Post on 11-Jun-2020
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
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/