LE

ST

AA

Glo

ba

lLand

&Food

inthe

21st

Century

Trends&

Issuesfor

Sustainability

Gerald

leach

~SE

I~~~~~~~:NTIN

ST

ITU

TE

InternationalInstitutefor

Environm

entalTechnologyand

Managem

ent_

PO

LES

TA

RS

eriesR

eportno.

51995

ISS

N:

1400-7185IS

I3N:

918

87

14

20

9

Th

eP

G.>

LE

ST

AR

-P

roject

atth

eS

tockh

olm

En

viron

men

tIn

stitute

This

studyis

anoutputo

fSE

I'sP

oleStar

Project.N

amed

afterthe

starthat

guidedvoyagers

throughuncharted

waters,

theP

oleStar

Project

aims

todevelop

andapply

appropriatem

ethods,concepts

anddata

forsustainability

planningand

forother

environment/

development

issues.T

heP

oleStarprojecthas

threem

aincom

ponents:scenariosgeneration,capacity

building,and

susta

ina

bility

evaluation.E

achaddresses

acritical

aspecto

fthe

transitionto

sustainability:understanding

globaltrends

andpossibilities,

strengtheningprofessional

capabilitiesfor

anew

eraofdevelopm

ent,andfashioning

strategiesand

policies.To

supportthese

efforts,theprojecthas

developedthe

PoleS

tarSystem©

acom

prehensive,flexibleand

user-friendlyfram

ework

form

ountingeconom

ic,resource

andenvironm

entalinform

ation,and

forexam

iningalternative

development

scenarios.T

heP

oleStar

System

isan

adaptableaccounting

systemdesigned

toassist

theanalyst

engagedin

sustainabilitystu

dies-n

ot

arigid

model

reflectinga

particularapproach

toenvironm

entand

development

interactions.A

napplication

beginsw

ithcurrent

accounts,a

snapshotof

thecurrent

stateo

faffairs.

Then,

scenariosare

developedto

explorealternative

futures.A

scenariois

aset

of

futuresocio-econom

ic,resource

andenvironm

entalaccounts,

basedon

assumptions

developedby

theuser.A

nalysesare

conductedthrough

asetoflinked

modules,w

heredata

andassum

ptionsare

developedon

demographics,

economics,

anda

number

ofsectors

suchas

households,industry

andm

inerals,transport,

agricultureand

landuses,

services,energy,

water,

andw

aste.S

cenarioresults

areevaluated

with

referenceto

sustainabilitythresholds

forsuch

indicatorsas

nutrition,greenhousegas

emissions,ground

levelpollutants,forestandw

etlandpreservation,

non-renewable

resourcedepletion

rates,w

aterstress,

chemical

hazardloads

andso

on.C

omparison

ofscenario

resultsw

ithsuch

measures

providesa

bird'seye

viewof

areaso

fstress

between

ascenario

andsustainability

targets,and

providesinsight

intothe

requirements

forbuilding

alternativescenarios

forachieving

asustainable

future.T

hroughthis

process,theP

oleStarP

rojectasksfourfundam

entalquestionsfor

sustainabledevelopm

entatglobal,

nationaland

locallevels:

where

arew

e?w

hereare

we

going?w

heredo

we

want

togo?

howdo

we

getthere?

The

responsesshed

light,respectively,

onthe

currentstate

of

development

andthe

environment,

projectionsand

trends,desirable

long­range

developmentpathw

ays,andthe

strategiesand

policiesrequired

fora

sustainablefuture.

Th

efirstsix

papersin

theP

oleStar

publicationseries

addressglobalissues.T

heyare:

1.T

heS

ustainabilityT

ransition:B

eyondC

onventionalDevelopm

ent(Raskin,C

hadwick,

Jackson'andL

each)2.

PoleS

tarS

ystemM

anual(R

askin,H

eapsand

Sieber)

3.G

lobalE

nergyin

the21st

Century:

Patterns,

Projections

andP

roblems

(Raskin

andM

argolis)4.

Water

andS

ustainability:A

Global

Outlook

(Raskin,

Hansen

andM

argolis)5.

GlobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stCentury:T

rendsand

Issuesfor

Sustainability

(Leach)

6.A

ccountingfor

Toxic

Em

issionsfrom

theG

lobalE

conomy:

The

Case

of

Cadm

ium(Jackson

andM

acGillivray)

Glo

ba

lL

and

&Food

inth

e21st

Century

Trends

&Issues

forS

usta

ina

bility

Ge

rald

lea

ch

Stockholm

Environm

entInstituteB

ox2142

S-103

14S

tockholmS

weden

Tel

+46

8723

0260F

ax+

468

7230348

Responsible

Editor,

Arno

Rosem

arin

Copy

andlayout,

Miles

Goldstick

Stockholm

Environm

entInstitute

©C

opyright1995by

theStockholm

Environm

entInstitute

No

partofthis

reportmay

bereproduced

inany

formby

photostat,m

icrofilm,

or

anyother

means,

without

written

permission

fromthe

publisher.

ISS

N:

1400-7185IS

BN

:91

88

71

42

09

AC

KN

OW

LE

DG

EM

EN

TS

This

studyhas

hada

longgestation

asdata

andthe

model

were

developed,w

ithm

ajorcontributions

fromseveral

colleaguesin

theS

tockholmE

nvironment

Institute.T

oallthese

peoplego

warm

thanksfor

theirhard

work

andpatience.

At

theS

EI-B

oston(U

SA)

office,Paul

Raskin

gavecontinued

encouragement

andintellectual

supportw

hileD

mitry

Staviskydem

onstratedhis

wizardry

atcom

puterm

odel-building.A

tthe

SE

I-Stockholm

office,R

odShaw

andR

oyB

artholomew

tookover

thestudy

fora

time

andm

adegiant

stridesin

orderinga

mass

ofdata

intospreadsheets

andthe

PoleS

tarm

odelform

at.T

hefruits

of

theirlabours

aredocum

entedin

am

ajortw

o-volume

SE

Itechnical

report:R

oyB

artholomew

,R

odS

haw&

Gerald

Leach

(1994),F

oodand

Agriculture

inP

oleStar(P

artI:

Technical

descriptiono

fthe

crop,biom

assand

livestockdem

andaccounts;

Part

II:T

echnicaldescription

of

theland

resourcesand

supplyaccounts).

Although

thepresent

studyuses

am

odifieddata

setand

structure,this

ground-breakingw

orkw

asessential

toits

completion.

SE

I'sdirector,

Michael

Chadw

ick,deserves

specialthanks

forhis

stoicpatience

throughoutthis

longprocess.

The

studyalso

benefitedgreatly

fromthe

useo

funpublished

dataon

landcapability

andcrop

yieldresponses

toirrigation

andother

technicalinputs,

developedfor

theU

NF

oodand

Agriculture

Organisation's

'Agriculture:

Tow

ards2010'project.

Many

thanksfor

providingthis

information

areoffered

toD

r.N

ikosA

lexandratosand

Dr.

JelleB

ruinsma

ofFA

Gand

Dr.

Gunther

Fischerof

theInstitute

ofA

ppliedSystem

sA

nalysis,Laxenburg,A

ustria.

Leach

v

TA

BL

EO

FC

ON

TE

NT

SA

CK

NO

WL

ED

GE

ME

NT

Siii

LIS

TO

FT

AB

LE

Svi

LIS

TO

FF

IGU

RE

Svii

1C

ON

TE

XT

SA

ND

OB

JEC

TIV

ES

11.1

The

Population-F

oodD

ebate1

1.2W

hyA

notherS

tudy?3

1.3A

Model

Structure

41.3.1

The

ConventionalD

evelopmentP

aradigm6

1.3.2R

egionalA

ggregation7

1.3.3P

roductAggregation

91.3.4

Consum

ptionand

Supply

Structures

10

2F

OO

DC

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N13

2.1H

uman

Diets

132.1.1

Prim

aryC

ropE

quivalents18

2.1.2H

uman

Diets:

Scenario

Projections

182.2

Anim

alFeed

282.2.1

Anim

alFeed:S

cenarioP

rojections31

2.3O

therF

oodC

onsumption

312.3.1

IndustrialU

sesand

Losses

312.3.2

Seafood

332.4

FinalD

emand

andR

equiredS

upply33

2.4.1F

inalD

emand

andR

equiredSupply:

Scenario

Projections

362.5

Trade

andR

equiredP

roduction38

3F

OO

DP

RO

DU

CT

ION

403.1

Introduction40

3.2C

ultivatedL

and41

3.2.1P

otentialC

ultivatedL

and.44

3.2.2C

ultivatedL

and:S

cenarioP

rojections.46

3.2.3F

ertilisers50

3.3C

roppingIntensity

533.3.1

Cropping

Intensity:S

cenarioP

rojections54

3.4C

ropY

ields56

3.4.1C

ropY

ields:S

cenarioP

rojections57

3.5H

arvestS

hares72

3.6P

roduction,Self-sufficiency

Ratios

andN

etExports

72

4C

HA

LL

EN

GE

SA

ND

RE

SP

ON

SE

S79

4.1Introduction

794.2

Land

Resources

794.2.1

Land

Degradation

804.2.2

Impacts

ofL

andU

seC

hange81

4.3W

aterR

esources82

4.4C

hemicalP

ollution83

4.5T

heN

orth-South

Food

Gap

834.6

Policy

Responses

84

RE

FE

RE

NC

ES

87

viG

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21st

Century

LIS

TO

FT

AB

LE

ST

able1.1.

Regional

structure8

Table

1.2.P

opulationprojections

8T

able1.3.P

ercapita

GD

Pprojections

8T

able1.4.

Aggregation

ofcrop

andanim

alproducts

10T

able1.5.C

onsumption

andproduction

calculationchains

11T

able1.6.

Regional

structure(detailed)

12

Table

2.1.T

otcal:total

percapita

dailycalories

ofavailable

food14

Table

2.2.Anfrac:

fraction(as

%)

oftotalcalories

providedby

animalproducts

14T

able2.3.

Diet

structure(percentage

oftotal

dailycalories

fromeach

foodgroup)

17T

able2.4.

Hum

andietary

variables(T

otcal,A

nfrac):1989,2025,2050

19T

able2.5.

Anim

alfeed

productionratio

(FPR):

1961-

205031

Table

2.6.S

tructureo

frequiredsupply

(dailyper

capitakcal):

198934

Table

2.7.H

uman

foodconsum

ption,1989,2025

&2050

(million

tons)37

Table

2.8.H

uman

foodconsum

ption:tonnage

ratios2025/1989

&2050/1989

37T

able2.9.

Required

supply,1989,2025

&2050

(million

tons)38

Table

2.10.R

equiredsupply:

tonnageratios

2025/1989&

2050/198938

Table

2.11.P

roduction,netexports

andself-sufficiency

ratios:1989

39

Table

3.1.C

ultivatedland

area:1961

&1989

.43T

able3.2.

Changes

inrainfed

andirrigated

cultivatedland

areas,1961-89

.44T

able3.3.

Irrigatedland

(million

hectaresand

%totalcultivated

area):1961

&1989

45T

able3.4.

Potential

cultivableland

byproductivity

class:circa.

1989.45

Table

3.5.C

ultivatedland

area:1989,2025

&2050

.46T

able3.6.

Irrigatedarea

(million

hectares):1989,2025

&2050

50T

able3.7.E

ffectso

firrigationand

managem

entonrice

yields53

Table

3.8.C

roppingintensities:

1989and

2025,2050

relativeto

198954

Table

3.9.Distribution

of

nationalaverage

cropyields

(ton/hectare):1990

57T

able3.10.

Crop

yields(ton/hectare):

1981,2025,205061

Table

3.11.A

nnualpercentage

changein

cropyields:

1961-89and

futureprojections

62T

able3.12.

Achieved

foodproduction,

1989,2025&

2050(m

illiontons)

74T

able3.13.

Changes

inachieved

foodproduction

relativeto

198974

Table

3.14.S

elf-sufficiencyratios

77T

able3.15.

Netexports

(million

tons)78

Leach

vii

LIS

TO

FF

IGU

RE

SF

igure1.1.W

orldper

capitacerealproduction

andconsum

ption3

Figure

2.1.T

oteals(average

percapita

dailycalories):

1961-8915

Figure

2.2.Anfrae

(percentof

totalcalories

providedby

animal

products):1961-89

16F

igure2.3.

To

teaIagainstyear:

pasttrendsand

projectionsto

205020

Figure

2.4.Anfrae

againstyear:pasttrends

andprojections

to2050

20F

igure2.5.

To

teal

againstpercapita

GD

P:1989

andprojections

to2050

21F

igure2.6.A

nfraeagainstper

capitaG

DP:

1989and

projectionsto

205021

Figure

2.7(b).

Diet

shares:cereals,roots,

sugar,oil

crops:1961

-2050

24F

igure2.7

(d).D

ietshares:

cereals,roots,

sugar,oilcrops:

1961-

205026

Figure

2.8.F

eedproduction

ratio:1961

-1989

30F

igure2.9.

Feed

productionratio:

1961-

205032

Figure

2.10.S

tructureo

fsupply:hum

anfood,

animal

feed,other

usesand

losses:1989

(percapita

dailycalories)

35

Figure

3.1.Index

ofcultivated

landarea:

1961-89.42

Figure

3.2.Indexo

fcultivatedland

area:1961

-2050

.47F

igure3.3.

Indexo

firrigatedland

area:1961

-2050

.49F

igure3.4.

Average

nitrogenfertiliser

usage:1961

-1989

51F

igure3.5.W

heatandm

aizeyields

with

increasedN

-fertiliserand

water..

52F

igure3.6.

Cropping

intensity:1961-89

55F

igure3.7.

Cropping

intensity:1989,2025,2050

56F

igure3.8(a).

Nationalaverage

cropyield

againstcumulative

percentagecrop

area:1990

-w

heatandcoarse

grains58

Figure

3.8(b).N

ational.averagecrop

yieldagainstcum

ulativepercentage

croparea:

1990-

rice(paddy,

orunhusked

grain)59

Figure

3.8(c).National

averagecrop

yieldagainstcum

ulativepercentage

croparea:

1990-

roots&

tubers59

Figure

3.8(d).N

ationalaverage

cropyield

againstcumulative

percentagecrop

area:1990

-pulses

60F

igure3.8(e).

Nationalaverage

cropyield

againstcumulative

percentagecrop

area:1990

-sugar

crops60

Figure

3.9(a).

Crop

yields:w

heat&

coarsegrains,

1961-

205064

Figure

3.9(b).

Crop

yields:rice

(paddy),1961-

205065

Figure

3.9(c).

Crop

yields:roots

&tubers,

1961-

205066

Figure

3.9(d).

Crop

yields:pulses,

1961-

205067

Figure

3.9(e).

Crop

yields:oil

crops(non-tree),

1961-

205068

Figure

3.9(f).

Crop

yields:sugar

crops,1961

-2050

69F

igure3.9

(g).C

ropyields:

vegetables,1961

-2050

70F

igure3.9

(h).C

ropyields:

treecrops,

1961-

205071

Figure

3.10(a).

Share

of

harvestarea,cerealcrops:

1989-

2050(left,

centre,rightbars

ineach

regionare

for1989,2025,2050)

73F

igure3.1

0(b).

Share

ofharvestarea,

non-cerealcrops:

1989-

205073

Figure

3.11(a).

Self-sufficiency

ratio,cerealcrops

(C1):

1989-

205075

Figure

3.11(b).

Self-sufficiency

ratio,non-cereal

crops(C

2-

C7):

1989-

2050..75

Figure

3.11(c).

Self-sufficiency

ratio,all

crops(C

1-

C7):

1989-

205076

Figure

3.11(d).

Self-sufficiency

ratio,anim

alproducts

(AI

-A

3):1989

-2050

76

1C

ON

TE

XT

SA

ND

OB

JEC

TIV

ES

1.1T

heP

opulation-Food

Debate

Tw

ocenturies

agoa

French

nobleman

andan

English

vicar,the

Marquis

deC

ondorcetand

Thom

asM

althus,considered

thelim

itsto

thegrow

tho

fhum

annum

berson

afinite

planetand

came

torather

differentconclusions.

Malthus

thought"the

power

inthe

earthto

producesubsistence

form

an"w

asalready

fallingbehind

populationar.d

that"the

periodw

henthe

number

of

men

surpasstheir

means

of

subsistencehas

longsince

arrived"(M

althus,1798).

Condorcet

concludedthat

scientificknow

ledgeand

rationalbehaviour

will

overcome

theseproblem

s(C

ondorcet,1795;

andSen,

1994).S

ome

fiftyyears

later,w

henhunger

grippedthe

pooro

fE

urope,K

arlM

arxenlarged

theargum

entby

attackingM

althusfor

blaming

famine

onnatural

laws

ratherthan

socialforces.

Famine

was

nota

failureo

fsupply

buto

fdem

and.Its

causew

aslack

of

purchasingpow

er­

poverty-

andw

asrooted

inpolitical

andeconom

icinjustice.

Tw

ohundred

yearson

we

findthat

world

populationhas

increasedsix-fold,

most

peopleare

betterfed

thanever

before,w

orldprices

of

cerealsand

otherbasic

foodscontinue

theircentury-long

decline,and

foodproduction

continuesto

groww

ellahead

of

human

numbers

inm

ostregions,

especiallythe

most

denselypopulated

areassuch

asS

outhand

Southeast

Asia

(S&

SE

Asia).

Yet

thisundoubted

successstory

hasits

darkerside.

Som

e700

million

of

thew

orld'spoorest

peoplenow

facechronic

hungerand

malnutrition.

Food

productionhas

failedto

increase,or

actuallydeclined,

inm

anycountries,

notablyin

Africa.

Millions

attempt

tosurvive

onecosystem

sso

fragilethatquite

smallperturbations

­o

fw

eather,civil

order,or

market

prices-

cantip

theminto

seriousfood

shortages.E

nvironmental

problems

of

many

kindsassociated

with

thespread

andm

odernisationo

fagriculture

appearto

bethreatening

theproductivity

andsustainability

of

farming

systems.

Indeed,even

forconfirm

edoptim

iststhe

prospectoffeeding

anotherdoubling

ofw

orldpopulation

bythe

middle

of

thenext

century,on

alim

ited(som

ew

ouldsay,

declining)natural

resourcebase,

isa

trulyform

idablechallenge.

Not

surprisingly,these

contrastingperspectives

combined

with

hugeuncertainties

aboutour

futuretechnical

andsocial

abilities,ensure

thatin

modern

formthe

arguments

of

Condorcet,

Malthus

andM

arxcontinue

unabatedin

aflow

of

more

orless

extreme

projectionso

ffeastor

famine,

cornucopiaor

catastrophe.A

small

sample

ofthese

speculationsreveals

therange

ofhum

anfaith

inprogress

andour

capacityto

meet

ourm

ostbasic

needs.In

them

id-1950sB

rown

(1954)concluded

thatincreased

yieldsand

irrigationcould

raisethe

1950global

foodsupply

six-fold,enough

tofeed

15billion

people.In

them

id-1960sZ

ierhoffer(1966)

arguedthat41

billionpeople

couldbe

well-fed

ifeveryfarm

ergrew

foodas

productivelyas

theJapanese.

Inthe

mid-1970s

theM

OIR

Astudy

(Linem

annet

al.,1979)

estimated

theabsolute

physicallim

ittow

orldagricultural

outputto

beabout

30tim

esthe

1965production

volume.

This

maxim

umproduction

levelassum

esoptim

alplant

growth

conditionsw

ithrespect

tow

aterm

anagement,

soilcultivation,

fertiliseruse,

pestcontrol,

andso

forth.A

lthoughthese

conditionsw

ouldnever

bem

etin

practice,the

studyconcluded

thatover

thenext

decadesa

3-5fold

increaseo

fglobal

productionw

ouldnot

beruled

outby

naturalconstraints.

Itsachievem

entw

oulddepend

insteadupon

havingthe

correctm

ixo

feconom

ic,social

andpolitical

conditions.M

eanwhile

inthe

1960sP

aulE

hrlichw

as

2G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stCentury

warning

that"the

battleto

feedall

humanity

isover"

andthat

"hundredsof

millions

of

peopleare

goingto

starveto

death"during

the1970s

(forexam

ple,E

hrlich,1968).

Soon

afterthis

catastrophefailed

tooccur

we

findthe

economist

JohnS

imon

(1981)m

aintainingthat

thereis

nolong-run

physicallim

itto

foodproduction.

Inthe

presentdecade

severalfurther

studiesand

projectionshave

appearedacross

thespectrum

ofpessim

ismversus

optimism

.C

omparing

thehuge

differencesin

theirassum

ptionsand

conclusionsm

akesone

wonder

ifsom

eo

fthe

authorsare

infact

livingon

thesam

eplanet(M

cCalla,

1994).B

estknow

non

thepessim

isticside

hasbeen

aseries

ofbooks

andreports

fromthe

Worldw

atchInstitute,

usuallyby

itsdirector

Lester

Brow

n(for

example,

Brow

n&

Kane,

1994).T

hebasic

premise

of

recentW

orldwatch

reportsis

thatthe

1990sm

arka

criticalturning

pointbetw

eenan

eraw

hen"green

revolution"technologies

were

ableto

keepfood

aheado

fpopulation

anda

futurew

henm

ountingtechnical

andenvironm

entalconstraints

will

make

itfar

more

difficultto

sustainyear-on-year

increasesin

foodproduction:

"Many

knewthat

thistim

ew

ouldeventually

come,

thatat

some

pointthe

limits

of

theearth's

naturalsystem

s,the

cumulative

effectsof

environmental

degradationo

fcropland

productivity,and

theshrinking

backlogof

yield­raising

technologiesw

ouldslow

therecord

growth

infood

productionin

recentdecades.

But

becauseno

oneknew

when

orhow

thisw

ouldhappen,

thefood

prospectw

asw

idelydebated.

Now

we

cansee

thatseveral

constraintsare

emerging

simultaneously

toslow

thegrow

thin

foodproduction"

(Brow

n&

Kane,

1994,p.22).

This

statement

isw

orthconsidering

fora

mom

ent.T

hefoundation

of

theW

orldwatch

argument

thata

grimnew

erais

uponus

refersm

ostlyto

adow

n-turno

fper

capitaglobal

cerealproduction.

As

shown

inFigure

1.1,this

quantitypeaked

around1985

andhas

tendedto

declinesince

then(total

productionand

yieldshave

continuedto

increase).B

utas

alsoshow

nin

theFigure,

thistrend

might

havebeen

causedby

changesin

cerealdem

andrather

thanem

ergingproduction

constraints.P

ercapita

cerealfood

consumption

hasgrow

nvery

slowly

andhas

stabilisedsince

1985as

peoplehave

turnedincreasingly

tohigher-valued

foodssuch

asfruit

andvegetables,

sugarand

animal

products(see

Chapter

2for

furtherdetails).

Per

capitacereal

animal

feedconsum

ptionhas

fallenslow

lysince

1980,presum

ablybecause

cheaperalternatives

havebecom

eavailable.

Per

capitaconsum

ptiono

fcereal

foodplus

feedhas

consequentlyfollow

edm

uchthe

same

trendas

production.M

eanwhile,

world

cerealprices

havecontinued

theirlong­

termdecline

inreal

terms

(World

Bank,

1993a),suggesting

thatfalling

demand

isnot

aresponse

toincreased

supplyscarcity

orprices.

The

diretrend

notedby

theW

orldwatch

authorsthrough

focusingon

onlyone

factorin

am

orecom

plexreality

-and

byothers

with

similar

arguments

(Kendall

&Pim

entel,1994;

andC

GIA

R,

1994)-

may

actuallybe

tellingus

more

aboutagricultural

successesin

allowing

thesedem

and-sidechanges

thananything

aboutfuture

productionproblem

sor

limits.

On

theoptim

isticside,

anotable

recentcontribution

isa

detailedm

odelby

two

World

Bank

authors(M

itchell&

Ingco,1993).

Projecting

to2010,

theyassum

ethat

globalpopulation

growth

will

continueto

slowand

world

grainproduction

will

growat2%

peryear

fromnow

to2010.

Consequently,

globalfood

productionw

illm

orethan

keeppace

with

increasingdem

and,and

whilst

foodim

portsby

Leach

3

developingcountries

will

growby

more

than4%

annually,they

will

easilybe

met

byexpanded

exportsfrom

more

developedcountries.

Their

[mal

paragraphconcludes:

"The

world

foodsituation

hasim

proveddram

aticallyduring

thepast

thirtyyears

andthe

prospectsare

verygood

thatthe

twenty-year

periodfrom

1990to

2010w

illsee

furthergains.

How

ever,these

gainsdepend

oncontinued

increasesin

foodproduction

alongthe

trendso

fthe

past.This

willn

otoccur

automatically,

ratherit

will

requirecontinued

investments

inresearch

toincrease

cropyields

andin

otherfactors

of

production.If

pastcrop

yieldtrends

continueand

ifpopulationgrow

thrates

slowas

projected,then

thegains

inthe

world

foodsituation

seenduring

thepast

thirtyyears

shouldcontinue.

IfM

althusis

ultimately

tobe

correctin

hisw

arningthat

populationw

illoutstripfood

production,then

atleast

we

cansay:

"Malthus

mustw

ait".[E

mphasis

added].

Wo

rld:

allce

rea

ls

400

.....-.

•...

_.......

e......

-e_

.•

.......

•0

-",.-'>

..0-'-

0-~.o-~

.0-0.....-0

-0-

<>

-9'0

'0

-0

-0

'",.-'>0-<

>o

O-<

r

•P

roduction

..F

ood+

Feed

-•

-F

ood

-0

-F

eed

50D

ifferencebetw

eenproduction

andfood

plusfeed

consumption

isaccounted

forby

oth

er(in

du

slrial)

use

s,seeds.

anddistribution

plusprocessing

losses

19951990

19851980

19751970

1965

O+----+---~----j----+---~I----+-----j

1960

Figure

1.1.W

orld

pe

rcapitacerealp

rod

uctio

nand

con

sum

ptio

n.

Sources:

FA

DA

grostatdatabase

(FA

D,

1992)and

FA

D'S

tateo

fF

oodand

Agriculture

1993'.

Other

recentstudies

suchas

theU

NFA

O's

'Agriculture:

towards

2010'(FA

O,

1993)and

aprojection

alsoto

2010by

theInternational

Food

PolicyR

esearchInstitute

(Rosegrant

&A

gcaolli,1994)

reachsim

ilar,if

notidentical,

conclusions.T

heF

AO

studyconcludes

thatper

capitafood

suppliesw

illincrease

andthe

absolutenum

berssuffering

chronicm

alnutritionw

illdecline,

inlarge

partdue

toa

projected2.2%

peryear

growth

incereal

grainproduction,

made

upof

a1.8%

peryear

increasein

yieldand

a0.8%

peryear

increasein

harvestarea.

The

IFP

RI

simulation

model

alsoconcludes

thatthere

will

beno

globalfood

problemas

productiongrow

sahead

of

demand,

evento

thepoint

thatharvested

areasdecline.

How

ever,it

stressesthat

therew

illbe

localproblem

s,notably

inS

ub-Saharan

Africa

andS

outhA

sia,butclearlyidentifies

theircause

aspoor

economic

accessto

food:a

problemo

fpovertyrather

thanfood

production.

4G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

1.2W

hyA

notherStudy?

Since

we

cannotknow

which

of

these(or

other)projections

tobelieve,

what

isthe

pointofyetanother

speculativestudy;

inparticular,one

which

isas

richin

detailas

thisone?

That

isa

goodquestion,

butit

alsohas

some

reasonableansw

ers.A

tthis

pointwe

higWightthree.

First,

thisreport

looksahead

to2050

ratherthan

2010,the

time

horizonfor

most

of

theprojections

notedabove.

This

longertim

escale

may

addto

incredulityabout

thescenario

assumptions

andresults

butis

necessaryto

capturesom

ecrucial,

slow-acting

trendsor

long-delayedsituations

which

neverthelessbear

heavilyon

thevisions

andactions

which

we

needto

adopttoday.

These

includeprobable

reductionsin

thegrow

tho

fpopulation

andper

capitafood

consumption

asthese

criticalfactors

reachsaturation

limits

inthe

nextfew

decades;w

ideningdisparities

between

regionalfood

demand

andsupply

capacities,and

hencelarge

increasesin

theneed

forfood

trade;im

pendingbio-physical

limits

tothe

continuedexpansion

of

cultivableland

insom

em

ajorw

orldregions;

andpossible

productionconstraints

inthe

longerterm

dueto

othernatural

resourceproblem

ssuch

asw

atersupply.

Second,

thisreport

isrich

indetail

fora

purpose.In

consideringthe

presentand

futureo

fa

topicas

largeand

complex

asw

orldagricultural

productionand

demand,

itis

vitalto

preservesom

eof

thecom

plexityo

fthe

issuesw

hich,in

thereal

world,

haveto

beunderstood

adequatelybefore

theycan

betackled

successfully.A

gain,this

invitesdisbeliefby

multiplying

upthe

number

ofvariables

thathave

tobe

consideredand

projectedin

thescenario

model.

But

itis

perhapsbetter

tograsp

thisproblem

of

complexity

thanover-sim

plifythe

issuesby,

forexam

ple,m

odellingthe

food-populationfuture

onthe

basisonly

of

cerealgrain

supplyand

demand,

orglobal

cerealproduction.

Severalo

fthe

studiescited

abovefall

intothis

trap,in

some

cases,as

notedabove,

with

possiblym

ostm

isleadingconsequences.

Third,

thepresent

studyis

parto

fa

wider

andsystem

aticexploration

ofsustainable

futuresby

theS

tockholmE

nvironment

Institutein

itsP

oleStar

project.Integration

between

major

sectorssuch

as"energy",

"water",

"landand

agriculture"is

acardinal

featureo

fthis

exercise.Prelim

inaryw

orkestablished

thepoint

thatif

thisintegration

was

toproduce

meaningful

results,the

landand

foodsector

inparticular

would

haveto

bem

odelledin

afairly

comprehensive

manner.

Inother

words,

allworld

regions,all

major

crops,allkey

relationshipsbetw

eencrop

productionand

landrequirem

entsand,

ideally,all

landuses,

would

haveto

bem

odelled.A

lthoughthis

lastideal

inparticular

hasnot

beenm

ethere

-largely

dueto

dataproblem

s-

thescenario

structuredoes

providea

framew

orkfor

consideringitin

futuredevelopm

entso

fPoleStar.

1.3A

ModelStructure

As

we

havejust

suggested,the

ways

inw

hichhum

ansuse

landto

growfood

andother

comm

oditiesare

complex

anddiverse.

Large

rangeso

fsoil,

rainfall,tem

peratureand

otherphysical

conditionsinfluence

what

cropscan

begrow

n,w

here,and

howsuccessfully.

The

effectsof

theseconditions

canbe

modified

greatlyby

theprecise

combinations

of

human

skillsand

technologiesw

hichare

usedby

thefarm

eror

animal

herder.T

heseprocesses

inturn

occurw

ithinhigW

yvaried

culturaland

economic

environments

which

greatlyaffect

boththe

demand

Leach

5

foragricultural

productsand

them

yriadproduction

choicesfarm

ersm

aketo

meet

thesedem

ands.T

hiscom

plexitym

akesthe

designo

fa

suitablefram

ework

form

odellingagricultural

productionand

consumption

ratherproblem

atic.O

bviously,a

greatdeal

of

simplification

andaggregation

isnecessary,

butnot

som

uchthat

important

trendsand

patternsare

overlookedor

misinterpreted,

orissues

ignoredw

hichare

relevantto

thedesirability

orfeasibility

of

aparticular

seto

fprojections.

The

choiceo

fw

hichkey

variablesto

model

andtheir

degreeo

faggregation

dependsof

courseon

theavailability

ofdata,

especiallyof

historicdata

forreasonably

longperiods

sothat

major

trendscan

beidentified

andquantified

asa

guideto

possiblefuture

trends.T

hesedata

limitations

inturn

havea

profoundeffect

onthe

typeo

fm

odelw

hichcan

beused.

Most

importantly,

theyrule

outeconom

icm

odelsw

hichrely

ondriving

variablessuch

asprices

andincom

es.T

herelevant

economic

datafor

foodproduction

and/orconsum

ptionexist

onlyfor

ahandful

of

countriesand

forsom

eisolated,

small-scale

regionsw

hichhave

beenintensively

studied.Inform

ationis

thereforelacking

form

ostcountries

andlarge-scale

regions.Instead,

physicalparam

eterssuch

astons

of

foodproduced

orhectares

ofcropland

required,and

soforth,

haveto

beused.

This

doesnot

precludethe

useofjudgem

entsto

linkthese

physicalvalues

toeconom

icand

developmental

factorssuch

asthe

growth

ofaverage

income,

increasedurbanisation,

orbetter

transportinfrastructures

which

improve

thelinks

between

farmers

andm

arkets.O

neim

portantconsequence

ofusing

sucha

physicalm

odelis

thatagricultural

demand

andsupply

must

ina

formal

sensebe

treatedindependently.

Inthe

realw

orld,patterns

of

foodconsum

ptionand

productionare

linkedin

atw

o-way

processby

pricesand

incomes

andother

economic

factors.In

them

odelused

here,food

demand

isassum

edto

alteraccording

todem

ographicchanges

andper

capitadietary

patternsindependently

of

productionand

supply.T

herole

playedby

economic

factorsis

mim

ickedby

settingthe

(physical)param

etersdeterm

iningfood

supplyand

productionto

valuesw

hichm

eetthis

demand.

The

plausibilityo

fthe

scenarioprojections

canthen

beevaluated

with

respectto

thesocio-econom

ic,resource

andenvironm

entaldimensions.

