Category Archives: food security

Human Apocalypses. Mysteries. Cycles.

Flickr CC photo by Cuba Gallery “sunset”

If this world weren’t so mysterious, I don’t think it’d be half as fun. One of today’s looming questions seems to be if we are facing some kind of apocalyptic scenario as a nation, or even as a species.

Predicting apocalypses has been common through the ages. There are always those who expect that a collapse is imminent. Are you one of them? Because it certainly seems like here in America today, the percentage of people with a doomer outlook is pretty high. Doomerism comes up in the media fairly often, and I find it mentioned in conversations surprisingly often among friends and acquaintances that I’d never expect to hear it from. Just what is going on out there that is making us so uneasy?

Here are three examples of preppers that I know of personally. There are more.

• Very recently, an older and wise friend confided that he is acquiring precious metals that he’s keeping in his home office to “buy bread” if the time comes that he needs it.
• A young male acquaintance has a survival kit including a water filter that he keeps while in graduate school, and he plans to steal a bike in his city and bike across a couple of states back to his home if the world should go to hell in a hand basket.
• While on holiday last month, when taking an early evening walk on Balboa Penninsula in California, we visited with a man farming his tiny front yard. There were a few tall corn plants growing, along with a variety of vegetables. He said that he thinks a collapse is imminent and he has a bigger farm in the Pacific Northwest that he can go back to. His approach to dealing with his fear is to grow his own food and learn other skills to be self-reliant.

Many pessimists are fearful about feeding the world in the future. Luckily, being able to adjust our diets and our crop choices gives us more resilience than most people realize. Modern global communication using cell phones and the internet are allowing the exchange of agricultural information and farming knowledge to be shared freely like never before. Contrary to those who always assume the worst in the future of agriculture, on some days I am a cornucopian about the prospects of improving and advancing food production and food production methods in future years. The bigger concern is right politics for healthy food production, in addition to the wild-card of weather conditions caused by climate change.

That said, we do live in the real world and black swan events do come along every now and then, and life moves in cycles – as do civilizations.

I’ve made a list of my top concerns, below. Most of these apocalyptic scenarios would only apply to regions or large groups of individuals in the shorter term.

1. Chaos resulting from political system failures could happen here or anywhere else if people become too polarized, too dissatisfied, lack basic needs and services, or aren’t being represented by their own governments. Rebellions, anarchy, riots, and unrest could become daily events.

2. Survival in our developed nations is reliant upon electricity and liquid fuels, and there are many future energy supply unknowns. The energy industry is becoming increasingly complex technologically, which increases its vulnerabilities. We could be faced with a major oil supply shock due to geopolitical reasons, or we could face a rapid decline in energy availability for various other reasons.

3. Does complexity and technology make us more, or less resilient? At some point, for some reason, we will experience a massive technological failure. We are putting so much trust in technology today that it has become our biggest risk factor and it is our biggest blind spot. Most technology is reliant upon electricity. If we had solar flares or cyberterrorism that knocked out much of our power supply, many of our systems would fail. Very few of us are self-reliant anymore. The technology that we use and take for granted each day is complex so that we can not make the things we rely upon ourselves nor can we fix anything ourselves, like our fathers and grandfathers could.

4. Terrorism, or multi-orchestrated terrorism events including bioterrorism and nuclear or radioactive terrorism are frightening possibilities.

5. There is the possibility of a rapid climate change. This could cause unbearable situations for different reasons in different places and lead to mass human migrations.

6. We could have a global disease epidemic or superbugs that can’t be treated, either of which could cull our human population numbers quickly.

7. We could experience a super volcano or a giant asteroid. These have happened in the past, and will happen again. If large enough, either would be capable of wiping out the food supply of most of the planet.

8. Plundering is part of our human nature, anyway the male part of human nature. There will be more world wars, use of bombs, chemical warfare, drones, and other war technologies which could be related to resource scarcity, or just plain aggression, desperation, or insane leadership.

9. We could have a global financial contagion crisis, failure of our currency or banking systems, or a failure of electronic money. We could have a crisis of confidence in the currency.

11. We could see an end to global cooperation, given certain stressors.

12. We might pollute ourselves into oblivion.

13. Water scarcity could occur where there are large populations. This might require migration or a great deal of global cooperation.

14. Besides water, other resource depletions include topsoil, loss of biodiversity, and multi-species extinctions. Many of these are due to our land use changes in agriculture.

15. There could be planetary tipping points we aren’t fully aware of such as amount of rain forests lost, or the health of the oceans, or ozone changes in the atmosphere.

