade: the local food movement in the context of late capitalism. In: Globalization and food sovereignty: global and local change in the new politics of food. Andrée, P., Ayres, J., Bosia, M. and Massicotte, M.-J. (eds.), pp. 84–110. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

348

23 LOCALISM AND FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY Steven M. Schnell

Introduction A host of events have brought questions about procurement systems, dependence and distance back to the forefront of public discussion of food. The 2007–2008 price spikes of basic staple food items globally that spurred protests and unrest in many countries, coupled with increasing concerns about the effects of global climate change on agriculture, have led many governments to develop or strengthen national food supply policies (Jarosz 2011; Anderson and Bellows 2012; Kirwan and Maye 2013; Special issue of Journal of Rural Studies edited by Maye and Kirwan 2013; Allen 2013 contains an overview of this issue). Such price shocks and instability shook the unthinking acceptance of global markets as guarantors of food and nutrition security. The very definition of food and nutrition security (FNS) is one that has shifted substantially over the years, as has the geographic scale at which governments and organizations have examined and framed the issue (Anderson and Cook 1999; Brunori and Guarino 2010; Jarosz 2011; Kirwan and Maye 2013; Allen 2013; Pritchard, chapter 1, this volume). However, national discourses and government responses, especially in the developed world, have largely ignored the role of the local (Kirwan and Maye 2013). This chapter provides a critical review of arguments about the role that local food systems can play in addressing FNS in the developed world, focusing especially on the national contexts of the United States and Canada. It also addresses several of the main critiques of local food in the service of FNS, and argues that too strong a theoretical focus on the ideas of neoliberalism has detracted from a broader, more constructive understanding of both the prospects and problems of local food as a contributor to FNS.

Community food security and food justice National level food policy, both in the United States and Canada, as well as much of Europe, has focused on what has been termed a national scale ‘productivist’ mindset (Tomlinson 2013; McDonagh 2014). This relies on increased technological inputs and bulk outputs in order to increase aggregate food supply, and having faith in markets to magically sort it all out. The oftcited figure of a need to ‘double food production to feed the 9 billion’ (Tomlinson 2013; Maye and Kirwan 2013) exemplifies this mindset. However, this ignores the fact that FNS has little 349

Steven M. Schnell

to do with the total amount of food available, but rather, the population’s ability to access and afford such food. Any attempt to alleviate food insecurity must therefore address poverty and inequality (Kirwan and Maye 2013). It makes no difference if a country produces large enough quantities of food if part of the population does not have access to it, or cannot afford it. While national governmental attention (when it exists at all) remains focused on broader definitions of FNS, some activists have framed the question at a more local scale, drawing on the community food security (CFS) paradigm developed initially in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Fairbairn 2012). This was defined by the Community Food Security Coalition as ‘all persons obtaining, at all times, a culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through local, non-emergency sources’ (quoted in Fairbairn 2012: 221). Ideas of food justice, defined by the civil society organization Just Food as ‘communities exercising their right to grow, sell, and eat [food that is] fresh, nutritious, affordable, culturally appropriate, and grown locally with care for the well-being of the land, workers, and animals’ (quoted in Alkon and Agyeman 2011: 5) also form a large part of this movement.1 CFS and food justice thus intrinsically put a local spin on the idea of FNS, and explicitly focus on food access for low-income populations and neighbourhoods, rather than on aggregate food production (Fairbairn 2012). CFS typically works by creating coalitions between existing institutions and agencies, and operates at many different geographic scales (Anderson 2013). At its heart is strengthening the relations between local food producers and consumers (Heynen et al. 2012), both by increasing local accessibility to food and by fostering the means to obtain it. The rise of CFS has happened alongside a more general growing interest in local food production in the developed world, particularly among the middle and upper-middle classes. Direct marketing avenues such as community supported agriculture (CSA) and farmers’ markets have grown dramatically in the past quarter century (Brown 2001; Schnell 2007). Because such choices are more readily available to those with means than to those without, local food advocates have been criticized for neglecting issues of economic class, race, and geographical disparity (see, e.g., Alkon and Norgaard 2009; Guthman 2008b; Allen 2010). Food justice and community food security advocates, however, have seen the potential to make local food systems the cornerstones of strategies to bring food to food-insecure populations. The CFS movement emerged at a time when many Western governments strove to dismantle social safety nets and to retreat from social welfare commitments (Allen 1999). Increasingly mistrustful of the government to be able, or willing, to do anything about hunger, CFS activists set about creating localized networks of food provision that would be more immune to the vagaries of the market system, and that would be more locally self-reliant. The community scale, they have argued, can be the most effective scale for addressing FNS, because it is at that scale that contextual factors such as transportation, retail opportunities, conflict, cultural and community dynamics, and nature of social interactions can be effectively incorporated into solutions. CFS programs have employed a variety of approaches, including farmers’ markets, CSA boxes, urban gardens, gleaning, and cooking education (Wakefield et al. 2012). The local scale also can keep more food dollars in the community, can return knowledge of how to produce and distribute food to communities, and can increase a broader sense of community cohesion and identity (Anderson and Cook 1999 and 2000). The greater connections between producers and consumers can, if done well, result in what Lyson termed civic agriculture, which refers to the strengthened social ties and sense of community that can result from direct marketing, small-scale agriculture forms such as CSAs and farmers’ markets (Lyson 2004; see also DeLind and Bingen 2008 for a critique of the use of the term). One of the powers of localization of food systems is that it can serve to remove the distance between production and consumption – not only geographically, but also psychologically 350

Localism and food and nutrition security

– allowing for a more ‘embedded’ market for food – that is to say, a market in which monetary gain is not the sole motivating force (Obach and Tobin 2014).

The local trap critique This is a tall order indeed. A common rejoinder to advocates of localized food systems has been the so-called ‘local trap’ critique (Born and Purcell 2006). In a nutshell, this critique argues that advocating a more local food system is pointless, because there are no qualities intrinsic to any scale. Born and Purcell take this further and argue, without evidence, that localized food systems are no more likely than non-local systems to provide justice, sustainability, democratic systems, nutrition, or freshness, to name just a few (Born and Purcell 2006). Purveyors of this critique regularly condemn advocates of localized food systems for automatically assuming that localization will lead to desirable outcomes (Kirwan and Maye 2013). Patricia Allen has enumerated a number of ways in which local emphases may be harmful to FNS efforts: localism can subordinate material and cultural differences to a mythical community interest.... The focus on local action may also distract attention from the larger-scale dynamics of food insecurity... localism can be based on a category of ‘otherness’ that reduces the lens of who we care about... localism may bring about marginal defensive actions that can pit communities against each other. (Allen 1999: 121–22; see also Allen 2008; 2010) Some have carried this local trap critique to an even greater extreme. Winter, for example, argued that localized food systems are exclusionary by definition, and are examples of what he has termed ‘defensive localism’, which is fundamentally reactionary and elitist, and automatically disdainful of those outside its purview (Winter 2003). It is true that some of the literature paints an overly rosy portrait of local food. But many critics just as unthinkingly condemn it, employing the ‘local trap’ critique as a blanket dismissal of local efforts (DeFilippis et al. 2006). As Kloppenburg and Hassanein (2006) and Schnell (2013) have noted, the ‘local trap’ has become a straw man argument, inveighing against a cartoon of an unthinking, uncritical local food advocate that may not, in fact, exist in the real world. Briefly, such assertions (that local systems are not automatically virtuous in every way, an eminently reasonable assertion) have too often been cited in the literature as proof that local systems are inherently, intrinsically unjust and unreflexive. Rather than critically examining such systems, too often the ‘local trap’ critique shuts down possibilities a priori. Localism need not be ‘defensive’. A ‘reflexive localism’ (DuPuis and Goodman 2005; see also DuPuis et al. 2011), one that maintains what Massey (1994) has termed a ‘global sense of place’, can give place-based projects liberating possibilities, and can create new connections between urban and rural landscapes (Allen and Wilson 2008; Featherstone et al. 2012; Sonnino 2013). Local efforts also are fertile ground for experimentation with new economic and social forms, and are more readily able to implement change than at larger scales (Allen 2010). Place itself can foster greater engagement of citizens in bringing about change (Sonnino 2013). Place is about much more than mere scale (as the local trap critique would have it). As DeLind and Bingen (2008: 245) point out, ‘in part, our estrangement from the sensual and spiritual also may be tied to our “placelessness” and to a generally instrumentalist approach to our lives. So when we talk about food in the US, for example, nutritional components and contents, not place or taste, dominate our public discourse’. CFS takes seriously the importance of place; 351

Steven M. Schnell

like civic agriculture, it embeds economic relationships into a more complex web of interactions and interrelationships – environmental, social, personal, and civic – and looks to the power of locally based organizations to solve problems within a community of people bound by place.

Place-based food and nutrition security projects Next, I will turn my attention to research about a number of different types of local food projects as they relate to FNS, before turning to a discussion of some of the general critiques made of these approaches, and finally concluding with a section indicting directions forward. This chapter deals with such issues largely in the United States and Canada, where the literature on social justice and the food system has been most robust.

Community-supported agriculture Community-supported agriculture is one of the main models of local food provision that has emerged in the past few decades. Although CSAs take on a wide variety of forms and arrangements, their core idea is that a customer signs up for an entire growing season. Typically paying the fee for the season up front, or in installments, the members receive a share of the farm’s produce each week. There are a number of benefits of such an arrangement for the farmer, chief among them being the up-front access to cash at the start of a growing season, the time of the year that is typically high in expenses and low in income. CSAs have taken an increasing diversity of forms. Some have numerous pick-up spots, while others require on-farm pick-up. Many hold events such as potlucks, concerts, or farm workdays to help establish a sense of community among members (Schnell 2007 and 2013). While CSAs have brought local food to millions of members, as a tool for helping to establish FNS and food justice, they have some serious shortcomings. First and foremost, many require all or a significant portion of the membership fees to be paid up front, with no guarantee of a particular amount of food. For food-insecure households who may be living hand-to-mouth, such an arrangement is not realistic (Guthman et al. 2006). Although some CSAs have workshare options – where all or a portion of the cost of membership is offset by working a specified number of hours on the farm – these are logistically difficult, or impossible, for families with childcare or work commitments. Finally, it can be difficult to make a transition to cooking with fresh produce if someone is used to convenience foods (Andreatta et al. 2008). These shortcomings have led to condemnations of CSAs as elitist and/or racist – as the pipe dreams of idealistic whites unable to see past their privileged confines (Guthman 2008b). Not everyone sees racial attitudes towards agriculture as quite so immutable, however. Will Allen, a son of sharecroppers and former professional basketball player and business executive, cofounded an urban farming operation (Growing Power) in Milwaukee, based on a CSA model modified to his customers’ circumstances as a means of changing such attitudes: [B]y bringing farming and fresh food to the city, I could play a part in healing a painful rift in African American history between its agricultural past and its urban present. I could help to rebrand farming as something that could be entrepreneurial and blackowned rather than something associated with sharecropping and slavery. (W. Allen and Wilson 2012: 206) Certainly, for CSAs to play a meaningful role in FNS, it is necessary to have a group or agency willing to make connections and provide funding. As a case in point, Andreatta et al. (2008) 352

Localism and food and nutrition security

explored whether and how a CSA model could be used to provide linkages between small farmers and low-income residents in North Carolina. They identified as many of the barriers to participation as possible, and worked to overcome them. Funded by a grant, the program enrolled low-income people in CSA. This was transformative for some, who changed their shopping habits, and the project reported that junk-food-loving children were now requesting corn and cherry tomatoes for a snack. Although the project did not by itself end food insecurity among participants, it showed that CSAs can be made to work for low-income populations, and that the oft-cited barriers to low-income participation in CSAs need not be seen as insurmountable. CSAs can also become potential engines for local economic self-sufficiency and employment in urban areas, as can be seen in Dig Deep Farms and Produce in the East Bay area of California (Bradley and Galt 2014). Dig Deep employed local low-income workers, and produced a hybrid model, selling shares to higher income residents and high-end restaurants, while also partnering with local government agencies, non-profit health centers, and food justice organizations to increase food access for lower-income residents. Workers, who were required to have low income and children, learned skills in agriculture and business. The CSA was used in this case as a means of economic empowerment intended to give people skills and the means to become food secure. Dig Deep is also not waiting on the government or corporations to bring jobs to the area – it is working to create these jobs itself. Cultural sensitivity, ‘and embracing where people are’, rather than attempting to force change and assuming that one’s own cultural values are universal, is key to such projects overcoming charges of intrinsic racism/classism raised by Guthman (Bradley and Galt 2014: 184; see also Sherriff 2009). ‘In contrast to promoting exclusionary dietary recommendations, food justice can and should promote self-determination through foodways practices’, a practice that Dig Deep employed by attempting to provide culturally relevant foods in the shares (Bradley and Galt 2014: 174). Dig Deep’s organizers also recognized that attitudes towards food are more complex than the literature often makes them out to be, and individuals are capable of changes in attitudes as a result of interacting with the CSA project: ‘[F]oodways and their connections to industrial food and foodie logics are complex. Crew members enjoy processed foods, cherish food prepared at home by family members, and frame their work in terms of self-improvement and justice – all at the same time’ (Bradley and Galt 2014: 182).

Farmers’ markets Probably the most-discussed method of wedding local-food goals with FNS is the use of farmers’ markets. In many ‘food deserts’, which seem to be more prevalent in the US than in the UK or Canada (Larsen and Gilliland 2009), supermarkets have abandoned poorer urban areas, leaving residents to shop at convenience and liquor stores, where prices are often higher, quality is often lower, and the prevalence of high fat/sugar processed food dominates (McClintock 2011). Thus, the residents with the least ability to pay often have to pay more for their food, and get less-healthy food in the bargain. Promotion of farmers’ markets in poorer urban areas is one way that advocates attempt to address the problem. Although farmers’ markets are the most widespread of direct marketing venues, relatively few are oriented towards lower-income areas and residents (Markowitz 2010; Jones and Bhatia 2011). There also are inherent limitations to farmers’ markets as a source of food. Typically, they are only open on one day per week, and in most cases, only during the growing season. Accessibility can be an issue as well, particularly for populations without access to a personal vehicle. Tensions arise between economic and other goals, and participants often have to make choices. There are other barriers to markets locating in low-income areas, including the 353

Steven M. Schnell

perceived lack of income that farmers will make in such markets, the negative perceptions about inner-city neighbourhoods, cultural unfamiliarity between farmers, who are largely white, and black and Hispanic customers (Alkon 2008a and 2008b; Grace et al. 2007). There is also the question of affordability, and some have questioned whether merely introducing farmers’ markets into underserved areas will increase FNS. There is some evidence that the simple introduction of a farmers’ market in an underserved area has a broader impact on food prices, lowering overall average prices of locally available food (Larsen and Gilliland 2009), but overall, there has been little research as to the affordability of farmers’ market produce for food-insecure populations. In the US, government entitlements, most notably the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the ‘food stamp’ program), and the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), have been the main way that farmers’ markets have been made more affordable to low-income customers. Increasing numbers of farmers’ markets now accept such benefits, though changes such as the shift to electronic benefits cards instead of paper stamps caused temporary large declines in their use at markets (Guthman et al. 2006: 675; Markowitz 2010). Another area of attention is the social atmosphere offered by farmers’ markets. Some have speculated that farmers’ markets, as well as CSAs, create an inhospitable atmosphere for lowincome people and racial minorities (Guthman et al. 2006; Guthman 2008b), and have even gone so far as to argue that much of the rhetoric of local food advocates such as the idea of ‘getting your hands dirty’, knowing your farmer, and learning the true cost of food, are intrinsically white constructions (Guthman 2008b; see Slocum 2011 for an overview of the study of race and food systems). Guthman’s evidence for her assertions that such institutions are intrinsically white-coded is thin; in her own words, ‘the study discussed in this article did not ask nonwhite clients of these institutions why they participate or, more aptly, non-clients why they do not’ (Guthman 2008b: 394). As Bradley and Galt argued, however, pointing out the nature of racialized spaces of markets and CSAs is important, but that such an approach also ‘risks implying an incorrect essentialization that organic, fresh and/or local produce is somehow inherently, and exclusively, white’ (2014: 174). As McCutcheon (2011) has shown in her study of discursive differences between two African-American groups working to foster FNS, significant differences can exist within particular cultural communities, and significant parallels can exist between the ideals of ‘mainstream’ alternative food movement and marginalized groups. Alkon (2008b) also emphasizes the importance of race and agriculture. She emphasizes that the community that emerges around different markets varies considerably, depending on the nature of the neighbourhood, the vendors, and the customers. Her work focuses on two different farmers’ markets – one in West Oakland that brought food grown by African-American farmers to low-income Oaklanders, and one in North Berkeley in a whiter and wealthier area. She examines, through detailed interviews with participants, managers, and vendors, the complex interplay between economic, social, and environmental goals that play out in each market. Local context matters considerably, and detailed understandings of individuals’ perceptions is important to understanding this context. In West Oakland, for example, market organizers explicitly focus on returning self-sufficiency to the community through directly linking African-American farmers with low-income West Oaklanders. This is a race-conscious, socially aware program (Alkon and Norgaard 2009). Thus, attempts to generalize broadly about all markets are problematic at best (see also Colasanti et al. 2010). Race and ethnic culture also can be positively affected by markets, both through the foods they sell and through the public performance of culture that the venues allow (Alkon and Mares 2012). Colasanti et al.’s (2010) approach offers a useful model for future research into the efficacy of farmers’ markets as agents of FNS. The authors carried out in-depth qualitative research with a 354

Localism and food and nutrition security

number of focus groups to determine perceptions of their local farm market, as well as discussions with non-patrons from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds. The barriers that they identified to participation quite often were much more mundane and specific to the market – hours, location, food selection, cost, convenience, ability to pay using EBT – than the grander statements of markets as inherently ‘white’ spaces would indicate. Thus, race and ethnicity are but one factor among many affecting market participation among lower-income customers. Both farmers’ markets and CSAs have more potential to reach underserved populations than they currently do, but they cannot do it alone. In the absence of a financial return for the farmer, these institutions would not exist at all, and the key question, as Guthman et al. (2006) point out, is who should pay to facilitate low-income participation? This is where partnerships can help broaden the markets’ reach (Markowitz 2010). In San Francisco, for example, the Department of Public Health worked to remove barriers to achieving access by legally mandating EBT and SNAP access at all farmers’ markets, by giving assistance to markets to set up EBT systems, and by creating publicity to distribute through groups working with low-income residents (Jones and Bhatia 2011). The need for collaboration was similarly seen in Louisville, where the local Community Farm Alliance brought together schools, county extension offices, and the city’s health department to work towards making their market a success (Markowitz 2010). The planners of the market also recognized a key fact – location matters. Locating markets in areas accessible to both lower-income and wealthier consumers was a key to the success of East Downtown market in Louisville (Markowitz 2010). The organizers also implemented a ‘buyout’ for unsold produce for donation to local shelter, which overcame some of the hesitation that farmers, who feared they would be left with too much unsold produce, had in selling at a market intended in part for lower-income residents, and provided another means for food to reach insecure populations.

Urban agriculture and community gardens Urban agriculture and community garden projects have also been touted for their use as a means of alleviating food and nutrition insecurity. Such projects promote the growing of food in cities, thus lending a degree of self-sufficiency to the population. They have taken on a wide variety of experimental forms, and have significant potential, though as with every sort of project, critiques have emerged as to their effectiveness (Tornaghi 2014). The most recent wave of urban garden projects in the US began in the late 1960s and 1970s, as formerly prosperous central areas of cities entered into a period of steep economic decline (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004). Community gardens have taken on a variety of roles – food production, providing of green space, gathering spots, and beautification. They also provide leadership training and organizing experience, which some argue can resonate into the empowerment of local residents (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004). Evers and Hodgson (2011: 598) conclude that they have two broad strengths in addressing FNS: ‘acting as sites of urban food production, or indirectly by acting as sites of education and empowerment, encouraging food production and changes in food consumption habits in urban home gardens, and helping to recreate the social and the community connections important for food security’. Although considerably less studied than community gardens, home gardens are also beginning to garner attention as potential sites for increasing FNS, cultural preservation, and broader social change (Kortright and Wakefield 2011; Gray et al. 2014; Larder et al. 2014; Taylor and Lovell 2014). Numerous problems are faced by urban gardens, such as land access and security, structure and organization of garden leadership, provision of resources to the garden site, and soil safety, among others (Corrigan 2011). As with CSAs and farmers’ markets, in most cases no single 355

Steven M. Schnell

organization or project can do it alone – the most successful have involved coalitions of organizations, government agencies, individuals, and neighbourhoods. Urban gardens have been shown to be valuable suppliers of culturally acceptable food (a key part of the goal of FNS) as well as sites of cultural identity preservation, particularly for immigrants (Corlett et al. 2003; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004). In some cases, many traditional varieties of crops are only being preserved due to migrants growing them in urban gardens (Mares and Peña 2010). Baker (2004) found that immigrant gardeners have used Toronto’s urban gardens as a means of producing ‘culturally appropriate’ food, and allows marginalized groups a means to ‘both produce and contest space through the assertion of their cultural identity’ (Baker 2004: 323). Some have argued that since urban gardening cannot feed everyone, it is not a significant means of addressing FNS (Hallsworth and Wong 2012–2013; see also these critiques of this article: Colasanti and Hamm 2012–2013; Lavid 2012–2013; Evans and Miewald 2012–2013; Weissman 2012–2013). Others, however, have found that urban gardens can actually provide a significant amount of food (Baker 2004). But food production alone is only part of the picture. In community gardens, the building of community connections is as important as food production, and place is central to such projects – notably the re-claiming of space either abandoned or neglected, and returning it to the control of the local community. All have, in addition to the production of food, created new community-based spaces that can provide a locale for numerous other kinds of social, ecological, and political interaction and organization (Smith and Kurtz 2003; Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004; Baker 2004; Glover et al. 2005; Turner 2011). They can become, in Baker’s phrase, a form of ‘place-based politics’ (Baker 2004). The garden as a site of social interaction can also further FNS, as more experienced gardeners share their knowledge (Levkoe 2006; Corrigan 2011). The physical transformation of place that emerges as a garden is created is also significant, as vacant lots or abandoned sites are transformed. They can also (in the form of a prison garden project) serve to teach prison inmates valuable skills, to help them re-integrate into the community upon their release, and to reduce recidivism (Pudup 2008). Place matters, as revealed by Milbourne (2012) in a study of how community gardens in the UK shape people’s experience of poverty. Such projects can also serve as a springboard to political activism. White (2011) studied the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network (DBCFSN), a coalition of organizations whose focus is to bring FNS to Detroit through a broad range of projects including a community garden (D-Town Farm), cooking classes, discussions, education about healthy eating, and numerous other projects. Participants explicitly approach these issues from an urban AfricanAmerican perspective. Instead of focusing on protest or broader activism, D-Town farmers work towards creating their own self-determination and self-reliance, working ‘to create a new vision of Detroit for members of the community’ (White 2011: 412). Similarly, Baker (2004) argues that gardens help to create a new form of democracy and citizenship, as garden projects help citizens ‘transform themselves from consumers of food into “soil citizens”’. Visions of selfdetermination only come to fruition, however, if all groups can benefit, and gardens can also become areas of exclusion as well as inclusion (Reynolds 2014). Such self-sufficiency in the face of abandonment by the broader economy and the government animates many urban gardening projects. In cities such as Buffalo, New York and other deindustrialized cities, abandoned lots are plentiful, and ‘guerilla gardening’ emerges (Metcalf and Widener 2011). Wekerle (2005) too sees importance in the sense of possibility that such local food projects bring about. Studying a Toronto project, she describes the process by which a derelict city park was transformed. A group of women at first banded together to plant flowers and beautify a city park, beautifying despite the lack of city support. A sense of community ownership of the park sprung up, as residents dubbed it ‘The Big Backyard’. The city took 356

Localism and food and nutrition security

notice and provided support. Residents installed two public bake ovens, which are fired twice a week for residents to bake bread and pizza. Community dinners are now held here, and farmers’ market produce is sold there at affordable prices. Perhaps most importantly, community and home gardens become places of possibility. By providing real places, where actual, observable change can be implemented, community gardens can foster a belief that other change can be possible, moving people from seeing themselves as mere victims of forces beyond their control, and turns them into active shapers of their future (Heynen et al. 2012). Furthermore, all change does not necessarily derive from policy changes: Healthier and more engaged communities that may foster alternative ways of living and thinking are not always built on better policies but emerge from a greater attentiveness to the pleasures, liveliness and sensuality of the world in which we live. The practice of growing food has a fundamental and transformative role to play in this process. (Donati et al. 2010: 219) Many projects can’t be viewed in isolation as ‘just’ a community garden, CSA, or farmers’ market. Some of the more impressive operations are not easily summed up by a single category. In Holyoke, MA, Nuestras Raices (Our Roots) has turned vacant lots into community gardens. In this community that is one-third Puerto Rican, the focus is not only on food production, but also on training youth in ‘nutrition, commercial food preparation, organic farming, and leadership skills’ (Gibson-Graham 2006: 188) by renovating a building into a community center that contains ‘a greenhouse, a business incubator, a commercial kitchen, and a restaurant that uses foods produced from the greenhouse and from a brick-oven bread bakery located in the incubator’ (Gibson-Graham 2006: 188). As Gibson-Graham argues, this has effects that ripple out into the community beyond the amount of food produced, by also working to create employment and profit-generating enterprises that can bring capital back into the community.