This

approachhas

many

distinguishedpredecessors,

suchas

theseries

of

long­range

globalprojections

made

byFA

Oduring

the1980s

andearly

1990s(F

Aa,

1993).Italsofits

wellw

iththe

viewpointofm

anyeconom

iststhat

presentlevels

ofagricultural

productivityand

productionsay

littleabout

potentiallevels

becausethey

area

responseonly

topresent

levelso

fdem

andand

priceconditions.

This

elementary

economic

pointhas

beenexpressed

conciselyby

Arnartya

Sen(1994).

After

notingthat

inthe

decadeto

1990-92per

capitafood

productionrose

bym

orethan

20%in

Asia,including

over22%

inIndia

and36%

inC

hina,Senw

rites:"F

oodis

producedby

peasants,farm

ersand

othersnot

todem

onstratehow

much

canbe

grown,

butto

make

economic

useof

them-

toeat,

tosell,

toexchange.

We

cannotdirectly

inferhow

much

couldhave

beenproduced

merely

bylooking

atw

hatw

asactually

produced.T

obe

sure,w

edo

knowthat

what

was

actuallyproduced

certainlyw

aspossible,

butwe

donot

knowhow

much

more

couldhave

beenproduced

ifthere

were

economic

incentivesfor

expandingoutput......

The

pessimists.....m

aynote

thatfood

productionis

growing

onlya

littlefaster

thanpopulation,

andthis

6G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stC

entury

theym

aytend

tointerpret

asevidence

thatw

eare

reachingthe

limits

of

what

we

canproduce.

Such

apresum

ptionw

ouldnot

beright,

sinceit

ignoresthe

effectso

feconom

icincentives

thatgovern

production:food

will

not be

producedbeyond

theeffective

demand

forit."

[Original

emphasis].

Th

erem

aindero

fthis

sectionoutlines

thechosen

model

structureand

itscom

ponentparts,

startingw

iththe

backgroundperspective

or

development

paradigmto

thescenario

asa

whole.

1.3.1T

heC

onventionalDevelopm

entParadigm

!In

lookingto

thefuture,

peopleoften

assume

thatthe

valuesand

dynamics

of

tod

ay's

dominant

techno-industrialsystem

will

beprogressively

playedo

ut

indefinitelyand

ona

globalscale.

Though

oftentacit,

thisperspective

representsa

visiono

fa

long-rangeglobal

future-

avision

which

inS

EI's

PoleS

tarproject

isreferred

toas

theC

onventionalD

evelopment

Paradigm

-w

hichis

continuousw

iththe

patternso

fresource

use,socio-econom

icarrangem

ents,values

andlifestyles

thatevolvedduring

theindustrialera.

Inother

words,

theconstellation

of

valuesthat

haveunderpinned

industrialdevelopm

entover

atleastthepasthalfcentury

provide,byextension,

theprinciples

thatshape

theconventional

development

vision.T

heseinclude

freem

arkets,private

investmentand

competition

asthe

fundamental

enginefor

economic

growth

andw

ealthallocation;

rapidindustrialisation

andurbanisation;

possessiveindividualism

asthe

motive

of

human

agentsand

thebasis

forthe

"goodlife";

andthe

nation-stateand

liberaldem

ocracyas

theappropriate

forms

of

governancein

them

odernera.

Th

econventional

development

(CD

)scenario

envisionsthe

unfoldingo

fthese

processesw

ithoutm

ajorsocial,

technological,o

rnatural

surprisesand

disruptions.In

thispicture,

thecluster

of

factorsshaping

thew

orldo

fthe

21stcentury

might

bethought

toinclude

theglobalisation

anddeepening

of

theinform

ationrevolution;

theprogressive

homogenisation

of

cultureon

aglobal

scale;the

expansiono

fconsum

eristand

individualistpersonal

values;the

convergenceo

fdeveloping

countryeconom

ies,technologies

andcultures

towards

thoseo

findustrial

countries;and

theincreasing

economic

dominance

of

largem

ultinationalcorporations

onan

internationaleconomic

field.In

fact,a

number

of

significantsocial,

environmental

andcultural

uncertaintiescould

undermine

thispicture.

The

aimhere

isto

explorethe

dimensions

of

foodproduction,

agricultureand

landresources

of

aconventional

development

framew

orkin

orderto

identifysuch

uncertainties.T

hebulk

of

thescenario

assumptions

andresults

arecontained

inC

hapter2

(onfood

consumption)

andC

hapter3

(onfood

production,trade

anduse

of

land).In

eachchapter

andits

sub­sections,

presentationso

ffuture

assumptions

andprojection

resultsare

precededby

areview

of

thecurrent

pictureand

pasttrends.

Chapter

4com

pletesthe

studyw

itha

briefreview

of

thestresses,

uncertaintiesand

risksassociated

with

thescenario

andits

assumptions,

andthe

policiesrequired

toachieve

itssuccessful

outcome.

JT

hissub-section

isbased

onpart

ofthe

SE

IIPoleS

targlobal

energyscenario:

P.R

askin&

R.

Margolis

(1995):G

lobalE

nergyin

the21st

Century:

Patterns,

Projections

andP

roblems.

PoleS

tarS

eriesR

eportno.

3.SE

I-Stockholm

.113

p.

Leach

7

1.3.2R

egionalAggregation

One

major

simplification

ofthem

odelstructure

isthe

aggregationo

fcountriesinto

10regions,

fiverepresenting

today'sm

oreeconom

icallydeveloped

countries(M

DC

)and

fivethe

lessdeveloped

countries(L

DC

).T

hisregional

aggregationis

comm

onto

otherP

oleStar

scenariosand

isoutlined

inT

able1.1.

The

complete

regionalstructure

isgiven

atthe

endo

fthis

Chapter

inT

able1.6.

This

degreeof

aggregationis

notideal

forconsidering

landuse

andagriculture,

sinceit

combines

sub-regionsand

countriesw

ithm

arkedcontrasts

inclim

ateand

landcapabilities,

butcomprom

iseshad

tobe

made

owing

totim

eand

dataconstraints.

Tables

1.2and

1.3~ive

regionalpopulation

andper

capitaG

DP

forthe

baselineyear

andfor

thetw

oscenario

projectionyears,

2025and

2050.F

orreasons

of

dataavailability,

thebaseline

yearfor

most

of

thisreport

is1989,

thoughthe

baselineG

DP

valuesare

for1990.

This

differencem

atterslittle

asG

DP

isnot

anexplicit

scenariodriver.

The

assumptions

for2025

and2050

arecom

mon

toother

SE

I­P

oleStar

Conventional

Developm

entscenarios.T

hepopulation

projectionsare

thestandard

UN

mid-range

estimates,

which

givea

neardoubling

of

human

numbers

tojust

over10

billionin

2050.M

osto

fthis

growth

occursin

theL

DC

s,w

herepopulation

increasesfrom

closeto

3.9billion

todayto

nearly8.7

billionin

2050.O

ne-thirdo

fthis

120%increase

occursin

Africa.

Incontrast,

them

oredeveloped

(MD

C)

regiongrow

sby

only165

million

inthe

next30-odd

yearsand

hasvirtually

nochange

inpopulation

from2025

to2050.

As

aresult,

theM

DC

shareo

fw

orldpopulation

fallsfrom

24%in

1989to

14%in

2050.T

hereare

strongdeclines

inpopulation

growth

ratesin

allregions

between

thepresentand

thelatter

periodo

fthescenario.

As

onew

ouldexpect,

thesedem

ographicchanges

havea

profoundeffect

onprojected

regionalfood

demand.

How

ever,the

scenariostructure

avoidsany

reverseeffects

of

foodavailability

(orits

lack)on

mortality,

fertility,m

igrationand

soforth,

andhence

ontotal

regionalpopulation.

The

regionalpopulation

numbers

shown

inT

able1.2

arethus

basicand

fixedparam

etersin

thescenarios.

Per

capitaG

DP

,or

grossdom

esticproduct,

isoften

usedas

anindicator

ofeconom

icdevelopm

ent.T

hem

anyproblem

so

fusing

GD

Pin

thisrole,

ofm

easuringit,

andof

itscom

parisonacross

countries,are

well-recognised

andfrequently

reviewed

(Raskin

&M

argolis,1995).

Inthis

studyper

capitaG

DP

isused

onlyas

aqualitative

guideto

stageso

fdevelopm

entw

hichm

ightaffect

keyaspects

of

thefood

systemsuch

asdietary

patterns,farm

'modernisation',

orthe

qualityo

ftransportinfrastructure

andits

bearingon

accessto

farminputs

andcrop

markets.

Inother

words,

GD

Pis

notused

asan

explicit,quantitative

variablebut

asan

underlyingqualitative

guideto

changesin

patternsand

potentialities.

8G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stC

entury

Ta

ble

1.1

.R

eg

ion

al

structu

re.

Po

leS

tar

Re

gio

ns

Africa

LatinA

merica

Middle

East

China+

S&

SE

Asia

NA

merica

WE

urope

EE

urope

OE

CD

Pacific

Form

erU

SS

R

Eq

uiva

len

tFA

OR

eg

ion

sa

nd

cou

ntrie

s

(1990a

nd

ea

rlier

statistics)

Africa

LatinA

merica

developing

Ne

ar

Eastdeveloping

+[Isra

el)-

[Egypt,

Libya,S

udan,T

urkey)

China,

Korea

DP

R,

Laos,M

ongolia,V

ietNam

Far

Eastdeveloping

+[P

apuaN

ewG

uin

ea

)-[C

ent.P

lan.A

sia)

Canada

+U

SA

=N

Am

ericadeveloped

Europe

+[T

urke

y)-[E

Europe)

Albania,

Bulgaria,

Czechoslovakia,

Hungary,

Poland,

Rom

ania

Japan,A

ustralia,N

ewZ

ealand(+

S.

Pacific

Islands)

=O

ceania+

[Jap

an

)-[P

apuaN

ewG

uinea)

US

SR

Ta

ble

1.2

.P

op

ula

tion

pro

jectio

ns.P

op

ula

tion

(millio

ns)

Gro

wth

rate

(%p

er

yea

r)

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

1989-20252025-2050

Africa

623.11,519

2,2042.51

1.50Latin

Am

erica439.2

699812

1.300.60

Middle

East

142.5384

5572.79

1.50

Cent

Plan

Asia

1,215.01,733

1,8670.99

0.30

S&

SE

Asia

1,523.42,634

3,2141.53

0.60

NA

merica

274.3330

3220.51

-0.10

WE

urope454.1

489477

0.21-0.10

EE

urope99.4

115121

0.410.20

OE

CD

Pacific

145.6161

1570.28

-0.10

Form

erU

SS

R287.3

332349

0.400.20

Lessdeveloped

3,943.26,969

8,6741.59

0.88M

oredeveloped

1,260.71,427

1,4260.34

0.00

World

5,203.98,396

10,0801.34

0.73

Sources:

for

1989,F

AO

Agrostat;

for2025,

2050-

World

Bank

(Bulatao,

1989)and

theU

nitedN

ations(1992).

Ta

ble

1.3

.P

er

cap

itaG

OP

pro

jectio

ns.

Pe

rca

pita

GO

P(U

S$

1990)G

row

thra

te(%

pe

rye

ar)

Re

gio

n1990

20252050

1990-20252025-2050

Africa

6261,091

1,9261.56

2.3Latin

Am

erica2,233

4,3157,435

1.852.2

Middle

East

3,5855,832

9,1101.36

1.8

Cent

Plan

Asia

3691,557

3,4234.08

3.2

S&

SE

Asia

6671,877

3,9302.92

3.0

NA

merica

21,80445,127

65,4772.04

1.5

WE

urope15,726

32,54849,607

2.041.7

EE

urope2,108

4,0735,626

1.851.3

OE

CD

Pacific

24,30450,301

74,8032.04

1.6

Form

erU

SS

R2,956

5,7127,889

1.851.3

Lessdeveloped

8492,089

3,9732.53

2.61M

ored

eve

lop

ed

14,05528,922

42,0232.02

1.51

World

4,0486,649

9,3551.39

1.38

Sources:

for1990,

World

Ba

nk

(1993b);fo

r2025

&2050,

theIP

CC

1992ascenario.

Leach

9

Again,

theG

DP

assumptions

followstandard

mid-range

"businessas

usual"projections.

Per

capitaG

DP

generallygrow

sfaster

inless

developedregions

thanin

theM

DC

s,reflecting

recenttrends.

Grow

thin

theM

DC

sas

aw

holedeclines

towards

theend

of

thescenario

period(2025-2050)

while

itaccelerates

slightlyin

theL

DC

s.A

sa

result,the

shareo

fglobal

GD

Paccounted

forby

theM

DC

sfalls

from84%

in1990

to74%

in2025

and64%

in2050.

The

ratioo

fper

capitaG

DP

inthe

MD

Cs

tothat

of

theL

DC

s-

abroad

indicatoro

fregionaleconom

icinequity

-also

declinesfrom

nearly17:1

in1990

tojust

over10:1

in2050.

How

ever,the

absolutedifference

inper

capitaG

DP

between

theM

DC

sand

LD

Cs

increasessubstantially

overthe

next60years.

1.3.3P

roductAggregation

The

secondm

ajorsim

plificationin

them

odelinvolves

theaggregation

of

foodand

otheragricultural

products.T

heF

AO

-Agrostat

supplyand

utilisationaccounts

(FAG

,1992)

coverapproxim

ately100

foodand

otheragricultural

comm

odities,but

dataquality

variesgreatly

andis

generallybetter

forcom

modity

groupsthan

forindividualitem

s.T

hechosen

breakdown

isshow

nin

Table

1.4,together

with

theabbreviated

'code'used

foreach

productgroup,

inw

hichthe

prefix"C

"stands

forvegetable

cropsand

"A"

foranim

alproducts.

Also

shown

isan

indicatoro

fthe

importance

of

eachgroup

interm

so

fglobal

harvestarea.

This

value,together

with

regionalarea

differencesfor

thecrop

groups,w

asa

major

considerationin

theproduct

aggregation.T

hereasons

forthis

particularproduct

structuredeserve

some

comm

ent.C

erealsm

ustobviously

beconsidered

separatelybecause

of

theirgreat

importance

tohum

andiets,

animal

feed,and

landuse.

Wheat

pluscoarse

grains,and

rice,are

treatedseparately

becauseof

largeregional

differencesin

productionpatterns,

yieldsand

dietsand

thefact

thatpaddy

ricetypically

emits

methane,

anim

portantgreenhouse

gas.R

ootsand

tubers,pulses,

oilcrops

andvegetables

aredistinguished

form

uchthe

same

reason.E

venthough

insom

eregions

some

of

thesecrop

groupstake

upalm

ostnegligible

areaso

fland,

andm

ighttherefore

havebeen

ignored,dietary

substitutionsbetw

eengroups

canhave

substantialim

pactson

landuse.

For

example,

averageyields

of

rootcrops

(C2)

andpulses

(C3)

inL

DC

regionsare

respectively10-15

and0.5-1

tonper

hectareper

year.In

some

of

theseregions

consumption

ofroots

hasbeen

givingw

ayto

pulsesand

otherhigher

valuecrops

with

theirlow

eryields

andhence

theirhigher

landrequirem

entsfor

eachton

of

foodconsum

ed.S

ugarcrops

arehandled

separatelybecause

of

theirtypically

largeyields,

risingsugar

consumption

inm

anyregions,

andtheir

rolein

biomass

energy.T

hegrouping

ofalltree

cropsas

oneproduct

groupis

ananom

alyforced

bydata

limitations

butfortunatelythe

landareas

involvedare

relativelysm

all.

10G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21stC

entury

Ta

ble

1.4

.A

gg

reg

atio

no

fcrop

an

da

nim

alp

rod

ucts.

Pro

du

ctco

de

Pe

rcen

two

rldC

rop

gro

up

s(and

ind

ividu

alcro

ps)

ha

rvestarea

(1990)•

C11

53.6

C1

213.9

C2

4.8

C3

6.6

C4

15.0

C5

2.4

C6

1.2

C7

a

A1

A2

A3

Wheatand

coa

rseg

rain

s(w

heat,barley,

maize,

rye,oats,

millet,

sorghum)

Rice

Ro

ots

&tu

be

rs(cassava,

potato,sw

eetpotato,

yam,

taro)P

ulses(dry

bean,dry

broadbean,

drypea,

chickpea,

lentils)O

ilcrop

s,o

the

rthan

treep

rod

ucts

(soybean,groundnut,

castorbean,

seedsof

sunflower,

rape,sesam

e,safflow

er,cotton)

Sugar

crop

s(sugar

cane,sugar

beet)V

egetablesand

fruit,

oth

er

tha

ntre

ep

rod

ucts

(18types)

Tree

crop

sand

pe

ren

nia

ls(7

typesofnut,

palmkernel,

olive,olive

oil,17

typesoftree

fruit,coffee,

cocoabeans,

tea,hops)

Meat&

eggs(slaughtered

meat,

offal,anim

alfatexcept

milk

&its

products,eggs)

Milk

&m

ilkp

rod

ucts

(asm

ilkequivalents)

Fish

&o

the

ra

qu

atic

pro

du

cts(m

arineand

freshwater

fish,crustaceans,

cephalopods,m

olluscs,other

aquaticproducts)

Note:

non-foodcrops

areexcluded

fromthe

analysisat

thepresent

stage.A

ta

regionallevel

theircontribution

tototal

harvestI.and

areais

verysm

all(typically

under1"!o).

These

cropsinclude

tobaccoleaves,

naturalrubber,

linseed,hem

pseed,flax

&hem

pfibre,

jute,sisal

andother

fibres.•H

arve

stareaexcluding

treeand

otherperennialcrops

('permanentcrops'in

FA

Dland

statistics).

1.3.4C

onsumption

andSupply

StructuresA

snoted

above,the

model

structuretreats

theconsum

ptionand

supply/productionsides

of

theland-agriculture-food

systemindependently,

eachbeing

representedby

aseparate

chaino

fassumptions

andcalculations.

The

consumption

chainleads,

foreach

region,year

andfood

product,from

therequirem

entsfor

human

food,anim

alfeed

andother

(mostly

industrial)uses

toa

valueo

frequired

productionw

hichallow

sfor

processingand

otherlosses

asw

ellas

trade.T

hesupply

chainleads

fromtotal

cultivatedland

areathrough

varioussupply

sidevariables

suchas

theintensity

ofland

use,shares

of

harvestedarea

undereach

cropgroup,

andcrop

yields,to

avalue

of

achievedproduction

foreach

cropproduct.

Anim

alproducts

arehandled

slightlydifferently.

Inthe

scenario,achieved

productionis

made

equalto

requiredproduction

byadjustm

entsto

thesupply

sidevariables,

which

includenet

trade,crop

yield,cropping

intensity(equal

toharvest

areadivided

bycultivated

area),share

ofharvest

areadevoted

toeach

crop,and

totalcultivated

area.

Leach

11

Ta

ble

1.5.C

on

su

mp

tion

an

dp

rod

uctio

nca

lcula

tion

cha

ins.

Pro

du

ctg

rou

pU

nits

or

La

nd

class

Co

nsu

mp

tion

cha

in

Upopulation

Mpersons

Ux

nutritiontotal

calories/person/dayU

xdietstructure

fractionof

totalcaloriesC

1-C7,

A1-A

3U

+food

propertiescalories/kg

C1-C

7,A

1-A3

Ux

scalingfactor

(Mcalories/day

toM

tlyear)

U=

human

foodM

tlyearC

1-C7,

A1-A

3U

+other

usesM

tlyearC

1-C7,

A1-A

3(including

cropfuels}

U+

animalfeed

Mtlyear

C1-C

7,A

1-A3

[fromlivestock

chain]U

finaldemand

Mtlyear

C1-C

7,A

1-A3

U+

processed,losses,

Mtlye

ar

C1-C

7,A

1-A3

seeds,stock

changeU

requiredsupply

Mtlyear

C1-C

7,A

1-A3

U+

netexportsM

tlyearC

1-C7,

A1-A

3U

requiredproduction

Mtlyear

C1-C

7

CO

NS

UM

PT

ION

-PR

OD

UC

TIO

NB

AL

AN

CE

Achieved

productionm

adeequal to

requiredproduction

foreach

cropby

alteringproduction

variablesor

netexports.

PR

OD

UC

TIO

NC

HA

IN

11'11'x

11'ftx

ft11'x

achievedproduction

yieldharvestarea

xcrop

cultivationpattern

totalharvestarea

croppingintensity

totalcultivated

area

Mtlye

ar

ton/hectare/yearM

hafraction

oftotalharvestarea

Mha

harvestsper

year(average

forallcrops)

Mha

C1-C

7C

1-C7

C1-C

7C

1-C7

rainfed,irrigated

(all)*rainfed,

irrigated(all)*

rainfed,irrigated

(all)*

*R

ainfedand

irrigatedarea

separatelyfor

regionsA

FR

,LA

,M

E,

SE

A;

combined

forother

regions.M

=m

illion,t=

metric

tons,ha

=hectare

Since

thescenario

methodology

forcesa

balancebetw

eenfuture

fooddem

andand

supplyfor

eachregion

andfood

productgroup,

itcannot

anddoes

notpredict

futureregional

fooddeficits.

Average

peoplein

eachregion

donot

starve.T

heplausibility

of

ascenario

dependsinstead

onsubjective

judgements

aboutthe

assumed

futurelevels

orrates

of

changeof

allthe

main

variables-

particularlyon

thesupply

side-

which

areneeded

tobring

demand

andsupply

intobalance.

The

consumption

andsupply

calculationchains

andthe

way

inw

hichthese

giverise

toa

balancebetw

eenrequired

productionand

achievedproduction,

areoutlined

inT

able1.5.

Further

information

aboutthe

main

stepsin

thechains

aregiven

inthe

relevantsectionso

fChapters

2and

3.

12G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

2Jst

Century

Ta

ble

1.6

.R

eg

ion

al

stru

ctu

re(d

eta

iled

).

Africa

(AF

R)

La

tinA

me

rica(L

A)

Ce

ntra

llyP

lan

ne

d

Asia

(CH

INA

+)

Algeria

Argentina

China

(inc.T

aiwan)

Turkey

Angola

Bolivia

Korea

DP

RU

nitedK

ingdom

Benin

Brazil

LaosY

ugoslavia

Botsw

anaC

hileM

ongolia(+

8sm

allstates)

Burkina

Faso

Colom

biaV

ietN

am

Burundi

Costa

Rica

Cam

eroonC

ubaS

&S

EA

siaE

aste

rnE

uro

pe

(EE

)

CentralA

fricanR

ep.D

ominican

Rep

Bangladesh

Albania

Chad

Ecuador

Bhutan

Bulgaria

Congo

EIS

alvadorB

runeiC

zechoslovakia

Cote

d'ivo

ireG

uatemala

Cam

bodia/Kam

pucheaH

ungary

Egypt

Guyana

Hong

Kong

Poland

Ethiopia

Haiti

IndiaR

omania

Gabon

Honduras

Indonesia

Gam

biaJam

aicaK

orea,R

epublicO

EC

DP

acific

Ghana

Mexico

Malaysia

(OE

CD

-P)

Guinea

Nicaragua

Myanm

ar/Burm

aA

ustralia

Guinea-B

issauP

anama

Nepal

Fiji

Kenya

Paraguay

Pakistan

Japan

LesothoP

eruP

apuaN

ewG

uineaN

ewZ

ealand

LiberiaS

uriname

Philippines

(+18

smallstates)

LibyaT

rinidad&

Tobago

Singapore

Ma

da

ga

scar

Uruguay

SriLanka

Fo

rme

rS

ovie

t

Malaw

iV

enezuelaT

hailandU

nio

n(F

SU

)

Mali

(+24

smallstates)

(+3

small

states)

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mid

dle

Ea

st(ME

)N

orth

Am

erica

(NA

)

Mo

rocco

Afghanistan

Canada

Mozam

biqueB

ahrainU

SA

Nam

ibiaC

yprus

Niger

Gaza

Strip

We

stern

Eu

rop

e(W

E)

Nigeria

IranA

ustria

Reunion

IraqB

elgium

Rw

andaIsrael

Denm

ark

Senegal

JordanF

inland

Seychelles

Kuw

aitF

rance

Sierra

LeoneLebanon

Germ

any

Som

aliaO

man

Greece

South

Africa

Qatar

Greenland

Sudan

SaudiA

rabiaIceland

Sw

azilandS

yriaIreland

Tanzania

UA

Em

iratesItaly

Togo

We

stB

ankLuxem

bourg

Tu

nisia

Yem

enN

etherlands

Uganda

Norw

ay

Zaire

Portugal

Za

mb

iaS

pain

Zim

babwe

Sw

eden

(+8

smallsta

tes)

Sw

itzerland

2F

OO

DC

ON

SU

MP

TIO

N

2.1H

uman

Diets

During

thelast

threedecades

human

foodconsum

ptionm

easuredas

dietarycalories

doubled.W

hilepopulation

grewby

69%during

1961to

1989the

averageperson's

intakeo

ffood

caloriesrose

by20%

.T

hesechanges

were

evengreater

inthe

lessdeveloped

world.

Inthe

fiveP

oleStar

LD

Cregions

combined,

populationand

percapita

caloriesgrew

duringthe

same

periodby

89%and

31%

.A

sa

resulttotal

foodcalories

consumed

inthe

LD

Cs

increasednearly

2.5fold.

Yet

despitethis

encouragingtrend

towards

betteraverage

nutritionalstandards,

poverty,w

ar,drought

andother

stressesm

eantthat

many

tensof

millions

went

hungryand

millions

starved.W

hatare

theprospects

forthe

nextsix

decades?T

hischapter

looksat

thetotal

demand

forfood

andother

agriculturalproducts,

aquantity

which

couldtreble

inthe

presentL

DC

sby

2050as

populations,incom

esand

dietarystandards

increaseand

more

foodhas

tobe

grown

bothto

feedpeople

directlyand

tofeed

animals

forthe

table.W

estartw

ithdirectfood

consumption

byhum

ansand

measure

dietarystandards

bytw

obroad

indicators:average

percapita

dailyfood

calories(T

otca

l)and

thefraction

of

theseprovided

byanim

alproducts

(Anfrac).

Historic

valuesare

takenfrom

theF

Aa

Agrostat

Food

Balance

(intake)accounts

(FAO

,1992).

Most

importantly,

them

easuresare

notfor

foodactually

consumed

butfood

which

isavailable

forconsum

ptionatthe

retaillevel,as

itentershouseholds,restaurants

andso

forth.T

hedietary

standardstherefore

includelosses

andw

astagefrom

foodstorage,

kitchenpreparation,

cookingand

platew

aste,and

aresubstantially

greaterthan

actualnutritional

intake,especiallyin

more

affluentcountries.T

hevalues

usedhere

couldtherefore

overestimate

futurefood

needsif

societiesbecom

em

orew

aste-consciousthan

today.O

nthe

otherhand,

storageand

otherfood

lossesare

likelyto

increasein

LD

Cs

asrising

incomes

andurbanisation

promote

lifestylescloser

tocurrent

OE

CD

countrypatterns.

How

havethese

quantitiesbeen

changing?T

able2.1

presentsa

summ

aryfor

percapita

calories(T

otca

l)and

Table

2.2for

theshare

providedby

animal

products(A

nfrac).A

nnualtrend

datafor

1961-1989are

shown

inF

igures2.1

and2.2.

Starting

with

percapita

calories,the

substantialgrow

thin

allregions

andthe

largeabsolute

differencesbetw

eenthe

MD

Cs

andL

DC

sare

obviousfeatures.

Other

notablepoints

includethe

following.

•T

heslow

-down

ingrow

thduring

the1980s

innearly

allregions,

especiallythe

LD

Cs

(with

theexception

ofS

&S

EA

sia).In

Latin

Am

ericaand

Africa

theslow

-down

startedaround

1980.It

beganm

orerecently

butat

much

higherlevels

inC

hina+and

theM

iddleE

ast,possibly

dueto

saturationeffects.

InE

asternE

uropeand

theform

erS

ovietU

nionthere

were

slightreductions

inaverage

calorieintakes

duringthe

1980s.•

The

verylarge

increasesin

China+

andthe

Middle

East,

amounting

to62

%and

45%respectively,

which

broughtthe

latterregion

closeto

thelevel

of

North

Am

ericaand

Europe

inthe

early1960s.

These

regionsalso

experiencedthe

mostrapid

percapita

income

growth

amongst

theL

DC

s.

14G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21stC

entury

Table

2.1.T

otca/:to

talpercapita

da

ilycalories

ofavailable

food.

kcaV

cap

itald

ay

Gro

wth

rate

(%p

er

yea

r)

Re

gio

n1961

19801989

1961-801980-89

1961-89

Africa

2,0832,344

2,3630.62

0.090.45

LatinA

merica

2,3662,724

2,7370.75

0.050.52

Middle

East

2,0482,793

2,9791.65

0.721.35

China+

1,6162,323

2,6201.93

1.341.74

S&

SE

Asia

1,9412,183

2,313.0.62

0.640.63

NA

merica

3,1773,480

3,6530.48

0.540.50

WE

urope3,041

3,3702,432

0.540.20

0.43

EE

urope3,120

3,4833,453

0.58-0.10

0.36

OE

CD

Pacific

2,5582,856

2,9930.58

0.520.56

Form

erU

SS

R3,086

3,3753,371

0.47-0.01

0.32

LDC

s1,898

2,3332,486

1.090.71

0.97M

DC

s3,032

3,3453,417

0.520.24

0.43

World

2,2612,602

2,7110.74

0.460.65

Table

2.2.A

nfra

c:fractio

n(as

%)

oftotalcalories

providedb

yanim

alproducts.

Pe

rcen

tag

eG

row

thra

te(%

pe

rye

ar)

Re

gio

n1961

19801989

1961-801980-89

1961-89

Africa

7.87.9

7.40.07

-0.70-0.18

LatinA

merica

17.017.8

17.50.25

-0.200.10

Middle

East

11.912.5

10.50.27

-1.88-0.47

China+

3.77.2

10.73.64

4.423.89

S&

SE

Asia

5.96.1

7.10.16

1.700.65

NA

merica

39.935.3

33.5-0.65

-0.58-0.63

WE

urope28.1

31.130.7

0.53-0.13

0.32

EE

urope24.6

30.330.6

1.100.11

0.78

OE

CD

Pacific

14.822.0

23.42.11

0.691.65

Form

erU

SS

R21.4

25.828.7

0.991.18

1.05

LDC

s6.8

8.29.5

1.051.62

1.23M

DC

s27.3

29.730.0

0.440.12

0.34

World

13.313.9

14.50.23

0.420.29

•T

he

much

lower

growth

inthe

MD

Cs,

exceptG

EC

DP

acificw

herethe

influenceo

fJapan

andits

recentrapid

changesin

per

capitaincom

eand

lifestyles

hada

dominating

effect.T

urningto

thedietary

contributionfrom

animal

products,w

efind

generallym

uchsm

allerchanges.

InA

fricaand

Latin

Am

ericathe

changew

asno

more

thanhalf

apercentage

point,w

itha

small

declineand

asm

allincrease

respectively.T

heM

iddleE

asthad

arather

largedecline,

andS

&S

EA

siaa

largerrise.

China+

,on

theo

ther

hand,saw

a3-fold

increasefrom

under4

%in

1961to

nearly11%

in1989.

Inthe

MD

Cs

them

oststriking

featuresw

erethe

declinesin

North

Am

ericaand

theconvergence

of

allregions

exceptG

EC

DP

acificto

avalue

of

around30%

.S

ubstantialchanges

havealso

takenplace

inthe

mix

of

productsw

hichm

akeup

human

dietsw

ithinthe

broadpatterns

outlinedabove.

Further

largechanges

canbe

expectedo

ver

thenext

decadesas

lifestylesand

fashionsalter.

These

changeso

fD

ietStructure

arerepresented

inthe

model

asshares

of

eachfood

productC

I-C7

andA

I-A3

inthe

totalcalorie

intake(T

otcal).T

able2.3

summ

arisesthe

regionaldiet

structuresin

1961and

1989.

Leach

15

3100

2900

2700III

_S!(;lr--tr

..lz

--tro-b

.'/j'iii

2500u

",

__b'_

b-·b

-~on;

li··/1--/::/

"C~2300

-ii.couQ;Co

2100iii'0I-

1900

1700

150019601965

19701975

19801985

1990

-D-A

FR

-'''''--LA

-M

E

--CH

INA

+

-S

SE

A

3700

3500

IIIQ

l

-~3300

iiiu~on;"C~3100

-ii.couQ;Co

~2900

I-

2700

"b

·-b

··n '~.~--IJ.-

.b_

- a-

_b

"b

'b

'b

'-

-&--N

A

"""'-WE

-x-E

E

--OE

CD

-P

-F

SU

19901985

19801975

19701965

2500 +------1

1-----+

----+

-----+

----+

------1

1960

Fig

ure

2.1.T

otcals

(average

per

capita

daily

calories):

1961-89.N

ote

diffe

ren

tvertical

scalesand

no

n-ze

roorigins_

16G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

1816O

l

U:s"Cl:!14

c.

••A•••.

-••

-".0

--6

.._"

""

"..••lJ..•

•••••••••

li.

4 6 8

-B-A

FR

"~"LA

-X-M

E

--CH

INA

+-x

-SS

EA

~~--.X

x__

__

__

_x.

.:_

x:_-/,c,;,,:=:::::==~=:::::::.--

a;E'"12

..~-g10

"C.~is.Ol

.!!!oa;uJ§2i:CIl~~

2

19901985

19801975

19701965

O+

------+

-----+

------+

-----+

------+

------f

1960

40

Ol

35U:s"Cl:!c.