16. As most population on the planet is locating in cities and urban areas, those areas could become vulnerable if infrastructure or supply chains required to keep them functioning gets damaged.

17. Overpopulation is usually found on lists such as this, yet, the term is difficult to define due to standards of living, geographical circumstances, longevity, water supplies, regional carrying capacities, and so on.

18. Control of media, internet, and electronic communications by evil hands could instigate wrong thinking that could lead to horrific crimes against portions of humanity.

That’s my list. I’m sure there are many more that could be added. So all of you worriers and preppers out there, I invite you to tell us what worries you the most.

One of the greatest mysteries to me is how well man can be a problem solver. Can we evolve to live in peace and harmony? Will neuroscience and new physics discoveries take us places we can barely dream of today? What will future technology, engineering, and scientific discoveries look like? Will people 50,000 years from now view this list above as primitive? When humans do eventually become extinct on this planet, will our DNA go on elsewhere? Will our consciousness survive?

Sustainable Intensification in Farming

Readers, today’s post is republished by permission from ILRI, and the writing summarizes a Science Policy Forum article by Tara Garnett, of the Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), in the UK, and her team et al.

Banalata Das, a shrimp farmer feds her cow at the family home. Khulna, Bangladesh. Photo by Mike Lusmore, 2012

 Banalata Das, a dairy and shrimp farmer, feeds her cow in Khulna, Bangladesh . (photo credit: WorldFish/Mike Lusmore).

Ramadjita Tabo, a member of The Montpellier Panel and deputy executive director of the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), recently described the recent rather divisive nature of academic discussions on the viability of the ‘sustainable intensification’ of agriculture as follows.

Sustainable intensification, an agricultural development pathway that aims to reconcile food production and environmental protection, is a highly politicised term that divides academics and practitioners alike. Although, when first coined by Jules Pretty, the term was a way of bringing often divergent priorities such as addressing declines in land and agricultural productivity, pollution and food insecurity together under a new paradigm, it has been since accused of being a ruse for big, industrial agriculture. — Ramadjita Tabo, Sustainable intensification: A practical approach to meet Africa’s food and natural resource needs, Global Food Security blog, 18 Apr 2013

Now a team of diverse scientists and other experts, having broadened the concept, make a case in a new report published in the journal Science that sustainable intensification is absolutely central to our ability to meet increasing demands for food from our growing populations and finite farmlands.

Tara Garnett and Charles Godfray, the article’s lead authors, say that we can increase food production from existing farmland if we employ sustainable intensification practices and policies. These, they say, can help minimize already severe pressures on the environment, especially for more land, water, and energy, natural resources now commonly overexploited and used unsustainably.

The authors of this Science ’Policy Forum’ piece are researchers from leading universities and international organizations as well as policymakers from non-governmental organizations and the United Nations. One of the co-authors is Mario Herrero, an agricultural systems scientist who recently led a ‘livestock futures’ team at theInternational Livestock Research Institute (ILRI, a member of CGIAR), in Nairobi, Kenya, and who earlier this year moved to Brisbane, Australia, to take up the position of chief research scientist for food systems and the environment at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Another co-author is Philip Thornton, another ILRI systems scientist and a leader of a multi-institutional team and project in the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

The authors of this Science paper outline a new, more sophisticated account of how ‘sustainable intensification’ should work. They recognize that this policy has attracted criticism in some quarters as being either too narrowly focused on food production or as representing a contradiction in terms.

Why does articulating this new, more refined, account of sustainable intensification matter so much? ‘We often confuse sustainable intensification as synonymous with increases in productivity and resource use efficiency, but the picture is far more complex’, explains Herrero. ‘We attempted a balanced definition, one that encompasses all major perspectives.’ Such a new definition, Herrero says, can be telling. Take the pig and poultry sub-sectors, he says, which are commonly lauded for being more efficient than raising cattle, goats, sheep, water buffalo and other ruminant animals. ‘Well, that can be true. But not in large parts of Europe, for example, which import grain to feed their pigs and poultry, with one result being that Brazilian farmers are chopping down the rain forest to provide that feed to Europe’s livestock farmers. From this perspective, those “efficient” pig and poultry business are just not sustainable. In our endeavour to intensify’, Herrero continues, ‘we can overlook important aspects of agricultural intensification like ecosystems services, biodiversity and human health. Take the livestock sector, for example. With this sector so intimately connected to land management issues and with so many livestock-based livelihoods of poor people at stake, it’s essential that we don’t pay lip service to the ‘sustainability aspects’ of livestock intensification.

