HC 933 Global Food Security

Written Evidence submitted by John Beddington CMG FRS,

Government Chief Scientific Adviser

Introduction

The Government Office for Science Foresight Report ‘The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability’ published in January 2011, made a compelling case for urgent action to redesign the global food system to meet the challenge of feeding the world equitably and sustainably over the next 40 years. In the wake of the 2007/8 food price spikes, the Foresight Project commissioned over 100 peer-reviewed evidence papers, involving around 400 leading experts and stakeholders from 35 countries. This research highlighted the overwhelming evidence that whilst the global food system currently delivers for many, it is currently failing on two fronts: it is consuming the world’s natural resources at an unsustainable rate and failing the world’s poorest, with almost one billion still suffering from hunger (Foresight, 2011).

Politically, global food security and sustainable agriculture has risen up the high-level political agenda. International conferences and summits, including the L’Aquila Summit, G20 Summits, World Food Summit and Rio 20+, have all generated high level statements on the need to tackle food security now. Many of these international events have resulted in joint commitments by various national Governments as countries agree on the need for improved agricultural policies, and call for better international coordination to promote food security and sustainable agricultural production. For example, the G8 and African leaders have launched a New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition to increase responsible domestic and foreign private investments in African agriculture, take innovations that can enhance agricultural productivity to scale, and reduce the risk borne by vulnerable economies and communities.

However, with commitments made at previous summits yet to be realised including the promise of l’Aquila Summit in 2009, real change or action on the ground has been limited and not on the scale needed to meet the existing and ever more imminent challenges in the food system. World's leaders need to be even more ambitious, and to transform agriculture and build thriving economies in developing countries.

Creating a secure and sustainable food system is not simply a question of producing more food, but drawing links between different policy areas and creating agreement on multidisciplinary issues, including the role of agriculture in climate change, the dependency of food production on ecosystem services, the role of agriculture in delivering a green economy, as well as a reduction in poverty and hunger. Any one of these pressures (‘drivers of change’) would present substantial challenges to food security; but together they constitute a major threat that requires a strategic reappraisal of how the world is fed. Addressing these in a pragmatic way that promotes resilience to shocks and future uncertainties will be vital if major stresses to the food system are to be anticipated and managed. The five key challenges identified by Foresight for policy makers, researchers and industry to respond to are:

· Balancing future demand and supply sustainably

· Ensuring that there is adequate stability in food prices

· Achieving global access to food and ending hunger

· Managing the contribution of the food system to the mitigation of climate change

· Maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services while feeding the world

These five key challenges provide a framework against which to consider where progress has been made and what can be done to turn increasing political attention into truly ‘decisive’ action to secure a sustainable and secure global food system.

Balancing future demand and supply sustainably

Meeting the challenges posed by land and water scarcity, climate change, and declining crop yields will need substantial progress in agricultural innovation, which in turn will require more effective agricultural research investments (CCAFS, 2010). Global warming could occur faster than expected and add to water shortages, hitting irrigated agriculture with lower yields and increasing risks in rainfed agriculture (World Bank 2008).

Three quarters of the world’s one billion extremely poor people live in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture and its related activities for their livelihoods. They face a series of interconnected natural resource management challenges, and are in the front line of climate change impacts. There is growing concern over inappropriate approaches to food production that drive excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, pollution of waterways and aquifers, build-up of salt in the soil, water scarcity in major river basins, declining levels of groundwater and loss of crop biodiversity. Greater recognition is required of the need to invest in a long term sustainable –environment and natural resources management, but too often the focus is on the shorter term shocks and volatility issues.

Projected increases in the demand for food, coupled with increased threats and pressures to the underpinning natural environment means a new approach to food production is required. A key solution for addressing these competing challenges will be the sustainable intensification of agriculture, raising yields without using more land, while adapting to climate change, reducing emissions, and maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services. A global shared understanding is needed of the importance of sustainable intensification and how to balance crop/livestock, fisheries and agro-forestry systems, so that surplus inputs are avoided and soil fertility and ecosystem services are not compromised, while production and income are increased (Foresight 2011).