30a;E'" ..

25,.,.c"CCIl"C.s;

20l:!c.O

l.!!!0

15a;uJ§2

10i:CIluGia.

5019601965

19701975

19801985

1990

-<>

-NA

"~"WE

-E

E

--OE

CD

·P-x

-FS

U

Fig

ure

2.2.A

nfrac

(percen

to

fto

talcalo

riesp

rovid

edb

yan

imal

pro

du

cts):1961-89.

Note

differentverticalscales.

Leach

Ta

ble

2.3.D

iet

structu

re(p

erce

nta

ge

of

tota

lda

ilyca

lorie

sfro

me

ach

foo

dg

rou

p).

Re

gio

ns~

AF

RL

AM

EC

HIN

A+

S&

SE

Asia

Fo

od

gro

up

s.l.

19611989

19611989

19611989

19611989

19611989

C1

allcereals49.3

49.840.0

39.749.9

59.565.1

70.625.8

26.2C

11cereals

exc.rice

44.443.5

31.430.0

44.050.6

29.131.5

25.826.2

C12

rice4.9

6.38.6

9.75.9

8.936.0

39.139.1

38.9C

2roots

&tubers

16.916.0

7.24.8

0.71.3

16.05.7

3.42.4

C3

pulses4.0

3.45.5

3.51.5

1.96.2

1.07.2

3.9C

4vegetable

oilsa

5.56.9

5.110.0

4.37.1

1.65.4

4.45.9

C5

sugarcrops

4.96.5

16.016.1

8.19.0

1.22.3

8.68.2

C6-7

vegetables,fruit

b11.6

10.09.2

8.623.1

10.96.2

4.55.6

7.3

A1-A

3anim

alproducts7.8

7.417.0

17.311.9

10.33.7

10.55.9

7.2(A

3,fish

andother

aquaticproducts)

0.50.6

0.40.5

0.20.3

0.50.7

0.60.8

Re

gio

ns~

NA

WE

EE

OE

CD

-PFS

U

Fo

od

gro

up

s.l.

19611989

19611989

19611989

19611989

19611989

C1

allcereals20.4

23.133.6

30.548.0

37.854.5

39.349.3

37.2C

11cereals

exc.rice

19.521.3

32.629.2

47.236.9

15.918.7

49.135.1

C12

rice0.9

1.81.0

1.30.8

0.938.6

20.60.2

2.1C

2roots

&tubers

3.02.7

5.94.2

6.43.9

5.62.8

7.95.3

C3

pulses1.1

0.61.3

1.20.9

0.91.3

0.71.0

0.5C

4vegetable

oilsa

8.515.3

8.49.1

3.97.5

3.012.3

3.68.0

C5

sugarcrops

16.615.8

10.310.6

8.811.9

8.111.5

10.013.6

C6-7

vegetables,fruit

b10.5

9.012.4

13.97.4

7.412.7

10.06.8

6.9

A1-A

3anim

alproducts39.9

33.528.1

30.524.6

30.614.8

23.421.4

28.5(A

3,fish

andother

aquaticproducts)

0.70.9

0.91.5

0.40.6

3.96.6

1.02.2

17

aF

or1961,

vegetableoils

includeoils

fromtrees;

in1989

theseare

placedin

C7

with

othertree

crops.T

heresulting

errorsare

small.

bV

egetables(C

6)plus

orchardfruit,

nuts&

otherperennialcrops

(C7).

Several

major

trendsand

regionaldifferences

indiet

structuresare

worth

noting,as

follows.

•C

erealshave

lostground

inall

thedeveloped

regionsexcept

North

Am

erica.F

orthe

fiveM

DC

regionsthe

dietarycontribution

fromcereals

fellfrom

35%to

28%during

1961-89.T

helargest

fall,in

DE

CD

-Pacific,w

asdue

mostly

tothe

substitutiono

frice

inJapanese

dietsby

animal

productsand

highervalue

vegetablefoods.

As

discussedin

Chapter

1,these

trendsdo

much

toexplain

therecent

declineof

percapita

globalcereal

production,a

trendw

hichhas

prompted

direw

arningsthat

globalfood

productionis

losingthe

raceagainst

populationgrow

th.•

Inless

developedregions

cerealshave

roughlym

aintainedtheir

dietaryshare

orincreased

it(notably

inthe

Middle

East

andC

hina+).In

theL

DC

regionscom

binedthe

contributionfrom

cerealsrose

slightlyfrom

59%to

61%

during1961-89.

For

thew

orld,there

was

asm

allchange

from53%

to55%

.•

The

greatim

portanceo

frice

inC

hina+,S

&S

EA

siaand

GE

CD

Pacific(through

itsinclusion

of

Japan)is

striking.H

owever,

aggregationhas

masked

some

major

counter-trends.In

them

osteconom

icallysuccessful

Asian

countriesthe

contributionof

riceto

thediet

hasfallen

heavilyand

steadily.A

ssuggested

bythe

datafor

DE

CD

Pacificin

Table

2.3,in

Japanthe

shareof

ricein

totalcalor,ies

almost

halvedfrom

45%in

theearly

1960sto

24%in

1989.E

quivalentchanges

were

52%to

37%in

South

Korea

and48%

to32%

inM

alaysia.In

all

18G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stCentury

threecountries

totalper

capitacalorie

intakesrose

considerablyas

riceintakes

declined.•

Roots

andtubers

were

major

dietaryitem

sin

1961in

Africa

andC

hina+,but

inthe

latterregion

theshare

hadby

1989fallen

3-foldto

under6%

.The

highshare

hasbeen

maintained

inA

frica,partly

becausehigh

yieldsm

akethese

cropsa

gooddefence

againsthunger.

The

FA

Dexpects

thisshare

todecline

inthe

futureas

Africa

becomes

more

urbanisedand

rootsare

replacedby

highervalue

cropsw

hichare

easierto

transportand

store.R

ootshave

beenfairly

important

inthe

European

regionsand

Latin

Am

erica,but

theshares

havedeclined

substantially.•

Vegetable

oilshave

increasedtheir

sharesin

allthe

regions,butespecially

inthe

MD

Cs

(where

shareshave

rougWy

doubledin

fourofthe

fiveregions)

andL

atinA

merica.

Vegetable

oilsare

likelyto

increasetheir

sharesin

otherL

DC

regionsas

incomes

rise.•

Sugar

isa

major

parto

fdiets

inall

MD

Cregions

andL

atinA

merica,

andits

sharehas

beenrising

inm

ostother

regions.S

ugaris

alsoa

dietaryindicator

ofaffluence,

butits

highshares

inthe

MD

Cregions

may

declinein

futurefor

healthreasons.

InN

orthA

merica,

forexam

ple,the

contributiono

fsugarto

totaldietary

caloriespeaked

at17.6%

in1973

andhas

fallenabout

two

percentagepoints

since.

2.1.1P

rimary

Crop

Equivalents

Tw

ofurther

stepscom

pletethe

calculationchain

forhum

anfood

consumption.

The

firstis

toconvert

caloriesof

secondaryor

processedfood

productsinto

primary

cropequivalents,

anecessary

stepin

orderto

usethe

complete

Agrostat

databasein

aconsistent

manner.

The

Agrostat

Food

Balance/utilisation

accountsprovide

sufficientdatato

convertthem

ainproducts

thatm

atter;nam

ely,sugar

intothe

equivalenttonnage

of

sugarcrops

(includingseparation

of

thelatter

intouse

forhum

anfood,

biofuelsand

otherindustrial

uses),vegetable

oilsinto

oilcrops,

andsecondary

cerealfoods

intoprim

arycereal

crops.T

hesecond

stepis

simply

toconvert

percapita

foodconsum

ptionfrom

caloriesto

weight

units.T

hisis

easilydone

asA

grostatgives

percapita

consumption

ofeach

dietaryitem

bothas

dailycalories

andannual

kilograms,

allowing

calculationo

fa

calorieper

kgconversion

factoror

foo

dproperty

foreach

productgroup

andregion.

This

factoris

heldconstant

inall

projections,thereby

implicitly

assuming

nochange

inthe

mix

offood

items

making

upeach

productgroup.T

heannual

consumption

of

human

foo

dfor

eachregion

andproduct

group,as

millions

oftons

(Mt)

ofprim

arycrops,can

nowbe

calculatedas

follows:

human

food(M

t) =population

(M)

xT

otcal(kcal/person/day,

primary

cropequivalent)

xdiet

structure(fractional

share)-;-

[foodproperty

(kcalper

kg)x

0.365(conversion

ofM

kgper

dayto

Mt

peryear)].

2.1.2H

um

an

Diets:

ScenarioP

rojectionsH

oww

illthese

dietarypatterns

changein

thefuture?

The

scenarioprojections

presentedbelow

arebased

onthree

main

considerations.First,

asaverage

incomes

growm

orepeople

will

beable

tobuy

theirw

ayout

ofhunger

orother

forms

ofnutritional

deprivationinto

satisfyingtheir

foodneeds.

How

ever,even

forthe

most

affluentthere

arelim

itsto

individualfood

consumption.

Consequently,

Totcal

andA

nfracare

likelyto

increasew

herethey

arenow

lowbut

might

notincrease,

orm

ightdecline,

where

theyare

nowhigh.

Second,

long-standingcultural

values

Leach

19

basedin

parton

agriculturaland

climatic

conditionsw

illprevent

veryrapid

changesin

dietarystructures,

andto

some

extentin

totalper

capitacalorie

intakes.T

hird,it

isassum

edthat

asincom

esgrow

andurbanisation

spreadsin

aC

onventionalD

evelopment

future,there

will

besom

econvergence

of

dietarypatterns

roughlytow

ardsthose

ofpresent-day

Europe.

This

convergenceis

unlikelyto

becom

pletew

ithinthe

forecastperiod

becauseo

fthe

continuedincom

egap

between

theL

DC

sand

MD

Cs

andcontinuing

culturaldifferences.

More

formal

projectionm

ethods,such

asthe

useof

income

elasticitiesbased

onhistoric

data,w

ererejected

becausethey

producedm

anygross

anomalies,

suchas

Totcal

valuesfor

some

LD

Ccountries

of

over10,000

kcal/capita/dayin

2050.T

heseanom

aliesw

ouldhave

neededadjustm

entusing

thesam

ekinds

of

judgement

ashave

beenused

hereto

make

theprojections.

The

assumptions

forT

otcalsand

Anfrac

areoutlined

inT

able2.4.

Abetter

appreciationo

fhow

theprojected

valuesrelate

topast

trends,and

howpresent

regionaldifferences

arereduced

asvalues

converge,can

begained

fromFigures

2.3and

2.4,w

hichshow

Totcals

andA

nfracplotted

againstyear,

from1961

to2050,

andF

igures2.5

and2.6

which

show1989

andprojected

valuesplotted

againstper

capitaG

DP.

Table

2.4.H

uman

die

tary

variables(T

otcal,A

nfra

c):1989,2025,2050.

Totcals

An

frac

an

nu

al

Re

gio

n(kca

lfcap

itald

ay)

%ch

an

ge

(%ca

lorie

sfro

ma

nim

alp

rod

ucts)

19

89

20252050

1989-20501989

20252050

Africa

2,3512,650

2,8000.29

7.410

13Latin

Am

erica2,729

2,9203,000

0.1617.3

2022

Middle

East

2,8693,050

3,1000.12

10.315

18

China+

2,6182,900

3,0000.22

10.518

21

S&

SE

Asia

2,3072,700

2,8500.35

7.213

16

NA

merica

3,6413,600

3,500-0.06

33.531

30

WE

urope3,426

3,4503,400

030.5

3130

EE

urope3,450

3,4503,400

030.6

3130

OE

CD

Pacific

2,9713,250

3,3000.17

23.42

728

Form

erU

SS

R3,372

3,4003,400

028.5

3030

LDC

s2,477

2,7802,900

0.269.7

14.517.1

MD

Cs

3,4103,450

3,4120

30.030.4

29.8

World

2,7032,894

2,9720.16

15.917.7

19.2

With

totalcalories,

theslow

historicalincreases

inthe

MD

Cregions

(otherthan

GE

CD

Pacific)are

assumed

tosignal

near-saturationconditions.

Projected

intakesrem

ainclose

tothe

presentlevel,

butdecline

inN

orthA

merica,

sothat

allfour

regionsfall

within

the3,400

to3,500

kcal/capita/dayband

in2050.

The

more

rapidincrease

inG

EC

D-Pacific

slows

untilintakes

reach3,300

kcal/capita/dayin

thesam

eyear.

With

theL

DC

regions,tw

okey

assumptions

arethat

Africa

returnsto

its1961-89

growth

rateafter

theslow

-down

of

the1980s,

assuggested

bythe

scenario'sm

acro-economic

assumptions,

andthat

following

thevery

rapidincreases

of

the1960s

and1970s

therecentsharp

slowing

of

growth

inC

hina+and

theM

iddleE

astsets

thetrend

forthe

coming

decades.In

2050,per

capitadaily

calorieintake

inthe

LD

Cs

rangesfrom

2,800(A

frica)to

3,100(M

iddleE

ast).

20G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stC

entury

4000

---

3500iiio~en,!!!

3000oiiio.l!!'Q

.coo

2500Q;C

o

~'iijC

2000

_.~&.,=...~..~_~r_,

._._~_._.___

::~

.....-;._w

/_._.A-.---·_·_·_·_-~

..

._0.

---..r

A.:-r;:-":':-.:.:-.:.:-.:.~~._

._,

_._.-.O

r-._,_

,-'-'-

'-'-·A

~:....'...

.........-....:?

j(I--......--

/'.

-N

A---W

E

-')<-'E

E

-+-'O

EC

D-P

-"-F

SU

--S

SE

A

-*-C

HIN

A+

-""M

E

--L

A

--A

FR

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

1500+

---+

---+

----l----j----j----+

----+

----j------i

1960

Fig

ure

2.3.T

otcalag

ain

styear:pasttre

nd

sand

pro

jectio

ns

to2050.

Note

non-zeroorigin

ofvertical

scale.

-N

A---W

E_.)<

-.E

E

-+-'O

EC

D-P

-"-F

SU

--S

SE

A-*-

CH

INA

+-

...·ME

--L

A--A

FR

.-+.-

.-.-

+_

._._

._.­

.-.-.-.-

_.--~--...-_.

.........-......-----

/'....-----------------:-=-.::-:.:-=

----->

<•

.......--..-----....-...._----

--><--

•-'

_....

:~-.--....~.-A

_-~.::-::.----.:~:.=~:.~~~._.Ir-.-._.-.-.-.-"",-,.,-·r

-.Jt/i":::'-/'

_x

::,;-:-;-~

/'>< .....

--.-,/}.:::~.::..,..._--------------_._-..

'./'

X

40

'03

5E'E~!!

300:::J

"C0Q.25

iiiE'"20

coE.gen15

,!!!0iii0i:10

III0Q;0

-5

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

O+

----f----+

----+

----+

----+

----+

----\----\------i

1960

Fig

ure

2.4.A

nfra

ca

ga

instyear:

pa

sttren

ds

andp

roje

ction

sto

2050.

3800

3600

iii3400

u'0t:.3200

UI

G>.~

3000iiiuS0c.

2800IIIuQ;

2600c.~'OJ0

2400

2200

2000100

.."

Leach

EEl:ll-----B

B.......

-FS

U

SS

EA

1000

ME

10000100000

21

Pe

rca

pita

GO

P(U

S$

1990)

Fig

ure

2.5.T

atca

/ag

ain

stpe

rcapita

GO

P:1989

andp

roje

ction

sto

2050.N

otenon-zero

originofverticalscale.

An

frac

ag

ain

stper

capitaG

OP

:1989

andp

roje

ction

sto

2050.

35

0-f!30

'ES-UI

<;25

:::J"Cl:!c

.iii

20E'2III

E15

,gUI

oil!(;10

iiiuCG>U5

Q;n.

0100

Fig

ure

2.6.

