House of Commons - Global Food Security - International Development Committee

Global Food Security - International Development Committee Contents

2 Long-term trends

Overview of demand and supply issues

11. There are a number of structural factors which affect both demand for and supply of food, and which will continue to do so over the long-term. On the demand side, key issues include biofuel policy; food waste; increasing meat consumption; and an increasing population. On the supply side, key issues include the role of smallholders, the role of commercial farming, and the damaging net effects of climate change on agricultural productivity. This chapter explores these factors in detail.

Demand

BIOFUELS

12. Biofuels are liquid fuels produced from biomass, used as substitutes for diesel- or petrol-based transport fuel. The two principal types of biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is produced by the fermentation of sugar crops (e.g. sugar cane, sugar beet) or carbohydrate crops (e.g. corn, wheat), and can be mixed with petrol. Biodiesel is produced from fats (including rapeseed, palm oil and soybean oil) by a process of esterification.[20] Biofuels can also be produced from non-food products: this is covered below.

13. The UK's Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) sets a target for the percentage of biofuel in total road transport fuel, which applies to all suppliers supplying at least 450 000 litres of fuel per year.[21] This target has been increasing annually, and reached 5% in April 2013.[22] Furthermore, from 2020 EU targets will require 10% of transport energy to be drawn from renewable sources.[23] By 2020, biofuel usage in the EU is expected to be almost equivalent to 30 million tonnes of oil.[24]

14. Many argue that the use of crops to produce fuel instead of food is undermining food security.[25] The EU target is expected to cause prices of oilseed, vegetable oil, maize and wheat to rise by 20%, 36%, 22% and 13% respectively by 2020.[26] Biofuels also create a link between food prices and energy prices, thus leading to increasing food price volatility.[27] If current patterns of biofuel usage continue, estimates indicate that the number of people at risk of hunger will increase by anything between 25 million and 135 million in Africa alone.[28] Moreover, biofuel production is in fact likely to increase, since increasing energy prices may make biofuels more economically more viable.[29] Some predict that biofuel production will increase by 50% during the remainder of this decade.[30] In his evidence the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport argued that some biofuels are in fact no better for the environment than fossil fuels, due to the land use changes which occur as a result of biofuel production[31] (e.g. deforestation)[32]. ActionAid argues that biofuels may be responsible for extra net greenhouse gas emissions of up to 56 million tonnes per year.[33]

15. There is general agreement that UK and EU policies on biofuels should be revised. While the EU target will require 10 % of transport energy to be drawn from renewable sources by 2020, the European Commission (EC) has recently proposed that no more than 5% should come from food-based biofuels,[34] but the UK Government is unenthusiastic about this proposal. In his evidence to this Committee the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport stated that:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport argued that while ILUC factors do not formally include food security, the effect of their introduction would be to reduce the impact of biofuels on food security.[36] Many advocate a more radical revision of biofuels policies. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Rt Hon Ed Davey MP, has been quoted as saying: "We've made a real mistake in the EU [on biofuels] and we've got to end that mistake, the sooner the better."[37] In 2011, ten agencies including WFP and FAO published a joint report advocating the abolition of biofuels mandates.[38] In his evidence Andrew Dorward, Professor of Development Economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), said:

16. Biofuels are driving higher and more volatile food prices and are having a major detrimental impact on food security. In some cases biofuels may be even more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. We recommend that the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), which commits the UK to consuming biofuel equivalent to 5% of transport fuel volumes, be revised to exclude agriculturally-produced biofuels. We recognise that the revision of the RTFO would make it more difficult for the UK to meet its EU target of deriving 10% of transport energy from renewable sources. However, the EU target does not apply until 2020. Consequently there is nothing to stop the UK from revising the RTFO now.

17. In addition to revising RTFO, the UK must continue to push its European partners to revise the target under the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) which requires EU countries to derive 10% of their transport energy from renewable sources by 2020. This reform could include introducing Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) factors into the RED, and imposing a cap on the level of food-based biofuel which can count towards the RED target. The introduction of ILUC factors and the imposition of a cap are not mutually exclusive options: both can be pursued concurrently. We recommend that the UK Government push for both, and that it push for the cap to be set at as low a level as possible.

18. During the coming weeks the Government will have several opportunities to raise the issue of biofuels on the international stage. The first is the meeting of the EU Energy Council on 6 June, while the second is the 'Nutrition for Growth' event on 8 June;[40] in her evidence to this Committee the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development told us she was 'sure' that the issue of biofuels would be raised at the Nutrition for Growth event.[41] The third is the G8 summit itself. Lynne Featherstone told us that: 'The Government is not engaging directly with G8 countries on the issues of biofuels.'[42] This is disappointing. We were pleased to receive the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development's assurance that biofuels would be discussed at the 'Nutrition for Growth' event. We also urge the Government to raise the issue at the G8 summit itself, and at the meeting of the EU Energy Council on 6 June. The Government should explain the outcome of these discussions to us in its response to this report.