As much as 30% of all food grown worldwide is estimated to be lost or wasted. In middle- and low-income countries, where infrastructure for storage and supply is often inadequate, losses are greatest in post-harvest storage and the food supply chain. In high-income countries, the greatest losses are incurred by the food services industry and the consumer. A more efficient food chain through waste reduction measures would make a substantial contribution to producing more food with less resources, in particular water and energy, and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. A strategic target to reduce waste in the global food system would be more easily achieved through high-level international political support and an international body acting as champion to tackle the highly variable levels of waste that occur in the food supply chain in different parts of the world.

There will be benefits, 1% gain in GDP originating in agriculture generates a 6% increase in overall expenditure of poorest 10% of populations, while the equivalent figure for GDP growth in non-agricultural sectors is zero (World Bank, 2008). Growth in agriculture through supportive policies, robust investment and infrastructure development usually generates the greatest improvements for the poorest people (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), at least twice as much poverty reduction than any other sector (Farming First), making food more accessible to the hungry.

Ensuring that there is adequate stability in food prices

In 2007/8, food price rises shocked many policymakers from the belief that stable or declining food prices and assured supplies could be taken for granted. Before the price spike, poverty meant that 800 million people were hungry. Following the price spike, this number increased to a little over 1 billion people (a rise that significantly set back progress towards the UN Millennium Development Goal to halve the proportion of people suffering hunger between 1990 and 2015).

The future of global crop harvests is uncertain, for example in 2010, a period of drought coupled with extensive wild fires in Russia damaged 20 percent of Russia’s arable land (10 million hectares) with wheat production 27% lower than normal, and exports of the cereal harvests were banned. In 2012, the worst ever United States drought in over 50 years, blighted 78% of the 96 million acres of corn (the biggest area in 75 years), and half of all U.S. counties were declared disaster areas. In response, the international prices of maize and soybeans rose past 2007-08 peaks, when at the same time, food riots erupted in African and Middle Eastern countries. These events have drawn increased attention to the fact that a significant proportion of humanity remains chronically undernourished, even during periods of relatively normal prices and low volatility of food prices.

Policies to limit the harmful effects of fluctuations in food prices may therefore require both improved mechanisms for social protection and farm policies at national level and a degree of international institutional reform (ODI, 2010). This will require more product-related and institutional innovation, and for a stronger public sector role – both national governments and multinational agencies – in helping to launch new programmes, develop infrastructure and establish appropriate delivery mechanisms (Foresight, 2011b).

The Foresight report argued protection of the most vulnerable groups from the worst effects of food price volatility has to be a priority, especially those in low-income countries where market and insurance institutions are weak. This can be done indirectly through intervention to try to influence market prices, but is likely to be more effective through the provision of safety nets for poor consumers or producers that are designed to stabilise real incomes, and improve food safety and quality. Global strategies may be necessary to address agricultural price volatility (Foresight 2011b), develop food stock management, effective market intelligence and early warning, monitoring and distribution systems.

The G20 activity on food price volatility has begun to respond to these calls for action. In June 2011 the meeting of G20 Agriculture ministers agreed to an Action Plan on Food Price Volatility and Agriculture, which was subsequently welcomed by Leaders during G20 summit in Cannes in November 2011. While several elements of the action plan build on ongoing initiatives, some specific new activities to target food price volatility where launched, including Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) initiative, Global Agricultural Geo-monitoring Initiative (GEOGLAM) and the Platform for Agricultural Risk Management (PARM). Perhaps the most helpful of the commitments agreed by the G20 leaders was the agreement to remove food export restrictions or extraordinary taxes for food purchased for non-commercial humanitarian purposes by the World Food Program and agree not to impose them in the future.

The 2012 G20 Summit, in Los Cabos, Mexico on June 18-19, prioritized improving food security, decreasing food price volatility, and increasing sustainable agricultural productivity. In the 2012 interagency report for the Mexico G20 presidency, the UN agencies reiterated the need for continued support to increase agricultural productivity growth in a sustainable manner. While these commitments and initiatives demonstrate helpful progress, G20 nations now need to focus on delivery and maintain a long-term commitment to make significant changes in the mechanisms and institutions that support agricultural development. There is also a clear role for governments to help the agricultural sector educate and improve awareness of the options available for better risk management, and to explore options for the development of, and access to, futures and options markets.