CH

INA

+

AFR

1000

EE

~~~~

SS

EA

/

10000

Pe

rca

pita

GO

P(U

S$

1990)

100000

22G

lobalLand

an

dF

oodin

the21

stCentury

Due

tothese

changes,the

LD

Cs

asa

whole

catchup

considerablyin

absoluteterm

sw

iththe

nutritionallevels

ofthe

MD

Cs.

Whereas

theratio

of

LD

Cto

MD

Cper

capitacalories

was

0.73in

1989,itclosesto

0.81in

2025and

0.85in

2050.In

otherw

ords,the

LD

Cshare

ofthe

globalcalorie

intakerises

fromnearly

70%in

1989to

84%in

2050.O

fcrucial

importance

tothe

entirescenario

andits

results,are

futuregrow

thrates

of

nutritionalstandards,

which

evenin

theincreasingly

well-fed

LD

Cs,

arem

uchlow

erthan

inthe

past.T

hisslow

-down

doesm

uchto

temper

thefuture

increasein

foodrequirem

entsdue

topopulation

growth.

For

example,

thehighest

projectedgrow

thrate

forper

capitacalories

-0.35%

peryear

inS

&S

EA

siaduring

1989-2050-

isonly

slightlym

orethan

halfthe

rateo

f0.63%

peryear

during1961-89.F

orthe

LD

Cs

asa

whole,

theprojected

1989-2050annual

growth

rateo

f0.26%

isjust

overone-quarter

thehistoric

rateof

0.97%per

year.A

tthe

same

time,

thegrow

thof

percapita

calorieintake

inthe

MD

Cs

more

orless

ceases.W

iththe

animal

caloriefraction

(Anfrac)

thebroad

assumption

forthe

MD

Cs

isthat

healthconcerns

preventacontinued

increasein

consumption

of

meat

anddairy

products,but

notto

theextent

ofa

major

declineand

shiftto

vegetariandiets.

Consequently,

theassum

ptionsare

broadlyin

linew

iththose

fortotal

calories.T

hem

ajorexception

isthe

much

greaterdecline

fromthe

presentlevel

inN

orthA

merica,

where

thefalling

trendof

the1960s

to1980s

continues,though

ata

slower

pace.A

nfracconverges

to30%

inall

theregions

exceptfor

DE

CD

-Pacific,w

hichcatches

upfrom

presentlym

uchlow

erlevels

to28%

in2050.

Am

ongstthe

LD

Cs,

theassum

ptionsare

alsoquite

similar

tothose

fortotal

calories.T

hegradual

declinein

Africa

andthe

recentsharper

fall-offin

theM

iddleE

astare

assumed

toreverse,

while

thevery

rapidincrease

inC

hina+abates

somew

hat.A

sa

result,A

nfra

cincreases

inall

LD

Cregions,

risingtow

ardsbut

remaining

well

belowthe

levelofthe

MD

Cregions,

while

maintaining

thefairly

wide

spreadfound

today.T

heratio

forall

LD

Cs

compared

toM

DC

increasesfrom

0.32in

1989to

0.48in

2025and

0.57in

2050.S

ome

major

changesare

alsoprojected

fordietstructures.

Inthe

LD

Cs

theshare

of

vegetableproducts

combined

hasto

declinesince

animal

productsare

assumed

toincrease.

This

shiftisaccounted

form

ostlyby

reductionsin

cereals(plus

rootsin

Africa),broadly

reflectingw

hatcan

beseen

todayin

them

oreaffluent

countriesin

theregions.

There

arealso

increasesin

highervalue

foodssuch

asvegetable

oils,vegetables,

sugarand

fruit.In

theM

DC

sthe

substitutiono

fcereals

byanim

alproducts

isreversed.

InN

orthA

merica

andW

esternE

uropecereal

consumption

expandsas

meat

andm

ilk.consum

ptiondecline,

butin

theother

threeregions

cerealscontinue

todecline

fromthe

highlevels

of

thepast

fewdecades,

while

vegetablesand

fruitincrease.

The

historictrends

andprojections

forthe

dietaryshares

of

wheat

andcoarse

grains,rice,

roots,oil

cropsand

sugarare

shown

foreach

regionin

Figures

2.7(a)

-(d).

Leach

23

""'-Wh

ea

t+C

rsegrns

.........Rice

"""*-Roots

--lIE-S

ug

ar

""'-Oils

AF

RIC

A

0.45

0.40

0.35Q

l

'"S.=0.30

.!!!0iii0.25

0~0.20

(;c.20.15

(;~u.

0.10

2••

~0.05

&

0.00+

---t---+

----+

----+

---t----il----+

--+

---t

19601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

LAT

INA

ME

RIC

A0.35

0.30

Ql

'"0.25

co];Ql

.~

0.20.....-W

heat+C

rsegrns

iii0.........R

ice]j

llie.s

,.'"

"""*-Roots

(;0.15

c--lIE

-Su

ga

r.2

--Oils

(;

:~

0.10~:

u.

0.05

0.00-I---+

---t----I---+

----I---+

-----iI----+

------1

19601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

Fig

ure

2.7

(a).D

ietsh

ares:cereals,

roo

ts,su

gar,

oil

crop

s:1961

-2050.

24G

lobalLa

nd

an

dF

oodin

the21

stC

entUlY

MID

DL

EE

AS

T0.50

0.45

0.40Q

)

-"ll!0.35

.=.!!!50.30

iiiuiii0.25

§a0.20

c0~0.15

~11.

0.10

~e>

0.05

::

......Wheat+

Crse

grns

........Rice

""*""R

oots

--'-Su

ga

r

"'-Oils

0.00~~~~~~~===t===:::::t=====t=~==t====+==~

19601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

CH

INA

+0.45

0.40

0.35Q

)

-"'"~0.30

.!!!5iii0.25

uSB0.20

ac.S!U0.15

'"Ii:0.10

......Wheat+

Crse

grns

........Rice

""*""R

oots

-+-S

ug

ar

----Oils

0.05t;;~;~;~;-r~;~~~:======~~~===:0.001960

19701980

19902000

20102020

20302040

2050

Fig

ure

2.7

(b).

Diet

shares:

cereals,ro

ots,

sug

ar,oil

crop

s:1961

-2050.

Leach

SO

UT

H&

SO

UT

HE

AS

TA

SIA

25

---Wh

ea

t+

Crse

grns

-+-R

ice

-><

--Roots

--ll-Sugar

---Oils

0.0

0+

----+

---+

-----t---+

---I---1

---t-----+

----j

19

60

19

70

19801990

20

00

20102020

20

30

20

40

20

50

NO

RT

HA

ME

RIC

A

0.2

5

0.20Q

).><'":5.S!5

0.1

5iiiuiii§15

0.1

0l:

.9'0Eu.

---Wh

ea

t+C

rsegrns

-+-R

ice

-><

--Ro

ots

--ll-Sugar

---Oils

0.0

5

0.0

0+

------tl---+

---+

---+

-----t---I---+

---I---I

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20002

01

02020

20

30

20402

05

0

Fig

ure

2.7

(c).D

ietsh

ares:cereals,

roo

ts,su

gar,

oilcro

ps:

1961-

2050.

26G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21st

Century

WE

ST

ER

NE

UR

OP

E

"'-Wh

ea

t+

Crse

grns

-+-R

ice

--..-R

oots

----S

ugar

---Oils

:

0.35

0.30

'" .><0.25

.l!!.5.!!!(;0.20

i;jui;j

Ii00.15

<:.S!Uf!

0.10u..

~0.05~

~~==:=====:.===:.

J",,'

""

""

tt,

nt'

3,,"

0.0019601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

Fig

ure

2.7

(d).

Diet

shares:

cereals,ro

ots,

sug

ar,oil

crop

s:1961

-2050.

Leach

27

OE

CD

PA

CIF

IC

0.10

0.25

0.15

----Wh

ea

l+C

rsegrns

-'-Ric

e

---Ro

ols

--Su

ga

r

--+-O

ils

•

0.20

0.40

0.35

~0.30

..~.!!!(;iiju]jS'0c:.9U~LL

0.05~.~~'"M~l"'''"l~''~ftl&e..,~,;-------------+<H;--------_H

0.004

----1

I----+

---+

--+

---+

---I---+

---+

-----l

19601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

FO

RM

ER

SO

VIE

TU

NIO

N0.50

0.45

0.40

~..0.35

];.!!!(;0.30

----W

heal+C

rsegrns

iij-'-R

ice

uiij0.25

!l---R

oo

ls

'00.20

--Su

ga

rc:.9

--+-O

ilsU

0.15~LL

0.10

::

0.05;::>lA~

0.00J.w~~~~~==:==;:::==:;:::::=:::;:::::=~~1960

19701980

19902000

20102020

20302040

2050

Fig

ure

2.7

(e).D

ietsh

ares:cereals,

roo

ts,su

gar,

oil

crop

s:1961

-2050.

28G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stC

entury

2.2A

nimalF

eedT

henum

bersand

mass

of

theE

arth'sfarm

anddom

esticanim

alsare

ofthe

same

ordero

fm

agnitudeas

forhum

ans:around

1.4billion

cattleand

buffalo,2.6

billionsheep,

goatsand

pigs,137

million

equinesand

camels

and11.2

billionbirds,

accordingto

FAO

statisticsfor

1989.T

hisvast

populationconsum

esprodigious

amounts

of

foodw

hichcould

feedpeople

directly,and

evenm

orebiom

assresources

which

donot

compete

with

human

nutritionalneeds,

notablygrass

andcellulosic

cropresidues.

In1989

thew

orld'sfarm

animals

consumed

some

627m

illiontons

of

cerealgrains,

145m

illiontons

ofroot

crops,112

million

tonsof

milk

and30

million

tonso

ffishproducts.T

hesequantities

amounted

to70%

,45%

,28%

and42%

respectivelyo

fthose

consumed

directlyby

humans.

Inthe

MD

Cs

theequivalent

proportionsw

ereas

highas

276%,

77%,

38%and

52%,

respectively.S

ome

3.3billion

hectares-

aquarter

of

thew

orld'sland

surface-

aredesignated

asgrazing

land(FA

O'perm

anentpasture'),

anarea

more

thantw

icethat

of

thew

orld'scroplands

(1.48billion

hectaresin

1989).T

heseresource

demands

arebound

togrow

asm

oreo

fthe

world's

peopleturn

todiets

richerin

meat

andm

ilk,even

ifthere

arecountervailing

vegetariantrends

inm

oreaffluent

regionsand

sectionso

fsociety.A

nyland-food

model

must

obviouslyattem

ptto

accountfor

thissector

andits

resourceneeds.

Unfortunately,

thisis

difficultto

dobecause

of

thelarge

varietyof

possibleanim

alfeedstuffs

anddata

weaknesses

aboutthem

inm

ostcountries.

Ifone

considersthe

beeform

ilkcattle

herdin

atypical

developingcountry,

thereis

alarge

rangeo

fproduction

techniquesfrom

full-time

roughgrazing

throughvarious

mixes

of

roughgrazing

andstall-feeding

(oftena

responseto

risingincom

e,w

hichm

akeslabour-intensive

herdingincreasingly

uneconomic)

tofull-tim

estall-feeding.

Consequently,

thefeed

inputsto

thenational

herdcan

includeany

of

thefollow

ing:(1)

grassfrom

"unmanaged"

roughgrazing

lands;(2)

grassor

foragecrops

suchas

hayand

silagefrom

managed

"farm"

pastures;(3)

grazedor

cut-and-carriedleaf

foragefrom

woodlands

orfarm

trees;(4)

grazedor

cut-and-carriedcrop

residueso

fm

anykinds;

(5)vegetable

cropsw

hichare

grown

especiallyfor

animal

feed;(6)

foodproducts

suchas

grain,roots

andfish

which

arediverted

orprocessed

from,

orrecovered

fromw

astesin,

human

foodproduction

streams;

and(7

)som

eo

fthe

productsfrom

theherd

itself(e.g.m

ilkfor

calffeeding).U

nderstandably,there

arefew

ifany

reliablestatistics

onthe

firstand

major

item,

suchas

areasactually

usedfor

grazing,grass

productivityon

theseareas,

orthe

amount

of

grassactually

eatenby

thegrazing

herds.T

hesam

esevere

dataproblem

sapply

toother

major

feedsources,

notablycrop

residues.A

sa

consequence,the

onlystatistics

relatedto

thesequestions

which

areincluded

inF

AO

'sA

grostatdata

baseare

grossland

areaso

frough

grazing(item

1)and

detailedestim

ateso

fcrop

andanim

alproducts

usedas

animal

feedstuffs(item

s6

and7).

The

approachadopted

herefollow

sthat

usedby

FA

Oin

itsA

T2000

andA

T2010

studies(FA

O,

1993).O

nlythe

lasttwo

items

inthe

listabove(item

s6

and7)

areconsidered

asanim

alfeed

inputs.B

yim

plication,other

inputssuch

asrough

grazingand

cropresidues,

with

relativelypoor

feedcharacteristics,

areregarded

as"free

goods".S

olong

asthey

areavailable

theyw

illbe

usedto

feedanim

alherds.

Higher

valueand

more

nutritiousfeeds

derivedfrom

crops(or

animal

products)w

illbe

usedincreasingly

tosupplem

entthis

basicdiet

aspart

of

well-established

strategiesto

increaseanim

alproductivity

andreduce

netproduction

costs.

Leach

29

We

thereforedefine

agross

feedproduction

ratio(FPR

)w

hichm

easuresfor

eachregion

thequantity

ofallfood

products(com

modity

groupsC

l-C7

plusA

1­A

3)w

hichare

fedto

animals

dividedby

thequantity

of

foodproduced

byanim

als(groups

Al

andA

2).2A

lsoneeded

areestim

ateso

fthe

structureo

fanim

alfeed

interm

so

fshares

of

totalfeed

providedby

eachcom

modity

group.Q

uantitieso

fanim

alfeedfor

eachregion

andproduct

group,as

millions

of

tonso

fprimary

crops,can

nowbe

calculatedas

follows:

animal

feed=

productiono

ffoodgroups

Al+

A2

(Mt)

xfeed

productionratio

(ton/ton)x

feedstructure

(fractionalshare).

The

product ofthe

firsttw

oterm

sgives

totalanim

alfeed

requirement

(Mt).

Before

we

lookat

actualand

projectedratios

itis

worth

consideringbriefly

them

ajorinfluences

onthe

FP

Rvalue.

First,the

FP

Robviously

dependscritically

onthe

degreeto

which

animals

arefed

with

"prepared"cereal

andother

cropfeeds,

asopposed

tofeeding

themselves

ongrass

andcrop

residues,etc.

Ifa

herdsurvives

entirelyby

grazingits

FP

Rw

illof

coursebe

zero.S

econd,even

with

zerograzing

theF

PR

canvary

widely

owing

tothe

largevariability

inthe

efficiencyw

ithw

hichfarm

animals

converttheir

feedinto

productssuch

asm

eat,fat,

milk

andeggs.

Quantity

andquality

of

feed,age

of

slaughter,anim

albreed,

ambient

temperature,

exerciseand,

notleast,

thesize

of

thetotal

breedingherd

which

must

bem

aintainedcom

paredto

thenum

berof

productiveanim

als,are

amongst

them

anyfactors

which

determine

overallefficiency

(McD

onaldet

aI.,1973;

Cram

pton&

Harris,

1969).E

stimates

forthe

"whole

herd"energy

efficiency(edible

foodoutput/feed

energyinput

forw

holefarm

systems)

inindustrialised

countriesw

ithtem

perateclim

atesand

relativelygood

qualitystock

centreon

20-35%for

milk

(with

highervalues

forhigher

productionper

animal),

18%for

pork,12-16%

forpoultry

meat

andeggs

and6%

forbeef(B

alch&

Reid,

1976).If

we

make

theextrem

eassum

ptionthat

animals

arefed

onlyon

cerealgrains

(i.e.w

ithno

grazingor

feedingw

ithcrop

residues,etc.)

ona

weight/w

eightbasis

theF

PR

would

beabout

12for

beef,4-5for

pork,poultry

andeggs,

and0.7

to1.2

form

ilk.T

hisexercise

shows

thatthe

mix

ofitem

sin

totalanim

alproduction,

especiallythe

shareo

fm

ilkand

itsproducts,

hasa

major

influenceon

theF

PR

alongsidethe

largedifferences

infeeding

practices.In

1989this

mix

variedw

idely.T

he"m

ilkfraction",

orratio

A2/(A

1+A

2),ranged

fromover

80%in

S&

SE

Asia

andthe

Form

erU

SS

R,

to77-79%

inE

urope,and

65-68%in

allother

regionsexcept

China+

where

theratio

was

only16%

.A

llthese

influenceslie

behindthe

largeregional

differencesin

thecurrent

valuesand

historictrends

ofthe

feedproduction

ratio,show

nin

Figure

2.8.C

onsideringthe

LD

Cs,

Africa

andS

&S

EA

siahave

maintained

arem

arkablysteady

ratioof

below0.5,

probablydue

bothto

thehigh

proportiono

fgrazing

and/ordependence

oncrop

residuefeedstuffs

andalso,

forS

&S

EA

sia,the

dominance

ofm

ilkin

totalanim

alproduction.

Inthe

Middle

Eastthe

FP

Rw

asalso

aslow

as0.5

in1961

buthas

risensteadily

sincethen

toabout

1.5,or

roughlythe

valuew

hichL

atin

2Initially

thisratio

was

definedin

caloricterm

sw

ithlater

conversionto

mass

usingthe

foodproperty

valuesin

caloriesper

kg.H

owever,

comparisons

of

historicregional

trendsshow

edthat

nothingw

ouldbe

lostif

theF

PR

was

definedinstead

asa

mass

ratio(tons

ofanim

alfeed

perton

of

AI+

A2

produced).

30G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21st

Century

Am

ericam

aintainedthroughout

theperiod.

The

erraticbehaviour

ofthe

FP

Rin

China+

may

bedue

inpart

todata

problems.

Inthe

MD

Cs

theF

PR

valuesnow

rangefrom

closeto

1.0in

Western

Europe

andG

EC

DPacific

to1.8

inE

asternE

uropebut

havein

allcasesbeen

fairlysteady

sincearound

1980.T

hefairly

stablehistoric

trendsin

allregionsexcept

China+

givessom

econfidence

inthe

useo

fthe

FP

Ras

aproxy

forall

animalfeed

inputs,andin

projectionsbased

onthese

historictrends.4.5

4.0

3.5"2~

3.0g.2..

2.50::c0~

2.0:l"CeD

.1.5

"Calu.

1.0

0.5~<-*-*----

~"",*=.::;~-+....-.-........

-.

:=

..;~_..·t·~·

rr..

..

-+-.

AF

R

--'-

LA

-M

E

-CH

INA

+

--S

SE

A

19901985

19801975

19701965

0.0+

-----t-----t-----+

-----+

----+

-----i

1960

2.5

2.0

"2~g-+

--NA

.21.5

..--'-W

E0::c

-E

E.2U

--OE

CD

-P:l"C

1.0-F

SU

eD.

"Calu.

0.5

19901985

19801975

19701965

0.0+

-----t-----t-----+

-----+

----+

-----i

1960

Fig

ure

2.8.F

eedp

rod

uctio

nratio:

1961-1989.

Leach

31

2.2.1A

nimalF

eed:Scenario

Projections

Historic

valuesand

projectionso

fthe

feedproduction

ratioare

shown

inT

able2.5

andF

igure2.9.

Inm

ostregions

thechanges

from1989

valuesare

quitesm

allbecause

of

thestability

of

thehistoric

trends.In

theother

cases-

notablythe

Middle

East,

China+

,E

asternE

uropeand

OE

CD

Pacific,

theprojections

takenote

of

historictrends

butalso

assume

convergencetow

ardsa

narrower

rangeo

fvalues

in2050

thantoday.

The

mix

of

feedstuffsw

ithinthe

totalfeed

input(feed

structure)is

maintained

atthe

1989values

throughoutthe

scenarioperiod,

with

onem

inorexception.

The

shareo

ffish

products(A

3)is

steadilyreduced

onthe

groundsthat

fishw

illincreasingly

bereserved

fordirect

human

consumption

asglobal

demand

pressesagainst

relativelylim

itedfishery

resources(see

Chapter

3).T

ocom

pensate,the

shareo

fnon-rice

cereals(C

ll)is

increasedslightly.

Am

orethorough

analysiso

fF

PR

valuesby

countryand

inrelation

tokey

variablessuch

asthe

mix

of

animal

production(e.g.

meat

versusm

ilk),crop

production,and

grazingarea

compared

toherd

sizem

ightreduce

theuncertainties

surroundingthese

projectedvalues.

Table

2.5.A

nim

alfeed

pro

du

ction

ratio(F

PR

):1961

-2050.

Region

19611989

20252050

Africa

0.440.61

0.80.9

LatinA

merica

1.441.33

1.41.4

Middle

East

0.561.44

1.91.9

Cent

Plan

Asia

2.492.82

2.01.8

S&

SE

Asia

0.390.46

0.550.6

NA

merica

1.391.44

1.51.5

WE

urope1.09

1.021.0

1.0

EE

urope2.03

1.841.5

1.3

GE

CD

Pacific

0.820.96

1.21.3

Form

erU

SS

R0.92

1.621.5

1.4

2.3O

ther

Food

Consum

ption

2.3.1Industrial

Uses

andL

ossesS

ome

cropand

animal

productsare

recordedin

FA

OA

grostatas

beingused

byindustry

asfeedstocks

of

variouskinds.

Generally

thequantity

of

theseother

usesis

smallcom

paredto

human

foodand

animal

feed,although

thereare

some

notableexceptions.

The

most

significanto

fthese

in1989

was

theconversion

inL

atinA

merica

(i.e.m

ostlyB

razil)o

f171

million

tonso

fsugar

cane(44%

of

totalproduction)

toalcohol

transportfuels.

Other

notableexam

plesw

ereN

orthA

merica,

where

7.5%o

fthe

wheat

pluscoarse

graincrop

was

usedby

industry,and

Western

Europe,

where

11%

of

thesugar

cropand

13%o

fall

treecrops

(C7)

were

soused.

The

PoleS

taraccounting

framew

orkallow

sthese

usesto

beprojected

without

referenceto

human

foodand

animal

feed,especially

bio-fuels.In

thelatter

case,tonnage

requirements

arefed

tothe

agriculturaland

landaccounts

fromassum

ptionsm

adein

theenergy

accounts.H

owever,

inthe

scenariospresented

here,these

industrialuses

aretreated

asby-products

inw

hichconsum

ptionm

aintainsthe

same

relationshipto

human

foodplus

animal

feedproduction

asin

the1989

baselineyear;

with

theexception

thatbiofuels

inL

atin

32G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

Am

ericaare

heldconstant.

These

assumptions

canbe

changedIn

laterscenario

development.

-+-.

AFR

-L

A

-M

E

---CH

INA

+

--S

SE

A

_.-

.---

0.5f......~

--~:::::::=~

-.-.4>

------_.

4.5

4.0

3.5"2~

3.00~.9iO

2.5II:c0~

2.0::J"t:lea.

1.5"t:l

3lu.

1.0

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

o.o

.j-

--+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---l

1960

2.5

2.0

"2~o~.91.5

iOII:c.9U::J

e1.0

a."t:l

~

-+-.

NA

-W

E

-E

E

--OE

CD

·P

-+-F

SU

0.5

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

0.0+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---t---l

1960

Fig

ure

2.9.F

eedp

rod

uctio

nratio

:1961

-2050.

Leach

33

2.3.2Seafood

Fish

andother

aquaticproducts

playa

verysm

allpart

inthe

dietso

fall

regionsexcept

OE

CD

Pacific

(which

includesJapan).In

1989they

contributedonly

1%to

globaldietary

calories.H

owever,

theyare

important

sourceso

fprotein

andfats

insom

ecultures

andtheir

contributionto

human

dietshas

risenin

everyregion

(seeT

able2.3).

About

one-thirdo

fthe

globalfish

catchis

fedto

animals

orotherw

iselost

tohum

anconsum

ption.T

hescenario

assumes

thatfuture

demand

will

be

limited

byproblem

so

ffishery

supplies.T

hecontribution

of

seafoodsto

thehum

andiet

declinesso

thatduring

1989-2050global

consumption

asfood

increasesby

only44%

,from

73M

tto

105M

t.T

heuse

of

fishfor

animal

feedis

alsoconstrained

sothat

totaldem

andfor

fishand

otherseafoods

increasesby

only38%

duringthe

scenarioperiod,

from106

Mt

in1989

to146

Mt

in2050.

These

assumptions

arein

linew

ithw

idespreadfears

thatthe

presentw

orldcatch

of

marine

fishplus

shellfishm

aybe

closeto

thesustainable

limit.

This

catchhas

declinedslightly

froma

peako

f85

Mt

in1989

with

indicationso

fstress

or

declinein

major

fishingzones

(Brow

n,K

ane&

Roodm

an,1994).

Output

of

freshw

aterfish

hasgrow

nrapidly

inthe

same

periodto

reachabout

16M

t/yearin

1991,o

r16%

percento

ftotal

fishproduction.

The

projectedfish

demand

couldbe

met

byholding

marine

productionat

today'slevel

while

increasingproduction

fromother

sourcesat

one-thirdo

fthehistoric

rateo

fincrease.

2.4F

inalDem

andand

Required

SupplyT

hesum

of

human

food,anim

alfeed

andother

usesgives

thefinal

demand

(FD

)tonnage

foreach

region,year

andcrop

group.H

owever,

two

more

stepsm

ustbe

takenin

theconsum

ptionchain

beforew

ecan

seew

hatlevel

of

productionis

requiredfor

eachcom

modity.

The

firstis

toincorporate

thevarious

distributionand

processinglosses,

andseed

requirements

(plusstock

changesfor

thebaseline

year),w

hichare

estimated

inthe

FA

OA

grostatS

upplyA

ccountsand

Food

BalancefU

tilisationA

ccounts.T

hesem

ustbe

addedto

finaldem

andto

givea

requiredsupply

foreach

product.In

some

casesthe

combination

of

lossesand

seeduse

isvery

large:for

example,

in1989,

itam

ountedto

28%o

f[m

aldem

andfor

wheat

andcoarse

grain(C

11)in

theform

erS

ovietU

nion;46%

of

finaldem

andfor

ricein

North

Am

erica;and

42%o

f[m

aldem

andfor

rootsand

tubersin

Eastern

Europe.

Second,

thenet

tradeoutflow

of

products-

ornet

exports(exports

lessim

ports)-

must

beadded

torequired

supplyto

givean

estimate

of

thequantity

of

eachproductthat

mustbe

producedin

eachregion;

thatis,required

production.In

factthe

calculationprocedure

differsslightly

fromthis

descriptionbecause

itis

assumed

thatseed

useis

afunction

of

cropproduction,

noto

frequired

supply(production

minus

netexports).

The

firsto

ftw

ocalculation

stepshandles

lossesother

thanfor

seed,the

secondhandles

seeduse

andtrade

(alldata

inm

illiontons

oras

fractions):

34G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stCentury

1.required

supply(less

seeduse)=

finaldem

andx

(1+

WPFR

AC

)+stock

changeor:

RS

=F

Dx

(1+

WP

FR

AC

)+SC

where

WP

FR

AC

=distribution

plusprocess

lossesas

afraction

ofF

Dand

SC

isassum

edzero

inscenario

projections.

2.required

production=(required

supply+

netexports)/

(1-

SEE

DFR

AC

)or:

RP

=(R

S+

NE

)/

(1-

SE

ED

FR

AC

)w

hereS

EE

DF

RA

C=

usefor

seedas

afraction

ofproductionin

baselineyear

1989.

Required

supplym

easureshow

much

fooda

regionneeds

tohave

available.It

isw

orthlooking

athow

theseneeds

arem

adeup

fromits

components

-hum

anfood,

animal

feed,other

usesand

losses-

andthe

dramatic

differencesbetw

eenm

oreand

lessdeveloped

regionsin

thisrespect.

Som

eoutline

datafor

1989are

shown

inT

able2.6

andF

igure2.10.

Most

strikingly,average

totalneeds

inthe

MD

Cregions

(8,153kcal/cap/day)

were

2.5tim

esgreater

thanin

theL

DC

sw

ithan

averageo

f3,262

kcal/cap/day.P

uttingthis

anotherw

ay,w

hereasthe

ratioo

ftotalsupply

ofpotential

human

foodto

human

fooditself

was

1.32in

theL

DC

s,in

theM

DC

sit

was

2.39,m

ainlybecause

of

verym

uchgreater

levelso

fanim

alfeed

butalso

becauseof

largernon­

food("other")

usesand

processand

distributionlosses.

Because

ofthese

largedifferences,

thefull

adoptiono

ftoday's

MD

Csupply

levelsand

patternsby

theL

DC

sw

ouldput

more

verym

uchgreater

pressureson

globalfood

productionrequirem

entsthan

populationgrow

thalone.

Table

2.6.S

tructu

reo

frequiredsu

pp

ly(daily

pe

rcapitakcal):

1989.

Hu

ma

nA

nim

al

Oth

er

use

s&

To

tal

Re

gio

nfo

od

feedlo

sses

sup

ply

Africa

2,351190

43

32

,97

4Latin

Am

erica2

,72

91,015

86

34

,60

7

Middle

East

2,8

69

7805

26

4,1

75

China+

2,6

18

485386

3,4

89

S&

SE

Asia

2,3

07

118301

2,7

26

NA

merica

3,6414,376

1,5

17

9,5

36

WE

urope3

,42

62

,50

51

,08

87

,01

9

EE

urope3

,45

04

,50

21

,78

49

,73

6

OE

CO

Pacific

2,9711,379

57

74

,92

7

Form

erU

SS

R3

,37

24,451

1,8

90

9,7

13

LOC

s2

,47

7366

4193

,26

2

MO

Cs

3,4

10

33

83

1,3

60

8,1

53

Wo

rld2

,70

31

,09

7647

4,4

47

Oth

er

uses&

losses:other

(industrial)uses,

process&

distributionlosses,

seeduse.

Leach

35

10000

8000

>-co"ClUc.6000

c0f!.,c.lUc.o

Oth

er

&lo

sses

III4000

.!!!(;o

An

ima

lfe

ed

iiiuIIIF

ood:a

nim

al

2000B

Food:

veg

eta

ble

aa::

«w

+«

uL

L...J

::<«

w0

«z

rn...J

Irn

...Ju

...J«

10000a«

ww

Cl.

=:>u

z3:

w0

rn0

uL

L::<

w...J

a...J«

8000

>-co"ClUc.6000

c0III

lUc.....,c.

oO

the

r&

losse

sIII

4000.!!!(;

oA

nim

al

fee

diiiu

IIIFo

od

:a

nim

al

2000~

Fo

od

:ve

ge

tab

le

Fig

ure

2.10.S

tructu

reo

fsu

pp

ly:h

um

anfo

od

,an

imalfeed

,o

ther

uses

and

losses:

1989(p

ercap

itad

ailycalo

ries).O

the

rand

losses:other

(industrial)consum

ption,process

losses,distribution

losses,use

forseed.

36G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

2.4.1F

inalDem

anda

nd

Required

Supply:Scenario

Projections

We

arenow

ina

positionto

seehow

theforegoing

assumptions

buildup

todefine

futurerequirem

entsfor

agriculturalproducts.

As

onew

ouldexpect,

inm

ostL

DC

regionsthe

scenarioassum

ptionsabout

populationgrow

thand

betterdietary

standardscom

bineto

givevery

largeincreases

inrequirem

entsboth

forhum

anfood

andanim

alfeed.

Inthe

MD

Cs,

onthe

otherhand,

much

slower

populationgrow

thcoupled

with

littlechange

inalready

highnutritional

standardsleads

tom

uchsm

allerincreases.

As

aresult,

althoughglobal

requirements

increaseby

what

appearto

bedaunting

amounts

inabsolute

terms,

growth

ratesfor

thebroadest

productgroups

areactually

lower

thanfor

thepastthree

decades.S

ome

comparisons

for1989,

2025and

2050are

providedin

Tables

2.7and

2.8for

human

foodand

Tables

2.9and

2.10for

requiredsupply,

which

includesanim

alfeed,

otheruses

andlosses

asw

ellas

human

food.If

we

considerthat

requiredsupply

givesthe

bestestim

ateo

ftotal

comm

oditydem

and,w

efind

thatduring

thescenario

period1989-2050

globallythe

requiredsupply

of

cerealsincreases

bya

factoro

f1.99,

othercrops

increaseby

2.27,and

animal

productsincrease

by2.37.

These

arelarge

increases,but

thereare

60years

inw

hichto

achievethem

.Indeed,

oversuch

along

periodthe

annualrates

ofincrease

inconsum

ption-

namely

1.14%for

cereals,1.35%

forother

cropsand

1.42%for

animal

productsturn

outto

bequite

lowand,

furthermore,

substantiallylow

erthan

theaverage

ratesover

1961-1992. 3

For

cerealsthe

futuregrow

thrate

assumed

forthe

scenariois

lessthan

halfthat

of

thepast

threedecades.

Of

course,these

globalfigures

disguisem

uchlarger

andm

orechallenging

increasesam

ongstthe

lessdeveloped

regions-

notablyA

fricaand

theM

iddleE

ast.In

theL

DC

sas

aw

hole,over

the1989-2050

periodthe

requiredsupply

of

cereals,other

cropsand

animal

productsincrease

byfactors

of

2.6,2.9

and4.6

respectively.B

ut

inA

fricaw

ehave

equivalentincreases

of

5.1

,4.3

and7.5;

andin

theM

iddleE

ast6.1,

4.9and

7.5.W

hileboth

regionshave

thehighest

projectedrates

of

populationgrow

th,the

scenarioalso

assumes

major

increasesin

percapita

consumption

of

animal

productsas

well

asthe

animal

feedproduction

ratio,so

thatthe

useo

fcrops

foranim

alfeed

soarsupw

ards.In

1989,cereals

fedto

animals

were

closeto

12m

illiontons

eachin

Africa

andthe

Middle

East.

In2050

theyare

projectedto

be155

and119

million

tonsrespectively.

For

theM

DC

s,the

scenarioprojects

quitem

odestincreases

inhum

anfood

andtotal

requiredsupply.

All

told,hum

anfood

demand

risesby

closeto

15%during

1989-2050for

allthe

main

productgroups.

InN

orthA

merica

cerealsincrease

byalm

osttw

icethis

amount

becauseo

fthe

assumed

substitutiono

fcereals

fordeclining

percapita

consumption

of

animal

products.T

hereare

alsolarger

thanaverage

increasesfor

non-cerealcrops

inE

asternE

urope,and

of

animal

productsin

OE

CD

Pacific

asthe

Japanesediet

becomes

more

likethat

of

otherhigh

income

regionstoday.

Considering

totalrequired

supply,the

main

differencesfrom

directhum

anfood

arethe

higherincreases

forcereals

dueto

additionalanim

alfeed

requirements.

Total

cerealrequirem

entsrise

by27%

compared

to15%

forhum

anfood

alone.

The

comparisons

arefor

1989-2050global

consumption

datafrom

thepresent

reportand

1961-92global

productiondata

fromthe

FAO

report,T

heS

tateof

Foodand

Agriculture,

1993.G

lobalproduction

andconsum

ptiondata

differonly

byrelatively

small

stockchanges.

The

1961-92annual

ratesof

increasew

ere2.60%

forcereals,

2.12%for

allother

foodcrops

combined,

and1.82%

forall

animal

products.

Leach

37

Inthe

nextchapter

we

considerhow

theseincreases

inconsum

ptioncan

bem

etby

thetw

instrategies

of

raisingdom

esticproduction

and,w

herenecessary,

imports.

Since

theseoptions

areclosely

linkedand

complem

entary,discussion

ofthe

scenarioassum

ptionsand

resultsfor

bothis

deferredto

thatchapter,

eventhough

imports

arein

factpart

of

theconsum

ptionside

ofthe

scenariom

odel(see

Table

1.5).T

herem

aindero

fthis

chapterm

erelycom

pletesthe

consumption

chainfor

the1989

baselineyear

byconsidering

tradeand,

[mally,

theresulting

requiredproduction

ofeach

comm

odity.

Table

2.7.H

uman

foo

dco

nsu

mp

tion

,1989,2025

&2050

(millio

ntons).

Ce

rea

lsO

the

rcro

ps

An

ima

lp

rod

ucts

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

19892025

20501989

20252050

Africa

88.9250

361267.1

7191,131

37.0143

264Latin

Am

erica57.8

92106

314.0557

65367.6

157201

Middle

East

28.375

10466.1

192284

14.462

107

China+

273.9352

348289.9

586848

57.0159

220

S&

SE

Asia

267.1490

568510.8

1,0671,486

92.8267

415

NA

merica

30.541

41174.2

217201

113.0130

121W

Europe

61.568

69299.0

322301

155.3175

165

EE

urope17.7

1618

63.384

8531.5

3738

OE

CO

Pacific

20.623

2472.7

9085

33.149

52

Form

erU

SS

R47.4

495

2217.7

264277

89.5108

113

LOC

s716.0

1,2581,487

1,448.03,120

4,402268.8

7881,207

MO

Cs

177.7197

204826.8

977949

422.5498

490

World

893.81,455

1,6912,274.8

4,0975,351

691.31,286

1,697

Table

2.8.H

uman

foo

dco

nsu

mp

tion

:tonnage

ratios2025/1989

&2050/1989.

20252050

Oth

er

An

ima

lO

the

rA

nim

al

Re

gio

nC

ere

als

crop

sp

rod

ucts

Ce

rea

lscro

ps

pro

du

cts

Africa

2.812.69

3.854.06

4.237.13

LatinA

merica

1.581.77

2.321.83

2.082.98

Middle

East

2.652.91

4.303.69

4.297.42

China+

1.282.02

2.791.27

2.933.85

S&

SE

Asia

1.832.09

2.882.12

2.914.48

NA

merica

1.331.25

1.151.36

1.151.07

WE

urope1.10

1.081.12

1.131.01

1.06

EE

urope0.91

1.331.18

1.021.35

1.20

OE

CO

Pacific

1.131.24

1.471.18

1.171.58

Form

erU

SS

R1.03

1.211.20

1.091.27

1.27

LOC

s1.76

2.152.93

2.083.04

4.49M

OC

s1.11

1.181.18

1.151.15

1.16

Wo

rld1.63

1.801.86

1.892.35

2.45

38G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

Table

2.9.R

equiredsu

pp

ly,1989,2025

&2050

(millio

ntons).

Ce

rea

lsO

the

rcro

ps

An

ima

lpro

du

cts

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

19892025

20501989

20252050

Africa

112.0357

574307.5

8361,321

42.1167

314Latin

Am

erica113.1

241296

542.2866

99876.7

177227

Middle

East

41.0163

25166.9

221327

16.572

123

China+

353.1521

554400.7

8381,161

62.3168

232

S&

SE

Asia

321.2599

744552.8

1,1891,695

109.7319

509

NA

merica

206.0300

292197.1

249231

122.6142

133W

Europe

199.2239

240426.5

459433

200.3223

213E

Europe

82.773

68106.2

130128

45.750

49

GE

CD

Pacific

48.993

11585.8

111109

44.265

74

Form

erU

SS

R217.1

247247

294.3347

361152.8

187192

LDC

s940.3

1,8822,419

1,870.13,950

5,502307.3

9031,405

MD

Cs

754.0952

9611,109.9

1,2981,262

565.5666

660

World

1,694.32,834

3,3802,980.0

5,2486,764

872.81,570

2,065

Table

2.10.R

equiredsu

pp

ly:tonnage

ratios2025/1989

&205011989.

20252050

Oth

er

An

ima

lO

the

rA

nim

al

Re

gio

nC

ere

als

crop

sp

rod

ucts

Ce

rea

lscro

ps

pro

du

cts

Africa

3.192.72

3.975.12

4.307.46

LatinA

merica

2.131.60

2.312.62

1.842.97

Middle

East

3.983.30

4.346.12

4.907.46

China+

1.482.09

2.701.57

2.903.72

S&

SE

Asia

1.872.15

2.912.32

3.074.64

NA

merica

1.451.27

1.161.42

1.171.08

WE

urope1.20

1.081.11

1.201.01

1.06

EE

urope0.88

1.231.09

0.821.20

1.08

GE

CD

Pacific

1.911.30

1.482.36

1.271.67

Form

erU

SS

R1.14

1.181.22

1.141.23

1.25

LDC

s2.00

2.112.94

2.572.94

4.57M

DC

s1.26

1.171.18

1.271.14

1.17

World

1.671.76

1.801.99

2.272.37

2.5T

rade

and

Required

Production

Differences

inclim

ateand

suitabilityfor

growing

crops,as

well

asm

anyother

factorsw

hichaffect

comparative

economic

advantageso

fagricultural

production,have

always

ledto

largeinternational

tradein

agriculturalproducts.

Inaccounting

terms,

tradeflow

sare

reducedgreatly

ifone

onlyconsiders

netexports

(exportsless

imports)

andtrade

acrossthe

borderso

fm

ulti-countryregions

ratherthan

theborders

of

individualcountries.

Yet

evenso

theflow

scan

beconsiderable.

Obviously,

dependenceon

importing

ratherthan

producingfood

oneselfis

anim

portantstrategy

forfeeding

increasedpopulations,

providedthat

theim

portsare

affordableand

thatsom

eother

regionsare

preparedto

produceenough

toexport.

Table

2.11sum

marises

some

major

featuresof

regionalfood

productionand

tradein

1989.F

orhigW

yaggregated

productgroups

-cereals,

othercrops

andall

animal

products-

itshows

regionalproduction,

netexportsand

theself-sufficiency

ratio(S

SR

),defined

hereas

(requiredsupply

+net

exports)/requiredsupply.

The

self-sufficiencyratio

canalso

bem

easured,as

inT

able2.11,

bythe

equationS

SR

=production/(production

-netexports),or

SS

R=

P/(P

-N

E).

Leach

39

Considering

cereals,w

esee

thateight

ofthe

10regions

were

netim

porters,w

ithN

orthA

merica

andW

esternE

uropethe

onlynet

exporters.H

owever,

forrice

(notshow

nhere)

OE

CD

Pacificand

S&

SE

Asia

were

netexporters

andC

hina+just

achievedself-sufficiency

(SS

R=

1.0).A

sw

ithm

ostfood

products,the

Middle

East

hadthe

lowest

self-sufficiencyratio.

For

cerealsthis

was

only46%

,m

eaningthat

itim

portedslightly

more

thanit

produced.A

fricaw

asthe

nextlow

est,w

ith79%

.In

theL

DC

sas

aw

hole,cereal

productionfell

shorto

fneeds

byabout

83m

illionim

portedtons

(SS

R=

0.91),w

hichw

eresupplied

bythe

MD

Cs

with

acom

binedS

SR

of1.12.

Table

2.11.P

roduction,nete

xpo

rtsand

self-su

fficien

cyratios:

1989.

Pro

du

ction

(P)

Nete

xpo

rts(N

E)

Se

lf-sufficie

ncy

ratio

(millio

nto

ns)

(millio

nto

ns)

=P

I(P

-N

E)

Re

gio

nC

erealsO

the

rA

nim

al

Cereals

Oth

er

An

ima

lC

erealsO

the

rA

nim

al

croo

so

rod

s.cro

ps

oro

ds.

crop

sp

rod

s.A

frica95.1

296.933.9

-23.3-7.3

-7.30.79

0.980.83

LatinA

merica

106.6684.0

80.7-11.9

134.7.0

0.891.25

1.09M

iddleE

ast21.6

40.411.2

-22.1-

-5.20.46

0.570.68

China+

400.8416.3

59.9-10.1

--1.5

0.970.97

0.98S

&S

EA

sia374.7

662.8102.5

-15.446.4

-6.40.95

1.080.94

NA

merica

332.6204.8

117.8122.1

-2.5-0.4

1.590.99

1.00W

Europe

231.1372.1

204.625.0

-8.6

1.130.91

1.04E

Europe

81.0110.6

45.2-2.7

-0.41.5

0.971.00

1.03O

EC

DP

acific37.4

75.346.2

-14.6-

3.80.70

0.881.09

Form

erU

SS

R201.3

250.6148.5

-37.4-

-0.90.83

0.790.99

LDC

s998.7

2,100.288.3

-82.951.4

-13.50.91

1.070.96

MD

Cs

883.31,013.

562.292.3

-12.5

1.120.90

1.02

Production

asin

FAO

Agrostat,

with

itsdefinitions

(e.g.rice

aspaddy

ratherthan

huskedgrain).

Turning

tonon-cereal

crops,self-sufficiency

ratiosw

eregenerally

much

lessextrem

e.Interestingly,

thepositions

of

theM

DC

sand

LD

Cs

were

reversed,w

iththe

LD

Cs

asa

whole

actingas

substantialnet

exporters(due

entirelyto

Latin

Am

ericaand

S&

SE

Asia)

andthe

MD

Cs

asnet

importers,

givingS

SR

so

f1.07

and0.90

respectively.T

otalw

orldcrop

productionw

asclose

to5

billiontons,

orjust

underone

tonper

person.P

ercapita

productionin

theM

DC

s(1.50

tons)w

asalm

osttw

iceas

greatas

inthe

LD

Cs

(0.79tons),

althoughin

bothcases

with

largedifferences

attheregional

levelfromthese

grossaverages.

With

animal

products,tradegenerally

playsa

smallrole

compared

toproduction,

with

self-sufficiencyratios

closeto

one.T

hem

ainexceptions

amongst

importers

were

theM

iddleE

ast(S

SR

=0.68)

andA

frica(S

SR

=0.83)

andam

ongstexporters

Latin

Am

ericaand

GE

CD

Pacific,bothw

ithSSR

sof

1.09.In

thenext

chapterw

elook

athow

thesefood

needsand

productionrequirem

entshave

beenm

etby

thecom

binationo

fexpanding

cultivatedland

areasand

raisingthe

productivityof

thatland.

We

alsolook

atthe

crucialquestion

of

howthe

largefuture

growths

infood

comm

odityrequirem

entssum

marised

abovecan

bem

etby

furthergains

ofagricultural

landsand

productivityand

-m

ostim

portantly-

howthese

gainslook

when

compared

topotential

resourcesand

practicallim

itations.

40

GlobalL

andand

Food

illthe

21st

Century

3F

OO

DP

RO

DU

CT

ION

3.1Introduction

Ina

Conventional

Developm

entfuture,

world

consumption

of

cropproducts

might

needto

doubleor

more

by2050.

Most

of

thisincrease

would

bein

today'sless

developedregions,

where

thepressures

onland,

water

andother

agriculturalresources

arealready

more

severethan

inthe

developedw

orld.In

theL

DC

scom

bined,the

scenariooutlined

inC

hapter2

projecteda

2.6fold

increasein

therequired

supplyo

fcereals

between

1989and

2050and

a2.9

foldincrease

fornon­

cerealcrops.

There

islittle

questionthat

theselarge

productionincreases

canbe

achievedin

principle.A

sw

eshall

seein

thischapter,

thereare

stilllarge

untappedresources

of

cultivableland

-notably

inL

atinA

merica

andA

frica-

which

couldbe

broughtinto

productionby

clearingforests,

grasslands,w

etlandsand

otherland

types.T

hereis

considerablescope

forusing

farmlands

more

intensivelyby

reducingfallow

sor

increasingdouble-cropping.

And

thereare

largepotentials

forincreasing

cropyields,

judgingby

thehuge

differencesin

present-dayyields

bothbetw

eenbest

practicecountries

andothers

and,w

ithincountries,

thebest

farmers

andthe

average.T

heseyield

gapsare

partlyexplained

bylarge

differencesin

fertiliseruse:

in1989

averageuse

of

nitrogenfertiliser

perarable

hectarestood

at114

kgin

Western

Europe

butonly26

kgin

Latin

Am

ericaand

13kg

inA

frica.T

hepractical

questions,though,

arem

uchm

oredifficult.

They

arehow

tobring

aboutthese

largeproduction

increasesin

anaffordable

andenvironm

entallysustainable

manner.

Inparticular,

canfood

productionbe

more

thandoubled

without

seriousand

lastingdam

ageto

land,w

aterand

othervital

naturalresources?

And

howdoes

oneim

provethe

incentivesto

farmers

togrow

more

andgrow

itm

oreproductively

without

raisingfood

pricesand

puttingeven

them

ostbasic

foodsbeyond

thereach

ofthe

poorest?T

hischapter

dealsw

iththe

simpler

questionsregarding

physicalpotentials

andresources.

Itreview

spast

trendsand

makes

projectionsfor

thevariables

which

make

upthe

model

productionchain

which

was

summ

arisedin

Chapter

1.A

sa

reminder,

thischain

linksa

small

number

of

variablesto

producean

estimate

of

cropproduction

foreach

region,year

andcrop

group,cropi..

Assum

ingno

stockchanges:

cultivatedarea

(Mha)

xcropping

intensity=harvestarea

(Mha)

harvestarea

(Mha)

xharvest

share(i)x

yield(i)(ton/ha)=

production(i)(Mtons)

(and:production(i)

-netexports(i)

=required

supply(i))

(production(i)/

requiredsupplY

(i)=self-sufficiency

ratio(i))

Required

supplycalculated

herem

ustequalthe

requiredsupply

calculatedin

theconsum

ptionchain

(seeC

hapter1).

This

isachieved

byaltering

theproduction

andtrade

variablesuntil

thereis

equalityfor

eachregion,

yearand

cropproduct.

An

additionalconstraint

isthat

thesum

ofnetexports(i)

forall

regionsm

ustequalzero.

As

thereare

many

ways

inw

hichthe

variablesm

ightbe

altered,the

following

processis

adopted.C

ultivatedarea,

croppingintensity

andyield

areconsidered

asprim

aryvariables

andare

giveninitial

valuesbased

onextrapolations

fromhistoric

trends.H

arvestshare

andthe

self-sufficiencyratio

areset

tothe

valueso

fthe

previoustim

eperiod

andthen

alteredas

littleas

possiblein

thedirection

which

will

Leach

41

closeany

differencebetw

eenthe

requiredsupply

terms.

Ifclosure

isnot

achieved,the

primary

variablesare

altered,hopefullyw

hilestaying

within

plausiblelim

its.

3.2C

ultivatedL

and

Inalm

ostthree

decades,from

1961to

1989,the

world's

cultivatedland

areaincreased

byonly

9%,

or124

million

hectares.A

tthe

same

time,

globalpopulation

roseby

69%and

nutritionalstandards

improved

considerably.4M

osto

fthe

hugeincrease

infood

consumption

duringthe

periodw

asm

etnot

som

uchby

expandingthe

landbase

butby

usingexisting

landm

oreintensively

andby

increasingper

hectarecrop

production,oryield.

As

onem

ightexpect,

largeregional

differencesoccurred

beneaththis

globaltrend.

The

largestproportional

increaseo

fcultivated

landw

asin

OE

CD

Pacific,w

ith47%

,follow

edby

Latin

Am

erica(37%

),A

frica(20%

)and

S&

SE

Asia

(13%).

InL

atinA

merica

andA

fricathe

expansionw

asvery

small

compared

tothe

remaining

potentialcultivable

landbut

inother

LD

Cregions

itcam

em

uchcloser

toexploiting

allpotentially

productiveland.

Much

of

theexpansion

involvedconverting

standingforest

tom

orelocally-valued

usessuch

asfarm

land,as

inE

uropeand

North

Am

ericacenturies

ago.In

many

casesthis

processw

ouldm

erelyhave

returnedthe

forestto

previoususe

ascultivated

andsettled

land(W

ood,1993).

Inother

regionscultivated

landincreased

verylittle

ordeclined,

asin

China+

andE

urope.In

sum,w

hilethe

cultivatedarea

increasedby

only2.9%

inthe

MD

Cs,itrose

by15.4%

inthe

LD

Cs,

givinga

globalincrease

of9.2%.

Also

strikingare

thedifferences

inper

capitacultivated

landarea.

In1989

regionalaverages

variedalm

ostlO

-fold,w

ithC

hina+at

justunder

0.09hectares

perperson

andN

orthA

merica

with

0.86hectares.

Nevertheless,

while

North

Am

erica'sland

abundancehelped

itbe

anet

exporterof

crops,the

China+

regionm

anagedto

grow97%

ofits

croprequirem

entson

itsow

ndensely-occupied

land,largely

byhigh

levelso

firrigation,fertiliseruse

anddouble-

ortriple-cropping.

Table

3.1sum

marises

thechanges

incultivated

areaduring

1961-89.F

igure3.1

presentsannual

datafor

theperiod

andclearly

shows

thatthe

rateso

fexpansion

ordecline

incultivated

landhave

insom

eregions

variedconsiderably.

For

example,

expansionin

Latin

Am

ericahas

slowed

since1982

andin

Africa

sincethe

mid

1970s,although

much

lessobviously.

The

long-establishedtrend

inC

hina+of

decliningcultivated

landaccelerated

markedly

inthe

early1980s.

Trends

inthe

MD

Cs

havebeen

fairlysteady,

with

verylittle

changein

areasince

theearly

1970sin

North

Am

ericaand

theform

erS

ovietU

nion.T

hevery

rapidincrease

inO

EC

D­

Pacific

inthe

1960shas

slowed

since,buttherate

ofexpansion

remains

quitelarge.

Itis

important

toappreciate

thatthese

trendsare

forthe

net

changesin

cultivatedland

areas.In

otherw

ords,they

arethe

resulto

fyear

onyear

additionsto

andlosses

fromthe

currentarea

ofactual

landw

hichis

cultivated-

changesw

hichhave

ratherdifferentsocial

andenvironm

entalim

plications.

4C

ultivatedarea

refershere

toarable

landplus

permanent

cropland,

asdefined

byF

AG

landuse

statistics.

42G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

19901985

19801975

19701965

90+

-----+

----+

-----1

-----1

----+

-----1

1960

140

0"130

0...II...'"'" ...ca

-+-A

FR

l!:!120

<I:--L

A...cca

-*-ME

..J...~

110.......C

HIN

A+

~-+

-SS

EA

"3u'0)(

Q)

...100

.=

150

0"140

0......'"'"130

...cal!:!-+

-NA

<I:...

--WE

cca120

..J...

-*-EE

~ca.......O

EC

D-P

>:;:;"3

110-+

-FS

Uu'0)

(Q

)....=

1009019601965

19701975

19801985

1990

Fig

ure

3.1.In

dex

of

cultivated

land

area:1961-89.

Leach

Tab

le3.1.

Cu

ltivated

land

area:1961

&1989.

Area

per

Area

(Mha)

Area

chan

ge

capita

(ha)R

egio

n1961

1989(M

halyear)(p

ercent)

1989

Africa

155.7187.0

1.1220.1

0.300Latin

Am

erica

131.1180.1

1.7537.3

0.410M

idd

leE

ast

38.639.4

0.032.1

0.276C

hin

a+

114.3107.0

-0.26-6.4

0.088S

&S

EA

sia244.1

275.21.11

12.80.181

NA

me

rica223.8

235.90.43

5.40.860

WE

urope134.9

125.0-0.35

-7.30.275

EE

urope42.7

40.4-0.08

-5.50.406

GE

CD

Pacific

37.755.3

0.6346.7

0.377F

orm

er

US

SR

228.8230.6

0.060.8

0.803

LD

Cs

683.7788.7

3.7515.4

0.200M

DC

s667.9

687.20.67

2.90.545

Wo

rld1,351.6

1,475.94.42

9.20.284

Cu

ltivate

darea

=area

ofarable

land+

pe

rma

ne

nt

crop

s(F

AG

definitions).

43

Cultivated

landm

aybe

lostforseveralreasons.

Itcanbe

convertedto

otheruses

which

arejudged

tohave

ahigher

value,such

ashouses,

factories,roads,

quarriesor

golfcourses.O

r,it

may

bedow

ngradedto

aless

productiveform

of

agriculturalland,

suchas

roughpasture,

orabandoned

tobecom

e"w

asteland",because

ithas

become

physicallydegraded

oreconom

icallym

arginalised.P

hysicaldegradation

may

includesoil

erosion,soil

nutrientdepletion,

salination,w

ater-loggingand

otherform

so

fphysical

orchem

icaldeterioration

of

soils.E

conomic

marginalisation

means

thatthe

landis

nolonger

worth

working

underexisting

economic

conditionsand

may

or

may

notbeassociated

with

physicaldegradation.A

dditionsto

thecultivated

landstock

canbe

of

two

verybroad

kinds:(1)

theconversion

of

othertypes

of

farmlands

(suchas

pasture)to

cropcultivation;

and(2)

theconversion

of

some

kindo

f"natural"

system,

suchas

forest,w

oodland,grassland,

wetland

orlow

-productive"w

asteland".T

heselatter

conversionsm

ayinclude

bringingpreviously

abandonedland

backinto

cultivation.T

hesecond

typeo

fconversion

inparticular