A neoliberal under every bed One of the dominant critiques of virtually all local food projects that aim to reduce food insecurity is that turning attention to the local only serves to strengthen the broader neoliberal system that has helped to create food and nutrition insecurity in the first place. Guthman has been the strongest and most influential purveyor of this view: ‘That many of these projects emphasize consumer choice, localism, entrepreneurialism, and self-improvement demonstrates the extent to which food politics have been at the cutting edge of neoliberal regulatory transformation’ (Guthman 2008a: 437). She issues a blanket condemnation of local projects, criticizing them for focusing ‘on the market rather than the state, on consumption rather than production, and on individual health rather than social justice’, and arguing that ‘we cannot change the world one meal at a time’ (Guthman 2011: 194). Variants of this argument are found with regards to every type of local food project. Such critics typically operate from a series of basic assumptions, assumptions which are asserted and, too often, taken on faith.

The state is the only, or the most effective, provider of FNS, therefore, those who take on responsibilities shirked by the government only further this abandonment of what is seen as a core government responsibility Alkon and Mares (2012) argue that ‘community food and food justice organizations have taken responsibility for the provisioning of food in low-income and communities of color, 357

Steven M. Schnell

which helps to justify the dismantling of entitlement programs’ (Alkon and Mares 2012: 349). Jarosz, too, has argued that in the shift to focus on the household and individual scale on the part of international organizations such as the FAO and the World Bank has shifted responsibility onto the individual, and thus furthered the broader neoliberal project (Jarosz 2011). Guthman has even argued that to be concerned with health, or to advocate that individuals should take their health into their own hands, is fundamentally a neoliberal idea (2011). Pudup (2008) tackled community gardens in the same fashion, arguing that, in their focus on individual transformation, they actually serve to replace collective resistance and mobilization, and thus, they serve to support the privatization that is at the root of neoliberalism.2 On the other hand, Milbourne (2012), in a study of UK gardens, saw little evidence of Pudup’s claim that community garden projects are springing up in response to state abandonment of welfare provision; he found, for example, that some were founded in collaboration with the state or local governments. However, in the US, and to varying degrees elsewhere as well, the government has already abandoned its responsibility, with the support of both major parties. The argument that, in the absence of such projects, the government would once again pick up the mantle of food justice requires a herculean feat of optimism. What is the alternative, exactly? To let people go hungry until the ‘neoliberal bogeyman’ (McClintock 2014: 157) is banished? Some have gone further, questioning whether government is the best, or even an adequate, guarantor of the right to food: ‘Since food and its consumption are culturally and socially mediated, perhaps social and cultural institutions and agencies are inherently better suited than governmental agencies to facilitate and provide food, when this is necessary’ (Anderson 2013: 117). Furthermore, local context matters, and local context is not something that broad government policy does well. In West Oakland, for example, Alkon (2008a) found a high degree of suspicion of government (which, given the long-time history of official discrimination and targeting of local activists, should come as no surprise). The state is seen not as an ally, but as one of the root causes of the food and nutrition insecurity. Similar problematic relationships exist between the government and African-American farmers (Green et al. 2011), Asian immigrants (Minkoff-Zern et al. 2011), and native peoples (Norgaard et al. 2011).

Neoliberalism is a monolithic force that allows no space for local resistance or alternatives The new cultural geography of the 1990s raked old-school cultural geographers over the coals for ‘reifying’ culture, instilling in it a ‘superorganic’ reality operating above and beyond people, and instilling in it a causative power that they argued it does not actually have (Duncan 1980). Pudup (2008: 1238), for example, claims that it ‘has demonstrated a supple skill in cultivating consumption projects based upon the notion of consumer choice’. They have also tended to paint neoliberalism as a single, monolithic force. Yet many of today’s critical scholars seem to be doing much the same thing with ‘neoliberalism’. The problem with this view is that if everything is neoliberal, then the categories cease to have much meaning or analytical utility. Any classification scheme that lumps together farmers’ markets with multinational agricultural conglomerates, and sees no difference between them, is meaningless. But neoliberalism is not monolithic, nor is it omnipotent. As Hausermann pointed out in her study of gender and ejido privatization in Mexico, even the most explicitly neoliberal of acts does not necessarily result in the intended consequences (Hausermann 2014). As I will discuss below, there is considerable variety in economic systems. 358

Localism and food and nutrition security

Anything that relies on any sort of market relations cannot, by definition, provide FNS Local food-based projects have a dual goal of promoting local food and promoting FNS. As Allen (1999: 117) has argued, ‘these objectives are not necessarily compatible and may even be contradictory’. Some have argued that by relying on food purchasing (instead of entitlements), CFS activists are dooming themselves to failure; Heynen et al. (2012) argue that by assuming that food will remain commodified, the CFS is adopting an approach that will inevitably lead to food insecurity (Heynen et al. 2012; Fairbairn 2012; Allen 2010; Alkon and Mares 2012). Gunderson (2014: 109) takes an even more extreme view, arguing categorically against any alternate form of consumption because it ‘masks the harm of capitalism by convincing society that the harms of capitalism can be rehabilitated with the commodity form itself’.

Activism and politics at anything other than a broad, system-wide scale is irrelevant, and a distraction from the ‘true’ political action Alkon (2008a) argued that in focusing on local economic projects, participants give much less attention to collective action. If a project is not seen to fundamentally transform the economic system, it is often termed ‘depoliticizing’ (Fairbairn 2012). This is seen, for example, in Mooney and Hunt’s (2009) oft-invoked classification of projects as being ‘sharp key’, which focus on challenging existing processes and systems, and ‘flat key’, which serve to reinforce existing institutional structures and/or work within them (see also Kirwan and Maye 2013). As a musician, I find this metaphor to be meaningless gibberish. From an intellectual standpoint, it also brings about yet another false dichotomy, with which the agrifood literature is rife. Politics takes many different forms, and occurs at many different geographic scales. Furthermore, the privileging of global and national scale politics also privileges traditionally masculine areas of power, and the dismissal of local scales similarly dismisses scales at which women (and their projects) often operate (Wekerle 2005; Gibson-Graham 2005, 2006). As Winne (2009) and Alkon (2008a) argue, sometimes local and state level politics are where the real opportunities for change lie. Local projects can become rallying points for broader political coalitions, as Smith and Kurtz (2003) found in their study of activism surrounding the proposed auctioning off of public gardens in New York City during the neoliberalizing Giuliani administration. By employing a ‘politics of scale’, where groups and individuals can fluidly change the scale of political action depending upon where action is most likely to yield results, supporters of local gardens were able to exert significant political leverage. Furthermore, local projects are not automatically disconnected from larger political issues. Locally based projects can also be ideal avenues for experimenting. Cities and other places can ‘address issues that are not yet mature on the national scene’ (Sonnino 2013: 4) and as Allen argued, ‘it is precisely at the local level that completely new economic forms that prioritize equity can be imagined, piloted and evaluated. ...In addition, local efforts can be embraced and acted upon sooner and more fluidly than those at larger scales’ (Allen 2010: 298). Indeed, the real innovators in government policy towards local food and CFS have been at the municipal level (Winne 2009; Holt-Giménez 2011b; Morales 2011; Mares and Peña 2011; Ballamingie and Walker 2013; Sonnino 2014). Cities are increasingly seeing FNS as a topic of vital interest to them, and forming food policy planning commissions, food policy councils, and the like. Oakland, San Francisco, Toronto, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Vancouver, and Baltimore (as well as numerous cities in the UK) have all crafted FNS plans (Sonnino 2014). Such plans go beyond the realm of any single project: ‘What emerges … is a tendency to 359

Steven M. Schnell

approach food security in very holistic terms, through the use of a language that makes explicit reference, at the same time, to the economy, society and the environment – the fundamental pillars of sustainable development’ (Sonnino 2014: 5; see also Cohen 2014). These programs also provide a means of moving government agencies outside of their own ‘silos’, which have often constrained collaborative efforts (Winne 2009). They are also typically taking a broader, ‘relational’ view of the local, seeing local and regional foods as an important, but by no means the only, tool to address food insecurity (Sonnino 2014).

You say you want a revolution? The gist of all of these critiques is that the only way to change inequity and food insecurity is to completely tear down the current neoliberal system and replace it with – well, with what is never entirely clear. And that is a problem. Romanticization of ‘radical’ change dominates much of the literature, and it is change as defined by vague platitudes: ‘A more collective approach to food politics capable of limiting the power of the corporate food regime, eventually transforming the food system into one built on foundations of ecological production, community control, and the multiple meanings of justice’ (Alkon and Mares 2012: 348). The ultimate goal of such projects as urban gardens, Pudup argues, should be ‘producing citizen-subjects of resistance to neoliberalism’ (Pudup 2008: 1239). Levkoe, meanwhile, argued that: a transformative food politics demands a comprehensive approach to food system problems; it works towards the institutionalization of alternative food discourse in both policy and practice, and it necessitates the development of interrelated solutions that simultaneously consider and address social justice, ecological sustainability, community health and democratic governance in a comprehensive and contextualized way. (Levkoe 2011: 689–90) While it is hard to object too strenuously to such goals, the literature is virtually silent when it comes to offering any sort of concrete action that might help to achieve them. In a rejoinder to Allen and Guthman (2006), Kloppenburg and Hassanein (2006: 420) state the clear shortcomings of this approach: Given their preoccupation with neoliberalism, Allen and Guthman tend to find it wherever they look.... Perhaps because they can see no plausible alternatives themselves, they offer no concrete proposals for what might be done to change things. They end their essay with a formulaic paragraph calling for realization of the usual range of decontextualized abstractions: ‘resistance’, ‘critical thinking’, ‘political action’, ‘equity’, ‘public funding’, and ‘state support’. If critical agrifood scholars hope to ever have any influence outside of the echo chamber of academic journals, they will need to move away from vague pronouncements and come up with concrete suggestions. Indeed, the neoliberalism-trumps-all line of argument has proven to be a conceptual and intellectual dead end. Gibson-Graham also noted the paralyzing effect of this approach: These tendencies contributed to an affect and attitude of entrenched opposition (on the left, at least), a habit of thinking and feeling that offered little emotional space for alternatives, and that instead focused the political imagination – somewhat blankly – on a 360

Localism and food and nutrition security

millennial future revolution. If the ‘revolution’ were to occur in a time-world discontinuous with this one, it would not be possible to talk about steps and strategies for getting there. (Gibson-Graham 2006: xxi–xxii)

Moving beyond the neoliberal trap to ‘the politics of the possible’ The effects of this view go far beyond academic discourse. J.K. Gibson-Graham (2003) argued that, by accepting the rhetoric and discourse of globalization and neoliberalism as overwhelming all other forms of economic and social relations, we as scholars have become complicit in creating its reality (see also Harris 2009). Fortunately, there is now a growing willingness to dispense with the false dichotomies of market/society, neoliberal/radical, political/apolitical, and to argue that too ready a willingness to adopt such frameworks shuts down possibility. McClintock (2014: 157) argues that viewing urban gardens only through the lens of pure neoliberalism or as a purely radical act is a false dualism: ‘it has to be both’. Marsden and Franklin (2013: 639) argue that we may be opening spaces of ‘post-neoliberalism’, in which localities have become ‘more sustainable places of possibility’. They urge scholars to shake off the local trap (and, I would add, the neoliberal trap) because it flattens the diverse array of different sorts of economic relationships that exist, and assumes that economic relations automatically trump all other forms of relationships that may co-exist. Further, Castree (2004: 163) argues: ‘Critical analysts of place need more supple explanatory and evaluative vocabularies if they are to reckon with the diversity of place projects current in the world’. Gibson-Graham argued that instead, we need a ‘weak theory’ of economy, one that does not oversimplify: ‘Weak theory could not know that social experiments are doomed to fail or destined to reinforce dominance; it could not tell us that the world economy will never be transformed by the disorganized proliferation of local projects’ (Gibson-Graham 2008: 619; see also 2006).3 Even in a neoliberal-dominated economic system, non-capitalist and alternative capitalist forms abound (Gibson-Graham 2005 and 2006). Participants in alternative agriculture and FNS projects readily perceive such differences (see, e.g., Alkon 2008a). Gibson-Graham promoted the study of these ‘diverse economies’, and argued for the community economy as an alternative to neoliberal economics (Gibson-Graham 2006 and 2008). Central to the idea of community economies is the idea of place, which, as DeLind and Bingen (2008) point out, does not refer to mere location, but rather a central way of being, a means of rootedness and identity formation. They also strongly refuted the idea that place-based projects are apolitical. Rather, there is a ‘globally emergent form of localized politics – one that is largely of, if not necessarily for, women’ (Gibson-Graham 2005: 130) that is both place-based and global. They reject the idea that only large-scale political action is suitable to transform the economy, arguing that ‘we can start where we are with any site within a diverse economy and at any scale, from the local to the global, to begin to build community economies’ (Gibson-Graham 2006: 167). The key is starting where you are, not in some pre-supposed future post-revolutionary paradise; this requires a belief in the ‘politics of the possible’, a stance that admits that we all must start where we are, not where we wish we were, if meaningful change is to be accomplished (GibsonGraham 2006; see also Ballamingie and Walker 2013). Gibson-Graham encouraged viewing the wide array of place-based projects, including local food projects, as social experiments. The scholarly attitude towards such experiments, they argued, needs to: [be] different from the critical task of assessing the ways in which it is good or bad, strong or weak, mainstream or alternative. It recognizes that what we are looking at 361

Steven M. Schnell

is on its way to becoming something else and strategizes about how to participate in that process of becoming. This does not mean that our well-honed critical faculties have no role in our research, but that their expression takes second place to the experimental orientation. (Gibson-Graham 2008: 628) One key to research on these experiments in the area of FNS and local food going forward will be to let participants speak for themselves. For this to be effective, we need more of what Guthman called for as ‘fine-grained qualitative research’ (Guthman et al. 2006: 680), something that until recently has been somewhat drowned out by more ideologically driven statements about FNS and neoliberalism. One promising technique of place-based research is mixed-method GIS incorporating multiple narratives about place-based food projects, which weds participant observation, interviews, historical, economic, and other perspectives (Preston and Wilson 2014). Local food alone will not solve the issue of food insecurity, but as countless projects out in the world have demonstrated they have an important role to play, both alone and in conjunction with national and international food systems (Kirwan and Maye 2013) not only in the area of food provision, but in the broader projects of community building and economic empowerment. There are a number of areas in need of further investigation. Much of the research on food insecurity focuses particularly on African-American, and to a lesser extent, Latino food insecurity in larger urban settings. Significantly less attention has been paid to rural food insecurity (McEntee 2011), or to Native American (though see Alkon and Norgaard 2009; Canada’s Indigenous population has had a few recent studies: Pal et al. 2013; Rudolph and McLachlan 2013; Schiff and Brunger 2013) or white food insecurity, and the role that local food could play in these circumstances. Also, as Kirwan and Maye (2013) note, we have little in the way of comprehensive data sets on the amount of food produced by local food systems or the degree to which this food is helping to overcome food insecurity. Above all else, what we need are far fewer broad, bold pronouncements and more finegrained place-specific studies of Gibson-Graham’s diverse economies. Fortunately, such studies are beginning to emerge (see, e.g., Alkon 2008a and 2008b; many of the chapters in Alkon and Agyeman 2011; Alkon and Norgaard 2009; Bradley and Galt 2014; McClintock 2014; Winne 2009). What typifies these and many of the other successful projects discussed above is not a one-size-fits-all model, but rootedness in particular places, institutions, cultures, neighbourhoods, and environments. We need to understand where particular projects have succeeded, and where they have fallen short, and how much of either is due to universals and how much to the particularities of place – the unique mix of culture, history, environment, and economy that is found everywhere (see Allen 2013: 137 for a useful list of practical questions that such empirical work should examine). The messy work of actually attempting to bring about change and social justice is taking form in thousands of different places, following many different maps, or in some cases, no map at all. Let us create research that helps us to learn from each other, all the while acknowledging that the particularities of place mean that directly transporting one solution to another locale may not result in the same end. But we must, in Gibson-Graham’s phrase, ‘start where we are’ (Gibson-Graham 2008: 629).

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the reviewer and editors, whose comments on earlier drafts of this chapter greatly improved the final version. 362

Localism and food and nutrition security

Notes 1 A related concept is that of food sovereignty, which emerged in the global south, particularly due to the efforts of La Vía Campesina (Menezes 2001; Hospes 2014; also, see the symposium on Food Sovereignty in Agriculture and Human Values for a more in-depth discussion (Anderson and Bellows 2012), and McMichael, chapter 4, this volume). The focus of food sovereignty is more on the ability and right of populations to have a greater degree of direct control over their lives and livelihoods (Anderson and Bellows 2012). It has its roots in the idea that corporatized neoliberal agriculture has been systematically destroying the livelihoods of small farmers throughout the globe, and the idea that a more bottom-up approach provided a useful counter to top-down, trade-driven neoliberalism (Hospes 2014). In the United States, some of the ideas of food sovereignty have been picked up by the food justice movement. Food justice, according to Alkon and Agyeman (2011), combines ideas of food access with food sovereignty – it is concerned not only with the access to healthy food, but also the right to manage and have some degree of control over their own food and agriculture systems and focuses on ‘grassrootsdriven transition.... to a more equitable and sustainable food system’ (Holt-Giménez 2011a: 323). 2 Pudup’s telling veers into the absurd when she paints Berkeley’s Edible School Yard project as an Orwellian feat of mind control: ‘community at the ESY can be a disciplining technique that attempts to disguise the cultural power being asserted by a locally fabled, if countercultural elite (sic) with designs on securing and widening its ambit of power’ (Pudup 2008: 1238). One can almost see the blackshirts marching down the street, offering sieg heil salutes to a two-story-tall image of Alice Waters, grand führer of ethical consumption. It is hard to take such analysis seriously. 3 Consider, in contrast, Tornaghi’s argument that research into food justice should be motivated by two goals: ‘The first is the need to unveil how issues of socio-environmental justice and inequality are embedded in UA (urban agriculture) as a form of place-making’ (Tornaghi 2014: 554). Or: ‘We need a geography of UA which goes beyond the naïve and unproblematic representation of urban food production practices, able to expose the socio-environmental exclusionary dynamics which are embedded in them’ (Tornaghi 2014: 561). Note that these are not phrased as hypotheses to be tested, but as preordained conclusions – we know what is there before we even look.

References Alkon, A. H. 2008a. From value to values: sustainable consumption at farmers’ markets. Agriculture and Human Values, 25: 487–498. Alkon, A. H. 2008b. Paradise or pavement: the social constructions of the environment in two urban farmers’ markets and their implications for environmental justice and sustainability. Local Environment, 13(3): 271–289. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.). 2011. Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Alkon, A. H. and Mares, T. M. 2012. Food sovereignty in US food movements: radical visions and neoliberal constraints. Agriculture and Human Values, 29: 347–359. Alkon, A. H. and Norgaard, K. M. 2009. Breaking the food chains: an investigation of food justice activism. Sociological Inquiry, 79(3): 289–305. Allen, P. 1999. Reweaving the food security safety net: mediating entitlement and entrepreneurship. Agriculture and Human Values, 16: 117–129. Allen, P. 2008. Mining for justice in the food system: perceptions, practices, and possibilities. Agriculture and Human Values, 25: 157–161. Allen, P. 2010. Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy, and Society, 3: 295–308. Allen, P. 2013. Facing food security. Journal of Rural Studies, 29: 135–138. Allen, P. and Guthman, J. 2006. From ‘old school’ to ‘farm-to-school’: neoliberalization from the ground up. Agriculture and Human Values, 23: 401–415. Allen, P., and Wilson, A. B. 2008. Agrifood inequalities: globalization and localization. Development, 51(4): 534–540. Allen, W. and Wilson, C. 2012. The good food revolution: growing healthy food, people, and communities. New York: Gotham Books. Anderson, M. D. 2013. Beyond food security to realizing food rights in the US. Journal of Rural Studies, 29: 113–122.