Achieving global access to food and ending hunger

Hunger remains widespread globally, with approximately 1 billion people lacking access to sufficient of the major macronutrients (carbohydrates, fats and protein); and another billion suffering from ‘hidden hunger’, in which important micronutrients (such as vitamins and minerals) are missing from their diet, with consequent risks of physical and mental impairment. For example, a diet high in rice with few vegetables renders people susceptible to vitamin A deficiency, prevalent in 100 to 140 million children worldwide. An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight (WHO, 2006). In contrast, a billion people are substantially over-consuming, spawning a new public health epidemic involving chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Foresight argued that efforts to end hunger internationally are already stalling, and the scale of the threats are such that no single class of intervention – increasing supply, moderating demand, improving the efficiency of the food system – alone is likely to be sufficient. The links between agriculture and nutrition are complex. A well-developed agriculture sector may enhance food and nutrition security directly through consumption or indirectly through incomes. In turn, better nutrition and health of farmers increases their agricultural and economic productivity. Agriculture can also carry risks to nutrition and health outcomes, through agriculture-related diseases. Policy-makers will need to pursue a portfolio of measures involving all aspects of the food system, to maximise the potential benefits of agriculture for nutrition, whilst reducing the risks.

Increasing the nutritional quality of crops is known as biofortification and is an important strategy for improving the health of poor people, particularly in low-income countries. Where there is genetic variation for nutritional quality, biofortification can proceed through traditional or marker-assisted breeding. Quality Protein Maize (QPM) has 90% the nutritional value of skimmed milk, and yields 10% more grain with nearly twice as much usable protein than traditional varieties of maize, grown in the tropics. Babies and adults consuming QPM are healthier and at lower risk of malnutrition disorders. Pigs fed QPM rapidly gain weight and are ready for market sooner or can provide an additional quality protein source for small farm families (CIMMYT, 2000). Efforts are also under way to breed maize and sweet potatoes rich in beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, millet and beans with high iron levels, and rice and wheat high in zinc.

Where no genetic variation for a desirable trait is available, there is much interest in using biotechnology to produce more nutritious crops. As the prime beneficiaries are people in low-income countries these efforts are often financed by charitable foundations and involve public-private partnerships. The GM nutritionally-enhanced crop variety "Golden Rice" [1] has been genetically altered to produce beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A. The first transgenic lines were created in 1999 but work to optimise the level of beta-carotene expressed and address regulatory concerns meant that Golden Rice will only reach market in 2013 (Potrykus, 2010). Other programmes include modifying rice to enrich its iron content.

Eighty percent of the plant food consumed in the global human diet is provided by just twelve species of plants - the cereals barley, maize, millet, rice, rye, sorghum, sugar cane, and wheat, and tubers - cassava, potato, sweet potato and yam (Grivetti and Ogle, 2000). However, there are at least 7000 edible and partly domesticated plants (Williams and Haq, 2002), and an estimated 30 000–75 000 edible wild species of plants on around the world (Myers, 1997; Hopper, 2010). More attention is needed to consider these underutilised crops and the opportunities they offer for alternative cropping systems. A prospective grower embarking on an alternative crop enterprise will need to consider access to markets, implications for crop rotations, especially weed, disease and pest problems; suitability of the soil and climate; and level of risk. With novel crops, there are often fewer pesticide products and there can be fewer opportunities to apply them at the most effective time (Foresight, 2011).

Reducing the number of hungry people rarely receives political priority, since the poorest section of society exercises little leverage, nationally or globally. Agriculture gets even less attention than hunger reduction. Agriculture in the developing world can become highly productive, even for smallholders. There is a need for a bold and global consensus for tackling hunger and ensuring investment in pro-poor, anti-hunger agricultural growth. Strong levels of political courage and leadership in countries from low- to high-income status are essential to carry this agenda through. A stronger constituency for hunger reduction needs to be built (Foresight, 2011).

Policymakers need to strengthen the culture of monitoring, impact and learning in agriculture – to allow farmers and consumers to give feedback on what is working and not working in hunger reduction efforts (Foresight, 2011). Cost-effective food aid is required which purchases food in or near recipient countries (Worldwatch Institute, 2011). Markets/other mechanisms should be used to regulate and generate rewards for agro/environmental services including: incentives to promote integrated pest management, environmentally resilient germplasm, payments to farmers and local communities for ecosystem services, facilitating and providing incentives for alternative markets such as green products, certification for sustainable forest and fisheries practices and organic agriculture and strengthening of local markets (IAASTD, 2009).

