The global food security situation is critical. But there is still hope
|
Version 0 of 1. Your editorial (Hunger is coming. The temperature rises and rivers dry up. How can we feed the world?, 2 March) asks a crucial question. Policymakers tell us 70% more food must be produced by 2050 to feed the growing world population. Not so. We produce enough food to feed twice the current world population. But globally we waste 60% of it: through post-harvest losses, through its being thrown out by consumers and by the use of cereals to feed animals. For every 100 calories fed to animals in the form of human-edible crops, we receive 10 calories or less in the form of meat. Just halving these various food wastes means we would need to produce less. It would allow us to farm less intensively with reduced monocultures and agro-chemicals. Degraded soils could be rebuilt, water used more sparingly and biodiversity restored. Developed world consumers would need to consume less meat and milk, which would come from animals mainly fed on pastures, crop residues and unavoidable food waste. Lower consumption of animal products would lead to a reduction in both diet-related disease and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Just halving EU meat and dairy consumption would lead to a 25-40% reduction in GHG emissions. A Chatham House paper shows that without such a shift in diets it will be impossible to keep temperature increases to below 2°C. Our food system has been hijacked by the food industry, which has interposed itself between farmers and consumers, driving down farmers’ margins and foisting overconsumption of unhealthy processed foods on to the public. We need a new model of food and farming.Peter StevensonChief policy adviser, Compassion in World Farming In Africa, small-scale farmers produce over 70% of the food consumed, on less than 15% of the agricultural land • Your editorial is right that food security needs urgent attention in Paris at December’s global climate talks. But we do not have to wait for Paris. In September, global leaders will meet in New York to discuss replacements for the millennium development goals (MDGs). On the table for discussion is a new set of goals – sustainable development goals – which all countries, not just developing countries, are being asked to sign up to. One proposed goal is specifically on food security and sustainable agriculture, and others relate to climate change and access to water. 2015 is therefore a key year for sustainable development and we need pressure on governments to act in the run up to New York as well as Paris.Linda McAvan MEPChair, European parliament committee on international development • Your editorial carries what is probably the most powerful message of the paper’s 194 years. Before the international meeting in Paris in December to discuss climate change we have a general election that will determine who our representatives are and what line they take. Beyond the urgent domestic issues of today we should be asking candidates what their plans are for the UK in the near future regarding: becoming self-sufficient in food production; becoming carbon-free and self-reliant on solar, wind and wave energy sources; and boosting research that can help food production and alleviate water shortage worldwide.Michael BasseyAuthor, Convivial Policies for the Inevitable: global warming, peak oil, economic chaos • The impact of climate change in exacerbating the food challenges we face does call for a profound rethinking of global agricultural practices. The good news is that solutions do exist. In Africa, small-scale farmers produce over 70% of the food consumed, on less than 15% of the agricultural land, with a tiny fraction of the emissions generated by industrial agriculture. The bad news is that the UK’s aid programme is pushing a one-size-fits-all industrial model of agriculture that threatens the livelihoods of these small farmers. In the runup to Paris, if we want to address the intertwined threats of food and climate security, a good starting point would be for the Department for International Development to abandon financial support for the controversial New Alliance for Food Security, which imposes emissions-intensive agribusiness in countries across Africa at the expense of climate-friendly small farming practices.Nick DeardenDirector, Global Justice Now • It’s not that I disagree with the analysis in your editorial but to remark on the rate of erosion you quote for the US, a surface lowering of 1mm per year at peak – that’s a loss of 10m3 of soil per year per hectare. Where did it all go? If it is based on Stan Trimble’s work for a small portion of the US it might be OK, but if it is for the whole of the cultivated area of the US it is probably a gross overestimate, for it will be based on the universal soil loss equation. The USLE is not a good predictor of erosion rate, it might be OK, or of the right order, for an individual field in a particular year, but does not apply across the landscape. Not all fields erode and not every year. So when averaged across a landscape, rates are much lower than the rate per field. Soils are being degraded by loss of organic matter, loss of fertility and compaction, as well as it’s usually the best quality land that is built over, but rill and gully erosion might not be as severe as predicted. Wash erosion, which carries very small amounts of soil from the land, and is hardly noticeable also transports nitrate, phosphate and pesticides either attached to soil particles or in solution that, over the short term, are a much bigger problem – they are expensive to remove to make water drinkable.Robert EvansCambridge • If food security is already becoming a major issue then the time to do something about it is now. One of the things we could do would be to challenge the religious and political pressures that deny women in developing countries access to family planning services. Many rich countries refuse to provide family planning in their overseas aid (the UK being an honorable exception) and many third world charities also refuse, but do not mention this in their requests for donations. The UN states that 225 million women in developing countries wish to avoid pregnancy but are not using modern contraceptives. If this wish could be met, food security would immediately become a smaller issue.It is worth remembering that smaller families are likely to be more resilient families – worldwide. Helen HaranSt Albans, Hertfordshire • The risk from climate change to food security is indeed very serious and solutions are not easy. We need to reimagine agriculture. Incremental improvements to existing agro-ecosystems are important and must be pursued but just doing the same better is not going to close the future gap between demand and production. Nor will it reduce sufficiently the environmental burden from agriculture, including its greenhouse gas emissions. Two divergent paths are promising. One is a shift to more complex field-based ecosystems than monocultural arable crops, allowing simultaneous establishment, maintenance and harvesting of multiple crops from the same area. Another is “off-farm farming”, which is already emerging: intense and efficient production of leaf protein is possible in indoor environments that are optimal for plant growth and not subject to the vagaries of the weather or invasion by pests. The recent launch of a UK agri-technology strategy is positive but what is needed, urgently, is a Manhattan-scale international project to deliver the technology required to meet an existential threat to humanity.Emeritus professor Mark KibblewhitePresident, The Institution of Agricultural Engineers • Monday’s editorial on food rightly didn’t pull many punches on the gravity of the threats to global food supply. The combination of falling yields, soil degradation, population growth and climate change will doubtlessly prove toxic if unresolved. Yet we cannot just rely on climate change cooperation to improve food security. Previous negotiations have routinely failed to match the precarity of the situation, and it will be a miracle if all nations in Paris agree on how we can prevent more than a 2C rise in global temperatures. To tackle global food insecurity the UK must show more leadership on food and farming at home. We must waste much less and cut the impact of what we do produce. We need conservation tillage to lock up carbon and restore and enhance the natural resilience of soils. We need to eat less and better-quality meat, and more fruit and vegetables. And we need to reassess what our land is for and stop allowing development values to trump our long-term need for land for food. None of these is a silver bullet. But they do offer practical solutions that don’t rely on the dreamers.Graeme WillisSenior rural policy campaigner, Campaign to Protect Rural England • I challenge the Guardian to find a single MP of any of the reputable parties who is prepared to put a figure, no matter how approximate, on the maximum population size for the UK commensurate with an acceptable quality of life.Les FarrisSouth Petherton, Somerset |