19. While the use of food crops to produce biofuels poses a serious threat to food security, biofuels can also be produced from other sources (for example algae, agricultural and human waste, switch grass); from the non-edible parts of food crops; or on land which is unsuitable for growing food crops.[43] In China, IFAD has supported the development of family-owned biodigesters which use waste products to produce electricity and gas for domestic use; similar projects are now underway in Tanzania, Ghana and Vietnam.[44]

20. Oxfam points out that even non-food-based methods of biofuel production may still use up valuable resources which could otherwise be used for food production (e.g. water, soil and land),[45] while ActionAid argues for a focus on those forms of biofuels which do not require land (e.g. biofuels derived from waste products).[46] It is nevertheless clear that any non-food-based biofuel technologies are far less problematic than conventional biofuels. In his evidence to us the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport expressed enthusiasm for algae-based biofuels,[47] and also underlined the potential of waste cooking oil as a source of biofuel, describing this as 'entirely beneficial.'[48] He also stressed that the RTFO incentivises these techniques: biofuels of this type 'count double' towards the 5% target.[49] It was partly as a consequence of this, he argued, that the percentage of biofuels in the UK derived from waste products had increased from 15% to 84% over a period of four to five years.[50] We welcome the Government's support for non-food-based biofuels. We recommend that the Government give particular support to the use of biofuels such as those derived from waste products, whose production does not require land.

FOOD WASTE

21. A recent report from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers claimed that between 30 and 50% of food produced in the world (1.2-2 billion tonnes) was wasted.[51] The notion that wastage might be as high as 50% has been questioned in some quarters,[52] but more conservative reports still put wastage at up to 30%.[53] Valuable resources of land, energy, fertiliser and water are being consumed by the production of food which ends up as waste.[54] Some of this wastage occurs in developing countries as post-harvest losses, primarily due to a lack of technologies and inadequate infrastructure (see below), but in high-income countries (HICs) a greater degree of responsibility lies with the food services industry and the consumer.[55] Wastage at household level in the UK has declined in recent years, but still remains at the remarkably high rate of 20%.[56] In his evidence Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University, London, said:

The 2011 Foresight report on The Future of Food and Farming made the following recommendations for reducing food waste:

a) Use of cheap, mass-produced sensor technology to detect when foods have gone off, thus reducing reliance on arbitrary use-by dates;

b) 'Productive recycling' of unwanted food: depending on whether the food is fit for human consumption, this could include FareShare and similar schemes, or using the food as animal feed;

c) Consumer campaigns to reduce waste.[58]

We recommend that the Government redouble its efforts to reduce the level of food waste in the UK. It should begin by taking on board the suggestions made in its own Foresight report on The Future of Food and Farming. For example, the Government should launch consumer campaigns to reduce waste and promote FareShare and similar schemes for unwanted food. The Government should also set targets for food waste reduction for producers and retailers and introduce sanctions for failure to meet the targets.

DIET AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

22. Globally, demand for meat is increasing.[59] This is largely due to increased demand in emerging economies: in 1985, average meat consumption per person per year in China was 20kg; this has now more than doubled to 50kg.[60] In the West, meanwhile, demand for meat remains high: consumption in the UK stood at 85.8kg per person in 2007.[61] Globally, meat production is expected to double between now and 2050.[62] The consequence of increasing demand for meat is the use of crops to feed livestock rather than humans: the expanding soy industry in Paraguay is one example.[63] The UK Food Group suggests that this causes a 'calorie loss' equivalent to the annual 'calorie need' of 3.5 billion people.[64] Increasing consumption of other animal products such as cheese poses the same problems.[65] Professor Stefan Dercon, Chief Economist at DFID, argued that:

Professor Tim Wheeler, DFID's Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser, agreed.[67] Professor Tim Lang, however, argued that:

Simply urging the Western world to stop consuming meat is neither feasible nor desirable. Moreover, nor is it necessary: meat production based on pasture-fed systems (e.g. pasture-fed cattle), as opposed to the mass production of grain-fed livestock, is markedly less problematic.[69] The Food Ethics Council therefore suggests a 'less but better' approach, with meat promoted as a occasional product rather than an everyday staple.[70] The rate of increase in global meat consumption is unsustainable: the consequence is a growth in the production of grain-fed livestock, with crops used to feed livestock instead of humans. Clearly this does not mean that the world should stop consuming meat: this would be disproportionate and unrealistic. However, in the longer-term it may be appropriate to focus on sustainable systems such as pasture-fed cattle rather than on grain-fed livestock, with meat promoted as a occasional product rather than an everyday staple.

POPULATION

23. The global population, which presently stands at 7.1 billion, is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050.[71] The rate of population growth is expected to decline in many areas, but to increase in parts of sub-Saharan Africa:[72] in future population growth is expected to be concentrated amongst the poorest and least food secure countries.[73] This will have implications both for chronic hunger and for vulnerability to shocks.