Managing the contribution of the food system to the mitigation of climate change

Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases (GHG) have risen substantially over recent decades. As a result of lags in the global climate system, the world is already committed to Climate Change, whatever mitigation measures are taken in the next few decades. Failures to curb GHG emissions will lead, with high probability, to rates of warming by the end of the century that will be highly detrimental to many aspects of human existence, including the provision of food.

Agricultural production is likely to decline in most of the developing world as a result of climate change through reduced water availability, increased temperatures, uncertain or shorter growing seasons, less arable land and new pest and disease patterns. In addition to assisting rural households to adapt to climate change in an environment characterized by deteriorating natural resources, there is also a need to moderate the impact of disasters from more frequent extreme weather events. Every year, weather events (drought, floods, fires) significantly impact agricultural production and commodity markets. Climate change is making these weather events more frequent and severe. Better preparedness, early warning and appropriate response mechanisms are all part of a broader approach to disaster risk management. The insurance industry estimates total economic losses in 2011 caused by natural hazards range from $350 to $380 billion US - the most expensive year in history.

Agriculture also plays a vital role in mitigating climate change. Agriculture is a major source of CO2 emissions and contributes a disproportionate amount of other GHGs with high impact on warming (approximately 47% and 58% of total CH4 and N2O emissions, respectively (IFPRI ). 34% of global land area is used for food production (INRA, CIRAD, 2011) and this ties up a vast amount of carbon: changes in agricultural practices that affect this store could have a very significant effect on global warming (IFAD, 2011). The major challenge is to incentivize and spread best practice. For example, a variety of methods are available to increase the nitrogen efficiency of crop and livestock production, or to reduce methane emissions from livestock or wetland rice. Much more carbon could be sequestered in farmland, both in soils and agroforestry (combining trees and shrubs with crops and/or livestock). Novel approaches are needed to reward farmers who produce these global goods.

There are a number of global initiatives and partnership starting to draw these links together (International Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, FAO/WB partnership on Climate Smart Agriculture). Yet there is still no agreement on a sustainable agriculture work programme under UNFCCC. It is clear that the role of agriculture in climate change is yet to be fully embraced. Policies to mitigate climate change can incentive the delivery of multiple public goods (Foresight, 2011). These will help to develop agricultural technologies and methods that are more robust and resilient to the range of future climatic uncertainties.

Maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services while feeding the world

Some of the most threatened and diverse habitats exist in very low-income countries, which also face the greatest challenges in achieving the MDGs. Often, actions to slow ecosystem degradation do not address indirect drivers: population change (growth and migration), change in economic activity (economic growth, disparities in wealth, and trade patterns), socio-political factors (presence of conflict to public participation in decision-making), cultural factors, and technological change. Conversion of forest to agriculture can significantly change the frequency and magnitude of floods, although the nature of the impacts depends on the characteristics of the local ecosystem and the type of land cover change. Changes in biodiversity can influence the capacity of ecosystems to adjust to changing environments (medium certainty) influencing risk of crop failure in a variable environment and altering the potential impacts of pests and pathogens (medium to high certainty) (Millennium Ecosystem Assesment, 2005).

Improved understanding is needed in agro-ecosystems properties, such as complex cropping rotations, integrated crop and livestock production, functioning of mosaics of crop production areas and natural habitats, enhancing biodiversity conservation and use at both field and landscape scales, and enhanced reliance on ecological processes to manage pests, weeds, and diseases (National Academy of Sciences, 2010). Interventions are needed to ensure that biodiversity is considered in planning at the national and landscape levels to make farming more wildlife friendly, fishing less damaging, or to set land, marine and freshwater protected areas aside as reserves. Also, interventions need to recognise the importance of ‘wild food’ in low-income countries to help protect the livelihoods of very poorest people. Further work into the economic assessment and evaluation of ecosystem services and biodiversity will need to build upon initiatives such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and World Bank programme on Global Partnership for Ecosystems Services and Ecosystems Services Evaluation and Wealth Accounting (Foresight, 2011).

More recognition is needed at global and international levels that food security and environmental protection are interdependent. International policy needs to ensure that countries obtain benefits from providing global goods, especially when costs are borne by low-income countries; policies are avoided that have negative environmental impacts in other countries; and the protection of biodiversity is coordinated across administrative or national borders. Whatever strategies are adopted, human impacts need to be understood and quantified as there are strong ethical arguments against imposing the costs of protecting biodiversity on those least able to pay them. There are both economic and non-economic arguments for why ecosystem services and biodiversity should be integral parts of decision-making in the global food system (Foresight, 2011).