363

Steven M. Schnell Anderson, M. D. and Bellows, A. C. 2012. Introduction to symposium on food sovereignty: expanding the analysis and application. Agriculture and Human Values, 29: 177–184. Anderson, M. D. and Cook, J. T. 1999. Community food security: practice in need of theory? Agriculture and Human Values, 16: 141–150. Anderson, M. D. and Cook, J. T. 2000. Does food security require local food systems? In: Rethinking sustainability: power, knowledge and institutions. Harris, J. M. (ed.), pp. 228–248. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Andreatta, S., Rhyne, M. and Dery, N. 2008. Lessons learned from advocating CSAs for low-income and food insecure households. Southern Rural Sociology, 23(1): 116–148. Baker, L. E. 2004. Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto’s community gardens. Geographical Review, 94(3): 305–325. Ballamingie, P. and Walker, S. M. L. 2013. Field of dreams: Just Food’s proposal to create a community food and sustainable agriculture hub in Ottawa, Ontario. Local Environment, 18(5): 529–542. Born, B. and Purcell, M. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26: 195–207. Bradley, K. and Galt, R. E. 2014. Practicing food justice at Dig Deep Farms and Produce, East Bay Area, California: self-determination as a guiding value and intersections with foodie logic. Local Environment, 19(2): 172–186. Brown, A. 2001. Counting farmers’ markets. Geographical Review, 91(4): 655–674. Brunori, G. and Guarino, A. 2010. Security for whom? Changing discourses on food in Europe in times of a global food crisis. In: Food security, nutrition and sustainability. Lawrence, G., Lyons, K. and Wallington, T. (eds.), pp. 41–60. New York: Routledge. Castree, N. 2004. Differential geographies: place, indigenous rights and ‘local’ resources. Political Geography, 23: 133–167. Cohen, B. R. 2014. Don’t mono-crop the movement: toward a cultural ecology of local food. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 14(1): 5–8. Colasanti, K. and Hamm, M. 2012–2013. Increased productivity, role in alleviating food insecurity possible. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(2): 15–16. Colasanti, K. J. A., Conner, D. S. and Smalley, S. B. 2010. Understanding barriers to farmers’ market patronage in Michigan: perspectives from marginalized populations. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 5: 316–338. Corrigan, M. P. 2011. Growing what you eat: developing community gardens in Baltimore. Applied Geography, 31: 1232–1241. Cortlett, J. L., Dean, E. A. and Grivetti, L. E. 2003. Hmong gardens: botanical diversity in an urban setting. Economic Botany, 57(3): 365–379. DeFilippis, J., Fisher, R. and Shragge, E. 2006. Neither romance nor regulation: re-evaluating community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(3): 673–689. DeLind, L. B. and Bingen, J. 2008. Place and civic culture: rethinking the context for local agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21: 127–151. Donati, K., Cleary, S., and Pike, L. 2010. Bodies, bugs and dirt: sustainability re-imagined in community gardens. In: Food security, nutrition and sustainability. Lawrence, G., Lyons, K. and Wallington, T. (eds.), pp. 207–222. New York: Routledge. Duncan, J. S. 1980. The superorganic in American cultural geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 70(2): 181–198. DuPuis, E. M. and Goodman, D. 2005. Should we go ‘home’ to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 21: 359–371. DuPuis, E. M., Harrison, J. L. and Goodman, D. 2011. Just food? In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 283–308. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Evans, T. L. and Miewald, C. 2013. Cultivating more than food: where community gardens fit with what cities do. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(2): 19–21. Evers, A. and Hodgson, N. L. 2011. Food choices and local food access among Perth’s community gardeners. LocaleEnvironment, 16(6): 585–602. Fairbairn, M. 2012. Framing transformation: the counter-hegemonic potential of food sovereignty in the US context. Agriculture and Human Values, 29: 217–230. Featherstone, D., Ince, A., Mackinnon, D., Strauss, K. and Cumbers, A. 2012. Progressive localism and the construction of political alternatives. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS, 37: 177–182. Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2003. An ethics of the local. Rethinking Marxism, 15(1): 49–74. Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2005. Building community economies: women and the politics of place. In: Women and the politics of place. Harcourt, W. and Escobar, A. (eds.), pp. 130–157. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

364

Localism and food and nutrition security Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2006. A postcapitalist politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2008. Diverse economies: performative practices for ‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5): 613–632. Glover, T. D., Shinew, K. J., and Parry, D. C. 2005. Association, sociability, and civic culture: the democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure Sciences, 27: 75–92. Grace, C., Grace, T., Becker, N. and Lyden, J. 2007. Barriers to using urban farmers’ markets: an investigation of food stamp clients’ perceptions. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 2(1): 55–75. Gray, L., Guzman, P., Glowa, K. M. and Drevno, A. G. 2014. Can home gardens scale up into movements for social change? The role of home gardens in providing food security and community change in San Jose, California. Local Environment, 19(2): 187–203. Green, J. J., Green, E. M. and Kleiner, A. M. 2011. A continuing legacy: institutional racism, hunger, and nutritional justice on the Klamath. In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 23–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gunderson, R. 2014. Problems with the defetishization thesis: ethical consumerism, alternative food systems, and commodity fetishism. Agriculture and Human Values, 31: 109–117. Guthman, J. 2008a. Bringing good food to others: investigating the subjects of alternative food practice. Cultural Geographies, 15: 431–447. Guthman, J. 2008b. ‘If they only knew’: color blindness and universalism in California alternative food institutions. The Professional Geographer, 60(3): 387–397. Guthman, J. 2011. Weighing in: obesity, food justice, and the limits of capitalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Guthman, J., Morris, A. W., and Allen, P. 2006. Squaring farm security and food security in two types of alternative food institutions. Rural Sociology, 71(4): 662–684. Hallsworth, A. and Wong, A. 2012–2013. Urban gardening: a valuable activity, but…. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(2): 11–14. Harris, E. 2009. Neoliberal subjectivities or a politics of the possible? Reading for difference in alternative food networks. Area, 41(1): 55–63. Hausermann, H. E. 2014. Unintended developments: gender, environment, and collective governance in a Mexican ejido. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4): 784–800. Heynen, N., Kurtz, H. E. and Trauger, A. 2012. Food justice, hunger, and the city. Geography Compass, 6(5): 304–311. Hinrichs, C. C. 2000. The embeddedness of local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural markets. Journal of Rural Studies, 16: 295–303. Hinrichs, C. C. and Allen, P. 2008. Selective patronage and social justice: local food consumer campaigns in historical context. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21: 329–352. Holt-Giménez, E. 2011a. Food security, food justice, or food sovereignty? In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 309–330. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Holt-Giménez, E. (ed.). 2001b. Food movements unite: strategies to transform our food system. Oakland: Food First Books. Hospes, O. 2014. Food sovereignty: the debate, the deadlock, and a suggested detour. Agriculture and Human Values, 31: 119–130. Jarosz, L. 2011. Defining world hunger: scale and neoliberal ideology in international food security policy discourse. Food, Culture and Society, 14(1) 117–139. Jones, P. and Bhatia, R. 2011. Supporting equitable food systems through food assistance at farmers’ markets. American Journal of Public Health, 101(5): 781–783. Kenis, A. and Mathijs, E. 2014. (De)politicizing the local: the case of the transition towns movement in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Rural Studies, 34: 172–183. Kirkpatrick, S. I. and Tarasuk, V. 2009. Food insecurity and participation in community food programs among low-income Toronto families. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 100(2): 135–139. Kirwan, J. and Maye, D. 2013. Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food systems. Journal of Rural Studies, 29: 91–100. Kloppenburg, J. Jr. and Hassanein, N. 2006. From old school to reform school? Agriculture and Human Values, 23: 417–421. Kortright, R. and Wakefield, S. 2011. Edible backyards: a qualitative study of household food growing and its contributions to food security. Agriculture and Human Values, 28: 39–53. Larder, N., Lyons, K. and Woolcock, G. 2014. Enacting food sovereignty: values and meanings in the act of domestic food production in urban Australia. Local Environment, 19(1): 56–76.

365

Steven M. Schnell Larsen, K. and Gilliland, J. 2009. A farmers’ market in a food desert: evaluating impacts on the price and availability of healthy food. Health and Place, 15: 1158–1162. Lavid, L. 2013. Urban gardens: part of a whole system approach. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(2): 17–18. Lawrence, G., Lyons, K. and Wallington, T. 2010. Introduction: food security, nutrition and sustainability in a globalized world. In: Food security, nutrition and sustainability. Lawrence, G., Lyons, K. and Wallington, T. (eds.), pp. 1–23. New York: Routledge. Levkoe, C. Z. 2006. Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 23: 89–98. Levkoe, C. Z. 2011. Towards a transformative food politics. Local Environment, 16(7): 687–705. Lyson, T. A. 2004. Civic agriculture: reconnecting farm, food, and community. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press. Mares, T. M. and Peña, D. G. 2010. Urban agriculture in the making of insurgent spaces in Los Angeles and Seattle. In: Insurgent public space: guerilla urbanism and the remaking of contemporary cities. Hou, J. (ed.), pp. 253–267. London: Routledge. Mares, T. M. and Peña, D. G. 2011. Environmental and food justice: toward local, slow, and deep food systems. In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 197–220. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Markowitz, L. 2010. Expanding access and alternatives: building farmers’ markets in low-income communities. Food and Foodways, 18: 66–80. Marsden, T. and Franklin, A. 2013. Replacing neoliberalism: theoretical implications of the rise of local food movements. Local Environment, 18(5): 636–641. Massey, D. 1994. Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Maye, D. and Kirwan, J. 2013. Food security: a fractured consensus. Journal of Rural Studies, 29: 1–6. McClintock, N. 2011. From industrial garden to food desert: demarcated devaluation in the flatlands of Oakland, California. In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 89–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McClintock, N. 2014. Radical, reformist, and garden-variety neoliberal: coming to terms with urban agriculture’s contradictions. Local Environment, 19(2): 147–171. McCutcheon, P. 2011. Community food security ‘for us, by us’: the Nation of Islam and the Pan African Orthodox Christian Church. In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 177–196. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McDonagh, J. 2014. Rural geography II: discourses of food and sustainable rural futures. Progress in Human Geography. Published online before print January 23, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0309132513514507. McEntee, J. C. 2011. Realizing rural food justice: divergent locals in the northeastern United States. In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 239–260. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Menezes, F. 2001. Food sovereignty: a vital requirement for food security in the context of globalization. Development, 44(4): 29–33. Metcalf, S. S. and Widener, M. J. 2011. Growing Buffalo’s capacity for local food: a systems framework for sustainable agriculture. Applied Geography, 31: 1242–1251. Milbourne, P. 2012. Everyday (in)justices and ordinary environmentalisms: community gardening in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods. Local Environment, 17(9): 943–957. Minkoff-Zern, L.-A., Peluso, N., Sowerwine, J. and Getz, C. 2011. Race and regulation: Asian immigrants in California agriculture. In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 65–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mooney, P. H. and Hunt, S. A. 2009. Food security: the elaboration of contested claims to a consensus frame. Rural Sociology, 74(4): 469–497. Morales, A. 2011. Growing food and justice: dismantling racism through sustainable food systems. In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 149–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Norgaard, K. M., Reed, R. and Van Horn, C. 2011. From the past to the present: agricultural development and black farmers in the American South. In: Cultivating food justice: race, class, and sustainability. Alkon, A. H. and Agyeman, J. (eds.), pp. 47–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Obach, B. K. and Tobin, K. 2014. Civic agriculture and community engagement. Agriculture and Human Values, 31: 307–322. Pal, S., Haman, F. and Robidoux, M. A. 2013. The costs of local food procurement in two Northern Indigenous communities in Canada. Food and Foodways, 21: 132–152.

366

Localism and food and nutrition security Preston, B. and Wilson, M. W. 2014. Practicing GIS as mixed method: affordances and limitations in an urban gardening study. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(3): 510–529. Pudup, M. B. 2008. It takes a garden: cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects. Geoforum, 39: 1228–1240. Reynolds, K. 2014. Disparity despite diversity: social injustice in New York City’s urban agricultural system. Antipode, 47(1): 240–259. Rudolph, K. R. and McLachlan, S. M. 2013. Seeking Indigenous food sovereignty: origins of and responses to the food crisis in northern Manitoba, Canada. Local Environment, 18(9): 1079–1098. Saldivar-Tanaka, L. S. and Krasny, M. E. 2004. Culturing community development, neighborhood open space, and civic agriculture: the case of Latino community gardens in New York City. Agriculture and Human Values, 21: 399–412. Schiff, R. and Brunger, F. 2013. Northern food networks: building collaborative efforts for food security in remote Canadian Aboriginal communities. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(3): 31–45. Schnell, S. M. 2007. Food with a farmer’s face: community supported agriculture in the United States. Geographical Review, 97(4): 550–564. Schnell, S. M. 2013. Food miles, local eating, and community supported agriculture: putting local food in its place. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(4): 615–628. Sherriff, G. 2009. Towards healthy local food: issues in achieving Just Sustainability. Local Environment, 14(1): 73–92. Slocum, R. 2011. Race in the study of food. Progress in Human Geography, 35(3): 303–327. Smith, C. M. and Kurtz, H. E. 2003. Community gardens and the politics of scale in New York City. Geographical Review, 93(2): 193–212. Sonnino, R. 2013. Local foodscapes: place and power in the agri-food system. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B – Soil and plant science, 63(Supplement 1): 2–7. Sonnino, R. 2014. The new geography of food security: exploring the potential of urban food strategies. The Geographical Journal, doi: 10.1111/geoj.12129. Taylor, J. R. and Lovell, S. T. 2014. Urban home food gardens in the Global North: research traditions and future directions. Agriculture and Human Values, 31: 285–305. Tomlinson, I. 2013. Doubling food production to feed the 9 billion: a critical perspective on a key discourse of food security in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, 29: 81–90. Tornaghi, C. 2014. Critical geography of urban agriculture. Progress in Human Geography, 38(4): 551–567. Trauger, A. and Passidomo, C. 2012. Towards a post-capitalist politics of food: cultivating subjects of community economies. ACME: An International E-journal for Critical Geographies, 11(2): 282–303. Turner, B. 2011. Embodied connections: sustainability, food systems and community gardens. Local Environment, 16(6): 509–522. Wakefield, S., Fleming, J., Klassen, C. and Skinner, A. 2012. Sweet Charity, revisited: organizational responses to food insecurity in Hamilton and Toronto, Canada. Critical Social Policy, 33(3): 427–450. Weissman, E. 2012–2013. No buts about it…the value of urban food production. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 3(2): 23–24. Wekerle, G. R. 2005. Domesticating the neoliberal city: invisible genders and the politics of place. In: Women and the politics of place. Harcourt, W. and Escobar, A. (eds.), pp. 86–99. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. White, M. M. 2011. D-Town Farm: African American resistance to food insecurity and the transformation of Detroit. Environmental Practice, 13(4): 406–417. Winne, M. 2009. Closing the food gap: resetting the table in the land of plenty. Boston: Beacon Press. Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 19: 23–32.

367

24 FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY WITHIN THE HOUSEHOLD Gender and access Anu Rammohan

Introduction Progress in reducing global levels of undernourishment has slowed considerably over the last decade, with estimates from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) showing that worldwide 925 million people are still categorised as being chronically undernourished (FAO 2014). The prevalence of undernourishment globally is unacceptably high and accounts for 11.3 per cent of the population worldwide, with the developing world bearing much of the burden. There are also wide regional disparities, with countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia making the slowest progress in achieving food and nutrition security. The FAO has recently estimated that the global cost of undernourishment, including inadequate overall calorie intakes and micronutrient deficiencies, is 2–3 per cent of global GDP, equivalent to US$1.4–2.1 trillion per year (FAO 2013: ix). Understanding the nature of food and nutrition security in low-income settings is therefore critical in ensuring the sustainability of economic growth. Empirical evidence shows that in low-income rural settings, food and nutritional security are intrinsically linked through an inability on the part of poor households to access adequate nutrition. At the household level, the burden of food and nutrition insecurity tends to fall disproportionately on vulnerable groups such as a household’s elderly, women and children. In particular, in the last two decades, gender has emerged at the forefront of the international development agenda with at least four of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDG) devoted to gender, either directly or indirectly. These have included measures such as the elimination of gender disparities and the improvements in the health of children and women. There is growing acknowledgement amongst researchers and among international organisations, such as the FAO, the United Nations and the World Bank, that women’s empowerment is key to increasing agriculture productivity, food and nutrition security of household members. In the context of food and nutrition security, the FAO (2011) underscores the important role played by women in influencing household’s food access and distribution, dietary diversity and children’s health. They stress the importance of taking into account gender differentials in access to and control over resources and decision-making within rural communities and households. A recent study by Arimond et al. (2011) has identified five pathways through 368

Food and nutrition security within the household

which agricultural interventions can affect nutrition. These include measures such as an increase in food for own consumption; increased income; reductions in market prices; shifts in preferences; and shifts in control of resources within households. They highlight the substantial influence of gender roles across all five pathways, particularly in relation to increased food availability and increased income. Previous handbook chapters have provided detailed discussions of the different food security measures, and the difficulties of making inferences for household-level food and nutrition security using aggregate country-level food security measures. This chapter will therefore not repeat those arguments, except to point out that currently used measures of food and nutrition security have typically adopted a gender-neutral stance due to data shortcomings, which make it difficult to get a gender-disaggregated picture of household-level food and nutritional vulnerabilities. Since undernutrition is the outcome of insufficient food intake and repeated infectious diseases (UNICEF 2006), it is imperative to understand the links between the household-level socio-economic causes for food insecurity, and the manner in which food insecurity at the household level at manifests into poor nutritional outcomes for women and children. It is also important to recognise that household-level food and nutrition insecurities can influence different household members differently depending on the gender relations in the household; and the capacities of households to address food and nutrition insecurity through adaptive behaviours and coping strategies. The focus of this chapter will therefore be in understanding the gender differentials in access to food and nutrition at the household level, and its implications for the health and nutritional outcomes of vulnerable groups, such as the household’s children and women. The empirical evidence cited in this chapter is primarily drawn from low-income countries, which account for not only the largest numbers of food insecure individuals in the world, but also where we observe large gender differences in access to health, education and an array of human development indicators. In developing countries where the problems of food security and child and female nutrition are most acute, such as those in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, women’s status – as measured by their access and control over productive resources and household decision-making power – is also low. In these settings, poverty goes hand-in-hand with low levels of female empowerment, low access to productive assets, low levels of education and a greater reliance on male household members for economic resources. In Table 24.1 below, we present data on poverty, inequality and access to clean drinking water and sanitation for a group of countries which have among the poorest food security outcomes. With the exception of India (which is included here as it is the country with the highest numbers of food insecure individuals), we observe that in our sample of countries poverty levels are high, with nearly one out of two individuals living below the poverty line in countries such as Bangladesh and Niger. In Congo and Madagascar, the proportion of individuals living below the benchmark of $1.25/day is as high as 88 per cent of the population. Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, is also high. In Congo over one in five households is female headed, and only 31.4 per cent of the population has access to improved sanitation, and less than half the population has access to improved water sources. In Mozambique, where income inequality is high, nearly 36 per cent of the population is headed by females. The rest of the chapter is organized as follows: in the next section we briefly discuss the links between gender and food and nutrition security. We focus on gender inequities in access to land and to household level resources. This is followed by a discussion of the adverse consequences of low female autonomy on maternal and child nutritional outcomes. The main insights are then presented at the chapter’s conclusion. 369

Anu Rammohan Table 24.1 Household economic outcomes for various countries Country

Poverty headcount ratio of $1.25 a day PPP (% of pop.)

GINI index (World Bank estimates)

Femaleheaded hhs (%)

Improved water source (% with access)

Improved sanitation facilities (% with access)

Bangladesh Burundi Congo India Madagascar Mozambique Niger

43.25 (2010) 81.32 (2006) 87.72 (2006) 23.62 (2012) 87.67 (2010) 60.71 (2009) 40.81 (2011)

32.12(2010) 33.27 (2006) 44.42 (2006) 33.60 (2012) 40.63 (2010) 45.66 (2009) 31.16 (2011)

11 (2011) – 20.8 (2007) 14.4 (2006) 22.3 (2008) 35.6 (2011) 15.9 (2012)

84.8 (2012) 75.3 (2012) 46.5 (2012) 92.6 (2012) 49.6 (2012) 49.2 (2012) 52.3 (2012)

57 (2012) 47.5 (2012) 31.4 (2012) 36 (2012) 13.9 (2012) 21 (2012) 9 (2012)

Source: World Bank, Gender Statistics (2015). Note: The figures in parentheses indicate the year for which the data are reported.

Intrahousehold manifestations of food and nutrition insecurity: focus on gender Three of the most common approaches to measure food security in the academic literature include: i ii iii

Nationwide food supply approach (FBS). Household expenditure surveys. Anthropometric measures (De Haen et al. 2011).

Although food and nutrition security indicators measured at the household level (i.e., measures ii and iii) overcome many of the problems of national-level aggregation – and are able to account for regional disparities within countries – the gendered nature of food security implies that the treatment of the household as a unit of analysis is fraught with complexities. In particular, household-level expenditure surveys method to gauge food and nutrition security at the household level may not be sensitive to the intricacies in gender differentials in intrahousehold bargaining power. Therefore, in households where female autonomy is low and/or where son-preference is high, there is a strong possibility that the preferences of male members will dominate. Indeed, there is considerable empirical evidence showing that household members differ in their contribution to household income, their control over income and their views on how that income should be spent (Haddad et al. 1997), with women being more likely to spend their income on food, health and education for their children. Studies from the Indian sub-continent have also found gender discriminatory allocations of food, health and education resources amongst household members (Behrman 1988). Gender differentials in female labour market and health outcomes are widely observed in many developing countries, and as Table 24.2 below demonstrates, the situation is particularly acute in those countries facing some of the worst food security concerns. In Table 24.2 we present some gender-disaggregated data on socio-economic measures – such as adult literacy, female employment in agriculture and female age at marriage – to paint a picture of female status. It is noteworthy that the gender differentials in adult literacy rates are not as acute in Burundi and Madagascar, and these countries also have a large proportion of female employment in the agricultural sector. On the other hand, in Congo males are over 30 per cent more likely to be literate relative to females aged 15 and above; in India the differential is nearly 25 per cent. Of course, these aggregate data mask wide regional disparities. Similarly, early marriage is common in this sample of countries. In Table 24.2 we observe that on average in all the 370

Food and nutrition security within the household Table 24.2 Women’s socio-economic outcomes Country

Literacy rate, adult female (% of females aged 15 and above)

Literacy rate, adult male

Female employment in agriculture (% of female employment)

Total fertility rate

Women who were married by age 18 (% of women aged 20–24)

Bangladesh Burundi Congo India Madagascar Mozambique Niger

55.05 (2012) 84.59 (2008) 46.10 (2007) 50.82 (2006) 61.64 (2009) 36.45 (2009) 8.93 (2012)

62.45 (2012) 88.77 (2008) 76.91 (2007) 75.19 (2006) 67.41 (2009) 67.35 (2009) 23.24 (2012)

68.09 (2005) 96.59 (1998) – 59.79 (2012) 81.09 (2005) 89.90 (2003) 37.79 (2005)

2.3 6.4 6.6 2.7 4.8 5.9 7.6

64.9 (2011) – 39.4 (2010) 47.4 (2006) 41.2 (2013) 48.2 (2011) 76.3 (2012)

Source: World Bank, Gender Statistics (2015). Note: The years in parentheses represent the year the data was available.

countries in our sample, 40 per cent of the women in the age group of 20–24 years are married by the age of 18. This figure increases to over 76 per cent in the case of Niger, and 65 per cent in the case of Bangladesh. Teenage marriages are typically associated with low levels of female education, repeat pregnancies and childbirth. These have implications both for the woman’s physiological development and nutrition, but also for the child’s nutrition and health.