hasim

portantenvironm

entalim

plications,including

possiblelosses

of

biodiversityand

ecosystemproductivity,

andsoil

erosionif

conversionsare

managed

carelessly,and

emissions

of

CO

2and

othergreenhouse

gasesto

theatm

osphere.U

nfortunately,data

onthese

environmental

issuesand

onthe

scaleo

fdifferent

typeso

fnatural

conversionprocesses

nowoccurring

or

tobe

expectedunder

variousscenario

assumptions

areexceedingly

weak.

No

attempt

hasbeen

made

inthis

reportto

quantifythe

environmental

impact

of

thesechange

processes,although

thereis

furtherdiscussion

aboutthemin

Chapter

4.B

esidesthese

changesin

cultivatedland

area,the

"quality"or

innateproductive

capacityo

fthe

cultivatedland

inuse

may

alsochange

dueto

human

actions.W

orld-wide,

thesechanges

arethought

toadd

upto

am

assiveprocess

of

human­

inducedland

degradation.H

owever,

human

actioncan

alsoim

provesoil

fertilityand

otheraspects

of

landquality

andis

nowincreasingly

known

todo

soeven

inplaces

where

ithas

beenw

idelyassum

edthat

severedegradation

processesw

ereunder

way

(English

etaI.,

1994;M

ortimore,

1993;L

each&

Fairhead,

1994;and

Phillips-H

oward

&L

yon,1994).

Again,data

onthese

issuesare

extremely

weak

asw

ellas

disputedand

contentious(M

ortimore,

1993).H

owever,

itis

important

to

44G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stC

entury

notethat

historicchanges

inthe

qualityo

fcultivated

landare

toa

largeextent

capturedby

trendso

fcrop

yields.In

otherw

ords,the

actualchange

inyields

achievedduring

1961-89,w

hichform

theprincipal

basisin

thisreport

forfuture

yieldprojections,

includethe

effectso

fany

changesin

thequality

of

cultivatedland.

Also

ofim

portanceto

landproductivity

andyields

isthe

amounto

firrigated

landw

ithinthe

cultivatedland

stock,especially

indry

regions.T

hisis

notonly

becauseavailable

water

issuch

astrong

determinant

ofcrop

yields;it

isalso

becausew

ithadequate

water

itbecom

esw

orthwhile

toraise

yieldsstill

furtherby

usingbetter

seedsand

more

fertiliser-

theclassic

Green

Revolution

package.F

orthis

reason,production

estimates

hereare

wherever

possiblebased

ona

breakdown

of

cultivatedland

intorainfed

andirrigated

areas.S

ome

historicaldata

onrates

ofchange

of

thesecom

ponentsare

presentedin

Table

3.2,basedon

regressionso

fthe

1961-89data.

Table

3.3presents

summ

arydata

onirrigated

landin

1961and

1989.O

neclear

featureis

thestrong

increaseo

firrigated

areasin

allregions,

leadingto

a60%

risein

theL

DC

scom

binedand

anear

doublingin

theM

DC

s.In

sixo

fthe

10regions,

irrigatedland

areashave

increasedw

hilerainfed

areashave

declinedin

absoluteterm

s(see

Middle

East,

China+

,S

&S

EA

sia,the

two

Europes

andthe

former

Soviet

Union

inT

able3.2).

How

ever,w

eshall

seelater

thatthe

firstthree

of

theseregions

aregetting

closeto

thelim

itso

ftheir

possibleexpansion

of

irrigatedland

atreasonable

costs.

Ta

ble

3.2.C

ha

ng

es

inra

infe

da

nd

irriga

ted

cultiva

ted

lan

da

rea

s,1961-89.

Re

gre

ssion

resu

lts

Rainfed

landIrrig

ate

dland

An

nu

al

Annual

Re

gio

n0/0

cha

ng

eR

20/0

changeR

2R

emarks

Africa

0.610.96

1.350.99

LatinA

merica

1.180.98

2.600.98

Middle

East

-0.380.69

0.960.89

China+

-1.280.96

1.600.89

Irrigated:little

changesince

1980

S&

SE

Asia

-0.120.50

2.200.99

NA

merica

0.200.61

1.190.72

Irrigated:no

changesince

1984W

Europe

-0.620.98

2.820.98

EE

urope-0.61

0.994.68

0.98Irrigated:

slower

changesince

1985

GE

CD

Pacific

1.030.79

0.520.46

Form

erU

SS

R-0.18

0.833.51

0.97Irrigated:

slowerchange

since1985

3.2.1P

otentialCultivated

Land

What

isthe

scopefor

increasingcultivated

land,especially

inthe

LD

Cregions

where

itis

generallym

ostneeded?

Studies

of

cropsuitability

andproduction

potentialsin

91developing

countriesby

FA

Oand

theInternational

Institutefor

Applied

System

sA

nalysis,V

ienna(F

AO

,1993;

andF

ischer,1993)

providesom

eansw

ers.T

heseare

summ

arisedfor

theP

oleStar

LD

Cregions

inT

able3.4

inthe

formo

fthe

landareas

actuallycultivated

circa.1989

andpotential

cultivableareas,

brokeno

ut

byfive

classeso

frainfed

landproductivity

plusirrigated

land.A

lsoshow

nin

theT

ableare

indicatorso

fthe

productivityo

fthe

landclasses

interm

sof

potentialcereal

yieldsrelative

tosub-hum

idland.

Unfortunately,

reliabledata

on1989

cultivationby

landclass

were

notavailable

forC

hina,and

hencethe

PoleS

tarC

hina+region.

There

were

anomalies

insom

eo

fthe

aggregateddata

forthe

Leach

45

Middle

East

which

resultedill

actualcultivated

areasill

1989exceeding

thepotentialcultivable

area.

Ta

ble

3.3.Irrig

ate

dla

nd

(millio

nh

ecta

res

an

d%

tota

lcu

ltivate

darea):

1961&

19

89

.

Area

(millio

nha)

As

%to

talcu

ltivate

darea

Re

gio

n1961

19891961

1989

Africa

7.811.2

5.06.0

LatinA

merica

8.215.8

6.28.8

Middle

East

9.713.1

25.133.3

China+

31.948.8

27.945.6

S&

SE

Asia

44.679.7

18.329.0

NA

merica

14.418.9

6.48.0

WE

urope8.3

17.86.2

14.3

EE

urope1.6

5.73.8

14.2

OE

CD

Pacific

4.05.0

10.79.1

Form

erU

SS

R9.4

21.14.1

9.1

LDC

s102.2

168.614.9

21.4M

DC

s37.7

68.65.6

10.0

World

139.9237.2

12.619.8

Ta

ble

3.4.P

ote

ntia

lcultiva

ble

lan

db

yp

rod

uctivity

class:

circa.

1989.

Arid

&M

oist

Sub-

Hu

mid

&N

atu

rally

To

tal

Se

mi-a

ridS

em

i-arid

hu

mid

Oth

er

Flooded

Rainfed

Irriga

ted

Cu

ltivate

d1

98

9(M

ha)A

frica37.1

37.550.6

44.26.5

175.911.2

LatinA

merica

3.821.1

77.356.5

5.6164.3

15.8

Middle

East

8.38.8

2.83.8

2.726.2

13.1

China+

58.248.8

S&

SE

Asia

14.847.5

54.056.3

23.3195.9

79.7

Po

ten

tialcu

ltivab

le(M

ha)A

frica92.8

178.4280.8

311.6108.9

972.512.4

LatinA

merica

15.156.0

169.0583.4

120.2943.7

21.9

Middle

East

4.87.1

1.82.6

4.120.4

15.6

China+

0.14.1

51.6102.7

31.7190.2

S&

SE

Asia

27.078.5

73.891.3

45.8316.4

95.0

Po

ten

tial!C

ult.

19

89

Africa

2.504.76

5.557.05

16.755.53

1.11

LatinA

merica

3.972.65

2.1910.33

21.465.74

1.39

Middle

East

0.580.81

0.670.68

1.520.78

1.19

China+

3.27

S&

SE

Asia

1.821.65

1.371.62

1.971.62

1.19

Cro

psu

itab

ility .A

frica0.31

0.881.00

0.610.75

2.2

LatinA

merica

0.310.88

1.000.64

0.662.2

Middle

East

0.310.88

1.000.85

0.782.2

S&

SE

Asia

0.310.88

1.000.54

0.772.2

aCrop

suitabilityroughly

reflectspotentialcerealyields

relativeto

sub-humid

land(F

AO

,1993).

The

Table

clearlyshow

sthat

thereare

hugetheoretical

potentialsfor

increasingrainfed

cultivatedland

inA

frica,L

atinA

merica

andC

hina+(by

factorso

f5.5,

5.7

46G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21stC

entury

and3.3

respectivelyover

the1989

cultivatedarea)

andto

alesser

butstill

sizeableextent

-a

factoro

f1.6

-in

S&

SE

Asia.

The

Middle

East

appearsto

havelittle

ifany

potentialfor

expandingits

cultivatedarea.

How

ever,the

scopefor

increasingirrigated

cultivationat

reasonablecosts

isvery

much

more

restricted.A

ccordingto

thesedata

andthe

criteriaon

which

theyare

based,an

increasefrom

1989o

fonly

11%

ispossible

forA

frica,19%

forthe

Middle

Eastand

S&

SEA

sia,and

39%for

Latin

Am

erica.O

verthe

nextfew

decadesthe

criteriaw

hichdeterm

ineboth

thephysical

andeconom

icfeasibility

ofirrigation

arelikely

tochange

substantially,perhaps

most

ofallin

regionssuch

asthe

Middle

Eastw

hichface

mounting

populationpressures

onlim

itedland

resourcesbut

which

arealso

likelyto

havethe

sparew

ealthto

investheavily

inthe

land.F

orexam

ple,w

aterconservation

methods

suchas

spotand

trickleirrigation

cangreatly

increaseirrigated

areasrelative

tosurface

orunderground

water

resources;investm

entsin

water

distributionover

greaterdistances

canprobably

tapconsiderable

resourcesthat

arenow

mostly

unused;and

insom

eregions

thedesalination

of

saltor

brackishw

aterm

ayw

ellbecom

eeconom

icallyfeasible.

Vegetable

productionby

water-conserving

methods

suchas

greenhousesand

hydroponics,often

with

veryhigh

yields,is

alsoincreasing

indry

regions.

3.2.2C

ultivatedL

and:Scenario

Projections

The

scenarioassum

ptionsfor

futurecultivated

areasare

givenin

Table

3.5and,

with

thehistoric

1961-89trends,in

Figure

3.2.The

scenarioprojections

areclosely

linkedto

otherm

ajorfactors

offood

productionand

supply,such

ascrop

yieldsand

trade,w

hichare

discussedbelow

.T

heyalso

reflectsom

eradical

geo-politicaland

economic

decisionsw

hichm

ighthave

tobe

made

ifthescenario

asa

whole

isto

come

about;in

particularifthe

growth

inL

DC

foodconsum

ptionsum

marised

inC

hapter2

isto

bem

et.F

orexam

ple,despite

thelarge

assumed

increasesin

cropyields

andother

productivefactors

outlinedbelow

,A

fricais

unableto

meet

itsgrow

ingfood

demand

without

am

assiveexpansion

ofcrop

landas

well

asfood

imports.

The

Middle

East,

S&

SE

Asia

andO

EC

D-Pacific

alsohave

toincrease

foodim

ports,inthe

firstcaseby

verylarge

amounts.

Table

3.5.C

ultivatedland

area:1989,2025

&2050.

Are

ap

er

Are

a(m

illion

he

ctare

s)C

ha

ng

e:

1989-

2050ca

pita

(ha)

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

(Mh

alye

ar)

(pe

rcen

t)2050

Africa

187.0267.2

294.21.76

57.30.13

LatinA

merica

180.1207.1

216.90.60

20.40.27

Middle

East

39.441.3

42.00.04

6.60.08

China+

107.0110.5

109.50.04

2.30.06

S&

SE

Asia

275.2283.7

291.60.27

6.00.09

NA

merica

235.9228.1

227.1-0.14

-3.7

0.71W

Europe

125.0122.5

122.8-0.04

-1.8

0.26

EE

urope40.4

39.239.5

-0.01-

2.20.33

OE

CO

Pacific

55.362.8

65.40.17

18.30.42

Form

erU

SS

R230.6

224.4224.2

-0.10-

2.80.64

LOC

s788.7

910.0954.1

2.7121.0

0.11M

OC

s687.2

677.4679.1

-0.13-

1.20.48

World

1,475.81,587.4

1,633.22.58

10.70.16

Leach

47

200

1800

-0......U)

160en...IIIl!!III"Cc

140.!!!"CSIII

~:;120

u;cQ)

"C.E100

.-'_.­

.-'

-A

FR

-....·L

A

-M

E

-CH

INA

+

--S

SE

A

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

80-j----+

-----1

I-----I----+

-----1

I-----I----+

-----1

---j

1960

~._-_._._._._._._._-_._.~._._-_._-_._._.-.

180

170

0-

1600......

150U

)en...III

140l!!III"Cc

130.!!!"CS

120III

~:;u110

;cQ)

"C.E10090801960

19701980

19902000

20102020

20302040

2050

-N

A-

....-WE

-E

E

-OE

CD

-P--F

SU

Fig

ure

3.2.In

dex

of

cultivated

landarea:

1961·2

05

0.

48G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

The

largeadditional

foodexports

cancom

eonly

fromthe

presentM

DC

regionsand

Latin

Am

ericaw

ithits

abundanceo

fspare

land.It

ishard

tosee

howthe

presentMD

Cm

ajorexporting

regions-

North

Am

ericaand

Western

Europe

-can

greatlyexpand

theirexports

inthe

nextcentury,

evenw

ithcontinually

risingcrop

yields,unless

presentplanned

reductionso

ffarm

landare

slowed

orreversed,

andunless

theirexport

burdensare

sharedby

Eastern

Europe

andthe

former

Soviet

Union.

Reductions

infarm

landin

theseregions

will

alsohave

tobe

slowed

andreversed.

At

thesam

etim

e,the

largeexpansions

offarm

landw

hichare

neededin

Africa

andL

atinA

merica

will

continueto

depleteforest

stocks,even

while

yieldsincrease

verysubstantially

andthe

landunder

cultivationis

usedever

more

intensively.C

ontinuedforest

clearancem

ayhave

tobe

acceptedas

avital

weapon

ina

globalstrategy

tofeed

humanity.

This

backgroundhelps

toexplain

thekey

featureso

fthe

scenarioassum

ptionsshow

nin

Table

3.5and

Figure

3.2,suchas:

•T

heacceleration

of

cropland

expansionin

Africa.

Running

atjust

over1.1

million

hectaresper

yearfrom

1961to

1989,this

risesto

1.76m

illionhectares

ayear

from1989

to2050.

•C

ontinuedexpansion

of

cropland

inL

atinA

merica,

S&

SE

Asia

andO

EC

D­

Pacific,but

atm

uchslow

erthan

historicrates.

Inthe

Middle

East,

asm

allexpansion

of

cultivatedland

isassum

edin

responseto

rapidlyincreasing

fooddem

andand

imports,in

contrast toa

slightdeclinein

areasince

theearly

1970s.•

Asharp

reversalin

theC

hina+region

tothe

recentrapid

declinein

cultivatedarea,

largelydue

tourbanisation

andother

infrastructuredevelopm

entin

China

itself.A

snoted

above,according

toFA

Othere

isspare

cultivableland

inthe

regionw

hichcould

bebroughtinto

productionto

offsettheserecentdeclines.

•W

iththe

exceptionof

OE

CD

-Pacific,the

MD

Cregions

experiencesm

allbut

steadydeclines

incultivated

area.T

hesetrends

shouldbe

compared

tolittle

changein

areain

North

Am

ericaand

theform

erS

ovietU

nionsince

thelate

1960s,anda

slowbutsteady

declinein

Western

andE

asternE

urope.T

akentogether,

thesechanges

resultin

globalcultivated

landincreasing

byonly

11%

during1989

to2050.

How

ever,this

riseis

made

upo

fa

21.0%increase

inthe

LD

Cregions

anda

1%reduction

inthe

MD

Cs.

Inthe

LD

Cs

thecultivated

areaincreases

by0.31

%per

yearduring

1989-2050,rather

slower

thatthe

0.51%

rateo

fthe1961-89

period.G

lobally,theaverage

annualincreaseo

f4.4m

illionhectares

during1961-89

slows

duringthe

next60

yearsto

only2.6

Mha/year.

This

slow­

down

isexplained

mostly

bythe

limited

potentialforexpansion

inS

&S

EA

siaand

theM

iddleE

ast,the

implausibility

ofa

verylarge

expansionin

China+

afterits

recentdecline,

eventhough

spareland

isavailable,

andthe

small

projectedreductions

incultivated

areafor

most o

fthem

oredeveloped

regions.F

orirrigated

land(see

Table

3.6and

Figure3.3)

theprojections

arestrongly

constrainedby

thelim

itedpotential

forexpanding

irrigationdiscussed

above.In

theL

DC

s,quite

rapidhistoric

increasesin

irrigationare

assumed

toslow

verysubstantially

becauseo

ftheseconstraints.

Inthese

regions,irrigated

areais

usedin

them

odelcalculations

explicitlyto

helpdefine

cropyields

throughthe

useof

separateyield

assumptions

forirrigated

andrainfed

land.In

theM

DC

sirrigated

areais

notused

inthe

model

calculation,due

tolack

of

nationaldata

fromFA

Oand

IIAS

Aon

yieldsfor

rainfedand

irrigatedland.

For

illustrativepurposes

only,it

isassum

edthat

therapid

historicgrow

thin

Europe

andthe

former

Soviet

Union

Leach

49

slows

drasticallyw

hilein

theother

two

regions,w

herethere

hasbeen

littlechange

inthe

irrigatedarea

forw

ellover

adecade,little

changeis

assumed

infuture.

26

0

240

2200

'0-II

200co'"-co

180l!!co"CQ

)160

iii:§;(140

Q)

"C.=120

100

-----

-ll-AF

R

----LA

--'-ME

-"-CH

INA

+

......-SS

EA

19801990

20002010

20202030

20

40

20501970

80-1

---+

---I------1

----+

---+

---+

---+

---+

------l

1960

450

400

35

00

'~II

30

0co'"-co

250l!!III"C.2!

20

0co:[;(

150Q

)"C.=

100

50

--NA

----WE

--'-EE

-><

-OE

CD

-P

-ll-FS

U

o+

---I----t---+

---+

---+

---+

-----1

---+

----i

19601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

Fig

ure

3.3.In

dex

of

irrigated

land

area:1961

-2050.

50G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21stC

entury

3.2.3F

ertilisersA

lthoughfertiliser

useis

notat

thisstage

anexplicit

parto

fthe

foodproduction

model,

thevast

differencesin

presentlevels

of

usagedo

obviouslyhave

strongbearings

onthe

scopefor

futureincreases

incrop

yields,especially

infertiliser

deficitregionslike

Africa.

Table

3.6.Irrigated

area(m

illion

hectares):1989,2025

&2050.

Irriga

ted

areaA

rea

cha

ng

e

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

1989-20251989-2050

Africa

11.212.3

12.91.10

1.15Latin

Am

erica15.8

18.219.8

1.151.25

Middle

East

13.115.1

15.81.15

1.20

China+

48.853.7

57.11.10

1.17S

&S

EA

sia79.7

91.795.7

1.151.20

NA

merica

18.919.9

21.01.05

1.11W

Europe

17.819.6

21.01.10

1.18

EE

urope5.7

6.36.6

1.101.16

OE

CO

Pacific

5.05.5

5.61.10

1.12

Form

erU

SS

R21.1

23.225.1

1.101.19

LOC

s168.6

190.9201.1

1.131.19

MO

Cs

68.674.5

79.41.09

1.16

World

237.2265.4

280.51.12

1.18

Figure

3.4show

sthe

dramatic

regionaldifferences

-and

ratesof

increasein

some

regions-

offertiliser

usage,represented

hereby

averagekg

nitrogenfertiliser

perhectare

of

totalarable

land.T

heincrease

was

most

impressive

inC

hina+,w

hereduring

1961-89N

fertiliserrates

rose34-fold

from5.7

to194.6

kg/ha,according

toF

AO

statistics.C

hina+is

notshow

nin

Figure3.4

becauseit

goesso

faroff

thescale.

S&

SE

Asia

alsoraised

averagenitrogen

applicationsm

assively,from

2.8to

78.8kg/ha.

The

otherL

DC

regionslagged

well

behindthese

leaders­

especiallyA

frica,w

herew

hatlittle

risethere

was

infertiliser

usein

the1960s

and1970s

almost

ceasedin

the1980s.

Incontrast,

theM

iddleE

astw

itnessedvery

rapidincreases

inN

-usageand

hasnow

reachedover

half of

theS

&S

EA

sialevel.

Inthe

MD

Cs,

thehigh

N-usage

inland-short,

well-w

ateredW

esternand

Eastern

Europe

standsout

asdoes

thevery

lowapplication

levelin

GE

CD

-Pacific,w

herecultivated

areais

dominated

bythe

relativelyarid

zoneso

fA

ustralia.A

lsonotable

isthe

slow-dow

nin

thegrow

tho

fN

-fertiliseruse

inall

regions,w

ithactual

declinesin

North

Am

ericaand

theform

erS

ovietUnion.

The

sometim

esdram

aticeffect

oncrop

yieldsof

increasingfertiliser

dosagesis

illustratedfor

wheat

andm

aizein

Figure3.5,

basedon

FAG

's"global

technologym

atrix"w

hichis

inturn

basedon

farm-level

datacollected

overm

anyyears

(FAO

,1993).

The

plotsshow

howyields

increasew

ithnitrogen

fertiliserapplications

fordifferent

landquality

classes;i.e.

theclasses

basedon

water

availabilityused

inT

able3.4.

Most

importantly,

thereturns

fromadditional

fertiliserapplications

atvery

lowusage

levels-

asin

much

of

rainfedA

frica,for

instance-

areenorm

ous.F

orexam

ple,w

ithw

heatin

aridzones,

goingfrom

nofertiliser

toa

mere

5kg

perhectare

couldincrease

yieldsm

orethan

4-fold,w

itha

further2.4

foldincrease

tobe

hadfrom

steppingup

theapplication

to40

kgper

hectare-

aboutone-quarter

theaverage

applicationin

Western

Europe.

With

maize,

them

ovefrom

oneextrem

e(arid

land,no

fertiliser)to

irrigationw

ithhigh

fertiliseruse,

typicallyincreases

yieldsby

afactor

ofover20,from

around300

kgto

7tons

perhectare.

Leach

80

70

~6

0U.,.r:.~

50

c-O>

.><~4

0~t:oS:!t::

30

.,0>

gZ2

010o

+-J

-=--

-19

61

1:11965

01

97

0

11II1975

OJ19

80

lSI19

85

91

98

9

51

AFR

LAM

ES

SE

A

12

0

10

0

!!!'"U.,8

0.r:.~c-O

>.><~

60

~t:oS:!t::.,4

00

>

gZ

200

NAW

EE

EO

EC

D-P

FS

U

Fig

ure

3.4.A

verage

nitro

gen

fertiliseru

sage:

1961-1

98

9.

-19

61

g1

96

5

01

97

0

1IlII1975

III19

80

lSI19

85

11I1989

52G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

6.0W

he

at

.X

5.0

'¥4.0

caUCIl.<:

.)<

•

<:3.0

gLand

class

"(w

ate

ra

vaila

bility)

Qj

>=2

.0--L

OW

--<>

-U

NC

ER

TA

IN

1.0--G

OO

D

•·..··IRR

IGA

TE

D

0.0

02

040

608

0100

120140

160180

Nfe

rtilizer

(kgI

hectare)

Maize

8.0

7.0

6.0

'¥5.0

caUCIl.<:<:

4.0g" Q

j3.0

>=

2.0

1.0

0.0

05

0100

150

..x

La

nd

class

(wa

ter

ava

ilab

ility)

-L

OW

--<>

-UN

CE

RT

AIN

--GO

OD

•.~...IR

RIG

AT

ED

200250

Nfe

rtilizer

(kgI

hectare)

Fig

ure

3.5.W

he

at

and

maize

yields

with

increased

N-fertiliser

and

water.

Leach

53

The

combined

effectso

ffertilisers,irrigation

andm

anagementon

yieldso

fricein

thehum

idA

siantropics

areillustrated

inT

able3.7,

basedon

datafrom

theInternational

Rice

Research

Institute(G

omez

&Z

andstra,1982).

Betw

eenthe

averagerainfed

farmand

thebest

irrigatedfarm

theyield

percrop

risesby

afactor

of

roughlyfour,

from1.6

to6.0

tonsper

hectare.B

utirrigation

alsoopens

upthe

possibilityo

fm

ultiplecropping,

typicallyw

ithother

graincrops.

With

goodm

anagement

(andsufficient

economic

incentive)as

many

asfour

cropscan

beharvested

peryear

onirrigated

land.C

onsequently,the

differencein

yieldper

hectareper

yearincrease

toa

factoro

fover

12,w

itha

rangefrom

1.9to

24tons.

The

maxim

umpotential

yieldgives

almost

anotherdoubling

compared

toyields

onthe

bestfarm

s.In

Indiaduring

the1970s

thenational

averagerice

yieldw

asfairly

steadyat

around1.5

tons/hectare/yearw

hilethe

averageo

fnational

demonstration

trialsm

aintaineda

steady6

t/ha/yearand

thebest

suchtrials

achieved12-15

t/ha/year-

atleastan8-fold

improvem

entonthe

nationalaverage

(Yoshida

&O

ka,1982).

Ta

ble

3.7.E

ffects

of

irriga

tion

an

dm

an

ag

em

en

ton

riceyie

lds.

Yield

pe

rcro

pC

rop

sp

er

yearY

ield

pe

ryea

r

Ma

na

ge

me

nt I

Wa

ter

(ton

Iha)

(ton

Ih

aI

year)

Ma

ximu

mp

ote

ntia

lirrigated

11.04.0

44.0rainted

7.03.0

21.0B

estfa

rmirrigated

6.04.0

24.0rainted

4.52.4

11.0A

vera

ge

farm

irrigated3.0

2.06.0

rainted1.6

1.21.9

Data

inthe

two

right-handcolum

nsinclude

productiontrom

othergrain

cropsgrow

nin

sequencew

ithrice.

Itis

nothard

tosee

fromfigures

likethese

howthe

doublingso

rtreblings

of

cropyields

inthe

next50-60

yearsw

hichare

assumed

insom

ecases

here(see

Section

3.4)could

beachieved

-not

som

uchby

furtherresearch

intom

oreresponsive

cultivarsand

thelike,

butby

improving

inm

anyw

aysthe

incentivesand

capabilitieso

ffarm

ersto

growm

ore-

frombetter

creditand

priceregim

esfor

cropsand

farminputs

toinfrastructure

improvem

entsw

hichallow

more

certainand

timely

accessto

inputsand

productmarkets.

Large

productivityincreases

canalso

beachieved

withoutresort

tohigh

levelso

ftechnical

inputssuch

asartificial

fertiliser.K

nowledge-

andm

anagement-intensive

farming

methods

which

centreon

resourceconservation

andrecycling

methods

cangreatly

enhancecrop

yieldsw

ithfew

or

noinputs

fromoutside

thefarm

.M

anysuch

farming

systems

inA

frica,L

atinA

merica

andA

siahave

increasedyields

of

foodcrops

byas

much

as200-300

percent

onso-called

"marginal"

land(P

retty,1994

and1995).

3.3C

roppingIntensity

Aclassic

responseto

landshortage

and/orhigh

landprices

hasalw

aysbeen

tointensify

itsuse

byshortening

fallowperiods

or,w

ateravailability

permitting,

squeezingtw

oor

more

cropproduction

cyclesinstead

of

oneonto

agiven

parcel

54G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stCentury

of

landeach

year.W

hileirrigation

obviouslyfacilitates

thisform

of

intensification,m

uchcan

alsobe

doneon

rainfedland

throughgood

managem

entand

methods

suchas

mulching

toenhance

thesoil's

moisture-retaining

capacity.In

much

of

theS

&S

EA

siaregion,for

example,

them

onsoonrains

areadequate

forgrow

ingtw

ocrops

ayear

and,in

many

placesw

ithgood

moisture-holding

soils,a

thirdrelatively

drought-resistantcrop(H

oque,1984).

According

toF

AO

statistics,how

ever,such

changeshad

littleeffect

onthe

overallcropping

intensityo

fthe

10P

oleStar

regionsduring

1961-89.T

hisoverall

intensityis

acoarse

aggregatefigure

basedon

allcrops

andall

theland

onw

hichthey

aregrow

n;i.e.

thetotal

harvestedarea

of

allcrops

combined

(where,

forinstance,

theharvesting

of

two

cropsin

ayear

ona

hectareo

fland

iscounted

astw

oharvested

hectare)divided

bytotal

cultivatedland,

includingarable

landand

permanent

cropland.

All

thesedata

areprovided

byo

rderived

fromthe

FA

OA

grostatland

useand

cropproduction

statistics(F

AO

,1992).

Figure

3.6presents

thehistoric

trendsfor

thisaggregate

croppingintensity.

The

changeover

the3D

-yearperiod

hasgenerally

beenvery

small.

Also

of

noteis

thehigh

valueo

faround

1.3for

China+

,follow

edby

S&

SE

Asia

andE

asternE

uropew

ithintensities

inthe

0.75to

0.85range,

andthe

lowvalue

forO

EC

D-P

acificbecause

of

thedom

inantinfluenceo

fAustralia.

3.3.1C

roppingIntensity:

ScenarioP

rojectionsP

rojectedvalues

of

theaggregate

croppingintensity

areshow

nin

Table

3.8and

Figure

3.7.F

orthe

fourL

DC

regionsexcept

China+

,separate

assumptions

arem

adeexplicitly

forrainfed

andirrigated

land;for

allother

regionsthe

projectionsare

forall

landcom

binedand

takeaccount

of

irrigationonly

ina

qualitativem

anner.O

nem

ajorfeature

isthe

verysm

allchange

assumed

forthe

MD

Cregions,

where

thereis

alsolittle

changein

cultivatedland

areaand,

inm

ostcases,

surpluscrop

production.A

llowing

alsofor

environmental

reasonsfor

maintaining

orincreasing

fallowlands,

pressuresto

intensifythe

useo

ffarm

landsare

likelyto

besm

allor

non-existent.H

owever,

theopposite

islikely

tobe

thecase

inthe

LD

Cregions

aspopulation

pressureson

landresources

increaseand

landvalues

rise,especially

inthe

Middle

East

andC

hina+w

herefuture

landpressures

seemto

bethe

greatest.In

mosto

ftheseregions

thefraction

ofcultivated

landunder

irrigationis

alsoassum

edto

increase,allow

inghigher

intensitiesthrough

more

double-and

triple-cropping.

Table

3.8.C

rop

pin

gintensities:

1989and

2025,2050

relativeto

1989.

1989a

ctua

l2025

rela

tiveto

19892050

rela

tiveto

19

89

Re

gio

nR

ain

fed

Irrig.

All

Ra

infe

dIrrig

.A

llR

ain

fed

Irrig.

All

Africa

0.721.08

0.751.15

1.101.15

1.201.15

1.20Latin

Am

erica

0.690.97

0.721.15

1.101.15

1.201.15

1.20

Middle

East

0.360.98

0.571.40

1.201.33

1.901.25

1.66

China+

1.471.10

1.101.10

1.201.15

1.17

S&

SE

Asia

0.951.20

1.021.10

1.071.09

1.201.15

1.18

NA

merica

0.531.03

1.10W

Europe

0.761.00

1.00

EE

urope0.80

1.001.00

DE

CO

Pacific

0.381.05

1.10

Form

erU

SS

R0.60

1.051.10

Leach

55

-iz-A

FR

--LA

........ME

"""*-CH

INA

+

-llf-SS

EA

19901985

19801975

19701965

1.50

1.25

~1.00

OJc:~'"0.75

c:0ii.C

o

l:!CJ0050

0.25

0.001960

1.50

1.25

~1.00

°iiic:.2!.5'"0.75

c:0ii.C

o

l:!CJ0.50

0.25

0.0019601965

19701975

19801985

1990

"""*-NA

-llf-WE

-+-E

E

--OE

CD

·P

-II-

FS

U

Fig

ure

3.6.C

rop

pin

gin

tensity:

1961-89.

56

1.8

Global

Land

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

1.6

1.4

~1.2

'iiic:

~1.0

Cl

c:'0.

0.8c.eu

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0a:u

.«

J:zIu

«wenen

wwn..6uwo

-19

89

III20

25

02

05

0::::lenu

.

Figure

3.7.C

roppingintensity:

1989,2025,2050.

For

theL

DC

sin

particular,the

projectionscould

well

bevery

conservative.A

ccordingto

Hoque

(1984)the

highestintensityassum

edhere

-1.73

forC

hina+in

2050,compared

to1.47

in1989

-w

asequalled

20years

agoin

Taiw

anand

islittle

more

thanthe

nationalaverage

inthe

early1970s

inIndonesia

(1.61)and

Bangladesh

(1.49).T

hesam

eauthor

notesthat

thepotential

forincreasing

croppingintensity

inthe

tropicsis

"tremendous"

andthat

inm

anyplaces,

sunshineand

otherclim

aticfactors

aresufficient

togrow

threeto

fivecrops

peryear

onthe

same

land,depending

oncrop

growth

durationand

water

availability.T

helatter

constraintcan

begreatly

easedshort

of

major

irrigationschem

esby

many

farmm

anagement

techniques,including

micro-

andm

ini-scalew

aterharvesting

andstorage

methods,

keepingthe

groundcovered

toreduce

evaporation,and

creatingsoil

structuresw

ithgood

water

infiltrationand

holdingcapacities.

3.4C

rop

Yields

As

we

notedbriefly

above,the

potentialfor

increasingaverage

cropyields

isenorm

ous,so

much

sothat

inm

ostregions

yieldincrease

must

beconsidered

asthe

most

important

singlestrategy

forincreasing

foodproduction.

We

alsosaw

inC

hapter1

thatthe

yieldsw

hichfarm

ershave

achievedin

thepast

saylittle

aboutthe

higheryields

theycould

haveachieved

iftherehad

beenthe

incentivesto

doso.

We

canalso

assume

thatthese

incentivesw

illgenerally

increasein

thelonger

termfuture

inallo

ftoday'sless

developedregions,

where

pressureso

frising

populationand

betterdiets

willim

pactincreasinglyon

limited

landand

water

resources.M

akingprojections

of

futurecrop

yieldsis

thereforerather

problematic.

Working

frompotentialities,

onecould

assume

verylarge

increaseson

today.T

ryingto

guessfuture

realitiesraises

theproblem

thatfor

anycrop

andregion

actualoutcom

esw

illbe

thesum

ofm

illionso

fm

icro-leveleconom

icrealities,

includinglocal

pricesfor

crops,land,

labour,fertiliser

andother

farminputs.

Sinceitis

impossible

tom

odelthese

adequatelyfor

thelong-term

future,the

bestonecan

dois

make

plausiblefuture

assumptions

basedon

pastand

presentexperience

colouredby

presentknowledge

ofbio-physicalpotentialities.

Leach

57

One

strando

finform

ationw

hichw

asused

inm

akingthe

projectionshere

isthe

hugepresent

dayranges

of

nationalaverage

cropyields.

This

isshow

nin

Figure

3.8using

1990data

forfive

ofthe

major

cropgroups

consideredhere:

wheat

pluscoarse

grains(C

11),rice(C

12),rootsand

tubers(C

2),pulses(C

3)and

sugarcrops

(C5).

National

averagecrop

yieldfor

allcountries

havingover

5,000hectares

underthe

cropor

cropgroup

inquestion

isplotted

againstcum

ulativenational

harvestedarea

forthe

crop/groupexpressed

asa

percentageo

fthe

world

harvestarea.

With

allcropgroups

theplots

accountfor

over99.8%

of

globalharvest

areafor

thegroup.

The

areaunder

theyield

curveis

proportionaltototal

production.T

heseyield

distributionsare

summ

arisedin

Table

3.9.It

isinteresting

tonote

thatyields

inthe

top-yieldcountry

exceedthose

inthe

lowest-yield

countryby

about10

times

inthe

caseofrice

andsugar

crops,18

times

forroots,

26tim

esfor

wheat

andcoarse

grainsand

51-foldfor

pulses.S

ome

of

thesedifferences

areaccounted

forby

differentm

ixesof

cropsw

ithinherently

differentyields

within

cropproduct

groups.N

everthelessthere

areclearly

hugereal

yielddifferences

between

thehighest

andlow

estranking

countries,m

uchof

themdue

toa

combination

of

rainfalllevels

onrainfed

landand/or

irrigation,higher

fertiliseruse

andbetter

managem

ent.

Ta

ble

3.9.D

istribu

tion

of

na

tion

ala

vera

ge

crop

yield

s(to

n/h

ecta

re):

1990.

Top

Top

10%W

orld

Lo

we

st10

%L

ow

est

Cro

pg

rou

ps

cou

ntry

ofarea

averageo

fareaco

un

try

Wheat

&coarse

grains7.12

5.382.56

0.790.27

Rice

a8.21

6.053.56

1.760.85

Roots

&tubers

40.724.9

11.94.51

2.21P

ulses5.10

2.220.86

0.340.10

Sugar

crops115.3

82.252.4

22.09.8

aRice

yieldsas

paddy(Le.

unhuskedgrain).

The

remaining

backgroundinform

ationfor

theyield

projectionsis

bestdisplayed

with

theprojections

themselves.

This

isdone

inthe

following

section.

3.4.1C

ropYields:

ScenarioP

rojectionsY

ielddata

for1961-89

plusprojections

to2025

and2050

areshow

nfor

allcrop

groupsand

regionsin

Figure

3.9.T

heyare

summ

arisedin

Table

3.10as

actualyields

andin

Table

3.11as

annualrates

of

changein

yield.T

heplots

inF

igure3.9

showm

oreclearly

thanthe

Tables

them

ajorfeatures

of

theprojections

with

respectto

historictrends;

i.e.w

hereyields

areassum

edto

increasefaster,

slower

orat

aboutthe

same

rateas

inthe

past.T

heplots

alsoshow

where

therehave

beenm

ajorchanges

inthe

historicdevelopm

entof

cropyields;

i.e.w

hereannual

yieldincreases

havechanged

fromslow

torapid

or,in

some

cases,turned

intoa

decline.T

hisim

portantinform

ationis

notavailable

fromthe

Tables

butthese

dobring

togetherin

oneplace

some

keyfeatures

of

thescenario

assumptions.

Major

featureso

ftheyield

projectionsare:

•W

ithm

anyo

fthe

80region-crop

groupcom

binationsthere

aresustained

increasesin

yieldover

thenext

60-oddyears.

Increasesare

generallylargest

inregions

which

facethe

greatestfood-land

pressures(A

frica,M

iddleE

ast)and

where

yieldsare

no

w·exceptionally

lowrelative

toother

regionsw

ith

58G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stCentury

comparable

economic

indicators(e.g.

Eastern

Europe

andthe

former

Soviet

Union

with

some

crops).•

Nevertheless,

yieldsdo

notclim

bto

exceptionallyhigh

levelsduring

thenext

60-oddyears.

For

noregion-crop

combination

doesthe

yieldin

2050exceed

orequal

thehighest

nationalaverage

yieldin

1989.T

hetop

10%yield

rangein

1989(see

Table

3.9)is

exceededin

2050by

onlyfour

outof

the10

regionsfor

cereals,roots

andtubers,

andpulses,and

threeouto

f10

forsugar

crops.•

With

theexception

of

China+

(where

intensiveirrigation

andfertilisation

produceshigh

yieldseven

today),yields

inthe

LD

Cregions

in2050

arein

most

casesbelow

thoseo

fthe

leadingM

DC

regionstoday.

For

example,

with

wheat

andcoarse

grains,L

DC

yieldsin

2050are

belowthose

of

North

Am

erica,W

esternand

Eastern

Europe

today;and

with

rice,below

thoseo

fN

orthA

merica,

Western

Europe

andG

EC

D-Pacific.

With

rootsand

tubers,all

LD

Cregions

in2050

haveyields

belowthose

ofpresent

dayN

orthA

merica

andthe

two

Europes.

These

assumptions

contrastsharply

with

thepotentialities

foryield

increasesin

most

LD

Ccountries.

Bradfield

(1972),for

example,

hasargued

onthe

basiso

fdifferences

intem

perature,insolation

andforest

productivity,that

thetropical

farmer

couldproduce

perunit

areaabout

fourtim

esas

much

drym

atteras

hiscounterpart

inthe

temperate

zones,provided

he/shekeeps

afew

layersof

leavesbetw

eenthe

soiland

thesun

throughoutthe

yearto

reducelosses

ofsoilm

oisture.

8W

heat&

Co

arse

Gra

ins

7N

etherlands

F6

Cg"C5

a;">'~4

EQl

>'l'3

~i::::>

<32

World

average:2.56

10080

6040

20

o+

-------t------t------t-------t-------;

oC

um

ula

tivep

erce

nt

of

areau

nd

er

wheat+

coa

rseg

rain

s

Fig

ure

3.8(a).N

ationalaveragecro

pyie

lda

ga

instcum

ulativepercentage

crop

area:1990

­w

heatandcoarse

grains.

Leach

59

9

N.K

orea8

Australia

ca7

~g6

China

."a;':;:'5

.,Indonesia

til

'"iii4

World

average:3.56

>'"-------

~3

'E::I0u

2

Rice

(1990)

IndiaS

ancIa

10090

8070

6050

4030

2010

0+

----1

----+

-----+

-----1

---+

---+

----+

----+

-----+

-----;

oC

um

ulative

percen

to

farea

un

der

rice

Fig

ure

3.8{b).

Natio

nalaverag

ecro

pyield

again

stcu

mu

lativep

ercentag

ecro

parea:

19

90

­rice

(pad

dy,

or

un

hu

skedg

rain).

Ro

ots

&tu

bers

China

Form

erU

SS

R~~--:-:-:~::-:--~-

-=

:-:-_<»:-_~:=:,------------

4540B

elgium,

Denm

arkN

etherlands,U

K

ca35

.cCg30

."a;':;:'25

.,till'!

20.,>'"~

15N

igeria'E

Brazil

::I0U

105

10090

80

7060

5040

3020

10

0+

----+

---+

----+

---+

-----+

-----+

---+

----+

---+

-----1

oC

um

ulative

percen

to

fh

arvestedarea

(roo

ts&

tub

ers)

Fig

ure

3.8{c).N

ation

alaverage

crop

yieldag

ainst

cum

ulative

percen

tage

crop

area:1990

­ro

ots

&tu

bers.

60G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

6P

ulses

5France

...c:Cg4

"CGi

>.Cl>3

Cl

ECl>>~

2i::s00

-India

Brazil

10080

4060

Cu

mu

lative

pe

rcen

tof

ha

rveste

darea

(pu

lses)

20

0+

-------+

--------1

--------1

-------1

1----------1

"

o

Fig

ure

3.8(d).N

ationalaveragecro

pyie

lda

ga

instcu

mu

lative

percentagecro

parea:

19

90

­pulses.

120Z

imbabw

e,P

eru,M

alawi

100

...c:Cg80

"CGi

India';;'Cl>

60C

lE

Wo~d

average:52.4

Cl>-

--

--

--

-><p~

40c:s00

20

Su

ga

rcro

ps

Brazil

10090

8070

605

040

3020

10

o+

----+

----I----+

-----+

---+

----+

----II----+

----+

-----l

oC

um

ula

tivep

erce

nt

of

harvestedarea

(sug

ar

crop

s)

Fig

ure

3.8(e).N

ationalaveragecro

pyie

lda

ga

instcu

mu

lative

percentagecro

parea:

1990­

sug

ar

crops.

Leach

Ta

ble

3.1

0.

Cro

pyie

lds

(ton

lhe

ctare

):1

98

1,

20

25

,2

05

0.

Wh

ea

t&

coa

rseg

rain

s(C

11)R

ice(p

ad

dy)

(C12)

Re

gio

n1

98

92025

20501989

20252050

Africa

1.172.18

2.701.97

3.093.65

LatinA

me

rica2.03

3.033.32

2.593.55

4.32

Mid

dle

Ea

st1.18

2.532.95

3.204.62

5.26

Ch

ina

+3.19

5.135.67

5.307.03

7.39

S&

SE

Asia

1.5

02.83

3.242.79

4.885.54

NA

me

rica3.85

6.016.28

6.457.74

7.99W

Europe

3.876.04

6.275.70

7.1

27.41

EE

uro

pe

3.655.52

5.951.89

5.0

05.47

GE

CD

Pa

cific1

.70

2.552.76

6.217

.57

7.76

Fo

rme

rU

SS

R1.88

3.333.48

3.905.46

5.46

Ro

ots

&tu

be

rs(C

2)P

ulse

s(C

3)

Re

gio

n1

98

92025

20501989

20252050

Africa

7.913.9

18.00.57

0.881.10

LatinA

me

rica11.4

17.922.0

0.510.90

1.10

Mid

dle

Ea

st15.9

19.222.2

0.671.12

1.30

Ch

ina

+9.0

18.122.0

1.051.80

2.01

S&

SE

Asia

12.019.7

23.20.59

0.891.09

NA

me

rica30.2

37.140.1

1.552

.40

2.69W

Eu

rop

e2

4.2

33.136.0

1.683.00

3.50

EE

urope17.8

25.028.9

1.092.20

2.70

GE

CD

Pa

cific2

3.0

31.934.9

1.151.51

1.70

Fo

rme

rU

SS

R12.0

16.920.0

1.563.01

3.51

Oilc

rop

s(n

on

-tree

)(C

4)S

ug

ar

cro

ps

(C5)

Re

gio

n1

98

92025

20501989

20252050

Africa

0.7

71.33

1.6858.7

68.671.2

LatinA

me

rica1.34

2.002.30

65.386.3

92.5

Mid

dle

Ea

st1.20

1.932.26

27.658.4

67.9

Ch

ina

+1.52

1.992.30

40.568.1

76.2

S&

SE

Asia

0.8

21.40

1.6961.8

79.290.0

NA

me

rica2.17

2.693.01

56.567.8

74.0

WE

uro

pe

2.162.71

3.0049.2

69.980.2

EE

uro

pe

1.762.50

2.8031.5

39.044.0

GE

CD

Pa

cific1.24

2.002.30

74.883.0

86.7

Fo

rme

rU

SS

R1.32

2.012.29

29.14

1.9

48.1

Ve

ge

tab

les

(C6)

Tre

ecro

ps

(C7

)

Re

gio

n1

98

92025

20501989

20252050

Africa

14.820.0

24.72.68

3.95.2

LatinA

me

rica13.8

23.930.0

2.674

.45.5

Mid

dle

Ea

st18.0

29.134.8

6.798

.910.0

Ch

ina

+14.7

24.930.0

6.549.0

10.0

S&

SE

Asia

po

or

data20.7

25.04.51

6.87.8

NA

me

rica2

8.3

37.942.1

12.115.1

15.5W

Eu

rop

e23.0

32.037.0

5.237

.08.0

EE

uro

pe

16.72

8.0

35.05.46

8.09.0

GE

CD

Pa

cific23.2

32.037.1

8.891

0.7

11.5

Fo

rme

rU

SS

R20.1

29.935.0

3.295.8

7.0

61

62G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21st

Century

Ta

ble

3.1

1.

An

nu

al

pe

rcen

tag

ech

an

ge

incro

pyie

lds:

19

61

-89

an

dfu

ture

pro

jectio

ns.

Wh

ea

t&

coa

rseg

rain

s(C

11)R

ice(p

ad

dy)

(C12)

Re

gio

n1961-89

1989-20251989-2050

1961-891989-2025

1989-2050

Africa

1.461.74

1.381.00

1.251.01

LatinA

merica

1.901.12

0.811.31

0.880.84

Middle

East

1.262.15

1.521.84

1.030.82

China+

4.791.33

0.953.34

0.790.55

S&

SE

Asia

3.031.78

1.271.96

1.571.13

NA

merica

2.041.24

0.801.89

0.510.35

WE

urope2.69

1.240.79

0.420.62

0.43

EE

urope2.66

1.150.81

-0.832.74

1.76

DE

CO

Pacific

0.851.14

0.800.87

0.550.37

Form

erU

SS

R2.03

1.601.02

2.250.94

0.55

Ro

ots

&tu

be

rs(C

2)P

ulse

s(C

3)

Re

gio

n1961-89

1989-20251989-2050

1961-891989-2025

1989-2050

Africa

1.181.58

1.360.62

1.201.08

LatinA

merica

0.551.26

1.08-0.64

1.601.27

Middle

East

0.760.53

0.55-0.45

1.441.09

China+

0.781.96

1.480.72

1.521.07

S&

SE

Asia

1.701.39

1.090.32

1.141.02

NA

merica

1.480.58

0.470.39

1.220.91

WE

urope1.40

0.880.66

3.391.63

1.21

EE

urope0.82

0.950.80

3.551.97

1.50

DE

CO

Pacific

1.010.92

0.69-0.60

0.750.64

Form

erU

SS

R0.84

0.960.83

1.861.84

1.34

Oilcro

ps

(no

n-tre

e)

(C4)

Su

ga

rcro

ps

(C5)

Re

gio

n1961-89

1989-20251989-2050

1961-891989-2025

1989-2050

Africa

0.071.51

1.28-0.38

0.430.32

LatinA

merica

2.391.13

0.890.90

0.780.57

Middle

East

1.311.34

1.041.08

2.111.49

China+

3.380.76

0.681.48

1.451.04

S&

SE

Asia

1.301.48

1.190.96

0.690.62

NA

merica

0.970.60

0.540.18

0.510.44

WE

urope1.83

0.630.54

1.500.98

0.80

EE

urope1.44

0.980.76

0.870.60

0.55

DE

CO

Pacific

-0.541.33

1.011.33

0.290.24

Form

erU

SS

R0.86

1.180.91

2.091.02

0.82

Ve

ge

tab

les

(C6)

Tre

ecro

ps

(C7)

Re

gio

n1961·89

1989-20251989-2050

1961-891989-2025

1989-2050

Africa

0.500.83

0.841.11

1.051.09

LatinA

merica

1.801.53

1.281.87

1.421.19

Middle

East

1.421.34

1.081.20

0.750.64

China+

1.511.48

1.184.45

0.900.70

S&

SE

Asia

poor1.86

1.130.90

NA

merica

2.120.82

0.660.85

0.600.40

WE

urope1.49

0.920.78

0.190.81

0.70

EE

urope3.92

1.451.22

1.561.07

0.82

DE

CO

Pacific

1.450.89

0.770.63

0.530.42

Form

erU

SS

R1.29

1.110.91

3.181.58

1.25

Leach

63

•T

heannual

rateo

fyield

increaseduring

1989-2050is

lower

thanduring

1961­89

inall

but22

of

the80

crop-regioncom

binations.In

many

casesthe

rateo

fyield

increaseis

verym

uchlow

erthan

inthe

past.•

InA

fricathe

generallypoor

yieldperform

anceo

fthe

pastis

assumed

tobe

reversed.W

ithseven

outo

fthe

eightcropgroups,

annualyield

increasesduring

1989-2025are

greaterthan

for1961-89,

with

anequivalent

scoreo

fsix

groupsfor

1989-2050.T

hisfundam

entalshift

isassum

edto

resultfrom

many

factorsincluding

thefairly

highgrow

tho

fper

capitaincom

ew

hichis

builtinto

theC

onventionalD

evelopment

scenario(and

which

must

includesubstantial

increasesin

farmincom

es),and

avariety

of

actionsby

policym

akers,w

iththe

supporto

fdonor

andlending

institutions,designed

torevitalise

agricultureand

reverseits

recentstagnationand

declinein

many

partso

fthe

continent.•

Inthe

Middle

East

thereis

asim

ilaracceleration

inyield

growth,

mainly

asa

responseto

mounting

pressureson

limited

landresources

fromthe

assumed

rapidgrow

thin

populationand

percapita

foodconsum

ption.A

nnualyield

increasesare

higherthan

for1961-89

with

fourcrop

groupsduring

the1989­

2025period

andthree

groupsduring

1989-2050.•

Yield

increasesaccelerate

inE

asternE

uropeand

theform

erS

ovietU

nionin

casesw

hereyields

arepresently

lowcom

paredto

Western

Europe.

This

yieldcatch

upis

assumed

tobe

drivenby

theprivatisation

of

agricultureand

theopening

upo

flarge

new(E

uropeanand

world)

markets

tothese

regions.•

With

some

crops,yields

inthe

LD

Cs

areassum

edto

increaseconsiderably

fasterthan

inthe

pastas

aresult

of

recentscientific

advanceso

rspecific

opportunitiesto

achievegreater

productivity.T

hisis

thecase

forroots

andtubers,

where

FA

Oconsiders

thatdram

aticyield

increaseso

ftw

oor

threetim

eson

presentvalues

shouldbe

possiblefrom

greaterfertiliser

useplus

useo

fnew

seeds(FA

O,

1993).F

asteryield

growth

isalso

assumed

forpulses

becauseo

fthe

recentdevelopm

entofnew

varieties(F

AO

,1993).

64G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21st

Century

7W

heat+C

oa

rseg

rain

s(C

11)

652

-0

-.

AF

R

----6-LA

··~·_·ME

-CH

INA

+

--S

SE

A

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

O+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

-----j

1960

765

....c:4

"Cg"0Qi

3>=

2

Wheat+

Co

arse

gra

ins

(C11)

....-------------

-----

-N

A

----6-W

E

~EE

-O

EC

D-P

-.-

FS

U

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

o-l----l-----!---t-----t----t----I-----t----l-----!

1960

Fig

ure

3.9(a).

Cro

pyie

lds:

wh

ea

t&

coa

rseg

rain

s,1961

-2050.

Leach

65

Rice

(pad

dy)

(C12)

876

_...

----

------iI-

AFR

--LA

---.-ME

"""*-CH

INA

+

---SS

EA

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

o-!---+

---+

---+

----j----j---+

---+

---+

----j

1960

Rice

(pad

dy)

(C12)

6 72

"""*-N

A

---'-WE

---EE

--OE

CD

-P

---FS

U3 8

n;-5~~~,r

~g4

'0Qj

>

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

o+

----I------+

---I----+

----I----I------1

I-----j-

----I

1960

Fig

ure

3.9(b

).C

rop

yields:

rice(p

add

y),1961

-2050.

66G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

Roots

&tu

be

rs(C

2)2520

..15

.c~g'C0;

>=105

-+-A

FR

·····LA

.."""M

E

-CH

INA

+-S

SE

A

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

0+

---+

---+

----+

----+

----+

----+

----+

---+

----1

1960

45R

oo

ts&

tub

ers

(C2)

403530...c

25~g'C

200

;

>=1510

...............•

10+.~

........~.....

•,...*

.."+

"N

A

--W

E

-E

E

·····OE

CD

-P

-F

SU

5

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

0+

---+

----+

----+

----+

---+

----+

-----+

----+

----1

1960

Fig

ure

3.9

(c).C

rop

yields:

roo

ts&

tub

ers,1961

-2050.

Leach

67

Pu

lses

(C3)

2.0

1.5

..--+

-AF

R

~-II-

LAg

1.0-+

-ME

" Oi

-"-CH

INA

+>:

""-SS

EA

0.5

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

0.0+

---+

---+

---+

----+

----+

----t----t----t----;

1960

Pu

lses

(C3)

4.0

3.5

3.0

..2.5

.s:Cg2.0

" Oi>:1.5

1.0

0.5

0.019601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

-N

A

---A-W

E

-E

E

-OE

CD

-P

·····FS

U

Fig

ure

3.9

(d).

Cro

pyield

s:p

ulses,

1961-

2050.

68G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

2.5O

ilcro

ps

(C4)

2.0

ca1.5

"+"A

FR

.cC"""L

Ag"C

-+-M

EOJ>=

1.0-C

HIN

A+

--S

SE

A

0.5

0.019601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

Oil

crop

s(C

4)3.5

3.0

2.5

ca~g2.0

"COJ>=1.5

1.0

-N

A

·····WE

-+-E

E

--OE

CD

·P

"+"F

SU

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

0.5-f---+

----+

----+

---+

---+

----;----jl-

--t----i

1960

Figure3.9

(e).C

ropyields:

oilcrops(non-tree),1961

-2050.

Leach

69

Su

ga

rcro

ps

(C5)

10080

Ii60

~g."..;:

4020

"<>

"AF

R

··..··L

A

---+-M

E

-CH

INA

+

--S

SE

A

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

0+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

----1

1960

Su

ga

rcro

ps

(C5)

10080

tU60

~~"tlQ

j

>=4020

••.!..

..~.....

-

•

................._-_....__...•

---+-N

A

-W

E

··..··EE

···--OE

CD

·P

--F

SU

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

O+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

-----i

1960

Fig

ure

3.9(f).

Cro

pyie

lds:

sug

ar

crops,1961

-2050.

70G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

Ve

ge

tab

le(C

6)353025

'iii~

20g"CQ

j15

;;::

10

--..··A

FR

-L

A

-M

E

-.o-C

HIN

A+

5P

oo

rtrendd

ata

for

SS

EA

region

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

o+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

---+

------l

1960

Ve

ge

tab

les

(C6)

45403530'iii.<:

25Cg"C

20Q

j;;::

15105019601970

19801990

20002010

20202030

20402050

--N

A

·····WE

-.o-E

E

-OE

CD

-P

---FS

U

Fig

ure

3.9

(g).

Cro

pyield

s:veg

etables,

1961-

2050.

Leach

71

Tree

crop

s(C

7)

10987/1:"'.........,.-

m,/'..

6.c

."i·ca

5.......~

~.t.,IoI.

/'.....'Ciii