Where action is needed and by whom?

Today’s global food system is complex and dynamic, perhaps more so than at any time in human history. Continuing open and transparent dialogue, and increased collaboration between governments, the private sector and civil society, with commitments to robust standards of action and performance, will be essential to achieving future sustainability in the global food supply chain (Foresight, 2011).

Research, knowledge transfer and extension - In the face of long-term climate and environmental challenges, today’s knowledge and technologies will no longer be reliable and suitable. A toolkit of integrated multiple-benefit approaches is needed (often overlapping) including: balanced-input agriculture, sustainable land management, landscape approaches, integrated pest management, integrated plant nutrient management, watershed management, rangeland management and, more broadly, integrated food energy systems. Investment in research (both public and private sector) is critical to increasing agricultural productivity sustainably. Promising technologies require promotion, piloting and scaling up; and knowledge integration needs promoting across communities of practice, including through South-South exchanges and farmer-to-farmer learning. There is also a need for more multidisciplinary research and greater integrated analysis of the relationship between food, agriculture, natural resources and climate change, as well as greater co-ordination globally between existing research initiatives. Farming is knowledge-intensive, requiring information about crop characteristics, weather, microclimate, soil types, fertility, pests and disease threats, field rotation schemes, livestock / crop interactions, market demand, and many other factors (Worldwatch Institute, 2011). Critically the end game must be to increase producers’ knowledge about best practice and bring innovation to more poor farmers in developing countries, faster.

Governance of innovation for agriculture needs to maximise opportunities for increasing production, while at the same time protecting societies, economies and the environment from negative side effects. Regulatory systems need to improve their assessment of benefits (Royal Society, 2009). Intellectual property systems need to be reviewed to ensure that patenting or varietal protection of new seed varieties does not work against poverty alleviation, farmer led innovation or publicly funded research efforts (Royal Society, 2009). EU partner countries should work together over the next five to ten years to develop a system of regulation for new agricultural processes and products, based on shared principles (Royal Society, 2009). Carbon taxes should be applied to both energy and land-use change to incentivize intensification of crop production on a more limited land areas, protection of forests and grasslands (World Bank, 2010).

Governance of the food system - Weak governance, inadequate policies, low levels of investment in agriculture, weak rural infrastructure and changing consumption patterns lie at the heart of environmental degradation by the global food system. Poor rural people, including smallholders, are often disempowered and thus unable to sustainably manage natural resources; a lack of clear land access and tenure rights removes incentives to maintain natural assets; distorting trade policies and fossil-fuel and other subsidies are key drivers; and the global population is growing rapidly. Success has often been accompanied by strong local ownership and participation, often with decentralised government structures (World Bank, 2010). The global food system needs reform - not only to increase internal coherence, but also to be more coherent with other sector or thematic objectives and governance structures – including vitally the role of the private sector which controls most of our global food resource. The solution is not just to produce more food, or change diets, or eliminate waste. The potential threats are so great that they cannot be met by making changes piecemeal to parts of the food system. It is essential that policy-makers address all areas at the same time (e.g. water, energy, land use, ecosystem services). Joined up government and cooperative research programs at all levels are necessary for facilitating interaction between policies and sectors (IFAD, 2011). Research needs to focus on the key questions policy makers face now – what are the big decisions, issues and opportunities in this agenda where our knowledge and understanding needs to be at its best. Research must be aimed at the key questions policy and decision makers are grappling with today. Another high level call for action will simply not have an impact or create the change that is needed on the global food system.

Global Metrics/Indicators - Despite a raft of indicators and data on agriculture and food, there is still a need for better metrics and indicators to evaluate the global food system and monitor and evaluate policies, including the role of wider factors (e.g. ecosystem services, climate change) on the food system. For example, the lack of baselines and benchmarking of environmental impacts has contributed to poor understanding of the poverty /environment nexus, including associated risks and opportunities. The health of natural assets such as biodiversity or soil fertility can be difficult or costly to measure. However, the use of baseline studies, indicators, resource accounting studies and impact measurement of natural assets, together with innovative partnerships with data and information providers (e.g. satellite companies), could help support governments and communities alike in investing in environment and natural resources management and building resilience to risks and shocks.