Gender inequities in access to land Females in poor countries are disadvantaged in several ways: at the point of food production; in the ownership of assets or unequal income to purchase food; and finally, despite being involved in the food processing stage, females are often discriminated in the intrahousehold allocation of food and health resources, with male members typically receiving preferential treatment (see Duflo and Udry 2004; Doss 2006; Maitra et al. 2013). Gender inequities in access to productive livelihood assets can limit women’s food production. Despite the importance of land as a productive asset, in rural communities, men and women have unequal access to land (Quisumbing et al. 2004). In the Philippines for example, women find that land is given to male children because rice (the predominant crop) is intensive in male labour, and male labour has higher returns relative to female labour. These inequities in access to land can also have intergenerational effects. For example, as Quisumbing et al. (2004) note, in much of sub-Saharan Africa, women have unequal access to land and they commonly gain access via their husbands through marriage. Food production in rural areas of developing countries is also highly gendered, with men traditionally producing cash crops (e.g., irrigated rice in The Gambia and sugarcane in Kenya), and women responsible for producing traditional food crops for household consumption (e.g., swamp rice in The Gambia and maize in Kenya) and raising livestock (Quisumbing and Maluccio 2003; Fafchamps et al. 2009). Since cash crops have a higher market value attached to them, the contribution of females also has a lower economic value. This, in turn, leads to females having a lower bargaining power in household decision-making and less control over resources. These issues are compounded by growing concerns about climate change, its impact on environmental degradation and water levels: women are likely to be disproportionately affected given their traditional reliance on subsistence farming and low use of technology which leaves them susceptible to flooding and other environmental disasters (UN Women 2014). 371

Anu Rammohan

Agarwal (2003) has noted that transitions from subsistence to cash cropping can be associated with shifts in household power relations. At the food production stage, overall food production can increase if females have the same level of access to financial resources, agricultural inputs and marketing opportunities as males. However, as Doss (2014) points out, food production is often narrowly used to refer to cultivation of food crops and labour in producing agricultural outputs. If, however, food production is broadened to also include food processing, then women would probably provide 60–80 per cent of the labour involved in bringing food to the table in developing countries. Recent studies have estimated that if women farmers were given access to the same financial resources as men, then women’s agricultural yields would increase by 20 to 30 per cent; agricultural production by 2.5 to 4 per cent; and the number of malnourished people could be reduced by 12 to 17 per cent (FAO 2011; Bertini 2011).

Gender inequities in access to household resources At the food processing and allocation stage, women play a decisive role in household food security as the primary caregivers to young children. There is empirical evidence of significant differences between females and males with respect to household decision-making, with females tending to prioritize child-rearing, education and food (UNICEF 2006). Improvements in female autonomy and education can lead to the adoption of healthy and diversified diets with improved nutrition, and can contribute to better food hygiene and sanitation, thereby reducing the risk of infection and disease and increase health care utilization. A large body of empirical research has linked greater maternal autonomy to better nutrition of children, particularly girls (see Glewwe 2000; Behrman 1988). In these settings, gendered inequality in access to food is closely dependent on gendered norms and cultural practices within specific livelihood contexts (Agarwal 2003 and 2011; Bardhan 1988; Harriss 1999; de Schutter 2012). Evidence of discriminatory intrahousehold resource allocations against girls has been found in India (Kingdon 2002; Sundaram and Vanneman 2008), other countries in South Asia (Iversen and Palmer-Jones 2008), and across a broad range of developing economies (Morrisson and Jütting 2005). Studies by Dyson and Moore (1983) and Jejeebhoy (2000), show that in societies where gender relations are considered non-egalitarian, women’s role in household decision-making is often severely curtailed. The links between gender and food and nutrition security can be better analysed with a greater understanding of intrahousehold allocation of scarce resources; the extent to which household members compete for food and health resources; and whether this leads to differential outcomes for vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, female members and children. However, to quantify the extent of household-level inequities by gender requires household-level data on social norms, female autonomy and measurable nutrition measures, such as child anthropometrics. Measurement issues also affect dietary assessment studies of intrahousehold discrimination among household members that share meals from a common kitchen (Dop et al. 1994). While direct observation can be used as an alternative to proxy reports of those eating from a common kitchen (Gittelsohn et al. 1997), direct observation, like proxy reports, may not provide an accurate assessment of dietary intake for household members who eat outside of the household. Therefore, although the importance of women to the household’s economy and welfare of children is wellestablished in the literature, the definitions of food security have tended to adopt a gender neutral stance. The implications of women’s lack of bargaining power and their access to productive assets have not been fully investigated in the context of food and nutrition security. In acknowledgement of the key role played by women in household food processing and food allocation, in 2011, the FAO published a revised guideline for measuring dietary diversity, with two main changes. These include the proposal for a new individual dietary diversity score 372

Food and nutrition security within the household

based on results of the Women’s Dietary Diversity Project (WDDP); and an annex on classifying food items into food groups (Kennedy et al. 2011). The WDDP found a significant correlation between simple dietary diversity scores and micronutrient adequacy of diets of women of reproductive age. Similarly, the recently developed Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), and its component indicators (Alkire et al. 2013), aim to assess the extent of women’s empowerment in agriculture. Nevertheless, these measures can at best provide aggregate data.

Consequences of gender inequities on household-level health and nutrition outcomes In poor countries with per capita incomes of $825 or less, the top 10 risks of death included child underweight; unsafe water/sanitation/hygiene; and indoor smoke from solid fuels (ranked first, fourth, and sixth respectively), all of which are a direct consequence of poverty. Poverty is also associated with poor sanitation and hygiene that can increase the risk of diarrhoea and contribute to stunting among children (Grantham-McGregor et al. 2007) (See also, Cumming et al., chapter 29, this volume). To capture the multidimensionality of hunger, IFPRI’s Global Hunger Index includes measures such as undernourishment, child underweight and child mortality (IFPRI 2013). These three measures are directly related to women’s role in the household. For women, early marriage and repeated pregnancies will adversely affect both the physiological health of the mother, as well as their children’s nutritional status. Similarly, poor literacy levels will imply low-levels of knowledge of farming techniques, health care, sanitation and hygiene, which can adversely affect other household members. To this end, the FAO has developed a suite of indicators relating to the measurement of different dimensions of food and nutrition security. These include indicators relating to access to water and sanitation, and nutritional failures of children under five years of age, such as wasting, stunting and underweight. Since 2013, four more utilization indicators of micronutrient deficiency have been added: the prevalence of anaemia and of vitamin A deficiency among children under five; and the prevalence of iodine deficiency and of anaemia in pregnant women (FAO 2014). A key outcome of food insecurity through lack of access to food is its impact on nutritional outcomes of vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children and women of child-bearing age. Von Grebmer et al. (2013) attribute the poor showing of South Asia in the Global Hunger Index to the low nutritional, low educational, and low social status of women which contributes to a high prevalence of underweight in children below five years of age. Although malnutrition is a direct consequence of food insecurity, the consumption of adequate calories in itself does not guarantee that an individual is getting the appropriate intake of essential micronutrients – vitamins, minerals and trace elements. There is a large literature which shows that diversity indices reflect overall dietary quality (Guthrie and Scheer 1981; Hatloy et al. 1998). The HDDS is a widely used proxy measure for household food access, and is defined as the ability to acquire sufficient quality and quantity of food to meet all household members’ nutritional requirements for productive lives. The index measures the number of different food groups consumed over a given reference period, and is a commonly used indicator for household food access and for the nutrient adequacy of the diet of individuals (Kennedy et al. 2011; Swindale and Bilinsky 2006; Hoddinott and Yohannes 2002; Ruel 2003). Insufficient calorie consumption often goes hand-in-hand with micronutrient malnutrition and can have grave public health consequences (Fafchamps et al. 2009; Ezzati et al. 2002; Bhutta et al. 2013). For children, inadequate quantities of nutritious food, poor sanitation and care practices increase the risks of diarrhoea, and of being malnourished. This in turn puts them at a greater risk of being vulnerable to diseases and also of having other effects on their physical, 373

Anu Rammohan

cognitive and mental development (Barker 1994). Malnutrition among children has a direct effect on economic productivity, with better nutrition in early life shown to improve schooling outcomes (Martorell et al. 2010; Victoria et al. 2008), and its absence having an adverse impact on productivity in later life (Strauss and Thomas 1995). Table 24.3 presents data on household-level health and nutritional outcomes of children for a group of countries with poor food security outcomes. The data are taken from the Demographic Health Surveys and reflect the averages in the sampled populations of women aged 15–49 years who gave birth in the five years preceding the survey. Children’s nutritional outcomes are measured using the three anthropometric measures of height-for-age (stunted); weight-forheight (wasted); and weight-for-age (malnourished), and represent the proportion of children who are two standard deviations below the median reference population (constructed using WHO and standardized for age and sex). Stunting amongst children is a measure of chronic undernutrition and is caused by poor nutrition, often compounded by infectious diseases (Walker et al. 2007). Across all the countries in Table 24.3, over 40 per cent of the children are stunted (as measured by height-for-age z-scores). In particular, nearly 50 per cent of Indian children aged below five years are stunted; the figure rises to nearly 58 per cent in the case of Burundi. Child mortality rates are also high in this group of countries, particularly in Niger where 127 children per 1000 live births die before reaching the age of five. Similarly, we observe that the proportion of unvaccinated children for basic childhood diseases remains high, with only 44 per cent of eligible children in India having received the full set of vaccinations. Maternal education is associated with health seeking behaviour and better child health outcomes. Ultimately poor diet and infectious diseases interact in ways that not only inhibit growth among young children, but also cause damage that may eventually lead to death. According to studies by Murray and Lopez (1997), eliminating malnutrition should cut child mortality by over 50 per cent and reduce the burden of diseases by about 20 per cent. As with children, women, particularly in the reproductive age, are among those most likely to suffer from deficiencies but there is little information on the extent of the problem globally. In resource-constrained low-income households, low quality monotonous diets with high risk of micronutrient deficiencies are the norm, but we do not observe differences in dietary intake between members of the same household. The physiological needs of pregnant and lactating women make them uniquely more susceptible to malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. Females, particularly those in the reproductive age-group, are among those most likely to suffer Table 24.3 Children’s health outcomes Nutrition (% of children malnourished) Country

Child mortality rate per 1000 births

Vaccinations (% of children with completed vaccinations)

Height-for-age < 2 standard deviations (SD)

Weightfor-height < 2 SD

Weight-for-age < 2 SD

Bangladesh (2011) Burundi (2010) Congo (2013–14) India (2005–06) Madagascar (2008–09) Mozambique (2011) Niger (2012)

53 96 104 74 72 97 127

86 83 45.3 43.5 61.6 64.1 52

41.3 57.7 42.7 48 50.1 42.6 43.9

15.6 5.8 7.9 19.8 – 5.9 18

36.4 28.8 22.6 42.5 – 14.9 36.4

Source: ICF International, 2012. The DHS Program.

374

Food and nutrition security within the household

from deficiencies yet there is little information on the extent of the problem. Approximately 16 million adolescent women between 15 and 19 years of age are estimated to give birth each year. Children delivered to young mothers account for roughly 11 per cent of all births worldwide, with 95 per cent taking place in developing countries (Blum and Mmari-Nelson 2004; Temin and Levine 2009). In India, nearly half (43 per cent) of women aged 20 to 24 are married before reaching the age of 18 (Prakash et al. 2011). The undernutrition of children and mothers is intimately linked to the global disease burden (Ezzati 2002), with empirical evidence showing that much of the damage from undernutrition occurs during pregnancy and in the first two years of life (Shrimpton et al. 2001; World Bank 2006). Findings from the public health literature show that iron deficiency is one of the most prevalent nutrient deficiencies in the world, affecting an estimated two billion people. Pre-conceptional anaemia, particularly iron-deficiency anaemia, is associated with poor pregnancy and birth outcomes. It has been associated with reduced infant weight at birth and increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome (see Ronnenberg et al. 2004), it also increases the risk of preterm labour, low birth weight, infant mortality, and predicts the likelihood of iron deficiency in infants after four months of age (Brabin et al. 2001). Global estimates suggest that the prevalence of anaemia is 41.8 per cent among pregnant women and 30.2 per cent among non-pregnant women (McLean et al. 2009). This cost is disproportionally borne by developing nations, as 60 per cent of the morbidity and 95 per cent of the mortality related to iron deficiency occur in the poorest nations of the world. Countries in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are estimated to bear about 70 per cent of the global mortality burden attributable to iron-deficiency anaemia. In India, anaemia is classified as a major public health problem and an estimated 52 per cent of non-pregnant women of reproductive age are considered to be anaemic (WHO 2008) – and anaemia trends remain strongly correlated with iron deficiency (Kotecha 2008; Seshadri 2001). A 2007 Indian government ‘12 by 12 initiative’, aimed at ensuring that all Indian adolescents have 12 g/dL haemoglobin by 2012, listed the main causes of anaemia in India as low dietary intake, poor availability of iron, chronic blood loss due to hookworm infestation, and malaria (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare GoI 2007). Since maternal health is crucial for child survival, an undernourished mother is more likely to deliver an infant with low birth weight, significantly increasing its risk of dying. The eradication of anaemia in pregnancy is therefore critical to ensure a safe pregnancy (Murray and Lopez 1997). Measures to improve child survival outcomes, such as attendance by skilled health personnel at delivery and use of emergency obstetric care facilities, are closely linked with efforts to improve nutritional outcomes. However, health-seeking behaviour among poor women in developing countries during pregnancy, childbirth and in the post-natal period is low. For example, only 47 per cent of the births in rural areas of India, the country with the highest numbers of food insecure individuals, occurred in an institutional setting (UNICEF 2013). All of these factors impact on nutritional outcomes and are intimately related to food security.

Conclusion Evidence from a broad range of developing countries has shown that food security is closely linked to nutrition security, measured in terms of maternal and child nutrition. However, the terms food security and nutrition security are often used interchangeably. This has meant that policy interventions to address food insecurity have largely focused on improving agricultural production, and issues relating to regional and household-level inequities have largely gone unaddressed. Therefore, even when women and girls are over-represented amongst the food and nutritionally insecure, food policies have traditionally adopted a gender-neutral stance. 375

Anu Rammohan

It is clear that in settings where females have low autonomy, women’s role in food production and food processing remains undervalued, and discrimination in the intrahousehold allocation of resources is widespread. Consequently, despite compelling evidence of regional disparities in poverty, nutrition and food security, and inequities in intrahousehold access to food by vulnerable groups, the effectiveness of policy interventions to alleviate food and nutritional insecurity has not been quantified at the household level. This chapter has focused on the role of women in food and nutrition security, and the manner in which low levels of female empowerment and education can have adverse health and nutritional consequences on the household’s women and children. Ultimately, increases in agricultural production can only result in better household-level food and nutrition security if an inclusive approach is adopted at the household level, since females play a major role in food processing and are the primary care-givers of children. As several studies in the literature have shown, better female autonomy and control over resources is closely associated with better health and nutrition outcomes for the household’s children and women.

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Bill Pritchard and an anonymous referee for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. Funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Project grants scheme is gratefully acknowledged.

References Agarwal, B. 2003. Gender and land rights revisited: exploring new prospects via the State, family and market. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3 (1/2): 184–224. Agarwal, B. 2011. Twelfth plan working group on disadvantaged farmers Including women. Final report submitted to the Planning Commission of India. New Delhi: Government of India. Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A. R., Seymour, G. and Vaz, A. 2013. The women’s empowerment in agriculture Index. World Development, 52: 71–91. Arimond, M. et al. 2011. Dietary diversity as a measure of the micronutrient adequacy of women’s diets in resourcepoor areas: summary of results from five sites. Washington, D.C.: FANTA-2 Bridge, FHI 360, 2011. Bardhan, P. K. 1988. Sex disparity in child survival in rural India. Rural Poverty in South Asia. Srinivasan, T. N. and Bardhan, P. K. (ed). New York: Columbia University Press, 473–480. Barker, D. 1994. Mothers, Babies and Disease in Later Life. London: BMJ Publishing. Behrman, J. R. 1988. Intrahousehold allocation of nutrients in rural India: are boys favored? Do parents exhibit inequality aversion? Oxford Economic Papers, 40: 32–54. Bertini, C. 2011. Girls grow: a vital force in rural economies. Research report. Chicago: Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Bhutta, Z. A., Das, J. K., Rizvi, A., Gaffey, M. F., Walker, N., Horton, S., Webb, P., Lartey, A., Black, R. E. et al. 2013. Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? The Lancet, 382(9890): 452–477. Blum, R. W. and Mmari-Nelson, K. 2004. The health of young people in a global context. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(5): 402–418. Brabin, B. J., Hakimi, M. and Pelletier, D. 2001. An analysis of anemia and pregnancy-related maternal mortality. Journal of Nutrition, 131: 604S–614S. De Haen, H., Klasen, S. and Qaim, M. 2011. What do we really know? Metrics for food insecurity and undernutrition. Food Policy, 36: 760–769. de Schutter, O. 2012. Our secret weapon against hunger: gender equality and women’s empowerment. ADB Gender Network e-News, 6(2). Dop, M. C., Milan, C., Milan, C. and N’Diaye, A. M. 1994. The 24-hour recall for Senegalese weanlings: a validation exercise. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48(9): 643–653. Doss, C. 2014. Collecting gender disaggregated data to improve development policies. Journal of African Economies, 23(suppl 1): i62-i86.

376

Food and nutrition security within the household Doss, C. R. 2006. The effects of intrahousehold property ownership on expenditure patterns in Ghana. Journal of African Economies, 15(1): 149–180. Duflo, E. and Udry, C. 2004. Intrahousehold resource allocation in Côte d’Ivoire: social norms, separate accounts and consumption choices. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, w10498. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Dyson, T. and Moore, M. 1983. On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Population and Development Review, 9(1): 35–60. Ezzati, M., Lopez, A. D., Rodgers, A., Vander Hoorn, S., Murray, C. J. L. and the Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborative Group. 2002. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. The Lancet, 360: 1347–1360. Fafchamps, M., Kebede, B. and Quisumbing, A. R. 2009. Intrahousehold welfare in rural Ethiopia. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71: 567–599. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (various years). The state of food and agriculture. Rome: FAO. Gittelsohn, J., Thapa, M., and Landman, L. T. 1997. Cultural factors, caloric intake and micronutrient sufficiency in rural Nepali households. Social Science & Medicine, 44(11): 1739–1749. Glewwe, P. 2000. Why does mother’s schooling raise child health in developing countries? Evidence from Morocco. Journal of Human Resources, 34: 124–159. Grantham-McGregor, S., Cheung, Y. B., Cueto, S., Glewwe, P., Richter, L., Strupp, B. and International Child Development Steering Group. 2007. Developmental potential in the first five years for children in developing countries, The Lancet, 369(9555): 60–70. Guthrie, H. A. and Scheer, J. C. 1981. Validity of a dietary score for assessing nutrient adequacy. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 78(3): 240–245. Haddad, L., Pena, C., Nishida, C., Quisumbing, A. and Slack, A. 1996. Food security and nutrition implications of intrahousehold bias: a review of literature. FCND discussion paper: 19. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Haddad, L. J., Hoddinott, J. and Alderman, H. 1997. Intrahousehold resource allocation in developing countries: models, methods, and policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Harriss, B. 1999. The intrafamily distribution of hunger in South Asia. In: The political economy of hunger: selected essays. Dreze, J., Sen, A. K. and Hussien, A. (eds.), pp. 224–297. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hatloy, A., Torheim, L. E. and Oshaug, A. 1998. Food variety – a good indicator of nutritional adequacy of the diet? A case study from an urban area in Mali, West Africa. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 52(12): 891–898. Hoddinott, J. and Yohannes, Y. 2002. Dietary diversity as a food security indicator. International Food Policy Research Institute discussion paper, 136. ICF International. 2012. Measured heath surveys statistics compiler. Available at: http://www.measuredhs. com (Accessed 12 April 2015). International Food Policy Research Institute. 2013. Global hunger index, 2013. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI. Iversen, V. and Palmer-Jones, R. 2008. Literacy sharing, assortative mating, or what? Labour market advantages and proximate illiteracy revisited. Journal of Development Studies, 44(25): 797–838. Jejeebhoy, S. J. 2000. Women’s autonomy in rural India: its dimensions, determinants, and the influence of context. In: Women’s empowerment and demographic processes: moving beyond Cairo. Presser, H. B. and Sen, G. (eds.), pp. 204–238. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kennedy, G., Ballard, T. and Dop, M. C. 2011. Guidelines for measuring household and individual dietary diversity. Rome: FAO. Kingdon, G. G. 2002. The gender gap in educational attainment in India: how much can be explained? Journal of Development Studies, 39: 25–53. Kotecha, P. V. 2008. Micronutrient malnutrition in India: let us say ‘no’ to it now. The Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 33: 9–10. Maitra, P., Rammohan, A., Ray, R. and Robitaille-Blanchet, M. 2013. Food consumption patterns and malnourished Indian children: is there a link? Food Policy, 38: 70–81. Martorell, R. and Habicht, J.-P. 1986. Growth in early childhood in developing countries. In: Human growth: a comprehensive treatise. Falkner, F. and Tanner, J. M. (eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Martorell, R., Horta, B., Adair, L., Stein, A., Richard, A., Richter, L., Fall, C. H. D. et al. (2010). Weight gain in the first two years of life is an important predictor of school outcomes in pooled analyses from five birth cohorts in low and middle-income countries, Journal of Nutrition. 140(2): 348–354. McGregor-Grantham, S. 1995. A review of studies of the effect of severe malnutrition on mental development. Journal of Nutrition, 125(8): 2233S–2238S.