~~~

>432

---<J-A

FR

-L

A-"-M

E

-C

HIN

A+

-S

SE

A

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

O+

----+

----+

----+

---l-

--f---+

---+

----+

-----l

1960

Tree

crop

s(C

7)

161412

m10

.cCg8

'Ciii>

642

-'-NA

"""*-WE

--lO---E

E

-+-O

EC

D·P

---FS

U

20502040

20302020

20102000

19901980

1970

o+

----+

----+

----+

---I---ll-

---+

---+

---+

----i

1960

Fig

ure

3.9(h).

Cro

pyie

lds:

tree

crop

s,1961

-2050.

72G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stCentury

3.5H

arvestSharesT

heharvestshare

ofeach

cropgroup

-the

fractiono

ftotal

harvestarea

devotedto

thecrop

-is

treatedhere

asa

secondaryor

balancingitem

.T

ogetherw

iththe

primary

variables,total

harvestarea

andcrop

yield,it

definesthe

regionalproduction

ofthe

cropgroup.

This

productionlevel

isitself

afunction

of

requiredsupply,

which

ispre-determ

inedby

assumptions

aboutpopulation

andfood

consumption

(seeC

hapter2),

andanother

secondaryvariable,

theself-sufficiency

ratio.O

neconstraint

onthe

harvestshares

iso

fcourse

thatin

eachregion

theym

ustsum

tounity.

Figure

3.10presents

theregional

harvestshares

in1989,

2025and

2050.T

heupper

Figure

(3.10a)is

forthe

cerealgroups:

wheat

andcoarse

grains(C

ll)and

rice(C

12).T

helow

erFigure

(3.lOb)

shows,

inorder,

non-treeoil

crops(C

4),roots

andtubers

(C2),

treecrops

(C7)

andthe

remainder

combined;

namely

pulses(C

3),sugar

crops(C

5)and

vegetables(C

6).G

enerallyspeaking,

changesin

harvestshares

aresm

all.C

erealsm

aintaintheir

dominant

position,taking

fromabout

45%of

totalcrop

landin

Latin

Am

ericato

70%or

more

inthe

Middle

East

andallthe

MD

Cregions

exceptW

esternE

urope.T

hem

ostnotable

changesin

thescenario

arethe

declinesin

China+,

S&

SE

Asia

andG

EC

D-P

acificfrom

1989to

2025,largely

asa

resulto

fdietary

shiftsout

ofrice

andinto

non-cerealfoods.

Latin

andN

orthA

merica

increasetheir

sharesof

wheat

andcoarse

grains,entirely

toenlarge

theirexports

tom

eetgrain

deficitsin

theL

DC

s.A

mongst

non-cerealcrops,

thelargestchange

isthe

substantialincrease

of

non-treeoil

cropsin

allregions

exceptN

orthA

merica

(where

theshare

was

alreadyvery

highat27%

in1989),again

duem

ainlyto

dietarychanges.

3.6P

roduction,Self-sufficiencyR

atiosand

Net

Exports

To

whatextentdo

regionshave

tom

eettheirfood

requirements

byim

portingw

hatthey

cannotproduce

themselves?

And,

conversely,by

howm

uchdo

some

regionshave

toproduce

more

thanthey

needin

orderto

exportto

deficitregions?

The

self-sufficiencyratio

(SSR)

holdsthe

answers

toboth

questions,since

itlinks

throughtrade

thekey

components

offood

demand

(requiredsupply)

andfood

production(achieved

production).T

heS

SR

isdefined

herefor

eachcrop

andregion

asachieved

productiondivided

byrequired

supply,but

alsoequals

theterm

[1

+netexports/required

supply].T

oexplore

theassum

ptionsand

resultsfor

eachregion,

itiseasiestto

beginw

ithachieved

production.This

quantityis

infact

theproduct

of

thevarious

terms

inthe

cropproduction

chainw

hichhave

beendiscussed

inthis

chapterso

farfor

eachregion,

cropgroup

andyear,

namely:

Cultivated

Area

xC

roppingIntensity

xH

arvestShare

xY

ield.T

ables3.12

and3.13

presentsome

keyresults.