Private Sector / Industry / Business - Agribusinesses and food industry are concerned about long-term sustainability of their sources of supply, as well as about responding to consumers’ and governments’ demand for social and environmental corporate responsibility (Worldwatch Institute, 2011). The Foresight report outlined a number of key actions for the private sector around increasing collaboration with the public, NGO and research sectors. In particular, the private sector must work closely with policy makers, NGOs and other groups to assemble food and resource data and to simplify and make transparent standards for sustainable and equitable food production. The contribution of funders to research from the public, private and third-sector organisations needs better coordination. Investment in infrastructure and capacity is needed at a scale which will be realised only by innovative new partnerships between governments, multilateral bodies and the private sector. Where incentives do not currently exist for investment in research that provides public goods, new models of delivery are needed to mobilise the considerable strengths of private sector research and scientific entrepreneurship (Warham et al. 2012). The private sector must increase food literacy amongst consumers, enabling individuals to make informed decisions on the health, environmental and pro-poor consequences of the food they purchase, and work with community organisations and the private sector, locally to internationally, to simplify and make transparent standards for sustainable and equitable food production. Finally it is critical for the private sector to collaborate in research and development in food sector climate change mitigation and adaptation, ecosystem services and biodiversity support, contributing to public goods and shared interest private returns.

March 2013

References

CCAFS (2010) (for The Hague Conference) - Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change: Outlook for Knowledge,Tools and Action.

CIMMYT (2000) Maize Research Highlights 1999-2000. (http://apps.cimmyt.org/Research/Maize/results/mzhigh99-00/mrhigh99-00_qual.pdf

FAO (2010) (for The Hague Conference) - "Climate-Smart" Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation.

Foresight (2011) The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. London: Government Office for Science, p. 211.

Foresight (2011b). Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures. Synthesis Report C10: Volatility in Food Prices.

Grivetti, L. E. and Ogle, B. M. (2000). Value of traditional foods in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs: the wild plant connection. Nutrition Research Reviews, 13, 31-46.

Hopper, S. D. (2010). Sir John Crawford Memorial Address – Plant Diversity at the Turning Point.  "Biodiversity And World Food Security: Nourishing The Planet And Its People" conference conducted by the Crawford Fund for International Agricultural Research, Parliament House, Canberra, Australia, 30 August – 1 September, 2010 http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/125259/2/Hopper2010.pdf

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads: A synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD reports, eds. B.D. McIntyre, H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, and R.T. Watson. Washington, D.C. Island Press.

International Food Policy Research Institute. (2009). Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation and Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050. Washington: IFPRI, p. 30.

INRA/CIRAD. (2010). Agrimonde: Scenarios and Challenges for Feeding the World in 2050.

Versailles: Editions Quae, p. 295.

International Fund for Agricultural Development - Rural Poverty Report. (IFAD). (2011). Rural Poverty Report: New realities, new challenges: new opportunities for tomorrow’s generation. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Myers, N. (ed.) (1997). Biodiversity’s genetic library, Washington, DC: Island Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2010) Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. 570.

ODI. (2010). Preparing for future shocks to international staple food prices. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Potrykus, I. (2010). Regulation must be revolutionized. Nature, 466, 561-561.

Royal Society (2009) Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. London: The Royal Society, p. 72.

Warham, E.J., Fisher-Lamb, R. and Beddington, J. (2012). How Can the Environment Become Part of the Solution to Feeding a Growing Population. The European Journal of Agricultural Development. Volume 25 (1):21-27.

Williams, J.T. and Haq, N. (2002). Global Research on Underutilized Crops: An Assessment of Current Activities and Proposals for Enhanced Cooperation. Southampton, UK: International Centre for Underutilized Crops.

WHO. (2006). Turning the Tide on Malnutrition – Responding to the Challenges of the 21st Century. http://www.who.int/mip2001/files/2232/NHDbrochure.pdf

World Bank. (2008). World Development Report, 2008: Development and Agriculture. Washington, DC: The World Bank, p. 86.

World Bank. (2010). The Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change. Opportunities and Challenges for a Converging Agenda: Country Examples. Conference edition. Washington, DC: The World Bank, p. 70.

Worldwatch Institute. (2011). State of the World: Innovations that Nourish the Planet. New York, NY USA: W.W. Norton and Company.

Farming First - Agriculture for a Green Economy.