377

Anu Rammohan McLean, E., Cogswell, M. and Egli, I. et al. 2009. Worldwide prevalence of anaemia, WHO vitamin and mineral nutrition information system, 1993–2005. Public Health Nutrition, 12: 444–454. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 2006. Micronutrient national investment plan (IMNIP) for 2007–2011. New Delhi: India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 2007. Addressing iron deficiency anaemia among Indian adolescents – 12 by 12 initiative. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Morrisson, C. and Jütting, J. P. 2005. Women’s discrimination in developing countries: a new data set for better policies. World Development, 33(7): 1065–1081. Murray, C. and Lopez, A. 1997. Global mortality, disability and the contribution of risk factors: global burden of disease study. Lancet. 349, 9063. Prakash, R., Singh, A., Pathak, K. P. and Parasuraman, S. 2011. Early marriage, poor reproductive health status of mother and child well-being in India. Journal of Family Planning Reproductive Health Care, 37(3): 136–145. Quisumbing, A. R. and Maluccio, J. A. 2003. Resources at marriage and intrahousehold allocation: evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65: 283–327. Quisumbing, A., Estudillo, J. P. and Otsuka, K. 2004. Land and schooling: transferring wealth across generations. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI and Johns Hopkins Press. Ronnenberg, A. G., Wood, R. J., Wang, X., Xing, H., Chen, C., Chen, D., Guang, W., Huang, A. and Wang, L. 2004. Preconception hemoglobin and ferritin concentrations are associated with pregnancy outcome in a prospective cohort of Chinese women. Journal of Nutrition, 134: 2586–2591. Ruel, M. T. 2003. Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of measurement issues and research priorities. Journal of Nutrition, 133(11 Suppl 2): 3911S–3926S. Seshadri, S. 2001. Prevalence of micronutrient deficiency particularly of iron, zinc and folic acid in pregnant women in South East Asia. The British Journal of Nutrition, 85(2): S87–S92. Shrimpton, R., Victoria, C. G., de Onis, M., Costa Lima, R., Blossner, M. and Clugston, G. 2001. Worldwide timing of growth faltering: implications for nutritional interventions. Pediatrics. 107(5), E75. Strauss, J. and Thomas, D. 1995. Human resources: empirical modelling of household and family decisions. In: Handbook of development economics, vol. 3A. Srinivasan, T. and Behrman, J. (eds.), pp. 1883–2023. Amsterdam: North Holland Press. Sundaram, A. and Vanneman, R. 2008. Gender differentials in literacy in India: the intriguing relationship with women’s labor force participation. World Development. 36: 128–143. Swindale, A. and Bilinsky, P. 2006. Development of a universally applicable household food insecurity measurement tool: process, current status, and outstanding issues. Journal of Nutrition, 136(5): 1449S–1452S. Temin, M. and Levine, R. 2009. Start with a girl: a new agenda for global health. Center for Global Development. von Grebmer, K., Headey, D., Bene, C., Haddad, L., Olofinbiyi, T., Wiesmann, D., Fritschel, H., Yin, S., Yohannes, Y., Foley, C. and von Oppeln, C. 2013. 2013 global hunger index: the challenge of hunger: building resilience to achieve food and nutrition security. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI. Victoria, C. G., Adair, L., Fall, C., Hallal, P. C., Martorell, R., Richter, L. et al. 2008. Maternal and child nutrition: consequences for adult health and human capital. The Lancet, 371(9609): 340–357. UN Women. 2014. Women and the environment. Available at: http://beijing20.unwomen.org/en/infocus/environment#sthash.QdwDTrUQ.dpuf (Accessed 22 March 2015). UNICEF. 2006. Progress for children: a report card on nutrition. Paris: UNICEF. UNICEF. 2013. India at a glance, http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/India_statistics.html (Accessed 22 October 2014). Walker, S. P, Wachs, T. D., Gardner, J. M., Lozoff, B., Wasserman, G. A., Pollitt, E., et al. 2007. Child development: risk factors for adverse outcomes in developing countries. The Lancet, 369: 145–157. World Bank. 2006. Making the new Indonesia work for the poor. Jakarta. World Bank. 2015. Gender statistics. Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/gender-statistics. World Health Organization. 2008. World-Wide prevalence of anaemia, 1993 to 2005. Geneva: World Health Organization.

378

25 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES Jane Dixon

Introduction Food and nutrition security describes a complex state of affairs in which the political and cultural economies of nations play a key role. From a public health perspective, food and nutrition security refers to a situation where people are consuming nutritionally recommended intakes of caloric energy and a wide array of macro-nutrients (protein, fat, complex and simple carbohydrates) and micro-nutrients (vitamins and minerals) allowing them to lead an active and healthy life. At its most simple, achieving daily nutrient intakes as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) requires the consumption of dietary diversity, drawing on a range of food sources (Ruel 2003). It is no longer sufficient to assume that lack of availability of dietary diversity (food supply shortfalls) is the major reason for food and nutrition insecurity, at least in middle- and high-income countries. Where national and local food systems are thoroughly commodified and household selfreliance is rare, a lack of household income raises the risk of nutritionally inferior diets: that is a greater reliance on cheaper processed foods and lower intakes of fresh fruit and vegetables (Alaimo et al. 2008; Pretty 2012). Food and nutrition insecurity also arises when populations who can access and afford dietary diversity do not, instead preferring to consume from a narrow aspect of the food supply. In these situations, caloric intake may be consumed in abundance of requirements, and predisposing populations to obesity, diabetes and other chronic health conditions (WHO 2003). Simultaneously, if calories are derived from a limited range of food, it is highly likely that levels of iron, calcium, selenium and other essential minerals are inadequate. The WHO has nominated low levels of vegetal iron, resulting in anaemia, to be a global risk factor (WHO n.d.). The factors lying behind nutritionally inferior diets are multiple, ranging from nutritionally inferior food supplies; local food environments which are inaccessible; inadequate incomes as well as a lack of household cooking resources (including clean water); and the cultural acceptability of high calorie foods often in the form of ‘junk foods’. Moreover, high exposure to nutrition education cannot be assumed to lead to ‘good nutrition’ (Drewnowski and Darmon 2005), because ‘[h]ouseholds tend to increase the variety of their diet based on features other than nutrient content’ (Tiffin and Salois 2013: 162). 379

Jane Dixon

Today, the triple burden of malnutrition – underweight, overweight and micro-nutrient deficiencies – is pervasive across both high-income and low-income countries. Further, in countries across the development spectrum, food and nutrition security (FNS) is distributed in highly uneven and inequitable ways. This chapter approaches food and nutrition security in high-income countries from a practice sociology perspective. Practice sociology is associated with the work of a range of European scholars: Pierre Bourdieu (1977); Elizabeth Shove (2009); Alan Warde (1997); and Ted Schatzki (2002). Practice sociology operates as a meso-theoretical engagement, with a focus on the way societal level forces – modernization, corporatization, neo-liberalism, gender relations, socio-economic relations – influence the pre-dispositions of individuals and subpopulations to act in certain ways. Practices can be considered to be value-laden, or meaningful, activity sets that: are shared between individuals who occupy similar social status positions; have a contextually specific history; and are explainable (i.e., they are not random). Furthermore, any one practice set is interdependent on other practice sets. Following this approach, daily food selection can be considered a practice set (comprising meal ingredient decisions, cost and preparation time considerations, food safety concerns and cooking techniques) that is shaped by: the cultural norms which are attached to preparing foods (culinary culture practices); family nurturance rituals and social identity practices; and the time available to select, procure, prepare and consume the food, which in turn is shaped by other practice sets (e.g., labour force engagement and commuting). Cross-national studies reveal that food consumption practices – who else is present when eating, the time spent eating and where, and the social value accorded to the eating event – play a role in nutritional status (Dixon, Woodman et al. 2013). Each of these social environmental factors are thought to influence the psycho-biologic messages regarding satiety as eating gets under way (Blundell et al. 2013), which provides a mechanism linking food consumption practices and nutrition outcomes. This chapter begins by describing the socio-economic nature of food and nutrition security at the household level in a small number of high-income countries, before turning to the sociocultural or practices domain. While a focus on the cultural realm may appear to trivialize the type of food insecurity which is manifest in hunger, the fact is that far higher proportions of populations in more affluent countries are overweight and obese rather than underweight (Ng et al. 2014). Until recently, obesity was viewed as a disease of affluent nations and of poorer populations within those nations; with access and affordability to nutritious foods being the main culprits. However, when two-thirds of adult men and women fall into the overweight category in the UK, US, Germany and Australia, we know that excess caloric intake affects relatively affluent as well as poor populations. In these countries, higher socio-economic status groups who have access to affordable dietary diversity are either not consuming it or are consuming an abundance of it with possible adverse health outcomes. Here, socio-cultural factors assume great importance.

Key determinants of food and nutrition security in high-income countries The socio-economic determinants As Welfare States and Social Democratic States evolved during the first 60 years of the twentieth century in Europe, North America, New Zealand and Australia a commitment to hunger alleviation among the poorest segments of national populations assumed a central feature. This early commitment to the right to food for all citizens was institutionalized in a variety of ways: 380

Food and nutrition security in developed countries

support for charitable food kitchens; the setting of what is now known as a ‘living wage’ or minimum income; income protection schemes for the unemployed, sick and disabled; and Food Stamps as a form of social security entitlement. Governments employed home economists to teach women how to manage a household budget, cook a family meal using cheap ‘cuts’, and to use food preservation techniques to extend the life of seasonal produce (Levenstein 1993). Selfprovisioning, where possible, through kitchen gardens and publicly available allotments was encouraged, especially at times of crisis such as The Great Depression and the World Wars. As agriculture became more efficient and Gross Domestic Product grew, so too did the proportions of the population able to secure caloric sufficiency and nutritional diversity through the competitive market. The vastly improved nutritional status of populations after World War II is reflected in the great leap in life expectancy evident in those same populations (Harris 2004). With high levels of male adult employment post-World War II, food insecurity tracked labour force status, and the majority of hungry people fell into one of three categories: not in the labour force; itinerant and doing seasonal work, often on farms; or homeless and disabled without any form of family support. Since the 1980s, within the English speaking states of the USA, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland a shift away from welfare liberalism to market dominance of public policy has been documented. Higher levels of employment and welfare insecurity, inequality and obesity have accompanied that shift with one analysis examining whether and in what ways, insecurity and inequality provide the mechanisms for population-wide weight gain (Offer et al. 2010). In this study, insecurity and inequality are not simple proxies for income but involve psycho-social states of stress which has been associated with over-eating and higher preferences for high-energy density foods. Through pooling 96 body weight surveys from 11 countries, researchers tested the hypothesis that: economic uncertainty and unequal market and household experiences have increased stress, and that stress is conducive to weight gain: that market liberal reforms have stimulated competition in both labour and consumption markets, and that this has undermined personal stability and security. It has affected people more strongly lower down on the social scale. (Offer et al. 2010: 298) While inequality was not shown to be associated with obesity, insecurity tracked the rise in obesity in two domains: relationship to the labour market (economic security) and ‘dependency’, or expectations of social support when old, sick, a single parent or unemployed. Within the liberal market economies studied, the relatively low and declining price of fast food, as measured by the Big Mac Index published by the Economist, was a dominant feature; but still economic insecurity was a stronger contributor to the trends than fast food affordability. While the study’s authors concluded that they raised more questions than provided answers, they confirmed that links existed between low incomes and obesity through stress-related high calorie consumption. The presence of low and uncertain incomes was linked to public policies, particularly labour market and social support policies. Unlike the middle part of the twentieth century, when hunger was associated with lack of employment, today’s hunger statistics in high-income countries reveal the presence of large numbers of ‘working poor’: those who are formally engaged in the labour market but whose incomes do not resemble a living wage. The data from two recent UK enquiries and from Food Banks in Australia, Canada and the UK provide evidence here. Food Banks constitute a significant sector within the charitable food system, where fresh foods and prepared meals are 381

Jane Dixon

provided free of charge to households experiencing financial hardship. This hardship has been linked in part to government welfare cuts and sanctioning policies whereby welfare benefits are cut (Loopstra et al. 2015), but it is also associated with low wages. A report from the UK All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Hunger in the United Kingdom (2014), funded by the Church of England, showed that 70 per cent of the people accessing food banks in the UK were in the labour force. Hunger was associated with low wages, a punitive benefits sanctions regime and social breakdown. Social welfare benefit problems – in the main, interruptions in payments – was provided as the primary factor driving people to food banks, which were referred to by the Group as ‘the new shock absorbers in people’s lives’ (Forsey 2014: 72). This Church-sponsored report followed closely on one commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) which revealed that two-thirds of people in Britain who found work in 2013 were paid less than the living wage (MacInness et al. 2014). The JRF report noted that over the previous decade, incomes for the lowest paid had fallen by 10 per cent in real terms and that as many working individuals as workless ones live in poverty. As with the AllParty Inquiry into Hunger report, the JRF report noted that: ‘Changes to the way the welfare system operates have worsened the experience of poverty for many of those affected – whether through rising sanctions, longer waits for assessment or poor job outcomes through welfare-towork programmes’ (New Policy Institute 2014). Further, the self-employed were revealed to earn 13 per cent less than five years ago, while at the same time food, energy and transport costs had increased above the CPI by more than 30 per cent. In essence, the two reports captured a triple movement of austerity: the rise of a low wage capitalism; the demise of social support in the form of government welfare programs; and higher costs for the ‘basic essentials of any household’ – food, housing and utilities. This latter feature was a particularly sharp reversal in societal conditions that had prevailed in the UK for half a century: for between 1953 and 2003, the proportion of household income devoted to food and non-alcoholic drink more than halved, as did the proportion spent on housing and utility bills. However, the combined proportion of household incomes spent on these necessities increased (from 36 per cent to 40 per cent) between 2004 and 2011, with disproportionate increases experienced by the poorest households (All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Hunger in the UK 2014). Like the UK, there has been an increase in poverty in Australia over the last 30 years. When Australia established a Commission of Inquiry into Poverty in the early 1970s, 10 per cent of income units (households) was declared to be living below acceptable levels. A decade on from the introduction of neo-liberal type policies in the early 1980s, including the deregulation of labour markets, the figure had increased to 16 per cent (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1996: 21–22). As of 2011–2012, 5 million people resided in low economic resource households, receiving 52 per cent of national average income and 13 per cent of wealth (ABS 2013). The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that the number of Australians occupying the bottom 40 per cent of households by net worth has grown over the last decade. As in the UK, having a job no longer guarantees living above the poverty line, with the surge in part-time and casual employees contributing to the higher percentage who are classified as poor. Using the OECD ‘austere’ poverty line, defined as 50 per cent of median household income and adjusting for housing costs, Australia’s key agency representing the social welfare sector, ACOSS, indicates that 14 per cent of individuals could be classified as poor in 2014; and this is in a country which weathered the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–2009. The poor are once again drawn from the ranks of social welfare recipients, part-time employees, and women employees who are heading households with children (ACOSS 2014). More than 30 per cent of those living below the poverty line receive wages as their main source of income; and almost 382

Food and nutrition security in developed countries

one-half of those occupying the lowest 40 per cent of household incomes receive wages and salaries as their major income source (ABS 2013: 20). According to the national organisation overseeing Food Banks in Australia, almost one in 10 Australians (two million people) rely on food relief, with half of them being children (Foodbank Australia 2013). The ABS (2012) reported that disparities in both wealth and income had grown substantially between 2003 and 2010, and the same source revealed that households needed two incomes to reduce the chance of having ‘low economic resources’ (i.e., falling into the bottom two quintiles of socio-economic status). Even so, more than one in 10 two-earner households belonged to this category. The 40 per cent of lower-band households spent an average of $89 per week on food, or 17.8 per cent per week of disposable income, with higherincome households spending a lower percentage averaging at 15.1 per cent. For these latter households, food expenditure ranked alongside housing costs as the principle areas for expenditure but for the poorer households food expenditure is clearly being squeezed by much higher relative housing costs of 27 per cent (ABS 2012). The proportionate spend of household income required for low-income households, in many high-income countries, to access a healthy food basket is always higher (Tiffin and Salois 2013). Despite the proportion of average weekly household income, which is required to purchase food, declining markedly over the last 30 years in Australia and other liberal market economies (Sturm 2009), the level of the population experiencing hunger-type food insecurity has not reduced. Officially, it has been stable at 5 per cent (Burns 2004; Kettings et al. 2009; Lockie and Pietsch 2012), however other studies reveal a higher level of hunger-related food insecurity (Nolan et al. 2006). Facing the invidious choice of paying for housing or nutritious, as opposed to cheap, food has been described in a qualitative study undertaken in one such disadvantaged area experiencing what economists call ‘housing stress’ (Dixon and Isaacs 2013). Under these conditions, cheap food is often sourced by low-income populations from relatively high-calorie food sources: fat-laden cereals, soft drinks and other sugar saturated snacks, and ‘junkfood’ meals. Otero and colleagues (2015) call this the ‘neoliberal diet’, which is strongly correlated with the obesity related illnesses costing the US more than $150 billion per year. As these researchers observe, calorie rich foods provide a greater ‘bang for the buck’ in terms of satiety. The relatively smaller household spend on food than in the past not only ‘buys a much larger amount of calories’ but those calories are within easy reach from the ever-expanding food service sector (Sturm 2009: 458). In 2001, almost one-half of Americans’ food expenditure was spent on food away from home; and this is where the hidden calories are more likely to reside (WHO 2003). Within this context, foods and meals provided by food banks may be considered the less-bad alternative, given in the main they provide fresh and minimally processed foods, often provided by supermarkets and food service sector firms to deal with their responsibility for food waste. In First World Hunger Revisited. Food Charity or the Right to Food?, numerous contributors argue that food banks are a response to income poverty in high-income countries (Riches and Silvasti 2014). In countries as diverse as Germany, France, the UK, Australia and the US, the numbers of food banks have increased substantially over the last decade. However, as corporations and civil society mobilize to distribute food to those unable to participate in the food marketplace, the book’s editors argue that governments are abrogating their obligation under international law to guarantee the right to [nutritious] food.

The socio-cultural determinants Based on Bourdieu’s work, social scientists have been investigating the link between structure and culture through exploring ‘… the complex intersection of structure and agency within the material 383

Jane Dixon

world of everyday life’ (Williams 1995: 139). An important part of this endeavour concerns identifying the social forces, including government policy regimes, that imbue certain sets of practices with appeal, and in the process foster health trends such as the increase in obesity (Banwell et al. 2012). Numerous social forces are responsible for changes in dispositions towards diet over the twentieth century, but the discussion which follows will be confined to two, and they are strongly interlinked. The first concerns broad trends in national culinary cultures, which have been made possible by the evolution of socio-technological systems under the control of corporations. These systems have led not only to the availability and acceptability of a wider array of foods but to new styles of eating. The second relates to some distinctive features of labour market engagement – particularly by women – since the 1960s. Today’s labour market is experienced through intensified time pressure (Dixon, Woodman et al. 2013), with practices which are perceived to save time and to assist with juggling an array of practices rising in popularity. These new food practices, which can be referred to as culinary cultural transitions, are implicated in over-nutrition. Culinary cultural transitions have been associated with a complementary set of social trends which coalesced in high-income countries around the 1970s and 1980s away from home cooked meals under the control of wives and mothers. These included: higher household incomes (for upper- and middle-strata populations, at least) but less time for domestic labour; the presence of a raft of synchronous socio-technical developments – frozen meals and microwaves; television programs teaching how to incorporate new products and lifestyles; cars for supermarket shopping; and, extensive exposure to food product marketing which was being communicated not only to women cooks, but to young adults and children (Dixon and Broom 2007). The neo-liberal political economy conditions of low wages, reliance on the market and the constant need to embrace change have been accompanied by a ‘neo-liberal diet’ of cheap processed foods marketed in cultural economy terms of reward for individual endeavour, time and labour saving and self-actualization (Guthman 2011). The arrival of a vastly increased array of food products, including television dinners and other forms of pre-prepared meals, and the spread of a plethora of food service sector outlets, which ranged from supermarkets to drive-through fast food outlets and inexpensive cafés as an alternative to restaurants, meant higher levels of exposure to commercially prepared food. However, it was not simply a case that there were more calories and other nutrients available in the marketplace but that those nutrients could be consumed in a wider array of settings. The health and well-being repercussions of these new eating behaviours have been recognized only recently (Brug et al. 2008; Jastran et al. 2009). A small body of cross-national and comparative sub-population studies indicate that the socio-cultural context within which eating takes place influences nutritional intake. The context structures what is deemed acceptable in terms of: portion serving size; taste sensation in the form of saltiness, sweetness, fattiness; and responsiveness to messages of satiety. Those factors constitute the bio-physical processes referred to earlier. In particular, there is evidence to support the following mechanisms by which food consumption practices influence nutritional status: prepared foods outside the home are likely to contain higher calories than home-prepared foods (Burns et al. 2002; WHO 2003); slow eating leads to lower calorie intake than fast eating (Rozin et al. 2003); commensal or social eating is associated with fewer calories than solo or individual eating, at least in some social settings (Sobal and Nelson 2003; Fischler 2011); and eating for pleasure may be associated with lower calorie intake than diets based around faddish health claims (Rozin et al. 1999). In France, vagabond eating or an individualistic-oriented form of eating, as compared to commensal or social eating, has been implicated in the breakdown of culinary structures with implications for what is viewed as a balanced diet (Poulain 2002); although others question the dietary destructuration thesis (Holm 2013). Table 25.1 summarizes the unhealthy food practices that have followed changes in the culinary culture. 384

Food and nutrition security in developed countries Table 25.1 Food practices which have accompanied key moments in the post-1970s culinary culture of high-income nations Unhealthy food practices (compared to healthy food practices)

Culinary culture changes since 1970

Reliance on commercial food provisioning (compared to domestic food provisioning)

Spread of supermarkets, food service outlets and pre-prepared foods

Fast eating (compared to slow eating)

Fast food chains, snack vending machines, dashboard dining

Solo eating (compared to social eating)

Explosion in cafés, foods for grazing

Vagabond eating (compared to social and ritualised eating)

Breakdown of ‘traditional’ meal pattern and content

Eating for health (compared to eating for pleasure)

Cultural and medical focus on nutrition and diet related disease

A necessary resource for each of the healthy food practices (beyond income), with the exception of ‘eating for pleasure’, is time: whether it is the time to shop for food in order to prepare it at home, eat food at a particular pace, or in the company of others. This last factor is thought to be important in some societies because of the social regulatory pressure not to over-eat that accompanies group eating (Fischler 2011). Among the different drivers of culinary culture transitions, time pressure or busyness has been identified (within the Australian context, at least) as the most important social trend of the last 50 years encouraging obesity (Banwell et al. 2005). The experts argued that regardless of whether it was real or imaginary, time pressure regarding food (and physical activity) were largely responsible for the reliance on convenience foods. Subsequent qualitative research with three generations of Australians (Banwell et al. 2012) found that there have been dramatic shifts in food rituals since the 1970s, with a marked trend towards more individualistic and healthful eating. The study also revealed that thinking about food and food occasions is riddled with many more anxieties than in the past and there is huge fluidity in individual eating rhythms across any one week or month. This is consistent with the de-structuration of meal patterns identified in France and elsewhere (Poulain 2002; Southerton et al. 2012). In this context it is tempting to surmise that flexibilized or de-structured culinary cultures encourage obesity. Countries with relatively regimented culinary cultural approaches, such as Japan (Melby and Takeda 2014), France (Fischler 2011) and Italy (Monteleone and Dinnella 2009), tend to have lower levels of overweight and obesity, compared to those, such as Australia, with porous and wide-ranging culinary cultures (Symons 1982). However, this is where another practice set comes into play, and it illustrates the trade-offs that individuals, households and nations make when considering income earning capacity and health. The data presented in the previous section indicated that double-earner income households are needed to fend off food poverty, making it important for all household members to have opportunities to engage in the labour market.