Itis

clearthat

enormous

productionincreases

aredem

andedo

fsom

eregions,

evenw

herenet

imports

alsoincrease.

For

example,

in2050,

Africa

andthe

Middle

East

haveto

produceover

seventim

esm

oreanim

alproducts

thantoday;

forL

DC

sas

aw

holethe

increaseis

4.5fold.

For

cereals,equivalent

figuresare

factorincreases

of

3.7to

3.8for

Africa

andthe

Middle

East

and2.1

fordeveloping

regionscom

bined.F

orthe

world

asa

whole,

productionin

2050needs

tobe

nearlydouble

the1989

levelfor

cereals,2.3

times

higherfor

othercrops

combined,

andup

bya

factoro

f2.4for

animal

products.

0.8

0.7

0.6

'"~0.5

'"CijQl

c:'"0.4

.s:'0~'"0.3

.s:VI

0.2

0.1

AF

RLA

ME

Leach

CH

INA

+S

SE

AN

AW

EE

EO

EC

D-P

FSU

73

I DC

12

1D

C11

Fig

ure

3.10(a).

Sh

areo

fh

arvestarea,

cerealcrops:

1989-

2050(left,

centre,

righ

tb

arsin

eachreg

ion

arefo

r1989,2025,

2050).

0.6

0.5

'"0.4

~'"CijQl

>~0.3

.s:'0Ql

~.s:VI

0.2

0.1

·C3

+C

5+

C6

DC

7

DC

2

~C4

AFR

LAM

EC

HIN

A+

SS

EA

NA

WE

EE

OE

CD

-PFS

U

Fig

ure

3.10(b

).S

hare

ofh

arvestarea,

no

n-cereal

crop

s:1989

-2050.

74G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stCentury

Table

3.12.A

chievedfo

od

pro

du

ction

,1989,2025

&2050

(millio

ntons).

Cereals

Oth

er

crop

sA

nim

alp

rod

ucts

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

19892025

20501989

20252050

Africa

95253

354297

7521,230

34134

256Latin

Am

erica107

239316

6841,078

1,22981

180227

Middle

East

225

781

40107

14711

4881

China+

401553

603416

8741,244

60166

229S

&S

EA

sia375

628772

6631,320

1,854103

297499

NA

merica

333549

632205

284285

118151

145

WE

urope231

334373

372452

433205

235233

EE

urope81

117136

111131

12945

5252

DE

CO

Pacific

3753

5975

94113

4675

88F

ormer

US

SR

201335

380251

378400

149201

212

LOC

s999

1732,125

2,1004,132

5,705288

8241,293

MO

Cs

883138

1,5801,013

1,3391,358

562712

729W

orld1,882

3113,706

3,1145,470

7,063851

1,5362,022

Table

3.13.C

hangesin

achievedfo

od

pro

du

ction

relativeto

1989.

Cereals

Oth

er

crop

sA

nim

alp

rod

ucts

Region

20252050

20252050

20252050

Africa

2.663.72

2.534.14

3.957.55

LatinA

merica

2.252.96

1.581.80

2.222.82

Middle

East

2.653.75

2.653.65

4.277.17

China+

1.381.50

2.102.99

2.763.83

S&

SE

Asia

1.682.06

1.992.80

2.894.86

NA

merica

1.651.90

1.391.39

1.281.23

WE

urope1.45

1.611.21

1.161.15

1.14E

Europe

1.441.68

1.181.16

1.141.14

DE

CO

Pacific

1.421.58

1.251.49

1.611.90

Form

erU

SS

R1.67

1.891.51

1.601.35

1.42

LOC

s1.73

2.131.97

2.722.86

4.48M

OC

s1.57

1.791.32

1.341.27

1.30

World

1.661.97

1.762.27

1.812.38

Assum

ptionsfor

self-sufficiencyratios

(SSRs)

areoutlined

inFigure

3.11and

Table

3.14.T

heseshow

,for

theyears

1989,2025

and2050,

theS

SR

sfor

allregions

andfour

aggregateproduct

groups:all

cereals,all

non-cerealcrops,

allcrops

andall

animal

products.W

ithcereals

thedom

inantfeature

of

thescenario

isthat

thelarge

presentday

differencesin

self-sufficiencyratios

arew

idened:food

deficitregions

increasetheir

deficits,food

exportershave

toexport

more.

The

Middle

East

inparticular

moves

froma

heavyto

anacute

cerealproduction

deficit,w

ithan

SS

Rof

46%in

1989and

only29%

in2050.

Substantialdeficits

inthe

GE

CD

-Pacificregion

andA

fricaalso

enlargeconsiderably;

inthe

lattercase

thecereals'

SS

Rm

ovesfrom

79%to

60%during

1989to

2050.T

hem

ostpopulous

LD

Cregions,

China+

andS

&S

EA

sia,w

hichw

ereboth

almost

self-sufficientin

cerealsin

1989,experience

onlysm

allreductions

intheir

cerealSSR

sby

2050.T

ocounterbalance

thesem

ountingdeficits

allthe

MD

Cregions

exceptG

EC

D-Pacific

areforced

bythe

scenarioassum

ptionsto

greatlyincrease

cerealproduction

andexport

volumes

ascom

paredto

theirdom

esticneeds.

The

priceand

policyenvironm

entin

which

thisis

likelyto

happenis

am

ajoruncertainty

ofthe

scenario.W

hileN

orthA

merica

andW

esternE

uropestart

theperiod

asthe

onlycereal

netexporters

andincrease

theirSSR

sby

Leach

75

closeto

30%each,

Eastern

Europe

andthe

former

Soviet

Union

beginin

1989as

importers

butm

overapidly

intosurplus

productionand

substantialnet

exports.L

atinA

merica

moves

frombeing

anet

cerealim

porterto

havinga

cerealS

SR

of

1.0in

2050.

Ce

rea

ls(C

1)2

.5

2.0

~~>-1

.5u<:Q

l'u::::::J

1.0

III~Q

itil

0.5

0.0

-19

89

02

02

5

III2050-

--

--

-II---

-~-

po-

~

4-~b

4-

4-

4-

4-

4-

'-iex:

«w

+«

«w

wc..

::lu..

-J

~«

wz

3:w

0en

«z

enu..

Ien

0w0

0

Fig

ure

3.11(a).

Se

lf-sufficie

ncy

ratio,cerealcro

ps

(C1):

1989-

2050.

No

n-ce

rea

lcrop

s(C

2-

C7)

1.4

1.2

1.0

l-

--

--

-~

--

-.2~>-

0.8u

-19

89

<:Ql

'u0

20

25

:e0.6

1I!l2050:::J

LIII~Q

itil

0.4

0.2

0.04

-4

-4

-4

-'-i

ex:«

w+

««

ww

c..::l

u..-J

~«

wz

3:w

0til

«z

en0

u..I

enw

00

Fig

ure

3.11(b).

Se

lf-sufficie

ncy

ratio,non-cerealcro

ps

(C2

-C

7):1989

-2050.

76

1.8

1.6

en1.4

0-

0U0;

1.2

~1.0

E,.,0l:0.8

Ql

'u~0.6

en.,!.a;

0.4en

0.2

0.0a:lL<

{

GlobalL

andand

Food

inthe

2Jst

Century

All

crop

s(C

1-

C7)

"----l

4-

4-

4-

4-

LJL<

{U

J+

<{

<{

UJ

UJ

0-

:::J-J

::;;<

{U

Jz

3:U

J0

enz

enlL

Ien

0UJ

00

-19

89

02

02

5

m2050

Fig

ure

3.11(c).

Self-su

fficiency

ratio,all

crop

s(C

1-C

7):1989

-2050.

An

ima

lP

rod

ucts

(A1

-A

3)

1.4

1.2

.g1.0

E,.,00.8

l:Ql

'uit:0.6

:::>I",

en.,!.a;

I:,en

0.4

0.2

0.0

a:lL<{

+<{

zIo

<{

UJ

enen

-+-

<{

z

-+-

-+-

UJ

UJ

0-

ooUJ

o

:::JenlL

-19

89

02

02

5

m2050

Fig

ure

3.11(d).

Self-su

fficiency

ratio,an

imal

pro

du

cts(A

1-

A3):

1989-

2050.

With

non-cerealcrops

boththe

absolutedifferences

andchanges

inthe

regionalS

SR

sare

farless

extreme

thanw

ithcereals.

In1989,

apartfrom

thelarge

deficitof

theM

iddleE

astand

thelarge

netexports

of

Latin

Am

erica,all

regionshad

SS

Rs

within

the79%

to108%

range.B

y2050

theextrem

epositions

of

theM

iddleE

astand

Latin

Am

ericaw

iden,w

iththe

SS

Rfor

theform

erregion

fallingfrom

57%to

only36%

.T

hedeficit

SS

Rw

orsensslightly

inA

frica,w

hileS

&S

EA

siam

ovesfrom

anet

surplusin

1989(SSR

=1.08)

toa

substantialdeficit

in2050

(SS

R=

0.88).In

allother

regions,including

China+

amongst

theL

DC

s,net

imports

decreaseor

netexportsincrease

sothat

theS

SR

rises.

Tab

le3

.14

.S

elf-sufficien

cyratio

s.

Leach

77

Cereals

Oth

er

crop

s

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

19892025

2050A

frica0.79

0.660.57

0.980.90

0.94Latin

Am

erica0.89

0.951.02

1.251.22

1.21M

iddleE

ast0.46

0.310.28

0.570.43

0.40C

hina+0.97

0.920.96

0.971.00

1.01S

&S

EA

sia0.95

0.860.86

1.081.00

0.99

NA

merica

1.591.80

2.130.99

1.111.19

WE

urope1.13

1.351.51

0.911.01

1.04E

Europe

0.971.58

1.991.00

0.991.01

GE

CD

Pacific

0.700.53

0.490.88

0.831.02

Form

erU

SS

R0.83

1.221.38

0.791.01

1.03

To

talcro

ps

An

ima

lpro

du

cts

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

19892025

2050

Africa

0.930.83

0.830.83

0.820.84

LatinA

merica

1.191.16

1.171.09

1.041.03

Middle

East

0.530.38

0.350.68

0.670.65

China+

0.970.97

0.990.98

0.990.99

S&

SE

Asia

1.040.95

0.950.94

0.951.00

NA

merica

1.301.48

1.721.00

1.101.13

WE

urope0.98

1.131.20

1.041.08

1.12E

Europe

0.981.20

1.351.03

1.081.09

GE

CD

Pacific

0.810.70

0.751.09

1.181.23

Form

erU

SS

R0.81

1.101.17

0.991.10

1.13

With

animal

productsthere

isrelatively

littlechange

inthe

self-sufficiencyratios.

Inoutline,

theyim

proveslightly

inall

theM

DC

sin

orderto

balanceoffslight

fallsin

Latin

Am

ericaand

theM

iddleE

ast.H

owever,

theeffects

of

thesechanges

oncrop

productionrequirem

entsvia

crop-basedanim

alfeeds

arevery

small

indeed.C

ombined

with

atw

o-to

three-foldexpansion

inthe

volumes

ofw

orldfood

consumption

andproduction

by2050

thesechanges

inself-sufficiency

ratiosgive

riseto

some

verylarge

changesindeed

inregional

croptrade.

Bearing

inm

indthat

we

areconsidering

hereonly

net

exportsbetw

eenregions,

Table

3.15provides

aggregateregional

tradedata

forcereals

andnon-cereal

cropsin

1989,2025

and2050.

Betw

eenthem

,the

MD

Cregions

haveto

increasetheir

cerealexports

more

than6-fold

between

1989and

2050-

fromaround

90m

illionto

552m

illiontons

ayear

-to

match

the6-fold

increasein

imports

tothe

LD

Cs.

Most

ofthe

latteris

toA

fricaand

theM

iddleE

ast,w

hereim

porttonnages

increaselO

-foldand

8-foldrespectively.

To

correctthis

imbalance

North

Am

ericaalm

osttrebles

itscereal

exportsfrom

122to

330m

illiontons

between

1989and

2050.W

esternE

uropem

orethan

quadruplesits

cerealexports

from25

to122

million

tonsin

thesam

eperiod.

78G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21st

Century

Table

3.15.N

etexports(m

illion

tons).

Ce

rea

lsO

the

rcro

ps

Re

gio

n1989

20252050

19892025

2050

Africa

-23.3-122.8

-246.6-7.3

-81.4-84.5

LatinA

me

rica-11.9

-13.24.7

134.5192.9

211.3

Middle

Ea

st-22.1

-112.8-179.8

-28.8-125.9

-196.8

China+

-10.1-41.0

-24.6-10.5

-2.115.4

S&

SE

Asia

-15.4-84.8

-105.946.4

-0.9-19.0

NA

merica

122.1238.1

330.0-2.5

27.145.0

WE

urope25.0

84.8121.5

-40.15.3

15.3

EE

urope-2.7

42.266.6

-0.4-1.5

1.0

OE

CD

Pacific

-14.6-43.8

-58.9-10.5

-18.41.9

Form

erU

SS

R-37.4

53.492.8

-61.35.0

10.5

LDC

s-82.9

-374.6-552.4

134.3-17.5

-73.6M

DC

s92.3

374.7552.1

-114.817.5

73.7

One

obviousquestion

isw

hetherthe

LD

Cregions

will

beable

toafford

theseenorm

ousincreases

infood

imports.

Afair

answer

might

be"yes,

perhaps".If

we

considerthe

lO-fold

and8-fold

increasesin

cerealimports

toA

fricaand

theM

iddleE

ast,they

turno

ut

tobe

slightlyless

thanthe

increasesin

regionalG

DP

duringthe

same

period;i.e.

bya

factoro

f10.9

forA

fricaand

9.9for

theM

iddleE

ast(see

Tables

1.2and

1.3).If

foodprices

(inreal

terms)

donot

increasesignificantly

inthe

coming

decades,the

massive

foodim

portsin

2050should

accountfor

nogreater

shareo

fG

DP

thanfood

imports

today.A

secondpertinent

questionis

whether

thefood

exportersw

illb

ew

illingto

exportinsuch

vastquantities,

bearingin

mind

currentpolitical

pressuresto

reducefood

production,farm

subsidiesand

"surplus"crop

land?H

owever,

ifthey

donot

exportas

assumed,

futurefood

deficitsin

theim

portingregions

would

haveto

bereduced.

Ifw

ealso

assume

forthe

mom

entthat

fooddem

andas

outlinedin

Chapter

2is

agiven,

thedeficit

reductionsw

ouldhave

tobe

made

throughstill

greaterincreases

incrop

landso

rin

cropyields

thanassum

edabove,

especiallyin

thelargest

fooddeficit

regions-

Africa

andthe

Middle

East

plusS

&S

EA

siafor

non-cerealcrops.

Fro

ma

Northern

perspectiveboth

solutionsraise

manifold

problems.

Land

expansionruns

upagainst

mostly

Northern

concernsabout

preventingforest

clearancein

theS

outh-

chieflyto

"preservebiodiversity"

andreduce

greenhousegas

emissions

fromthis

source.Y

ieldincreases

aretherefore

generallythe

more

favouredsolution.

To

theextentthatthese

canbe

broughtabout

by"m

orescience"

theyare

alsothe

more

painlesssolution:

letthe

scientistsand

expertsget

onand

dotheir

thingand

two

earso

fcorn

will

growinstead

of

one.If,

asseem

sm

uchm

orelikely,

reallylarge

improvem

entsin

yieldm

ustcom

efrom

am

uchbroader

packageo

fm

easures,the

yieldim

provement

optionw

illcertainly

notbe

painless.It

will

requirea

largerange

of

toughpolitical

actionsin

developingcountries

with

continuedsupport,

oftenin

cash,from

thetraditional

Northern

donorcountries.

Substantial

andperm

anentincreases

inbasic

foodprices

might

alsobe

required(after

decadeso

fsteady

decline)in

orderto

increasefarm

erincentives.

How

thatcan

be

donew

ithoutpricing

foodbeyond

thereach

of

many

more

millions

of

po

or

peoplethan

today-

or

bym

assivefood

subsidiesfor

consumers

-is

avery

largequestion

indeed.

Leach

4C

HA

LL

EN

GE

SA

ND

RE

SPO

NSE

S

79

4.1Introduction

The

Conventional

Developm

entscenario

presentedin

previouschapters

assumes

acontinuity

overthe

next60

yearsin

basicpatterns

andtrends

offood

consumption

andproduction.

Dietary

standardsand

patternsadjust

graduallyw

ithrising

incomes,

averageyields

continueto

improve,

andthere

isa

progressiveexpansion

of

agricultural(and

settlement)

areasat

theexpense

offorests

andother

land.T

hesetrends

easeoff

towards

2050as

thegrow

thso

fpopulation

andper

capitafood

consumption

slowdow

n.G

enerallyspeaking,

thescenario

canbe

saidto

representa

mid-range

coursebetw

eenthe

pessimism

which

arguesthat

world

populationalready

exceedsthe

carryingcapacity

of

theagricultural

system(E

hrlich,1968),

andthe

giddyoptim

ismw

hichsees

nophysical

limits

tofood

production(S

imon,

1981).T

hisbland

perspectivedoes

notm

eanthat

thefuture

of

foodproduction

raisesno

seriousproblem

sor

canbe

left tounfold

ofitsow

naccord.

On

thecontrary,

thescenario

pointsto

anum

bero

fserious

environmental

andother

threatsassociated

with

theincreased

intensityo

ffood

productionand

theland

areaw

hichm

ustbe

devotedto

it.It

alsoassum

esvigorous

andsustained

policyactions

onseveral

frontsin

orderto

reducethese

threatsand

securethe

requiredfood

productionand

productivitygains.

The

encouragingconclusion,

thatthere

will

beenough

foodover

thescenario

time

horizonto

meet

expandingdem

and,m

aybe

undermined

ifinstitutional

arrangements

governingfood

supplyand

demand

arenot

adjusted,if

sustainableagricultural

practicesare

notadopted

andif

landpressures

andagrochem

icalpollution

associatedw

ithexpanded

productionare

notam

eliorated.M

ostim

portantly,the

scenarioexposes

major

foodsupply-dem

andproblem

sin

some

regions,notably

Africa

andthe

Middle

East,

where

theoutcom

esassum

edare

veryfar

fromguaranteed.

This

chapterconsiders

brieflythe

main

environmental,

resourceand

otherform

sofrisk

associatedw

iththe

scenarioand

thepolicy

responsesw

hichw

illbe

requiredto

overcome

oram

elioratethem

.

4.2L

andR

esourcesT

hepopulation,

economic

growth

andother

assumptions

ofthe

scenarioim

plysignificantalterations

inthe

useofland.

Settledareas

-the

'builtenvironment'-

will

haveto

expandsignificantly

toaccom

modate

thegrow

tho

fhousing

andservices,

comm

erceand

industry,roads

andother

infrastructure.C

ultivatedlands

will

haveto

expandto

compensate

foragricultural

landconverted

tothe

builtenvironm

entand

lostto

soiland

otherform

sof

landdegradation,

asw

ellas

tom

eetthe

netincrease

requiredfor

foodproduction, as

detailedhere

inC

hapter3.

These

changesw

illexert

severestresses

onecosystem

sw

hichare

nowlittle

affectedby

human

pressures,such

asw

etlandsand

forests,as

well

asw

ildlifeparks

andother

kindso

fprotectedland.

Adding

tothese

problems

arethe

environmental

threatsto

landand

otherresources

arisingfrom

thegrow

thof

agricultureitself.

To

feedlarge

populationsw

ithbetter

diets,global

cropproduction

hasto

increase2.2-fold

by2050

buthas

togrow

bya

factorof

2.5in

thedeveloping

world

asa

whole

and4-fold

inA

fricaand

theM

iddleE

ast.Partly

becauseof

otherpressures

onland

andshortages

ofundeveloped

landw

hichis

goodenough

tofarm

,m

osto

fthis

hugeproduction

80G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21stC

entury

growth

hasto

come

notfrom

expandingcultivated

landbut

fromgreater

cropyields

asa

resulto

fm

oreintensive

landuse,

more

irrigation,and

more

fertilisers.W

orld-wide,

cultivatedland

expandsby

only11

%betw

een1990

and2050,

with

a21

%increase

inthe

LD

Cs

anda

1%fall

inthe

industrialisedregions.

As

aresult,

percapita

farmland

issqueezed

tightlyby

populationpressures,falling

from0.20

to0.11

hectaresin

thedeveloping

regionsas

aw

hole,com

paredto

0.55and

0.48hectares

inthe

developedregions.

InS

outh&

East

Asia,

theM

iddleE

astand

China+

,the

percapita

cultivatedarea

fallsto

aslittle

as0.09,

0.08and

0.06hectares,

respectivelyin

2050.T

hisdegree

of

intensificationcarries

highrisks

offurther

degradingalready

over-stressedland,

water

andother

naturalresources

(McC

alla,1994).

As

thescenario

highlights,the

dauntingchallenge

isnot

onlyto

more

thandouble

globalfood

productionon

much

thesam

eland

baseas

todaybut

todo

sosustainably

while

maintaining,

andhopefully

improving,

vitalland,

water,

fishery,forest

andother

naturalresources.

Few

doubtthat

thischallenge

isim

mense

andthe

risksof

failureappreciable.

As

oneW

orldB

ankreport

hasput

it:"T

heinteraction

between

populationgrow

th,the

environment

andagricultural

intensificationraises

them

ostcom

pellingand

most

controversialissues

currentlyfacing

developingcountries"

(Lele

&S

tone,1989).

4.2.1L

an

dD

egradationSoil

erosionand

otherform

so

fland

degradationare

generallyagreed

topresent

them

ostserious

seto

frisks,

althoughopinions

differw

idelyon

thescale,

natureand

causeso

fthese

problems.

According

toone

authoritativesource

(CG

IAR

,1994)

globallyabout

2,000m

illionhectares

ofsoilhave

become

"degraded"due

tohum

anaction

since1945

-an

alarming

annualrate

of

40m

illionhectares

or1%

ofthe

world's

cultivatedand

pasturearea.

Lack

ofterraces

onsteep

slopes,failure

toreplace

nutrientsrem

ovedin

cropsand

cropresidues,

andexcessive

irrigationor

drainagedid

most

of

thedam

ageto

arableland,

while

overgrazinghas

beenthe

main

problemon

rangelands.B

rown

(1984)estim

atedthat

globalsoil

erosionw

as23

billiontons

peryear,

or0.7%

of

thetotal

soilinventory.

At

thisrate

(compounded)

halfthe

world's

soilsw

ouldbe

lostin

acentury.

Am

orerecent

estimate

putsthe

annualsoil

lossat

treblethis

rate,or

75billion

tons,m

ostlyfrom

agriculturalland

(Myers,

1993).A

fricain

particular,with

itsancient,heavily-leached,

nutrient-deficientand

easilyerodible

soils,is

thoughtto

facesevere

andgrow

ingproblem

so

fland

degradationand

increasingaridity

which

threatento

undermine

itspresent

agriculturalbase

(Yates

&K

iss,1992),

letalone

anylarge

expansionof

itscrop

andpasture

lands(as

assumed

here).O

nem

ajorsurvey

estimated

that72%

of

Africa's

arableland

and31

%o

fits

pastureland

arealready

degraded(O

ldeman

etaI.,

1991);another

that50%

of

thefarm

landand

upto

80%of

thepasture

areashow

ssigns

ofdegradation

(Cleaver,

1993).M

osto

fthis

degradationacts

toreduce

plantproductivity

sothat

farmers

must

putm

oreinto

theland

toget

thesam

eout

of

it,or

must

switch

tonew

cropand

livestockproduction

systems.

These

impacts

areto

alarge

extentincluded

inthe

historictrends

of

cropproductivity

and,based

onthese,

thescenario

assumptions

aboutfuture

cropyields

(seeC

hapter3).

More

extreme

-and

notexplicitly

modelled

here-

issoil

damage

sosevere

thatonce-productive

landhas

tobe

abandonedm

oreor

lessperm

anently.E

stimates

forsuch

lossesinclude

7m

illion

Leach

81

hectaresper

year(L

ampe,

1994);10-11

Mha/year

(Kendall

&Pim

entel,1994);

atleast

10m

illionhectares

peryear

includinglosses

tothe

builtenvironm

ent(P

imentel

etal.,

1992);and

12m

illionhectares

peryear

"destroyed"and

abandonedbecause

ofnon-sustainable

farming

practices(L

al&

Stew

art,1990).

Such

estimates

are,itm

ustbesaid,

widely

criticisedas

uncertaino

rexaggerated.

For

onething,

thedata

onw

hichthey

arebased

areexceedingly

weak

andpotentially

misleading.

Soilloss

measurem

entson

thesam

efield

bydifferent

teams

canvary

lOO

-foldo

rm

ore(S

eckler,1987),

andon

thesam

esm

allw

atershedby

threeto

fourorders

of

magnitude

(Seckler,

1987;and

Stocking,

1993).E

xtrapolationo

fsoil

lossesfrom

fieldm

easurements

tolarge

watershed

or

continentalscales

islikely

toexaggerate

100-foldor

more

(Stocking,

1995).T

hecom

plexrelationships

between

soilchanges

anddeclines

inland

productivityare

also"beset

byenorm

ousuncertainties

anderrors"

(Blaikie

&B

rookfield,1987).

Equally

seriousis

thefrequent

selectivem

isuseo

fthese

poordata

forpolitical

or

propagandareasons.

Itis

thereforehardly

surprisingthat

large-scaleestim

ateso

fsoil

andland

degradationhave

beencalled

uncertain,contentious

anddisputed

(Mortim

ore,1993);

thatsom

eauthors

statebaldly

thaton

thelarge-scale

rateso

fsoil

erosionare

simply

notknow

n(S

eckler,1987;

andJohnson

&L

ewis,

1995);and

thatthe

1977U

NC

onferenceon

Desertification

declaredthat

"Statistics

[onsoil

erosionand

deforestation]are

seldomin

theright

form,

arehard

tocom

eby

andeven

harderto

believe,let

aloneinterpret"

(citedin

Blaikie,

1985).H

owever,

noneo

fthese

criticso

falarm

istestim

ateso

fsoil

erosiondeny

thatsoil

andland

degradationare

realthreats

tothe

sustainabilityo

fproductive

landuse

andthat

correctivem

easuresare

urgentlyneeded.

As

a"w

orstcase"

working

hypothesisw

em

ightassum

ethat

productivecropland

isbeing

lostto

severedegradation

andthe

builtenvironm

entat

aglobal

rateo

fsom

e10

million

hectaresannually.

This

isjust

overtw

icethe

recentrate

of

croplandexpansion,

which

averaged4.4

Mha/year

globallyduring

1961-89(F

AG

,1992).

Infuture

thisdisparity

couldbe

asm

uchas

five-fold.In

thescenario

presentedhere

globalcropland

expansionslow

sto

2.6M

ha/yearduring

1989to

2050(2.7

Mha/year

inthe

LD

Cs

combined,

of

which

65%is

accountedfor

byA

fricaand

22%by

Latin

Am

erica).A

ssuming

that"perm

anent"land

lossescontinue

at10

Mha/year,

thenw

orld-wide

some

12.6m

illionhectares

of

newcultivable

landw

illhave

tobe

clearedeach

yearjust

toprovide

forthe

assumed

croplandexpansion

of

2.6M

ha/year.A

dditionalnew

landw

illalso

berequired

toreplace

anylosses

of

pastureland

todegradation,

thebuilt

environment

andcropland,

asw

ellas

toprovide

fornetpasture

areaexpansion. 5

4.2.2Im

pactso

fLa

nd

Use

Change

As

inthe

past,this

large-scaleconversion

of

newland

tohum

anuse

carriesserious

risksfor

human

societiesand

theenvironm

ent.A

gooddeal

of

thisnew

landis

likelyto

beo

fpoor

qualityand

hardlyfit

forproductive

use.F

orthis

reasonalone,

pocketso

fhunger,

povertyand

failurew

illpersist

beneaththe

broadregional

assumptions

of

thescenario

thataverage

incomes,

dietarystandards

andfood

productionw

illincrease.

Environm

entalresources

will

inevitablybe

lostsince

this

5P

astureland

isnot

modelled

inthe

scenariodue

tosevere

dataproblem

sfor

animal

feedand

pasturerequirem

ents(see

Section

2.2)and

poordata

onareas

ofpasture

which

areeither

inuse

andor

presentlyidle

reserves.

82G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stCentury

newland

will

betaken

froma

mix

offorest

andw

oodlands,grasslands

andw

etlands,depending

onregional

landendow

ments

andpressures.

The

impacts

will

undoubtedlybe

largebut

theyare

alsom

ostdifficult

toquantify

dueto

enormous

datavariations

anduncertainties.

Major

impacts

will

includecontinued

lossesof

livingspace

andlivelihood

forforest-dw

ellingpeople

ando

fw

ildlifehabitats.

Biodiversity

will

bereduced

andspecies

drivento

extinction.T

herew

illbe

continuedpressures

onw

ildlifereserves

andother

protectedareas

fromlocal

land-usersand,

increasingly,m

igrantsfrom

otherland-scarce

places.T

hem

anyother

productivevalues

andecological

serviceso

fforests

(andother

biomes)

will

bedim

inished.F

orestclearances

will

alsoproduce

greenhousegas

emissions,

althoughtotal

emissions

relatedto

agriculturecould

well

beless

thanin

thepast

dueto

theassum

edslow

down

ofcropland

expanSIOn.

How

ever,it

isim

portantto

recognisethat

allofthese

forest-relatedim

pactsw

illin

many

placesbe

reversedby

theregrow

thof

forest,w

oodlandor

shrubson

abandonedfarm

lands.L

argeareas

ofthe

world's

tropicaland

temperate

forests­

includingso-called

"primary"

forest-

areknow

nto

havegrow

nfrom

once-settledcropland

(Wood,

1993).In

West

Africa,

forexam

ple,"m

uch"o

fthe

closedforest

isactually

mature

secondaryforest

which

hasgrow

nfrom

landcleared

foragriculture

andlater

abandoned(G

ornitz&

NA

SA,

1985).In

atleast

oneW

estA

fricancase

thisprocess

hasbeen

sorapid

thatalm

osttreeless

croplandhas

reachedthe

statuso

fa

protectedw

orld-classforest

Biosphere

Reserve

inonly

acentury

(Fairhead

&L

each,1994).

4.3W

aterR

esourcesW

atershortages

andgreater

competition

forw

aterbetw

eenagriculture

andrapidly

growing

urbanand

industrialdem

andsare

otherserious

impacts

ofand

threatsto

agriculturalgrow

th.A

ccordingto

some

authorities(C

GIA

R,

1994),com

petitionw

illbe

particularlyserious

throughm

uchof

Africa

andthe

Middle

East,

where

recenthigh

ratesof

irrigationexpansion

appearto

beunsustainable,

andA

sia,w

herethe

continuationo

frecent

trendsw

ouldrequire

aninvestm

ento

fU

S$500­

1,000billion

by2025

andcould

exhaustthe

irrigationpotential

bythat

date.T

heseand

otherissues

ofincreasing

water

useand

resourcesustainability

areexam

inedin

depthin

acom

panionreporto

ftheP

oleStar

project. 6

To

helpresolve

problems

of

water

shortagem

uchgreater

attentionw

illhave

tobe

paidon

drylandsto

unfamiliar

techniquessuch

assm

all-scalew

aterharvesting

and,in

allregions,to

improved

managem

ento

firrigation

systems

(CG

IAR

,1994;

andS

rivastava&

Alderm

an,1993).

With

thelatter,

hugepotentials

existall

thew

ayfrom

thew

atersource

tothe

fieldand

plantitself

toreduce

water

lossesand

usew

aterm

oreeffectively

(Stanhill,1986).

These

conservationtechniques

arerarely

appliedtoday

becausefarm

erstypically

payvery

littlefor

irrigationsupplies.

For

example,

inC

aliforniathe

priceo

fw

aterto

most

farmers

hasbeen

about10%

of

thesupply

cost(G

ottlieb,1991);

duringthe

late1980s

inC

hina,w

henthere

were

chronicdroughts

andurban

water

shortages,theequivalent

figurew

as5-20%

of

costs(Sm

il,1993).

More

expensivew

aterw

illincrease

farmcosts,

butby

helpingto

promote

more

efficientwater

useand

reducesupply

constraints,it

couldalso

helpto

increasecrop

yieldsand

production.

6R

askin,P

.,E

.H

ansen&

R.

Margolis.

1995.W

aterand

Sustainability:a

Global

Outlook.

Stockholm

:S

tockholmE

nvironmentInstitute.

Leach

83

4.4C

hemicalP

ollutionP

ollutionby

fertilisersand

pesticidesare

otherserious

environmental

problems.

Heavy

fertiliseruse

inthe

intensivelyfarm

edlands

of

boththe

developedand

developingregions

isproducing

nitratelevels

indrinking

water

which

approachor

exceedperm

ittedlevels,

increasingthe

likelihoodof

government

restrictionson

fertiliseruse

(CG

IAR

,1994).

This

isnot

yeta

problemin

much

of

thedeveloping

world

where

fertiliseruse

isvery

low,

butcould

become

sounder

thescenario

assumptions

thatfertiliser

useincreases

rapidly.T

heserisks

needto

bebalanced

againsttheeconom

icand

environmental

benefitso

fraisingfertiliser

usage:first,

byincreasing

cropyields

andso

reducingthe

needto

farmnew

fragilelands;

second,by

increasingcrop

residuesand

hencethe

likelihoodthat

surplusesover

demand

will

beused

assoil-protecting

greenm

anuresand

mulches

(Pinstrup-A

ndersen,1993).