We need to  come up with suitable practical indicators of just what is sustainable, and the fact is that we’ll sometimes need to reduce intensification, as in places where additional increases in yields or efficiencies could place too much pressure on other facets of food systems. — Mario Herrero, agricultural systems scientist, CSIRO (formerly of ILRI)

Herrero’s colleague, Philip Thornton, agrees. And he reminds us of the ‘multi-functionality’ of agricultural production systems in developing countries, particularly livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa. ‘These ‘multifunctions’ (such as keeping cows for household milk, and/or to generate a daily household dairy income, and/or to produce manure to fertilize croplands, and/or to transport produce to markets, and/or or to build household assets) differ by place and context, and our interventions aiming to enhance them need to differ accordingly, Thornton says. No ‘silver bullets’ or ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, he says, is going to work in these varied smallholder production system contexts.

‘As usual, it’s a matter of scale, with landscape or regional approaches expected to become critical to success. To achieve our desired development outcomes, we’re going to have to “intensify” small-scale livestock, mixed crop-livestock and other agricultural production systems where intensification can be done viably, and we’re going to have to ‘extensify’ these smallholder systems elsewhere in the landscape, where intensification is just not viable.

The main reason for producing this Science paper was to try to wrest the concept of ‘sustainable agricultural intensification’ back from those driving specific agendas. (We may well have to try to do the same for ‘climate-smart agriculture’, but that’s another story.) — Philip Thornton, ILRI and CCAFS

Similar arguments were published in a previous article in Science by Herrero, Thornton and their colleagues (Smart investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systemsScience, 12 Feb 2010, DOI: 10.1126/science.1183725). This new investigation, Herrero says, is something of a follow-up to that earlier paper. The new Science article stresses that while farmers in many regions of the world need to produce more food, it is equally urgent that policymakers act on diets, waste and how the food system is governed. The authors say we must produce more food on existing rather than new farmland; converting uncultivated land, they say, will lead to greater emissions of greenhouse gases, which are causing global warming, and greater losses of biodiversity.

The authors make a strong case for sustainable intensification being the only policy on the table that could generate ways of producing enough food for all without destroying our environment.

But, warns Charles Godfray, of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, sustainable intensification should be only one part of an agricultural and development policy portfolio. ’Sustainable intensification is necessary’, he says, ‘but not sufficient’.

Achieving a sustainable food system will require changes in agricultural production, changes in diet so people eat less meat and waste less food, and regulatory changes to improve the efficiency and resilience of the food system. Producing more food is important but it is only one of a number of policies that we must pursue together. — Charles Godfray, Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food

Increasing productivity does not always mean using more fertilizers and agrochemicals, which frequently carry unacceptable environmental costs, argue the authors. They say that a range of techniques, both old and new, should be employed to develop ways of farming that keep environmental damage to a minimum.

The authors of the paper accept that the intensification of agriculture will directly as well as indirectly impact other important policy goals, such as preserving biodiversity, improving human nutrition and animal welfare, protecting rural economies and sustaining development generally in poor countries and communities. Policymakers will need to find ways to navigate conflicting priorities, they say, which is where research can help.

Lead author Tara Garnett, from the Food Climate Research Network at the Oxford Martin School, says that food security is about more than just more calories. Better nutrition also matters, she says.

Some two billion people worldwide are thought to be deficient in micronutrients. We need to intensify the quality of the food we produce in ways that improve the nutritional value of people’s diets, preferably through diversifying the range of foods produced and available to people but also, in the short term, by improving the nutrient content of crops now commonly produced. — Tara Garnett, Food Climate Research Network

Michael Appleby, of the World Society for the Protection of Animals, says that ‘Attention to livestock welfare is both necessary and beneficial for sustainability. Policies to achieve the right balance between animal and crop production will benefit animals, people and the planet.’

Agriculture is a potent sector for economic growth and rural development in many countries across Africa, Asia and South America, says co-author Sonja Vermeulen, of CCAFS.

Sustainable intensification can provide the best rewards for small-scale farmers and their heritage of natural resources. What policymakers can provide are the strategic finance as well as institutions needed to support sustainable and equitable pathways rather than quick profits gained through depletion. — Sonja Vermeulen, CCAFS

Get the paper: Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies, by T Garnett, MC Appleby, A Balmford, IJ Bateman, TG Benton, P Bloomer, B Burlingame, M Dawkins, L Dolan, D Fraser, M Herrero, I Hoffmann, P Smith, PK Thornton, C Toulmin, SJ Vermeulen, HCJ Godfray, Science, vol. 341, 5 Jul 2013.