The importance of labour market practices as they intersect with culinary cultural practices One of the earliest illustrations of the way in which working lives shaped nutritional intakes was provided in Sidney Mintz’s classic account of the events leading to the English working class affinity for sugar. Mintz termed sugar’s incorporation into the diet (displacing honey) a ‘taste of 385

Jane Dixon

the necessary’, spawned by long and arduous days labouring in factories while receiving low wages. Cheap sugary tea provided the caloric energy to keep working, literally fuelling the labour power that underpinned the Industrial Revolution (Mintz 1985). A more contemporary account, but making the same point, was provided by Goodman and Redclift (1991) when they described the culinary cultural transitions which accompanied the mass entry of women into labour forces post-World War II. As they put it, ‘[o]ne of the major developments within the global food system has been the change in diet associated with the movement of women into the labour market’ (Goodman and Redclift 1991: front page). They highlighted the ready acceptance of a new generation of processed foods (augmenting the culinary incorporation of canned foods) and frozen meals as women’s paid labour became more valuable than their household labour. Using data from the US and UK, Goodman and Redclift charted the uptake of these early forms of ‘convenience foods’ as the single wage-earner family became the double-income earner family. More recent economic analyses for the UK and US support the proposition that there has been a rapid and profound transition in culinary cultures with the advent of wide-scale labour force participation by household cooks, and a simultaneous switch in the price relativities between fresh and processed foods (Offer 1998; Cutler et al. 2003). In one account of the durability of Italian food practices, clinging to more traditional foodways has been linked to ‘slower development in new forms of work organization’ (Monteleone and Dinnella 2009: 360). However, other research reveals the enormous stress that Italian women are under to both work and to maintain expected household standards (Counihan 1988). In Japan, where a strong culinary culture based on home based food provisioning prevails, more than one-third of women resign from their jobs when they deliver their first child, most re-entering the labour force from 45 years of age (Roberts 2011). Not working at all or self-employment in Italy and exiting from the workforce in Japan pose alternative routes to accommodating work–family demands, including maintaining the national culinary culture. Evidence from Australia suggests that participation in the labour market is a key contributor to feeling time-poor (Pusey 2003; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011), and they also show that time poverty is linked to less-than-desirable dietary habits. What is not clear from existing research is whether long hours at work are the major problem or whether other temporal dimensions to labour market engagement, such as irregular working shifts and unsociable working hours, are the bigger issue. Australia does have high levels of female part-time work compared to elsewhere (Craig and Mullan 2011). Post-industrial economies have seen a rise in ‘precarious’ jobs, involving increased casualization, short-term contracts, and unguaranteed and variable hours of employment (Standing 2011). This variability in hours, and lack of security, could impact on dietary practices and in particular the stress-related eating that is shown to accompany economic insecurity (Offer et al. 2010) just as it does on household incomes and subsequent capacity to pay for nutritious food. A multiplicity of working schedules in deregulated labour markets makes scheduling other essential activities more demanding – like home cooking – and creates disjunctions between the schedules of significant others – like family members, making commensal eating harder to achieve (Dixon, Woodman et al. 2013). A raft of Australian studies reveals the dilemmas for individuals and households of different socio-economic status as they attempt to negotiate personal and social time budgets, bargaining time allocations for their own and their family’s health against their employers (Strazdins et al. 2011; Woodman 2012; Craig and Mullan 2011). For some groups, time reallocation towards paid employment and away from domestic work is experienced positively while for others it exemplifies lack of job control. The production, distribution and consumption of time can be as important as the production, distribution and consumption of income; and the preceding sections shows they are intricately 386

Food and nutrition security in developed countries

linked. Moreover, in the context of food and nutrition security in high-income countries, time operates as a health-promoting resource much like income does.

Conclusion While this chapter has a focus on high-income countries, it is hard to generalize across them given the particular historical mix of political, socio-economic and cultural conditions which fashion national food systems. This argument applies particularly to the realm of household food provisioning given the additional diversity that ethnicity, religion and gender bring. Nevertheless, the practice sociology approach which has been adopted in this chapter indicates how socioeconomic and cultural economy forces typically foster ways of living that make it increasingly challenging to achieve food and nutrition security. When nations accept food systems based on corporate supply chains and the ready availability, affordability and accessibility of cheap processed foods, they are gambling with the health of their populations. However, the leaders of these same nations would argue that the benefits of adopting neo-liberal principles – market competition, fostering individual choice over state intervention, de-regulated labour markets, household self-reliance rather than taxation funded social protections – outweigh the social costs. The outcomes of such a policy regime have led to the entrenchment of socio-economic disadvantage through a policy mix of low wages and social benefits, with low-income households being forced to seek out cheap food provisioning sources and increasingly it seems, no-cost food sources. The use of Food Banks by large proportions of the ‘working poor’ is testimony here. The public health field has led the way in reporting on a particular form of nutrition transition – higher levels of the production and consumption of foods rich in salt, fats and oils, sugars and meat and lower levels of fruit, vegetable and grain based foods – which Western developed nations have embraced over the last half a century. What agrifood scholars reveal is that this nutrition transition describes a path dependent stage in national economic development. However, what few do is to join all the dots: the nutrition transition which is currently undermining the achievement of food and nutrition security is the result not only of processes within global, national and household food systems but also can be ascribed to cultural shifts in a range of domains which are linked to social and wage policies. In particular, the valuing of commercial over household based food-provisioning strategies in the name of convenience, so as to be able to earn an income, contains other health and well-being tensions. This chapter cautions against assumptions that just because nutritious food is available, accessible and even affordable, that it will be consumed. For sub-populations who are income and time poor, and who have more pressing practice sets, like labour market engagement and family care, ‘good nutrition’ is particularly elusive. In the face of social, cultural and economic forces, which are widely accepted as leading to a particular form of national development, nutrition health education campaigns can have little influence on food and nutrition security. In this regard, understanding the drivers of food demand beyond price elasticities remains weak. What has been overlooked by a range of scholars until recently is the fact that social transitions – including the culinary culture and labour markets – have public health consequences. Key questions which require further research in relation to food security in high-income countries include: are culinary cultures becoming more flexible to accommodate de-regulated working schedules, and do flexible or de-structured culinary cultures pose a health risk? How can policy makers respond to the impacts of low wage and insecure labour markets which may pose nutrition security risks? Finally, is Anderson (2013) correct to argue that institutionalizing the ‘right to healthy food’ is the best way forward to addressing what has now become chronic food 387

Jane Dixon

insecurity in high income countries? Clearly, achieving access to nutritionally adequate food supplies is not a sufficient condition to ensure food security. Affordability is key, but in this regard cheap food is not necessarily the answer when it is often nutritionally inferior. In this context, adequate household incomes are part of the solution and this means the incorporation of ‘good nutrition’ costings within social insurance and labour market policies. Finally, the wide acceptability of ‘fast food’ cultural practices leading people to risky diets means that issues of time-poverty must be open to serious discussion.

References ACOSS. 2014. Poverty in Australia 2014. Strawberry Hills: Australian Council of Social Services. Available at: http://www.acoss.org.au/images/uploads/ACOSS_Poverty_in_Australia_2014.pdf. Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R. and Kruger, D. 2008. Fruit and vegetable intake among urban gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 40: 94–101. All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Hunger in the United Kingdom. 2014. Feeding Britain: a strategy for zero hunger in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Children’s Society. Available at: https://foodpovertyinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/food-poverty-feeding-britain-final.pdf. Anderson, M. 2013. Beyond food security to realizing food rights in the US. Journal of Rural Studies, 29: 113–122. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996. Year book Australia: poverty and deprivation in Australia. Catalogue 1301.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@. nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article201996?opendocument&tabname=Summary& prodno=1301.0&issue=1996&num=&view=. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011. Overemployment: Australian social trends. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2012. Life on ‘Struggle Street’: Australian social trends. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+ Features10March+Quarter+2012. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2013. Household income and income distribution, Australia, 2011–12. Catalogue: 6523.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Banwell, C., Broom, D., Davies, A. and Dixon, J. 2012. Weight of modernity: an intergenerational study of the rise of obesity. Dordrecht: Springer Publishing. Banwell, C., Hinde, S., Dixon, J. and Sibthorpe, B. 2005. Reflections on expert consensus: a case study of the social trends contributing to obesity. European Journal of Public Health, 15(6): 564–568. Blundell, J., Dalton, M. and Finlayson, G. 2013. Appetite and satiety – a psychobiological approach. In: The handbook of food research. Murcott, A., Belasco, W. and Jackson, P. (eds.), pp. 309–323. London: Bloomsbury. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brug, J., Kremers, S., van Lenthe, F., Ball, K. and Crawford, D. 2008. Environmental determinants of healthy eating: in need of theory and evidence. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 67: 307–316. Burns, C. 2004. A review of the literature describing the link between poverty, food insecurity and obesity with specific reference to Australia. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Burns, C., Jackson, M., Gibbons, C. and Stoney, R. 2002. Foods prepared outside the home: association with selected nutrients and body mass index in adult Australians. Public Health Nutrition, 5(3): 441–448. Counihan, C. 1988. Female identity, food, and power in contemporary Florence. Anthropological Quarterly, 61(2): 51–62. Craig, L. and Mullan, K. 2011. How mothers and fathers share childcare: a cross-national time-use comparison. American Sociological Review, 76(6): 834–861. Cutler, D., Glaeser, E. and Shapiro, J. 2003. Why have Americans become more obese? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(3): 93–118. Dixon, J. and Broom, D. (eds.). 2007. The seven deadly sins of obesity: how the modern world is making us fat. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Dixon, J. and Isaacs, B. 2013. Why sustainable and ‘nutritionally correct’ foods are not on the local agenda: Western Sydney, the moral arts of everyday life and public policy. Food Policy, 43: 67–76. Dixon, J., Woodman, D., Strazdins, L., Banwell, C., Broom, D. and Burgess, J. 2013. Flexible employment, flexible eating and health risks. Critical Public Health, doi: 10.1080/09581596.2013.852162. Drewnowski, A. and Darmon, N. 2005. Food choices and dietary costs: an economic analysis. The Journal of Nutrition, 135: 900–904.

388

Food and nutrition security in developed countries Fischler, C. 2011. Commensality, society and culture. Social Science Information, 50(3–4): 1–21. Foodbank Australia. 2013. End hunger in Australia. End hunger report 2013. Foodbank Australia. Forsey, A. 2014. An evidence review for the all-party parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.frankfield.co.uk/upload/docs/Food%20Poverty%20APPG%20 -%20Evidence%20Review%20FINAL.pdf (Accessed March 20, 2015). Goodman, D. and Redclift, M. 1991. Refashioning nature: food, ecology & culture. London: Routledge. Guthman, J. 2011. Weighing In: obesity, food justice and the limits of capitalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Harris, B. 2004. Public health, nutrition and the decline of mortality: the McKeown thesis revisited. Social History of Medicine, 17(3): 379–407. Holm, L. 2013. The sociology of food consumption. In: The handbook of food research. Murcott, A. Belasco, W. and Jackson, P. (eds.), pp. 323–337. London: Bloomsbury. Jastran, M., Bisogni, C., Sobal, J., Blake, C. and Devine, C. 2009. Eating routines: embedded, value-based, modifiable, and reflective. Appetite, 52: 127–136. Kettings, C., Sinclair, A. and Voevodin, M. 2009. A healthy diet consistent with Australian health recommendations is too expensive for welfare-dependent families. Australian New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1233(6): 566–572. Levenstein, H. 1993. Paradox of plenty: a social history of eating in modern America. New York: Oxford University Press. Lockie, S. and Pietsch, J. 2012. Public opinion on food security, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, ANU, Canberra. http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/Food%20Security_Poll.pdf Loopstra, R., Taylor-Robinson, D., Barr, B., McKee, M. and Stuckler, D. 2015. Austerity, sanctions, and the rise of food banks in the UK. British Medical Journal, 350: h1775, doi: 10.1136bmj.h1775. MacInnes, T., Aldridge, H., Bushe, S., Tinson, A. and Born, T. 2014. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion 2014. New Policy Institute. Available at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/monitoringpoverty-and-social-exclusion-2014. Maher, J., Lindsay, J. and Franzway, S. 2008. Time, caring labour and social policy: understanding the family time economy in contemporary families. Work, Employment & Society, 22(3): 547–588. Melby, M. and Takeda, W. 2014. Lifestyle constraints, not inadequate nutrition education, cause gap between breakfast ideals and realities among Japanese in Tokyo. Appetite, 72: 37–49. Mintz, S. 1985. Sweeteness and power: the place of sugar in modern history. New York: Penguin Books. Monteleone, E. and Dinnella, C. 2009. Italian meals. In: Meals in science and practice. Meiselman, H. (ed.), pp. 359–375. Cambridge: Woodhead Publisher. New Policy Institute. 2014. Monitoring poverty and social exclusion. Press Release. Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz, N., Margono, C., Mullany, E., Biryukov, S. 2014. Global, regional and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet, 6046060468, doi: 10.1016/SO140-6736(14). Nolan, M., Rikard-Bell, G., Mohsin, M. and Williams, M. 2006. Food insecurity in three socially disadvantaged localities in Sydney, Australia. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 17: 247–254. Offer, A. 1998. Epidemics of abundance: overeating and slimming in the USA and Britain since the 1950s. Nuffield College: University of Oxford. Offer, A., Pechey, R. and Ulijaezsek, S. 2010. Obesity under affluence varies by welfare regimes: the effects of fast food, insecurity, and inequality. Economics and Human Biology, 8: 297–308. Otero, G., Pechlaner, G. and Gurcan, E. 2015. The neoliberal diet: fattening profits and people. In: Routledge handbook to poverty in the USA. Haymes, S. N., Vidal de Haymes, M. and Miller, J. R. (eds.). Abingdon: Routledge. Poulain, J.-P. 2002. The contemporary diet in France: ‘destructuration’ or from commensal to vagabond eating. Appetite, 39(1): 43–55. Pretty, J. 2012. Agriculture and food systems: our current challenge. In: Food systems failure. Rosin, C., Stock, P. and Campbell, H. (eds.), pp. 17–29. London: Earthscan. Pusey, M. 2003. The experience of middle Australia: the dark side of economic reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Riches, G. and Silvasti, T. 2014. First world hunger revisited: food charity or the right to food? 2nd edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Roberts, G. 2011. Salary women and family well-being in urban Japan. Marriage & Family Review, 47(8): 571–589.

389

Jane Dixon Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., and Wrzesniewski, A. 1999. Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: possible implications for the diet– health debate. Appetite, 33(2): 163–180. Rozin, P., Kabnick, K., Pete, E., Fischler, C. and Shields, C. 2003. The ecology of eating: smaller portion sizes in France than in the United States help explain the French paradox. Psychological Science, 14(5): 450–454. Ruel, M. 2003. Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review of measurement issues and research priorities. Journal of Nutrition, 133(11 Suppl 2): 3911S–3926S. Schatzki, T. 2002. The site of the social: a philosophical exploration of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: State Univeristy of Pennsylvania Press. Shove, E. 2009. Everyday practice and the production and consumption of time. In: Time, consumption and everyday life: practice, materiality and culture. Shove, E., Trentmann F. and Wilk, R. (eds.), pp. 17–34. Oxford: Berg. Sobal, J. and Nelson, M. 2003. Commensal eating patterns: a community study. Appetite, 41(2): 181–190. Southerton, D., Diaz-Mendez, C. and Warde, A. 2012. Behavioural change and the temporal ordering of eating practices: a UK–Spain comparison. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 19(1): 19–36. Standing, G. 2011. The precariat: the new dangerous class. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Strazdins, L., Griffin, A., Broom, D., Banwell, C., Korda, D., Dixon, J., Paoloucci, F. and Glover, J. 2011. Time scarcity: another health inequity? Time-Space and Life-Course. Environment and Planning A, 43(3): 545–559. Sturm, R. 2009. Affordability and obesity: issues in the multifunctionality of agricultural/food systems. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 4 (3–4): 454–465. Symons, M. 1982. One continuous picnic: a history of eating in Australia. Adelaide: Duck Press. Tiffin, R. and Salois, M. 2013. Economics, food demand, and nutrition. In: The handbook of food research. Murcott, A., Belasco, W. and Jackson, P. (eds.), pp. 148–166. London: Bloomsbury. Warde, A. 1997. Consumption, food and taste. London: Sage. WHO. n.d. Nutrition. Micro-nutrient deficiencies. Available at: http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/ida/en/. WHO. 2003. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization. Williams, S. 1995. Theorising class, health and lifestyles: can Bourdieu help us? Sociology of Health and Illness, 17(5): 577–604. Woodman, D. 2012. Life out of synch: how new patterns of further education and the rise of precarious employment are reshaping young people’s relationships. Sociology, 46(6): 1074–1090.

390

PART III

Food utilization

This page intentionally left blank

26 FOOD AND NUTRITION SURVEILLANCE Geoffrey C. Marks

Introduction Food and nutrition surveillance is the regular collection of information to assess the food and nutrition (F&N) situation in populations to guide public policy, program and other investment decisions. The scope and scale varies, including, for example: • •

•

Tracking the adequacy of the food supply to meet the nutritional needs for an overall population with food balance sheets. Using large representative survey programs to examine trends in food consumption and nutrition outcomes for a region or the overall population of a country, and to assess differences between important sub-groups. Watching early warning indicators of specific issues, such as for food shortage or malnutrition in selected communities, or the emergence of obesity in population subgroups such as children.

The terms monitoring and surveillance are often used interchangeably for these types of activities. We use ‘surveillance’ in preference to monitoring in this chapter to describe activities that routinely assess the F&N situation in communities, regions or national populations. While F&N surveillance was originally promoted to address concerns in low-income countries, the principles have been adopted also in middle and high-income countries, with a lot of crossover emerging in agendas and methodology. In this chapter we describe the shifts over time in who has led F&N surveillance developments, and assess the implications of this and emerging information-gathering and analytical systems, arguing that they have enabled greater scope for monitoring and assessing shifts at community, national and international levels. We address the different surveillance methodologies, their policy utility, and future trends in this area.

A brief history of food and nutrition surveillance F&N surveillance has an extensive history. Food balance sheets were attempted during World War I amid concerns about the adequacy of food supplies. They became an important source 393

Geoffrey C. Marks

of information for population food policy, with the Handbook for the Preparation of Food Balance Sheets published by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 1949 (FAO 2001). Methods for nutritional assessment in communities were also standardised following World War II, a classic monograph prepared by Jelliffe for the World Health Organization (WHO) in the mid 1960s establishing standard methods and criteria across the major types of malnutrition (Jelliffe 1966). The food and health agendas were brought together during the 1974 World Food Conference in Rome in recommendations ‘to establish nutritional surveillance activities’ (WHO 1974). The Conference was called during a time of significant concern about agriculture’s capacity to meet food needs in many countries, a period when malnutrition was widespread in the developing world and famine recurrent in some countries. This spurred a range of initiatives. A monograph by Mason et al. in 1984 drew on experience following the Conference to identify the main objectives and recommend methodologies for each. These were to support: i) policy and planning in the medium-to-long term; ii) timely warning and intervention for famine prevention; and iii) program management and evaluation (Mason et al. 1984). The surveillance initiatives involved a range of methodologies, including repeated cross-sectional surveys and techniques drawing on data routinely collected such as by clinics or from farm production surveys, and made explicit their uses for informing decisions about F&N policies. Through the 1990s the agendas of most UN agencies and donors shifted away from the multi-sectoral planning and surveillance stimulated by the 1974 Conference, with more diverse F&N purposes emerging. For example, when the 1992 International Conference on Nutrition shifted emphasis in nutrition programming to the prevention of micronutrient deficiencies, the promotion of nutrient supplementation, and other vertical programs (Nishida 2013),1 different F&N surveillance approaches were required. The 1996 World Food Summit aimed for a commitment from participating countries to achieve ‘food security for all’ and eradicate hunger (see Pritchard, chapter 1, this volume), with an immediate view to reducing malnutrition by half by 2015 (FAO 1996). While surveillance was amongst the agreed follow-up actions, the immediate emphasis was on monitoring agricultural production with establishment of the Food Insecurity and Vulnerable Information Mapping System (FIVIMS). This development was not inconsistent with broader aspirations of F&N surveillance, but involved a shift to mapping, instead of surveillance of the population (Boutrif 1997). From the outset, the F&N surveillance agenda had a strong focus on providing information systems (such as FIVIMS) to support policy decisions. However, these initiatives tended to be led by technical analysts rather than the end-users/decision-makers, and evaluations of the systems commented on the focus on technical aspects with unclear connections and uptake by decision-makers. As a result, the usefulness of these approaches was brought into question soon after the 1992 International Conference on Nutrition (UNICEF 1992; Mock and Bertrand 1993; Jonsson 1995). Subsequent initiatives have blurred distinctions between the purpose of F&N surveillance efforts pursued across low, middle and high-income countries, leading to more harmony in priorities, information requirements and methodology on the one hand, but also more diverse ‘streams of interest’ in surveillance activities. For example, investigation of ‘hunger’ in the United States led to early development of experience-based measures of household food insecurity (Radimer et al. 1990) that comprised a shift from objective to self-report measures on the ability to obtain adequate quantity and quality of food. This approach to food security assessment has become routinely used in the USA and other high-income countries, and has also influenced approaches to assessment used in low and middle-income contexts (Radimer 2002; Ballard et al. 2013). 394

Food and nutrition surveillance

Recognition during the 1990s of commonalities in the ‘nutrition transition’ across populations extended surveillance efforts in many low and middle-income countries to include food and nutrition risk factors for chronic diseases. The nutrition transition is characterized by rapid shifts in diet and physical activity, and reflected by increasing prevalence of obesity, diabetes and hypertension. It is associated with the increasingly globalized food supply and urban lifestyles, a growing reliance on retail food purchases, a shift to processed foods, increased away from home food intake and greater use of edible oils and sugar-sweetened beverages (Popkin et al. 2012). Popkin points to the effects of these changes on diets of the food insecure as much as those food secure in low and middle-income countries (Popkin 2014). This has led many countries to adopt the WHO STEPwise approach to chronic disease risk factor surveillance. It provides a standardized method for collecting, analyzing and disseminating data, including dietary risk factors as part of the core, and more detailed dietary assessment, anthropometry and nutritionrelated biomedical measures as options in the additional ‘steps’ (WHO 2015c). Involvement of UN agencies and major donors in support of particular F&N surveillance initiatives has fostered standardization of approaches and methods. Growth of regional and global partnerships has pushed this further, e.g., through the following: •

Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions (SMART), a network of organizations and humanitarian practitioners established in 2002 to develop recommendations and resources for survey methods, measures and analysis, aiming for a single standardized methodology (SMART Network 2015). The European Food Consumption Survey Method (EFCOSUM) project that aimed to define a (minimum) set of dietary components, and comparable methods for monitoring food consumption in nationally representative samples for 23 countries in Europe (Brussaard et al. 2002). An initiative currently under way by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to set up a common international methodology and web-based infrastructure for surveillance, research and prevention of diet-related non-communicable diseases (Pisa et al. 2014).