Heavy

pesticideuse

indeveloping

countriesis

causingserious

harmto

human

populations(C

GIA

R,

1994)w

ithdeclining

benefitsto

farmers

aspest

populationsbecom

eincreasingly

resistantandtheir

predatorsare

killedoff.

Techniques

arebeing

developedto

counterboth

thesepollution

problems

­including

many

biologicalapproaches

tonitrogen

fertilisationand

pestcontrol-

butthey

will

requirem

ajorinvestm

entsfor

research,dem

onstrationand

implem

entation.U

ntilthese

techniquesare

widely

availableat

costsfarm

erscan

afford,these

environmental

impacts

arelikely

tocontinue

sincetheir

reductionw

illgenerally

leadto

lower

foodproduction

andfarm

incomes.

4.5T

heN

orth-SouthF

oodG

apO

neo

fthe

most

crucialfindings

of

thescenario

isthat

evenw

ithlarge

increasesin

cropareas

andyields,

some

developingregions

will

haveto

tumincreasingly

tofood

imports

fromthe

industrialw

orld.P

roductionin

thelatter

regionsm

ustbe

steppedup

tom

eettheseneeds

duringa

periodw

hendom

esticdem

andis

expectedto

stagnateor

decline.A

ccordingto

thescenario,

forexam

ple,the

developedregions

haveto

increasetheir

cerealexports

more

than6-fold

between

1989and

2050-

fromaround

90m

illionto

552m

illiontons

ayear

-to

match

the6-fold

increasein

imports

tothe

LD

Cs.

Most

of

thelatter

increaseis

toA

fricaand

theM

iddleE

ast,w

hoseim

portvolum

esincrease

1O.5-fold

and8-fold

respectively.T

ocorrect

thisim

balanceN

orthA

merica

hasalm

osttotreble

itscereal

exportsfrom

122to

330m

illiontons

between

1989and

2050.W

esternE

uropem

orethan

quadruplesits

cerealexports

from25

to122

million

tonsin

thesam

eperiod.

With

othercrops,

netN

orth-South

tradeis

greatlyreduced

between

1989and

2050,w

hileregional

rolesare

reversed.O

verall,the

LD

Cs

turnfrom

beingnet

exportersto

netim

portersand

viceversa

forthe

MD

Cregions

combined

(seeT

able3.15).

As

notedin

Chapter

3,less

developedregions

shouldbe

ableto

affordthese

enormous

increasesin

foodim

portsif

foodprices

donot

increaseby

much.

For

example,

thehuge

expansiono

fcereal

imports

byA

fricaand

theM

iddleE

astis

slightlyexceeded

bythe

growth

ofregional

income

(GD

P,or

Gross

Dom

esticP

roduct)in

thesam

eperiod:

afactor

of

10.9in

Africa

and9.9

inthe

Middle

East

(seeT

ables1.2

and1.3).

Ijfoo

dprices

(inreal

terms)

donot

increasesignificantly

inthe

coming

decades,the

massive

foodim

portsin

2050should

accountfor

nogreater

shareo

fGD

Pthan

foodim

portstoday.

84G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stC

entury

The

more

pertinentquestion

isw

hetherthe

developedregions

will

beprepared

tobecom

ethe

world's

foodbaskets

toan

evengreater

extentthan

today.W

illthey

findit

economic

togrow

andexport

cereals(and

otherfoods)

insuch

vastquantities?

Ifnot,

will

governments

andthe

publicbe

preparedto

financethe

requiredsurplus

productionfor

export?W

ithpresent

costand

priceregim

esand

politicalclim

ates,the

pressuresin

thetw

opresent-day

foodexporting

regions­

North

Am

ericaand

Western

Europe

-are

toreduce

foodproduction,

farmsubsidies,

"surplus"crop

landand

hencepotential

exportsw

hichare

surplusto

domestic

needs.H

owever, ifthe

developedregions

donot

increasetheir

exportsas

assumed

inthe

scenario,food

deficitin

theim

portingregions

would

haveto

bereduced.

This

might

come

aboutthrough

lower

nutritionalstandards

thanassum

edin

thescenario,

orthrough

stillgreater

increasesin

cropland

areasor

cropyields

thanassum

ed.B

othalternatives

raisem

anypolitical

problems

forthe

industrialisedregions.

Land

expansionruns

counterto

Northern

environmentalconcerns

aboutpreventing

forestclearance

inthe

South

-chiefly

to"preserve

biodiversity"and

reducegreenhouse

gasem

issionsfrom

thissource.

Yield

increasesover

andabove

thelarge

increasesassum

edin

thescenario

would

thereforegenerally

bethe

more

favouredsolution.

To

theextentthatthese

canbe

broughtabout

by"m

orescience"

theyw

ouldalso

bethe

more

painlesssolution.

But

if,as

seems

likely,im

provements

onthe

scalerequired

will

alsodem

anda

much

broaderpackage

ofm

easures,thisalternative

might

befar

frompainless

forN

ortherngovernm

entsand

consumers.

As

notedin

Chapter

3,the

requiredm

easuresinclude

toughpolitical

actionsin

developingcountries

with

continuedsupport,

oftenin

cash,from

thetraditional

Northern

donorcountries.

They

might

alsoinclude

substantialand

permanent

increasesin

basicfood

prices(after

decadeso

fsteady

decline)in

orderto

increasefarm

erincentives.

How

thatcan

bedone

without

pricingfood

beyondthe

reacho

fm

anym

orem

illionso

fpoor

peoplethan

today-

orby

massive

foodsubsidies

forconsum

ers-

isa

verylarge

questionindeed.

4.6P

olicyR

esponsesT

hem

ainelem

entso

fa

strategyto

greatlyincrease

foodproduction

anddo

itsustainably

areclear:

dom

oreto

supportthe

world's

farmers

-especially

theresource-poor

majority

-w

ithbetter

research,inform

ation,infrastructures

andincentives,w

ithina

broadlyfavourable

andstable

macro-econom

icenvironm

ent.T

heroot

problemis

thatpoor

farmers

who

lackaccess

toproductive

resourcesare

more

likelyto

producelittle

anddegrade

landthan

thebetter

endowed

(Blaikie

&B

rookfield,1987;

Pinstrup-Andersen,

1993;and

English,

1993).T

heyw

illproduce

more

iftheyare

paidenough

bym

arketsthey

canreach

(Sen,1994).T

heyare

likelyto

producem

orein

asustainable

manner

ifthey

havesecure

rightsto

theland

theym

anage.T

heym

ightproduce

more,

sustainably,by

increasingexternal

technicalinputs

suchas

artificialfertilisers

toboost

yieldsand

greenm

anuresor

some

degreeo

fm

echanisationto

alleviatelabour

shortages,if

theycan

affordor

getaccess

tothese.

Or

theym

ightapply

innumerable

local,high-skill

methods

which

canin

many

casesm

aintainsoil

qualitiesand

doubleor

triplecrop

yieldsw

ithlittle

orno

useofexternal

inputs(Pretty,

1994and

1995).W

herepopulation

densitiesare

low,

asin

much

ofA

frica,both

of

thesebroad

classeso

fdevelopm

entsm

ightoccur

spontaneouslydue

topopulation

growth,

which

drivestechnical

innovationand

adoptionas

aresult

ofevolving

market

Leach

85

forces(B

oserup,1965

and1981).

This

processo

f"autonom

ousintensification"

was

am

ainengine

of

agriculturaldevelopm

entinE

uropeand

Asia

(Lele

&S

tone,1989).

How

ever,in

many

placesthese

processesw

illno

longerbe

sufficientto

ensuresustainable

agriculturaland

income

growth

andm

ustbe

backedby

alarge

arrayo

fpublic

policiesatevery

institutionallevel.A

ttheinternationallevel,global

tradebarriers

andpolicies

havecu

tthe

priceso

fm

anycrops

which

arecritical

tothe

economies

of

developingcountries

andtheir

farmers.

Radical

reforms

of

globalfood

pricingand

tradingpolicies

might

berequired

toenable

thelarge

productionincreases

which

areneeded.

Crucially,

thesereform

sm

ustbe

basedon

alonger-term

perspectivethan

normally

usedby

them

arket.T

hechallenge

tothe

industrialregions

of

theim

pendingN

orth-South

"foodgap"

andthe

needto

increasecereal

productionand

exports,outlined

above,is

aprim

eexam

pleo

fw

hyshort-term

market

signalsm

ighthave

increasinglyto

beover-ruled

bylonger-term

politicalconsiderations.A

tthe

nationallevel,

civilstrife,

unstablegovernm

ents,rigid

stateinstitutions

andpolicies,w

eakagricultural

supportservices,

over-valuedexchange

rates,heavy

taxeson

agriculturalexports

andcontrols

which

reducefarm

pricesto

afraction

of

world

market

values,have

combined

with

widespread

neglecto

frural

infrastructuresto

undermine

theentire

agriculturalenterprise

-reducing

farmprofitability,

increasingfarm

ers'risks,preventing

significantproductivity

gainsand

contributingto

thepersistence

of

ruralpoverty.

InA

fricaparticularly,

po

or

roads,w

eakm

arketstructures

andlack

of

creditfacilities

havegreatly

increasedthe

costso

ffarm

inputssuch

asfertiliser

andreduced

farmoutput

prices,severely

bluntingincentives

tosw

itchfrom

subsistenceto

market

productionand

fromextensive

tointensive

farming

(Cleaver,

1993).A

tthe

same

time,

inequitableland

ownership

andtenure

systems

havediscouraged

sustainableland

usepractices.

These

policyfailures

will

notbe

correctedovernight,

althoughm

ostgovernm

entsand

donoragencies

knowthat

theyrequire

urgentand

sustainedattention.

Th

epolitical

will

tocarry

throughw

iththese

policyreform

sis

essential,even

thoughseveral

keym

easuresm

aybe

unpopularw

ithsom

e(predom

inantlyurban)

sectionso

fthe

votingpublic.

Inthe

meantim

e,there

isa

largeand

potentiallym

ostrew

ardingagenda

forscientific

research,education

anddissem

inationto

farmers

of

ahost

of

more

productiveand

environmentally

benignagricultural

technologies.E

stablishingtheir

widespread

useon

thew

orld'sfarm

sam

ountsto

launchinga

new"doubly

green"revolution

which

ism

oreproductive

thanthe

firstgreen

revolutionand

much

greenerin

terms

of

conservingnatural

resourcesand

theenvironm

ent(C

GIA

R,

1994).M

ost

of

these"new

"techniques

relyon

improved

information

andskills

ratherthan

resource-intensive,m

aterialinputs.

They

includethe

selectionand

creationo

fim

provedanim

aland

plantvarieties;

biologically-basedpest

controlstrategies;

biologicalm

ethodso

fincreasing

nutrientuptake

byplants;

more

diverseand

complex

croprotations;

betterspacing

of

cropplants;

minim

umtillage

andgreen

manure

systems

toincrease

yieldsand

erosion-preventingground

cover;agroforestry

systems

which

cansim

ultaneouslyincrease

usefulproduction,

protectsoils

andenrich

themw

ithadditional

nutrients;the

"fine-tuning"o

ffertiliser

andw

aterapplications

inspace

andtim

eto

maxim

isetheir

effectiveuse;

andcheap

soil

86G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21

stCentury

testingm

ethodsto

allowm

oreprecise

correctiono

fsoil

nutrientdeficiencies

andreduce

unnecessaryover-fertilisation

(Serageldin,1993;

andA

ntholt,1994).

Research

hasalso

tostart

fromthe

realneeds,

constraintsand

opportunitiesof

farmhouseholds

indifferent

environments

andbuild

upfrom

there,rather

thanstarting

fromthe

topdow

nin

researchlaboratories.

The

fruitso

fresearch

must

alsobe

deliveredto

thepeople

who

needthem

:good

information

systems,

targetedto

localaudiences

andtheir

needs,are

vitaltools

fornarrow

ingthe

hugegaps

inyields

andgood

husbandrypractices

between

researchstations,

"best"farm

ersand

averagefarm

ers.T

heserequirem

entscall

forsom

efundam

entalchanges

tothe

structuresand

objectivesboth

of

internationaland

nationalagricultural

researchcentres

andnationalagricultural

adviceand

extensionservices.

Som

ehave

concludedthat

ifthe

researchgoals

outlinedabove

arepursued

vigorously,w

ithsubstantially

increasedinvestm

ents,future

world

populationscan

beadequately

fed,m

alnourishment

eliminated,

environmental

degradationprevented

andnatural

resourcesconserved

(CG

IAR

,1994).

Am

oresober

conclusionm

ightbethat,w

hilethe

potentialfor

reachingthis

benignstate

of

affairsis

indeedenorm

ous,the

pathtow

ardsitw

illcertainlynot

besm

ooth.In

afuture

ofvery

rapidchange

andlarge

uncertainties,w

ecan

expectboth

theM

althusianpessim

istsand

thetechnical

optimists

tobe

rightin

differentplaces

andat

differenttim

es,w

hilew

ehave

torem

ainignorantaboutthe

totaloutcom

e.

RE

FE

RE

NC

ES

Leach

87

Antholt,

C.

1994.G

ettingR

eadyfo

rthe

21stC

entury:technical

changea

nd

institutionalm

odernisationin

agriculture.W

ashingtonD

C:

World

Bank,

TechnicalP

aper217.

Balch,c.c.

&J.T

.R

eid.1976.

The

efficiencyo

fconversion

of

feedenergy

andprotein

intoanim

alproducts.

In:A

.N.

Duckham

,J.

Jones&

E.H

.R

oberts.F

oodP

roductionand

Consum

ption:the

efficiencyo

fhuman

foo

dchains

andnutrientcycles.

Am

sterdam:

North-H

olland.

Blaikie,

P.

&H

.B

rookfield(eds.)

1987.L

andD

egradationand

Society.L

ondon&

New

York:

Methuen.

Blaikie,

P.1985.

TheP

oliticalE

conomy

ofSoil

Erosion

inD

evelopingC

ountries.L

ondon:L

ongman.

Boserup,

E.

1965.The

Conditions

of

Agricultural

Grow

th:the

economics

of

agrarianchange

underpopulation

pressure.N

ewY

ork:A

ldine.

Boserup,

E.

1981.P

opulationand

Technological

Change:

astudy

of

long-termtrends.

Chicago:

Chicago

University

Press.

Bradfield,

R.

1972.M

aximising

foodproduction

throughm

ultiplecropping

systems

centredon

rice.In:

InternationalR

iceR

esearchInstitute,

Rice,

Scienceand

Man.

Los

Banos,P

hilippines:IR

Rl.

Brow

n,H

.1954.

TheC

hallengeo

fMan's

Future.

New

York:

Viking

Press.

Brow

n,L

.R.

1984.State

of

theW

orld1984.

Washington

DC

:W

orldwatch

Institute.

Brow

n,L

.R.,

H.

Kane

&D

.R

oodman.

1994.V

italSigns

1994.N

ewY

ork&

London:

W.W

.N

orton.

Brow

n,L

.R.

&H

.K

ane.1994.

Full

House:

reassessingthe

earth'spopulation

carryingcapacity.

New

York

&L

ondon:W

.W.

Norton.

Fo

rthe

downturn

inper

capitacereal

productionsee

also:L

.B

rown,

Anew

eraunfolds.

In:L

.B

rown

etaI.,

1993.State

ofthe

World

1993.N

ewY

ork:W

.W

.N

orton;and

L.

Brow

n,T

henew

world

order.In:

L.

Brow

net

aI.,1991.

Stateo

ftheW

orld1991.N

ewY

ork:W

.W.

Norton.

Bulatao,

R.

etal.

1989.P

opulationP

rojections.W

ashingtonD

C:

World

Bank.

Working

Paper

5328-331.

CG

IAR

.1994.

SustainableA

griculturefo

ra

Food

SecureW

orld:a

visionfo

rinternational

agriculturalresearch,

July1994.

Expert

Panel

of

The

Consultative

Group

onInternational

Agricultural

Research,

Washington

DC

;and

SA

RE

C,S

tockholm.

Cleaver,

K.

M.

1993.A

Strategyto

Develop

Agriculture

inSub-Saharan

Africa

anda

Focus

for

theW

orldB

ank.W

ashingtonD

C:

World

Bank,

Technical

Paper

203.

Condorcet,

Marquis

de.1795.

Esquisse

d'unT

ableauH

istoriquedes

Progres

del'E

spritH

umain.

In:O

euvresde

Condorcet

(Tom

e6th),

Paris:Firm

inD

idotF

reres,1847;

republished1968

by:S

tuttgart:F

riedrichF

romm

annV

erlag.C

itedin

Sen

1994.

88G

lobalLand

andF

oodin

the21st

Century

Cram

pton,E

.W.

&L

.EH

arris.1969.

Applied

Anim

alN

utrition.San

Francisco:W

.S.Freem

an.

Ehrlich,P.

1968.The

Population

Bom

b.New

York:

Ballantine.

English,

J.1993.

Does

populationgrow

thinevitably

leadto

landdegradation?

In:S

rivastava&

Alderm

an,1993.

English,

J.,M

.T

iffen&

M.

Mortim

ore.1994.

Land

Resource

Managem

entin

Machakos

District,

Kenya

1930-1990.W

ashingtonD

C:

World

Bank

(Environm

entPaper

5).

Fairhead, J.

&M

.L

each.1994.

Whose

Forest?M

odernconservation

andhistorical

landuse

inG

uinea'sZ

iama

Reserve.

London:

Overseas

Developm

entInstitute,R

uralDevelopm

entForestry

Netw

orkP

aper18c.

FAO

.1992.

'Agrostat'

computer

diskettes.R

ome:

UN

Food

andA

gricultureO

rganization.T

hisdatabase

includesthe

contentso

fF

AO

'sP

roductionYearbooks

andF

oodB

alanceSheets

forallcountries

from1961

onwards.

FAO

.1993.

Agriculture:

Towards

2010.R

eportto

27thF

AO

Session,N

ovember

1993.R

ome:

UN

Food

andA

gricultureO

rganization.See

also:F

AO

1981,A

griculture:Tow

ards2000;

N.

Alexandratos.

1988.W

orldA

griculture:T

owards

2000(an

FA

Ostudy).L

ondon:B

elhavenPress.

Fischer,G

unther.1993.

Pers.C

omm

.International

Institutefor

Applied

Systems

Analysis,L

axenburg,Austria.

Gom

ez,A

.A.

&H

.G.

Zandstra.

1982.R

esearchstrategy

forrice-based

croppingsystem

s.In:

InternationalRice

Research

Institute, Rice

Research

Strategiesfor

theF

uture.L

osB

anos,Philippines:IR

RI.

Gornitz,

V.

&N

ASA

.1985.

Asurvey

of

anthropogenicvegetation

changesin

West

Africa

duringthe

lastcentury

-clim

aticim

plications.C

limatic

Change

7:285-325.

Gottlieb,

R.

1991.T

hirstforG

rowth.

Tucson:

University

ofA

rizonaPress.

Hoque,

M.

Z.

1984,C

roppingSystem

sin

Asia:

on-farmresearch

andm

anagement.

Los

Banos,Philippines:

InternationalRice

Research

Institute.

Johnson,D

.L.

&L

.A.

Lew

is.1995.

Land

Degradation:

creationand

destruction.O

xfordU

K&

Cam

bridgeU

SA:

Blackw

ell.

Kendall,

H.W

.&

D.

Pimentel.

1994.C

onstraintson

theexpansion

of

theglobal

foodsupply. A

mbio

23/3:198-205.

Lal,

R.

&B

.A.

Stew

art.1990.

SoilD

egradation.N

ewY

ork:S

pringerV

erlag.C

itedin

Pimenteletal.,

1995.

Lam

pe1994.

Klause

Lam

pe,D

irector,International

Rice

Research

Institute,Philippines,

quotedin:

D.

MacK

enzie,W

illtom

orrow's

childrenstarve?

New

Scientist 3S

eptember

1994.

Leach,

M.

&J.

Fairhead.1994.

The

forestislands

ofK

issidougou:social

dynamics

of

environmental

changein

West

Africa's

forest-savannahm

osaic.R

eportto

ES

CO

R,

Overseas

Developm

entAdm

inistration,London.

Lele,

U.

&S.

Stone.

1989.P

opulationP

ressure,the

Environm

entand

Agricultural

Intensification:variations

of

theB

oserupH

ypothesis.

Leach

89

Washington

DC

:W

orldB

ank,M

AD

IA(M

anagingA

griculturalD

evelopment

Africa)

Discussion

Paper

4.

Linem

ann,H

.et

al.1979.

MO

IRA

:M

odelo

fInternational

Relations

inA

griculture.R

eporto

fthe

projectgroup

'Food

for

adoubling

world

population'.A

msterdam

,N

ewY

ork&

London:

North

Holland.

McC

alla,A

.F.

1994.A

gricultureand

Food

Needs

to2025:

why

we

shouldbe

concerned.S

irJohn

Craw

fordM

emorial

Lecture.

Washington

DC

:S

ecretariat,C

onsultativeG

roupon

InternationalA

griculturalR

esearch(C

GIA

R),

c/oT

heW

orldB

ank.

McD

onald,P

.,R

.E

dwards

&J.

Greenhalgh.

1973.A

nimal

Nutrition.

Edinburgh:

Oliver

&B

oyd.

Malthus,

T.

1798.E

ssayon

theP

rincipleo

fP

opulation,A

sIt

Affects

theF

utureIm

provement

of

Society

with

Rem

arkson

theS

peculationo

fM

r.G

odwin,

M.

Condorcet,

andO

therW

riters.L

ondon:J.

Johnson;also:

A.

Flew

(ed.)1982,

An

Essay

onthe

Principle

ofP

opulation,L

ondon:P

enguinB

ooks

Mitchell,

D.O

.&

M.D

.Ingco.

1993.The

World

Food

Outlook.

Washington

DC

:W

orldB

ank.

Mortim

ore,M

.1993.

Population

growth

andland

degradation.G

eojournal31/1:15-21.

Myers,

N.

1993.G

aia:A

nA

tlaso

fPlanetM

anagement.

Garden

City,

NY

:A

nchor&

Doubleday;

citedin

Pim

enteletal.,1995.

Oldem

an,L

.R.

etal.

1991.G

lobalA

ssessment

of

SoilD

egradation,2nd

revisededition.

Nairobi:

UN

Environm

entP

rogram;

Wagenigen:

InternationalS

oilR

eferenceand

Information

Centre.

Phillips-H

oward,

K.

&F.

Lyon.

1994.A

griculturalintensification

andthe

threatto

soilfertility

inA

frica:evidence

fromthe

JosP

lateau,N

igeria.G

eographyJournal

160/3:252-265.

Pim

entel,D

.et

al.1992.

Conserving

biologicaldiversity

inagricultural/forestry

systems. B

ioscience42:354-362;

citedin

Kendall

&P

imentel,

1994.

Pim

entel,D

.et

al.1995.

Environm

entaland

economic

costso

fsoil

erosionand

conservationbenefits.

Science267:1117-1122.

Pinstrup-A

ndersen,P

.1993.

Socioeconom

icand

policyconsiderations

forsustainable

agriculturaldevelopm

ent.In:

Srivastava

&A

lderman,

1993.

Pretty,

J.1994.

Regenerating

Agriculture:

policiesand

practicesfor

sustainabilityand

self-reliance.L

ondon:E

arthscanB

ooks.

Pretty,

J.1995

(inpress).

Sustainability,

Science

andS

elf-reliance:new

challengesfor

regeneratingagriculture.

Procs.

BioR

esources'94

Conference,

Bangalore,

India,3-7

October

1994;and

InternationalInstitute

forE

nvironment

andD

evelopment,L

ondon.

Raskin

P.

&R

.M

argolis.1995.

Global

Energy

inthe

21stC

entury:P

atterns,P

rojectionsand

Problem

s.P

oleStar

Series

Report

no.3.

SE

I-Stockholm

.113

p.

90G

lobalL

andand

Food

inthe

21stC

entury

Rosegrant,

M.W

.&

M.

Agcaolli.

1994.G

lobaland

Regional

Food

Dem

and,S

upply,and

Trade

Prospects

to2010.

Paper

tom

eetingon

'Populationand

Food

inthe

Early

Tw

enty-First

Century',

14-16February,

InternationalF

oodP

olicyR

esearchInstitute,W

ashingtonD

C.

Seckler,

D.

1987.Issues

inthe

economic

evaluationof

soiland

water

conservationprogram

mes.In:

Blaikie

&B

rookfield,1987.

Sen,

A.

1994.P

opulationand

Reasoned

Agency:

food,fertility

andeconom

icdevelopm

ent.In:

K.

Kiessling

&H

.L

andberg(eds.),

Population,

Econom

icD

evelopmentand

theE

nvironment.

Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press.

Serageldin,

L1993.

Agriculture

andenvironm

entallysustainable

development.

In:S

rivastava&

Alderm

an,1993.

Sim

on,J.

1981.The

Ultim

ateR

esource.Princeton,

New

Jersey:P

rincetonU

niversityPress.

Sm

il,V

.1993.

China's

Environm

entalC

risis.A

rmonk,N

Y,U

SA:

M.

E.

Sharpe.

Srivastava,

J.S.&

Alderm

an,H

.(eds.)

1993.A

gricultureand

Environm

entalC

hallenges:P

roceedingso

fthe

13thA

griculturalSector

Symposium

.W

ashingtonD

C:

World

Bank.

Stanhill, G

.1986.W

ateruse

efficiency.Advances

inA

gronomy

39:53-85.

Stocking,

M.

1993.Soil

erosionin

developingcountries:

where

geomorphology

fearsto

tread.N

orwich,

UK

:U

niversityof

East

Anglia,

School

of

Developm

entStudies,Discussion

Paper

241.

Stocking, M

.1995

(inpress).C

hallengingconventionalw

isdoms

aboutsoil

erosionin

Mrica.

In:M

.L

each&

R.

Mearns

(eds.),The

Lie

ofthe

Land:

challengingreceived

wisdom

inA

fricanenvironm

entalchange

andpolicy.

London:

James

Curry

Publishers;and

Indiana,U

SA:

IndianaU

niversityP

ress,for

theInternational

African

Institute.

United

Nations.

1992.L

ong-Range

World

Population

Projections.

New

York:

United

Nations

PopulationD

ivision.

Wood,

D.

1993.F

oreststo

fields:restoring

tropicallands

toagriculture.

Land

Use

Policy

April

1993:91-107.

World

Bank.

1993a.C

omm

odityTrade

andP

riceTrends

(1989-91edition).

Baltim

ore&

London:

JohnsH

opkinsU

niversityPress.

World

Bank.

1993b.W

orldD

ataT

ables(E

lectronicV

ersion).Washington

DC

:W

orldB

ank.

Yates,

R.A

&K

iss,A

.1992.

Using

andSustaining

Africa's

Soils.W

ashingtonD

C:

World

Bank,A

gricultural&

Rural

Developm

entSeriesN

o.6.

Yoshida,

S.&

LN

.O

ka.1982.

Factors

influencingrice

yield,production

potential,and

stability.In:

InternationalR

iceR

esearchInstitute,

Rice

Research

Strategiesfor

theF

uture.L

osB

anos,Philippines:IR

RI.

Zierhoffer, A

.1966.L

uzneuw

agina

temat

pojernnosciludnosciow

ejkuli

ziemskiej

naprzykladzie

Japonii.C

zasopismo

Geograficzne

37:119-128.

SE

IB

oard

Ch

airman

:

Dr

Karin

SOder

Sw

eden

ProfU

mberto

Colom

boItaly

Elizabeth

Dow

deswell

Canada

Dr

Peggy

Dulany

USA

ProfG

ordonT

.G

oodman

UK

Mrs

Fatim

aA

hmed

IbrahimS

udan

ProfT

homas

B.

JohanssonS

weden

Ms

Kerstin

Niblaeus

Sw

eden

Sir

Shridath

Ram

phalG

uyana

Dr

Katsuo

SeikiJap

an

Dr

Alvaro

Um

anaC

ostaR

ica

Dr

Alexi

V.

Yablokov

Russia

ST

OC

KH

OL

ME

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TIN

ST

ITU

TE

Telephone:

Telex:

Telefax:

Telephone:

Telex:

Telefax:

Director:

ProfM

ichaelJ.Chadw

ickV

iceD

irector:D

rL

arsK

ristofersonH

eado

fAdm

inistration:A

nn-Charlotte

Bradley

Information

Manager:

Dr

Arno

Rosem

arinL

ibrarian:K

risterSvard

Sto

ckh

olm

En

viro

nm

ent

Institu

teA

ddress:L

illaN

yg

atanI,B

ox2142

S-10314

Stockholm

Sw

eden

Int

+468

7230260

19580SE

IS

Int

+468

7230348

Director

SEI-B

oston:D

rPaul

Raskin

Director

SEI-T

allinn:D

rT

anisK

aasik

SE

Iat

York

Address:

Box

373Y

ork

Y0

15

YW

UK

Int+

441904432

89757933

YO

RK

UL

GInt

+441904

432898

SE

I-Boston

Address:

Telephone:

Telex:

Telefax:

11A

rlingtonS

treetB

oston,M

A02116-3411

US

AIn

t+

16

17

26

68

09

0279926

ESR

GB

SNU

RInt

+1617

2668303

SE

I-Tallin

nA

ddress:B

ox160

EE

-0090T

allinnE

ston

iaT

elephone:Int

+372

2601

844T

elefax:Int

+372

2440

982

Stock

holm

En

vironm

entInstitute

The

Stockholm

Environm

entInstitute

(SE

I)w

asestablished

bythe

Sw

edishP

arliament

in1989

asan

independentfoundationforthe

purposeo

fcarryingoutglobalenvironm

entanddevelopm

entresearch.The

Instituteis

governedby

aninternationalB

oardw

hosem

embers

aredraw

nfrom

developingand

industrial­ized

countriesw

orldwide.

Central

tothe

Institute'sw

orkhave

beenactivities

surroundingthe

Rio

UN

CE

Dconference,

andprevious

tothis,

theB

randtand

Palm

eC

omm

issionsand

thew

orko

fthe

World

Com

mission

forE

nvironmentand

Developm

ent.Apartfrom

itsw

orkinglinkages

with

therelevantspecialised

agencieso

fthe

UN

system,a

particularfeatureo

fSE

I'sw

orkprogram

me

isthe

roleithas

playedin

thedevelopm

entand

applicationo

fAgenda

21,theaction

planfor

thenextcentury.

Am

ajoraim

of

SE

I'sw

orkis

tobring

togetherscientific

researchand

policydevelopm

ent.T

heInstitute

appliesscientific

andtechnicalanalyses

inenvironm

entalanddevelopm

entissueso

fregionalandglobalim

portance.The

impacts

ofdifferentpolicies

areassessed,providing

insighs

intostrategy

optionsforsocially

responsibleenvironm

entalmanagem

entandeconom

icand

socialdevelopment.

The

resultso

fthe

researchare

made

availablethrough

publications,the

organisationo

fand

participationin

conferences,seminars

anduniversity

courses,andalso

throughthe

developmento

fsoftware

packagesfor

usein

theexploration

of

scientificproblem

s.S

EI

hasalso

developeda

specialisedlibrary

which

functionsas

acentral

catalystinthe

short-termand

long-termw

orko

ftheInstitute.

Research

Program

me

Am

ultidisciplinaryrolling

programm

eo

fresearchactivities

hasbeen

designedaround

thefollow

ingm

ainthem

es,which

arebeing

executedvia

internationallycollaborative

activitiesw

ithsim

ilarinstitutionsand

agenciesw

orldwide:

oE

nviro

nm

en

talR

esources,including

energyefficiency

andglobaltrends,energy,

en

viron

me

ntand

de

velo

pm

en

t,and

world

wa

ter

resources;

oE

nviro

nm

en

talT

echnology,including

cleanproduction

andlow

waste,

en

erg

ytechnology,

envi­ronm

entalte

chn

olo

gy

transfer,and

agriculturalbiotechnology;

oE

nviro

nm

en

talIm

pacts,including

environmentally

soundm

anagementoflow

-gradefuels,

climate

cha

ng

eand

sustainabledevelopm

ent,andcoordinated

abatementstrategies

foracid

depositions;

oE

nviro

nm

en

talP

olicya

nd

Managem

ent,including

urbanenvironm

entalproblem

s,sustainable

en

viron

me

nts

andcom

mon

propertym

anagement;

and

oP

OLE

ST

AR

,a

com

pre

he

nsive

modelling

andscenario-based

activity,investigating

thed

yna

mics

ofa

world

with

10

billionpeople

bythe

middle

ofthe

nextcentury.

SE

l'sN

etwork

SE

Ihas

chosena

globalnetw

orkapproach

ratherthan

am

oretraditional

institutionalset-up.

The

work

programm

eis

carriedoutby

aw

orldwide

network

ofabout60

full-and

part-time

andaffiliated

staffandconsultants,w

hoare

linkedw

iththe

SE

IHead

Office

inS

tockholmorto

theS

EIO

fficesin

Boston

(US

A),

York

(UK

)andT

allinn(E

stonia).SE

Ihasdeveloped

alarge

mailing

registertocom

municate

tokey

mem

berso

fsocietyin

government,industry,university,N

GO

sand

them

ediaaround

thew

orld.

~S E

I~:~~:~~~~NTIN

ST

ITU

TE

InternationalInstitutefor

Environm

entalTechnologyand

Managem

entL--_

Postal

address:T

elephone:T

elex:T

elefax:E

-mail:

WW

W:

Box

2142,S-103

14Stockholm

,Sw

eden+

46-8-7230260

19580sei

s+

46-8-7230348

seihq@nordnet.se

http://nn.apc.org/sei/