•

•

The F&N surveillance initiatives considered so far have addressed discrete agendas prompted by public sector concerns about health. However, in recent years, government-led interest has been joined by arguments for F&N surveillance by the food industry, and non-government and consumer organizations involved with the protection of vulnerable groups, as well as research and academic institutions. Box 26.1 gives the range of policy questions included in these interests, using the instance of Australia. They cut across public policy, programs and services, regulatory requirements, commercial applications and research.

Box 26.1 Examples of policy questions that can be answered from a F&N surveillance system • • • •

Is a nutritionally adequate and safe food supply available and accessible to all segments of the population? Are there structural barriers to equitable food access that need to be addressed? Is the composition of foods in the food supply changing and are the changes associated with increased or decreased risk of nutrition-related ill health? What are the implications of technological and regulatory changes on the composition of the food supply, for population health and for the food industry?

395

Geoffrey C. Marks

• • • • • • •

Are the risks of exposure to bioactive compounds in food acceptable, at current levels of consumption? Is the composition of the overall diet changing and is this associated with increased or decreased risk of morbidity, chronic disease and mortality? Are food habits and nutrient intakes of the population changing in line with dietary targets and guidelines and nutrient reference values? What trends in eating patterns may affect food industry growth and innovation? Is the nutritional status of the population changing and is this associated with increasing or decreasing risk of morbidity, chronic disease and mortality? Is nutritional status different for different population sub-groups and what environmental, socio-economic and personal factors are associated with these differences? Is the use of nutritional supplements changing, and what are the implications for nutrient intake, nutritional status and the health of the population? (Masters, Rutishauser et al. 2006)

Few F&N surveillance systems address all of these requirements, but the questions illustrates the increasingly complex mix of information requirements being demanded from national government agencies, as pressures associated with globalization of the food supply and the density of regulatory requirements generates new information needs across public, private, nongovernment and consumer organizations. One outcome of these developments has been ‘bottom-up’ agendas that have complemented, if not challenged, the traditional dominance of UN agencies, donors and national governments in F&N surveillance. Community-based initiatives with ‘bottom-up’ agendas have been focussed on rapid assessment, stressing interaction with the end-user and fine-tuning analyses to meet their needs (Mock et al. 2013). This has been facilitated through networks and technology. These have also provided more options for information-gathering and analytical systems. The outcome has been new stimulus, interest and options in F&N surveillance, but also trade-offs. We return to consider this further in the final sections of this chapter.

Surveillance methodologies Surveillance methodologies can be characterized by the measures and indicators used, and the data collection methods used. There is considerable variation in each. Consideration of the information requirements to address issues outlined in Box 26.1 and to report on the suite of indicators in Table 26.1 shows a broad range of potential requirements. Some components will be collected for other purposes such as through routine administrative and statistical systems, while other components require specific data collection. We discuss here the measures that are core to F&N surveillance, and data collection methods commonly used in addition to routine administrative systems.

Measures and indicators Surveillance relies on being able to track standard measures and indicators of key aspects of the F&N situation over time. The question of what to monitor is fundamental to developing F&N surveillance. Depending on the purposes and information requirements this could range from a simple set of measures (such as for measuring child growth (WHO 2015b)), to an array of questions as used to monitor breastfeeding behaviours (Webb et al. 2001) and food insecurity 396

Food and nutrition surveillance Table 26.1 Suite of food security indicators Food security indicators

Dimension

Average dietary energy supply adequacy Average value of food production Share of dietary energy supply derived from cereals, roots and tubers Average protein supply Average supply of protein of animal origin

AVAILABILITY

Percentage of paved roads over total roads Road density Rail lines density

PHYSICAL ACCESS

Domestic food price index

ECONOMIC ACCESS

Access to improved water sources Access to improved sanitation facilities

UTILIZATION

Cereal import dependency ratio Percentage of arable land equipped for irrigation Value of food imports over total merchandise exports

VULNERABILITY

Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism Domestic food price volatility Per capita food production variability Per capita food supply variability

SHOCKS

Prevalence of undernourishment Share of food expenditure of the poor Depth of the food deficit Prevalence of food inadequacy

ACCESS

Percentage of children under 5 years of age affected by wasting Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are underweight Percentage of adults who are underweight Prevalence of anaemia among pregnant women Prevalence of anaemia among children under 5 years of age Prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in the population Prevalence of iodine deficiency in the population

UTILIZATION

Source: FAO, IFAD et al. 2014.

in the United States (USDA 2015). One of the key challenges is that many of the concepts that we need to measure are multi-dimensional, often meaning that data needs to be gathered from several different sources. This is exemplified with respect to food insecurity in Table 26.1 which lists the set of indicators reported by the FAO in its The State of Food Insecurity report (FAO et al. 2014). Data requirements are also affected by the intended uses, particularly: • •

Level of representation – are single national estimates adequate, or are household or individual level measurements needed. Time frame – is the purpose to provide early warning of impending issues, to reflect the current and potentially transitory situation, or provide a more long-term or chronic perspective. 397

Geoffrey C. Marks

•

Planned analysis – stratification and comparisons will potentially require also collecting information such as socio-demographic characteristics that underpin interpretation of the F&N data.

Consequently, effective F&N surveillance is aided by clear statements on the purpose, the main end-users and types of information that will be most useful. Good data quality is also important for effective surveillance. The quality issues for monitoring and surveillance are well established (UN Women 2015), with the following attributes particularly applicable to F&N surveillance (Marks et al. 2001): • • • • •

Valid – it accurately reflects the information it is designed to obtain. Reliable – it gives the same result when repeated under the same conditions. Consistent – it performs in the same way in different subgroups of the population, and provides the same information over time. Responsive – it is capable of measuring change in the factor over time. Not influenced by the method of administration, such as by face to face or telephone interview, or by the type of equipment used.

While the details of particular F&N surveillance activities will depend on the purpose(s) and end-users, they will generally involve collecting measures from one or more of the following four main domains (Rutishauser et al. 2007): • • • •

Food supply – information on the production and availability of foods, and the nutritional composition of these foods. Food distribution and access – information on food expenditure by households and individuals, types of foodstuffs purchased, prices paid and quantities purchased. Food habits and dietary intakes – information on selected food behaviours, and on food and nutrient intakes. Nutritional status – information on physical and biochemical measures related to food and nutrient intake.

These are considered in turn. While they clearly relate to aspects of F&N security, they also address information needs for other purposes.

Food supply One of the most common and long-standing time-series of data available is on national food supplies, based on the food balance sheet methodology, and reported by the FAO for a large number of countries since 1949 (FAO 2001). This aims to provide information on the food available for human consumption within a country over a specified time period, taking account of annual production (including home production), changes in food stocks, imports and exports of foodstuffs, losses to the supply chain (e.g., wastage and spoilage) and non-food uses (e.g., for animal feed). However, these estimates are prone to error. The range of data sources used for food balance sheets can differ markedly in terms of coverage, accuracy, consistency over time and availability from year to year. Consequently it can be difficult to distinguish ‘apparent’ changes from ‘real’ changes. Further, estimating quantities of commodities has become more complex with increasing volumes of trade in processed and manufactured foods. Therefore, balance sheet estimates are useful for identifying trends and relative changes, but the absolute value of estimates should be interpreted with caution. 398

Food and nutrition surveillance

Nevertheless these data are frequently the only source of data on the food supply for a country over time. They are commonly used to monitor food availability, defined as the adequacy of the foods available to meet the per capita energy and nutrient requirements of the population, and as evidence for changes in dietary patterns. In food security assessment, food balance sheet data are commonly used as the basis for indicators at a population level, as shown in Table 26.1 for aspects of availability, vulnerability and shocks. While they provide an estimate of the average level of food and nutrients available to the population, they provide no information on food distribution within the country and so provide no insight on particular groups at risk of inadequate diets. The nature of the data used also limits their potential for identifying rapid changes.

Food distribution and access Food distribution data are required to identify the population groups most at risk. An obvious way to obtain this information is to collect data on the intakes of individuals. However, this type of survey is expensive, requiring considerable staff expertise and resources both to collect and then to analyse the dietary data. As a result, household expenditure on food is regularly used as a proxy for intakes. It is also routinely collected in Household Consumption and Expenditure Surveys (HCES). A major benefit of HCES is that they also include socio-demographic data and so provide a basis for analysis by location and other factors that can assist with understanding the situation for different types of households. However, the primary aim of most household expenditure surveys is to provide representative information on a broad range of indicators for socio-economic rather than F&N purposes. For this reason the extent of food-related data are generally limited to the actual expenditure on foodstuff, by food types. While this is informative, additional information on food prices and/or quantities purchased is required to estimate food and nutrient availability. In some contexts foods entering the household from other sources (such as gifts, home production and foods purchased outside of the home) will also be important and need to be included if a complete picture of food and nutrient availability is to be obtained. Data on food waste and other losses are generally not included, limiting their usefulness for assessing adequacy.

Food habits and dietary intakes Many of the specific agendas in F&N surveillance can be addressed through using short questions (Marks et al. 2001). For example, one or more short questions are used to assess breastfeeding practices, and questions about the frequency and usual quantities of particular food groups (such as vegetables consumed) can be used to assess compliance with dietary guidelines and food selection recommendations. Because they are inexpensive and uncomplicated to administer, individual F&N questions, or sets of questions, are commonly added to national or regional surveys that are conducted for broader purposes, such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), STEPwise and HCES surveys (DHS 2015; WHO 2015c). Some of the questions in Box 26.1 however, require a more detailed assessment to monitor changes in types and amounts of foods consumed over time and their nutritional features. Consequently, F&N surveillance systems frequently include more comprehensive dietary assessments. Various methods can be used to provide a quantitative estimate of intakes at the household level (food accounts or inventory, household record and list-recall) and for individuals (frequency questionnaires, 24-hour recalls, records) (Gibson 2005). Comparison of 399

Geoffrey C. Marks

dietary surveys and surveillance systems internationally show all of these in common usage in recent decades. The benefits of being able to compare and exchange data between countries have led to an increasing harmonization of methods for data collection, coding and calculation of food composition. An outcome of this trend has been an increasing adoption of the 24-hour recall for F&N surveillance, though other methods are still widely used for other purposes. These types of surveys are large undertakings and require a considerable investment of time, expertise and other resources.

Nutritional status Nutritional status refers to the physical and clinical outcomes associated with food intakes. For F&N surveillance this includes a mix of physical, biochemical and physiological assessments. Anthropometric assessment is based on physical measurements, in particular body weight and height, and provides a basis for assessing growth and development in children as well as for assessing overweight and obesity in all age groups. These measurements are simple, inexpensive and non-invasive, and consequently widely used. WHO provides guidance on standard measurement protocols as well as appropriate reference criteria to define conditions relevant to F&N surveillance including wasting, stunting, underweight, overweight and obesity (WHO 2015b). A range of biochemical and physiological measurements is widely used in F&N surveillance to provide insight into status for particular conditions that are important for public health. The food security indicators in Table 26.1 include anaemia, vitamin A and iodine deficiencies, based on biochemical measures of blood and urine samples. There has been considerable development of methods in recent years, so that some of these measures can now be undertaken in the field during a survey, and no longer require laboratory facilities. Nonetheless these methods are more intrusive than the other F&N measures, and the analysis and interpretation tends to take more time, expertise and resources. Consequently they are not as widely used, and are often included only for a subsample of an overall survey sample. The practical and technical requirements vary across these measurements, with guidelines and standard protocols available for those most commonly used in F&N surveillance (WHO 2015a).

Trends for measures and indicators In recent years there have emerged standardized approaches and communities of practice in F&N surveillance, facilitated by the development of formal and informal networks and increasing availability of information and communication technologies (ICT). We have referred already to the SMART initiative. IPCInfo has also evolved into a global network (IPCInfo 2015). Originally developed in Somalia in 2004, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification has established standardized tools for classifying the severity and magnitude of food insecurity, aiming to enable comparability of situations across countries and over time. More recently, the FAO, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the World Food Programme (WFP) have collaborated to establish the Food Security Information Network (FSIN) initiative (FSIN 2014). Launched in 2012, it set out to establish a community of practice – including professionals from national, regional and global agencies, non-government organizations (NGOs), private companies, academic institutions, and individual F&N security professionals. This has led to development of methods and resources, training modules for capacity development, and a forum for sharing experience. 400

Food and nutrition surveillance

Data collection methodologies The F&N surveillance agenda can be as broad as outlined in Box 26.1, much more focussed such as on the set of F&N indicators in Table 26.1, or concerned with a narrower set of priorities, perhaps for early warning efforts or to monitor progress on specific F&N outcomes. Consequently the scope and scale of data collection can be variable. Nonetheless a small range of data collection methodologies tends to be used. We discuss here the methodologies commonly used in addition to routine administrative systems. The Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance project (FANTA) recently reported on a review of National Nutrition Surveillance Systems run under the auspice of national public health authorities in low and middle-income countries (Friedman 2014). They identified a total of 31 systems, some relying on a single method of data collection, with others collating data from several sources. Those described used one or more of the following methodologies: • • • • •

Repeated representative household sample surveys. Community-based sentinel sites. Data from mass screenings. Data from feeding program admissions. Data reported from public health clinics.

Household probabilistic sample surveys are broadly used to provide representative data at a national or regional level, or for specific population groups. This includes HCES and DHS surveys, Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) (MICS 2015), the STEPwise surveys, and those using the SMART methodology. They tend to have standardized indicators, measurements/questionnaires and sampling methodologies, making it possible to undertake comparisons across population groups and countries. The strengths and weaknesses of these types of surveys are well described (Fiedler 2013; Lucas et al. 2013; Mock et al. 2013). On the one hand the standardized methodologies support the production of valid and reliable data that are representative of the population, with robust estimates generally possible for indicators at the national and regional levels, and the possibility of subgroup comparisons using demographic and social characteristics. The downside is that they are time consuming, expensive and generally reliant on a small number of experienced staff, with the more specialized surveys (e.g., DHS, MICS, STEPwise) frequently supported by external agencies and consultants. In his review of surveillance systems, Friedman points to instances in some countries where weak capacity and ownership of the survey programs, and uncertainty and instability of funding, led to periods when it did not function, or ceased altogether (Friedman 2014). Some have argued for greater use of HCES surveys for F&N surveillance since they are routinely undertaken for other purposes and include a wealth of information about household food acquisition and consumption behaviours (Carletto et al. 2013; Fiedler 2013). Recent reports suggest reasonable progress towards indicators and methods for more effective use of HCES for this purpose (FAO 2012; Smith et al. 2014). Despite the benefits of well-conducted household sample surveys, their large scale, relatively fixed set of measures and duration over multi-year cycles mean that they are not well suited to capture rapid changes in F&N circumstances within populations (Lucas et al. 2013). The disadvantages of this have been highlighted with recent crises and uncertainties involving high food and fuel prices, and the global financial crises (UNICEF and WFP 2011). Mock et al. (2013) also point to the relatively small group of analysts and higher level program and policy makers that generally lead these types of surveys, and the one-way flow of results from this group. A common outcome is poor linkages between those who collect the data, and 401

Geoffrey C. Marks

those working in communities who need rapid access to data in order to effectively respond at a local level. The other data collection methodologies reported by Friedman (2014), as well as some of the emerging methodologies, each overcome aspects of this, but frequently at the cost of representativeness and/or data validity and reliability. The sentinel site approach monitors specific communities or service delivery units, with sites selected according to the objectives (e.g., to be representative of the larger population or of particularly vulnerable groups). The ongoing representativeness of the selected sites can be problematic, particularly where they attract attention and resources because of issues identified (Lucas et al. 2013). Routine data systems such as from mass screenings, feeding program admissions and public health clinics can provide a basis for a much more disaggregated analysis than is possible with household sample surveys, and more scope for those who collected the data or at local level to become involved in the analysis and interpretation of the results. However, data quality, coverage and representativeness frequently limit their usefulness within sites and comparability across areas (Lucas et al. 2013). Various initiatives are under way to address these shortcomings including development of more robust methodologies for rapid surveys using probability methods, and for small areas statistics (Lucas et al. 2013; Mock et al. 2013). Similar initiatives such as those operating through the Routine Health Information Network (RHINO 2015) aim to improve the quality of information from routine data systems. But as yet these have had little impact on F&N surveillance.

A scan of F&N surveillance systems Consistent with the discussion above, a surveillance system is a set of activities involving the collection/collation, analysis and reporting on an appropriate range of F&N indicators with reasonable frequency. In practice this generally includes drawing on several data sources. We illustrate here some of the diversity in terms of agency involvement, agendas and approaches through profiling systems in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Australia.

Bangladesh The Food Security Nutritional Surveillance Project is led by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, with support from Helen Keller International and the James P. Grant School of Public Health of BRAC University (FSNSP 2015). The system aims to track progress in health and nutritional status through repeated surveys of rural and urban households with women of reproductive age and children under five years of age. Data are collected in representative surveys three times each year with an overall sample of 22,896 HH in 2013. The whole country is included in the sample frame with additional samples taken from six zones based on eight of 30 agro-ecological zones, and the repeated surveys cover all seasons (Friedman 2014). The survey is intended to complement routine government data collections such as the management information system of the National Nutrition Services (Ministry of Health) and annual monitoring reports of the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (Ministry of Food) (Friedman 2014; HKI and JPGSPH 2014; FSNSP 2015).

Ethiopia The Ethiopian system aims to provide early warning of a range of threats to community livelihood to assist with risk management. It relies on coordination between the Disaster Risk Management and Food Security Sector (consisting of the Early Warning and Response 402

Food and nutrition surveillance

Directorate and the Food Security Programme Directorate in the Ministry of Agriculture), the Emergency Nutrition Coordination Unit (Ministry of Health), and collaboration with external partners. It uses a multi-sectoral and multi-hazard approach based on vulnerability profiles. LEAP (Livelihood, Early Assessment and Protection) is a food security early warning tool that converts satellite and ground based agro-meteorological data into production estimates and protection requirements. The nutrition component comprises repeated nutrition surveys (twice a year), feeding program admissions, and reports from health clinics. The survey uses the SMART methodology. The overall aim is to assess the risks and vulnerability to help policy makers, planners, practitioners, and communities to design appropriate, targeted risk reduction and awareness, disaster management, and development of programs (Friedman 2014; DRMFSS 2015).

Australia The central component of the Australian system is the National Health Survey, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, with support from the National Department of Health, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The latest survey was conducted in 2011–2013 with overall objectives to: determine food and nutrient intakes in the population as a whole; enable monitoring and reporting of the adequacy of food and nutrient intakes against national dietary guidelines and nutrient reference values for appropriate age groups; enable comparison of food and nutrient intakes to those reported in previous national surveys; and inform the development and evaluation of national food regulatory standards. The survey included a nationally representative sample (15,565 HH, and 20,426 persons 2 years and older), covering all seasons of the year. Of these, 71 per cent participated in the nutrition and physical activity component, and 37 per cent in the biomedical component (ABS 2015b). The previous national nutrition surveys were in 1995 (adults and children), 1985 (school children) and 1983 (adults). The Apparent Consumption of Foodstuffs and Nutrients series, based on food balance sheet data, provides the most consistent information for monitoring the food supply in Australia with reports published from 1938–1939 until 1997–1998 (ABS 2015a). No single agency has responsibility for F&N surveillance, though the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare published ‘Australia’s Food and Nutrition’, an assessment of the national F&N situation, in 1994 and 2012 (Lester 1994; AIHW 2012).

Emerging opportunities and key challenges Earlier we traced aspects of the history of F&N surveillance, and some of the shifts seen over time: • • •

from surveillance led predominantly by UN agencies, donors and national governments, to a growing involvement by NGOs and local organizations; from priorities set to meet the needs of central governments and donors, to more ‘bottomup’ agendas; and from information timelines set by the cycle of the major surveys, typically every few years, to a growing demand for more timely information to assess the effects of rapidly changing circumstances and inform appropriate responses.

We have noted some of the ways in which technology and networks have affected these shifts. In this section we explore these trends more broadly to consider the further implications for F&N surveillance. 403

Geoffrey C. Marks

Methodologies and ‘real-time monitoring’ Crises affecting F&N security over the last two decades (e.g., high food and fuel prices, and financial crises) have increased the demands for more ‘real time’ F&N surveillance to identify trends earlier and enable more timely responses. During this period, UNICEF and WFP strengthened F&N surveillance initiatives in a number of countries, aiming to provide more regular and timely information on vulnerable groups to inform their operational responses. This was often undertaken in collaboration with local governments and community-based organizations. A recent review of these initiatives in five countries showed a range of adaptations of methods including an increased range of indicators and geographic coverage, more frequent reporting, and in some cases use of new technologies for data collection and transmission (UNICEF and WFP 2011). The review noted there was room for improvement in data quality, analysis and sharing, and poor comparability across sites. The key point for our discussion is that more resources, local involvement and use of ICT did not necessarily provide better surveillance outcomes. Nevertheless there is a growing expectation that ICT will change the way that we collect, transmit, analyse and report for endeavours such as F&N surveillance. UNICEF and WFP (2011) commented on the use of ICT such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and Short Message Service (SMS) and how this dramatically reduced the lag time between data collection and submission to central databases, and reduced data error rates, and a more recent review by Barnett and Gallegos (2013) confirmed and extended this conclusion. They reviewed experience in using mobile phones for surveillance, finding a total of nine studies (including two that had a focus on nutrition). All involved data collection by health workers or outreach workers. They pointed to the high uptake rates for mobile phones in low and middle-income countries and identified potential benefits in several areas: • • • •

Lower costs of data collection and transfer. Faster data transmission, analysis and dissemination. Improved data quality. More transparent and inclusive data collection processes.

While they found a general lack of high quality evidence they concluded that the available evidence suggests a positive effect on data quality and lag times, with ‘considerable but still underused capacity to support effective analysis, presentation and communication of surveillance data’ (Barnett and Gallegos 2013). Another key area with implications for surveillance is the development of cloud–mobile systems and open standards, providing a range of powerful tools for curating, sharing, visualizing and analysing data, such as Geocommons providing web-based geospatial tools, Tableau and IBM’s Many Eyes, and the Google suite of products for analysis and reporting (Docs, Spreadsheets) (Mock et al. 2013). While the impact on surveillance practices so far is unclear, the fact that they are available to specialists and non-specialists alike has great potential to engage a broader range of stakeholders in these aspects of surveillance.

New collaboration models Mock et al. (2013) have considered the implications of ICT for collaboration models, noting the extent of social networking, successes in crowd-sourcing support for various initiatives, and the potential for semi-formal and inter-institutional networks to support aspects of F&N surveillance. For some types of initiatives we could expect this to provide innovative ways of 404

Food and nutrition surveillance

providing specialist expertise, engaging a broader group of people in surveillance activities and achieving quality assured outcomes when non-specialists are engaged. This potentially also shifts the flow of information, away from the one-way flow of conventional systems, to possible multi-dimensional connectivity, providing a basis for better contextualized analyses through involving people who understand the local contexts. However, this largely remains potential at this stage, with only modest and partial working examples for surveillance.

New data streams, new opportunities The broad uptake of ICT by individuals and businesses has also led to availability of new ‘data streams’ including, e.g., social data (the data we generate ourselves and share with others on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter). Combining this with transactional data such as credit card usage, or observed data such as weather monitoring provides a basis for exploring trends and patterns, so-called ‘big data’. The UN’s Global Pulse initiative is already exploring its potential for surveillance in a range of fields, including the following examples related to F&N surveillance (UNGlobalPulse 2015): • • •

Monitoring food security issues through news media (2011). Mining Indonesian Tweets to understand food price crises (2013). Analyzing seasonal mobility patterns using mobile phone data (2015).

This is a rapidly evolving field with significant challenges remaining in the capacity to deal with the volume of data and non-standard formats, requiring language processing and innovative approaches to data visualization. However, as shown by the Global Pulse work there is potential for innovative and useful outcomes. The development of health related software applications (‘apps’) for mobile phones and devices is opening up other potential data streams as well. Recently developed apps provide a basis for monitoring exercise and eating patterns. Apps are in development for self-diagnosis of disease, including infectious diseases. These innovations potentially provide useful opportunities for ‘real-time’ information on various indicators related to F&N security, which could be integrated with other data sources. However, the representativeness of the data will be unknown in most cases, and the quality dependent on the data sources. As a result there will be a trade-off between these factors and the availability (and attraction) of real-time information. In many cases though, they are likely to be beneficial to fill data gaps between surveys or in situations where other relevant information is not available. Salathé et al., who have described the challenges of integrating these types of data sources (digital epidemiology) with other methods, highlighted also the particular need to address ethical concerns about privacy (Salathé et al. 2012).

Conclusion The demand for F&N surveillance as a strategy to inform decision-making has ebbed and flowed since it was originally endorsed at the 1974 Rome World Food Conference, reflecting: changes in development strategies; divergence of health and agriculture priorities and changes in these over time; rapid growth of urban populations and associated globalization of food supplies; and the growth of regional and global networks and initiatives. There has been renewed interest in ‘joined-up’ F&N surveillance2 since the global crises from the late 1990s, along with the increased concern about F&N security. 405

Geoffrey C. Marks

However, the ownership of F&N surveillance has shifted considerably over this time. While UN agencies, donors and national governments continue to set surveillance priorities and fund major initiatives, there has been a significant growth in activities jointly planned with NGOs and local organizations, or led independently by NGOs. An outcome has been changes in the types of information demanded, often emphasizing the need for robust information at the community level as well as regional and national, and looking for a more contextualized interpretation. This has been enabled and supported by changes in ICT, and growth of practitioner and agency networks along with communities of practice. Even with these changes and the effects of ICT, the main surveillance methodologies today share much with those used from the 1980s in terms of core F&N measures and data collection methodologies. But there is increasing interest and trialling of mobile devices, open source software and web-based options for data processing, with a likely outcome that it will improve the quality and timeliness for the existing methodologies. Importantly, accessibility of these by both specialists and non-specialists will shift many of the barriers to engaging with surveillance activities and customizing for particular purposes. ICT is at the heart of the transformative agenda for F&N surveillance. At this stage it appears most likely to be through new collaboration models and new data streams. However, development of strategies for quality control will be critical, with obvious concerns about representativeness, validity and reliability. Consequently there is a need for development of protocols to strengthen interpretation of these types of data such as through calibration with other more valid or representative estimates, and triangulation with other sources of related data. The ‘best’ methodologies and systems will still depend very much on the specific priorities, the stakeholders involved and resources available. Experience across a range of circumstances suggests that the following conditions will promote effective F&N surveillance systems (Rutishauser et al. 2007): • • • • • •

has a political and organizational mandate; has clear priorities, with a minimum core set of indicators identified; has strong links with information users (i.e., there is a demand for the information); has timely and appropriate analysis, interpretation, presentation and dissemination of information; has mechanisms for evaluation and feedback on the information’s usefulness for decisionmaking; and is practical and cost effective.

Acknowledgements Research assistance by Dr Aracelis Diaz-Hernandez (The University of Queensland). Suggestions from the editors also enhanced the final document.

Notes 1 ‘Vertical’ health programs focus on one particular health condition (such as vitamin A deficiency) or group of conditions, reasonably independently of other health services. 2 ‘Joined up’, in contrast to unconnected surveillance for particular health or agriculture issues.

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2015a. Apparent consumption of foodstuffs. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/81B3C6E7285D8682CA256 BD0002778C9?Open (Accessed 13 May 2015).

406

Food and nutrition surveillance Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2015b. Australian health survey: users’ guide, 2011–13. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). 2012. Australia’s food and nutrition 2012. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Ballard, T. J., Kepple, A. W. and Cafiero, C. 2013. The food insecurity experience scale: development of a global standard for monitoring hunger worlwide. Technical Paper. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. Barnett, I. and Gallegos, J. V. 2013. Using mobile phones for nutrition surveillance: a review of evidence, reducing hunger and undernutrition. Evidence report, 1. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Boutrif, E. 1997. Establishing a food insecurity and vulnerability information and mapping system. Food Nutrition and Agriculture, 19: 37–41. Brussaard, J. H., Johansson, L. and Kearney, J. 2002. Rationale and methods of the EFCOSUM project. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 56(Suppl 2): S4–S7. Carletto, C., Zezza, A. and Banerjee, R. 2013. Towards better measurement of household food security: harmonizing indicators and the role of household surveys. Global Food Security, 2(1): 30–40. DHS. 2015. Demographic and health surveys. Available at: http://www.dhsprogram.com (Accessed 13 May 2015). DRMFSS. 2015. Disaster risk management and food security sector. Available at: http://www.dppc.gov.et (Accessed 12 May 2015). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1996. World Food Summit 1996: Rome Declaration on World Food Security. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.HTM (Accessed 13 January 2016). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2001. Food balance sheets: a handbook. Rome: FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2012. Integrating food security information in national statistical systems: experiences, achievements, challenges. Rome: FAO. FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2014. The state of food insecurity in the world 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. Rome: FAO. Fiedler, J. L. 2013. Towards overcoming the food consumption information gap: strengthening household consumption and expenditures surveys for food and nutrition policymaking. Global Food Security, 2(1): 56–63. Friedman, G. 2014. Review of national nutritional surveillance systems. Washington, D.C.: FHI 360/FANTA. FSIN. 2014. FSIN landscape of key actors producing and sharing information for food and nutrition security: global overview. Food Security Information Network. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_ upload/fsin/docs/FSIN%20Landscape_March%202014.pdf (Accessed 13 May 2015). FSNSP. 2015. Food security nutritional surveillance project. Available at: http://www.fsnsp.net/ (Accessed 13 May 2015). Gibson, R. S. 2005. Principles of nutritional assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. HKI and JPGSPH. 2014. State of food security and nutrition in Bangladesh: 2013. Dhaka, BD: Helen Keller International and James P. Grant School of Public Health. IPCInfo. 2015. Integrated food security phase classification. Available at: http://www.ipcinfo.org (Accessed 13 May 2015). Jelliffe, D. B. 1966f. The assessment of the nutritional status of the community (with special reference to field surveys in developing regions of the world). Geneva: World Health Organization. Jonsson, U. 1995. Towards an improved strategy for nutrition surveillance. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 16: 102–111. Lester, I. H. 1994. Australia’s food and nutrition 1994. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Lucas, H., Greeley, M. and Roelen, K. 2013. Real time monitoring for the most vulnerable: concepts and methods. IDS Bulletin, 44: 15–30. Marks, G. C., Webb, K., Rutishauser, I. H. E. and Riley, M. 2001. Monitoring food habits in the Australian population using short questions. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. Mason, J. B., Habicht, J. P., Tabatabai, H. and Valverde, V. 1984. Nutritional surveillance. Geneva: World Health Organization. Masters, G., Coles-Rutishauser, I. H., Webb, K., Marks, G. and Pearse, J. 2006. A National Food and Nutrition Monitoring and Surveillance System: a framework and a business case. Sydney: Nexus Management Consulting. Available at: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/archive/archive2014/nphp/publications/documents/att3_ fnms_final_report0406.pdf (Accessed 13 January 2016). MICS. 2015. Multiple indicator cluster surveys. Available at: http://mics.unicef.org (Accessed 13 May 2015). Mock, N. and Bertrand, W. E. 1993. Conceptual framework for nutrition surveillance systems. Bulletin of PAHO, 27(3): 254–264.

407

Geoffrey C. Marks Mock, N., Morrow, N. and Papendieck, A. 2013. From complexity to food security decision-support: novel methods of assessment and their role in enhancing the timeliness and relevance of food and nutrition security information. Global Food Security, 2(1): 41–49. Nishida, S. 2013. International conference on nutrition. Available at: http://www.unscn.org/files/Annual_ Sessions/UNSCN_Meetings_2013/nishida_MOM_1992ICN.pdf (Accessed 13 May 2015). Pisa, P. T., et al. 2014. Inventory on the dietary assessment tools available and needed in Africa: a prerequisite for setting up a common methodological research infrastructure for nutritional surveillance, research and prevention of diet-related noncommunicable diseases. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, doi: 10.1080/10408398.2014.981630. Popkin, B. M. 2014. Nutrition, agriculture and the global food system in low and middle income countries. Food Policy, 47: 91–96. Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S. and Ng, S. W. 2012. The global nutrition transition: the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1): 3–21. Radimer, K. L. 2002. Measurement of household food security in the USA and other industrialized countries. Public Health Nutrition, 5(6A): 859–864. Radimer, K. L., Olson, C. M. and Campbell, C. C. 1990. Development of indicators to assess hunger. Journal of Nutrition 120(Suppl): 1544S–1548S. RHINO. 2015. Routine health information network. Available at: http://rhinonet.org (Accessed 13 May 2015). Rutishauser, I. H. E., Webb, K. and Marks, G. C. 2007. Monitoring food and nutrition in populations. In: Public health nutrition: from principles to practice. Lawrence, M. and Worsley, T. (eds.). Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Salathé, M., et al. 2012. Digital epidemiology. PLoS Computer Biology, 8(7): e1002616. SMART Network. 2015. Standardized monitoring and assessment of relief and transitions. Available at: http:// smartmethodology.org (Accessed 13 May 2015). Smith, L. C., Dupriez, O. and Troubat, N. 2014. Assessment of the reliability and relevance of the food data collected in national household consumption and expenditure surveys. IHSN Working Paper, International household survey network. Available at: http://www.ihsn.org/home/sites/default/files/ resources/IHSN_WP008_EN.pdf (Accessed 13 May 2015). UNGlobalPulse. 2015. UN global pulse. Available at: http://www.unglobalpulse.org (Accessed 13 May 2015). UNICEF. 1992. Toward an improved strategy for nutritional surveillance. UNICEF evaluation office and nutrition section. New York: UNICEF. UNICEF and WFP. 2011. Food and nutrition security. Available at: http://www.unglobalpulse.org/ projects/rivaf-research-study-impact-global-economic-and-financial-crisis-vulnerable-people-fivecou (Accessed 13 May 2015). UN Women. 2015. Indicators. Available at: http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/336-indicators.html (Accessed 13 May 2015). USDA. 2015. Food security in the US: overview. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/foodnutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us.aspx (Accessed 12 May 2015). Webb, K., Marks, G. C., Lund-Adams, M., Rutishauser, I. H. E. and Abraham, B. 2001. Towards a national system for monitoring breastfeeding in Australia: recommendations for population indicators, definitions and next steps. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. WHO. 1974. Nutritional surveillance. Technical Report Series, 593. Geneva: World Health Organization. WHO. 2015a. Nutrition. Available at: http://www.who.int/nutrition/en/ (Accessed 13 May 2015). WHO. 2015b. The WHO child growth standards. Available at: http://www.who.int/childgrowth/en/ (Accessed 12 May 2015). WHO. 2015c. WHO STEPwise. Available at: http://www.who.int/chp/steps/framework/en/ (Accessed 13 May 2015).

408

27 ADDRESSING MATERNAL AND CHILD UNDERNUTRITION IN LOW-INCOME AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES A review of nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive interventions Víctor M. Aguayo and Kajali Paintal

Introduction Globally, an estimated 159 million children aged 0–59 months old are stunted. This represents about 25 per cent of children in this age group, and is largely the result of persistent deprivation of the nutrients that are essential for child growth and development. In addition, anemia affects half a billion women of reproductive age worldwide, representing 29 per cent of non-pregnant women and 38 per cent of pregnant women. It is estimated that half of the burden of anemia in women is due to iron deficiency. In light of this high, and in human terms, unacceptable number of undernourished children and women, in 2012 the World Health Assembly endorsed a comprehensive implementation plan on maternal, infant and young child nutrition with specified nutrition targets, including goals to reduce by 40 per cent the number of under-five children who are stunted and to reduce anemia in women of reproductive age by 50 per cent (2010–2025) (UNICEF et al. 2012; WHO 2012). Given the global commitment to reduce maternal and child undernutrition, it is important to have a common understanding of the interventions with the highest potential to drive the expected decline in the number of undernourished children and women. In this chapter we review evidence-based interventions to address maternal and child undernutrition in lowincome and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the burden of maternal and child undernutrition, and related disease and disability, are highest. We are guided by two key and complementary frameworks: The Lancet 2013 Maternal and Child Nutrition Series; and the World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Nutrition Actions: Improving Maternal, Newborn, Infant and Young Child Health and Nutrition (Black et al. 2013: 427–51; WHO 2013). Both frameworks indicate that the direct and underlying determinants of undernutrition can be positively changed to enhance maternal and child nutrition outcomes. These changes include nutrition-specific interventions that address the direct causes of poor maternal and child nutrition, and nutrition-sensitive interventions that 409

Víctor M. Aguayo and Kajali Paintal

address the underlying determinants of undernutrition in children and women by incorporating nutrition-specific goals and actions in non-nutrition sectors and programs. First we review six nutrition-specific interventions that aim at addressing the direct causes of poor maternal and child nutrition. These interventions are: breastfeeding, complementary feeding and therapeutic feeding for infants and young children; micronutrient supplementation for children and women; maternal dietary supplementation during pregnancy; and food fortification for children, women and the general population. Secondly we review six nutrition-sensitive interventions that aim at addressing the underlying determinants of undernutrition in children and women by incorporating nutrition objectives and actions in six non-nutrition sectors and programs: agriculture; water hygiene and sanitation; early childhood development; education; social policy; and women and gender.

Nutrition-specific interventions: addressing the immediate causes of undernutrition Improving breastfeeding practices in the first two years of life As a global public health guideline, WHO recommends that newborns be put to the breast within one hour of birth, infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months, and children continue to breastfeed until two years of age or older. Delaying the clamping of the umbilical cord allows the blood to flow longer between the placenta and the newborn, which increases hemoglobin and serum ferritin concentration at six months and lowers the risk of anemia and iron deficiency in infancy (McDonald and Middleton 2009: 2). Skin-to-skin contact between mother and newborn as soon as possible after delivery increases breastfeeding rates at one–four months, and the duration of breastfeeding (Moore et al. 2012: 5; WHO 1998). Early initiation of breastfeeding reduces the risk of neonatal mortality and favours exclusive breastfeeding and a longer duration of breastfeeding. Studies have shown a causal association between early breastfeeding and reduced infection-specific neonatal mortality (Edmond et al. 2007: 1126–31; Mullany et al. 2008: 599–603). A recent systematic review concluded that initiating breastfeeding after the first hour doubled the risk of neonatal mortality (Khan et al. 2014). Infants who are exclusively breastfed for six months experience less morbidity from gastrointestinal infection than those who are mix-breastfed (Kramer and Kakuma 2009). Furthermore, infants 0–11 months old who are breastfed are at a lower risk of death from diarrhea or pneumonia than children who are not breastfed (WHO 2000: 451–55). Breastfeeding continues to be important beyond the first year of life as breastfed children 12–23 months old receive on average 35–40 per cent of total energy needs from breastmilk (Dewey and Brown 2003: 5–28), with the remaining 60–65 per cent covered by complementary foods. This impact is most evident during illness, when children’s appetite for other foods decreases but breastmilk intake is maintained (Brown et al. 1990: 1005–13). Longitudinal studies indicate that in developing countries, a longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with greater linear growth (Onyango et al. 1999: 2041–45; Simondon et al. 2001: 959–67). Evidence shows that community-based integrated packages to improve maternal and neonatal health had a positive impact on the initiation of breastfeeding within one hour of birth (Lassi et al. 2010: 11). Similarly, counseling and education interventions increased exclusive breastfeeding by 43 per cent at day one; by 30 per cent until one month; and by 90 per cent from one–five months, while the proportion of mothers not breastfeeding declined by 32 per cent at day one; 30 per cent until one month; and 18 per cent for one–five months. What’s more, prenatal counseling had a significant impact on breastfeeding outcomes at four–six weeks – and while both prenatal and postnatal counseling were important for exclusive breastfeeding 410

Maternal and child undernutrition in low- and middle-income countries

at six months, combined individual and group counseling seemed to be better than individual or group counseling alone (Imdad et al. 2011: 11; Bhutta et al. 2013: 452–77). Much needs to be done to improve breastfeeding policies and practices for working women – including the provision of paid maternity/breastfeeding leave. A review of interventions in the workplace to support breastfeeding for women found no trials (Abdulwadud and Snow 2012: 3).

Improving complementary feeding practices in the first two years of life As a global public health guideline, WHO recommends that after the initial six-month exclusive breastfeeding period, children receive safe and nutritionally adequate complementary foods while breastfeeding continues for up to two years of age or beyond. Complementary feeding refers to the timely introduction of safe and nutrient rich foods, in addition to breastmilk, that are typically provided from 6–23 months of age. Studies in low- and middle-income countries have shown that better complementary feeding practices are positively associated with height-for-age Z scores (HAZ) (Ruel and Menon 2002: 1180–87). Besides timely introduction, other factors including frequency of feeding; the diversity of the complementary foods; and the consumption of a minimum acceptable diet are positively associated with improved growth in children (Arimond and Ruel 2004: 2579–85; Marriot et al. 2012: 354–70). On the basis of this, and other evidence, WHO has developed global guiding principles for complementary feeding of breastfed and non-breastfed children 6–23 months old (PAHO and WHO 2003; WHO 2005). Systematic reviews of the existing evidence on interventions to improve the quality of complementary foods and feeding practices have shown that nutrition education and counseling in food secure populations led to a significant increase in height and HAZ whereas the effect on stunting was not statistically significant. A positive effect was also observed on weight gain while no effects were noted on WAZ. Studies on education and counseling in food insecure populations show significant effects on HAZ, stunting, and WAZ. Counseling of mothers/ caregivers, coupled with appropriate behaviour change communication strategies that focus on other family/community members with the capacity to influence infant feeding decisions, are essential for improving complementary feeding of children 6–23 months old, especially in the presence of trained health workers (Wuehler et al. 2011: 6–34; Zaman et al. 2008: 210–22). The provision of complementary foods in food insecure populations was associated with significant gains in HAZ and WAZ, whereas the effect on stunting did not reach statistical significance (Dewey and Adu-Afarwuah 2008: 24–85; Lassi et al. 2013: 13). The use of nutrientrich, animal-source foods has beneficial effects on growth and developmental outcomes. It is recommended to maximize the utilization of locally produced foods, and consider the promotion of additional products – only if they can fill a critical gap in nutrients in an acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe way – as a complement to continued breastfeeding and the local diet, but not as a replacement (WHO 2013). Where locally available foods alone cannot satisfy the nutrition requirements of infants and young children, products such as centrally-produced fortified foods, micronutrient powders for point-of-use fortification, or lipid-based nutrient supplements can be considered. Careful monitoring of these interventions is recommended to document their uptake and impact on children’s morbidity, growth and development (WHO 2013).

Improving therapeutic and supplementary feeding for infants and young children with severe or moderate acute malnutrition (SAM/MAM) As a global public health guideline, WHO recommends that children with SAM/MAM receive therapeutic/supplementary feeding and care either as inpatients (if there are medical complications) 411

Víctor M. Aguayo and Kajali Paintal

or as outpatients in their communities (if medically uncomplicated). SAM is defined as bilateral pitting oedema; weight-for-height z-score