24. The rural-urban profile of the global population is also changing: by 2020, 86% of population growth is expected to occur in large urban centres in developing countries.[74] Urbanisation raises a number of issues for food security. On the one hand, it implies a reduction in the proportion of the population engaged in agricultural activities. Moreover, megacities pose a number of particular challenges related to, for example, transport of food, storage, contamination and nutrition.[75] Urbanisation also has particular implications with respect to shocks: we will deal with this in Chapter 4.

25. Alongside the huge predicted increase in world population is a massive unmet need for birth control. DFID has made significant efforts to address this need. In July 2012, the UK Government co-hosted the London Family Planning Summit with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Government reports that the commitments made at the summit by international donors will provide access to contraceptives for 120 million additional women and girls between 2012 and 2020.[76]

26. The global population continues to increase, and food production is expected to have to increase by 60-70% by 2050. In future population growth is expected to be concentrated amongst the poorest and least food secure countries; this will have implications for both chronic hunger and vulnerability to shocks. While detailed discussion of population-related policies is beyond the remit of this report, we urge DFID to maintain the strong focus on women's reproductive rights shown in last year's Family Planning Summit and maintain this sector as a priority for expenditure.

Supply

SMALLHOLDERS

27. The precise definition of a smallholder varies: according to the World Bank's Rural Development Strategy, only those farmers with less than two hectares of land count as smallholders.[77] Others are less specific:

28. Smallholders in Africa generally have much lower levels of productivity than those in other regions,[79] and many suffer from hunger and poverty.[80] Yet while smallholders are generally poor, in many areas they are the main producers of food.[81] In his evidence Dr Shenggen Fan, Director of IFPRI, said:

There are probably three types of smallholders. One is subsistence smallholders who will not be able to be converted into commercial enterprises. [...] They either have to move to the cities or move to another agricultural area where they can really make a decent living.

29. Globally, female smallholders make up 43% of the total agricultural workforce. In sub-Saharan Africa, this figure rises to 50%. Yet female smallholders face many challenges: they often lack access to quality seeds and fertiliser, or to land. Access to credit is also a challenge for female smallholders: only 10% of the total credit granted to smallholders is granted to women. Farm Africa and Self Help Africa, in their written evidence, argue that if female smallholders were given the same opportunities as their male counterparts, their levels of productivity would increase by 30%.[83]

Extension services

30. It is widely argued that agricultural extension services—effectively the provision of training and advice to smallholders— should be scaled up.[84] Extension services might cover issues such as food safety, marketing,[85] balanced-input agriculture, sustainable land management, landscape approaches, integrated pest management, integrated plant nutrient management, watershed management and rangeland management.[86] The Fairtrade Foundation argues that low-tech solutions such as extension services are often overlooked in favour of more high-tech projects: estimates indicate that less than 2% of Nigerian farmers have access to extension services.[87] It also argues that extension services should be targeted especially at women.[88] Agricultural extension services play a critical role in improving smallholders' food security. In order to be sustainable, extension services should be funded from locally-generated revenue flows. DFID should devote a greater proportion of its budget to supporting the development of agricultural extension services, particularly those targeted at women.

31. Sir John Beddington, former Government Chief Scientific Adviser, suggests that agricultural extension workers could promote methods of farming which prevent, or help to mitigate, land degradation.[89] Common signs of land degradation include polluted waterways and aquifers; increasingly saline soils; increasingly dry river basins; reductions in groundwater levels; and loss of crop biodiversity.[90] Land degradation leads to reduced crop yields and increased requirements for fertilisers. Degradation now affects one-quarter of total global land area; almost half of the world's poor depend on degraded lands.[91] Farmers can use a variety of techniques to reduce the risk of degradation, including organic soil fertility management; low cost (solar panel) drip irrigation; and the use of wastewater for agricultural purposes.[92] Terracing, examples of which we heard about during our recent visits to both Ethiopia and Rwanda, might also be useful in this respect. We recommend that DFID ensure that the agricultural extension workers whose work it supports address the issue of land degradation in their work.

Integration with agribusiness

32. Much of the food produced by smallholders is used for subsistence purposes. However, very few farmers focus entirely on subsistence production.[93] Some of the evidence we received emphasised the need to integrate smallholders more effectively into markets. For example, Dr Fan stresses the need to 'convert[...] smallholder farmers into profitable businesses.'[94] For a majority of smallholders, this means domestic markets.[95] For a small but potentially increasing number of better-off smallholders, however, this means large corporations. As Business Action for Africa highlights, buying from smallholders is an attractive option for corporations. As well as providing them with access to raw materials, using smallholders as suppliers as helps corporations to appeal to 'ethical' consumers.[96] The brewing corporation SABMiller sources supplies from 32,000 smallholders in Africa, India and Latin America, while Export Trading Group (ETG), in which CDC has invested, procured 80% of its African-sourced stock from smallholders.[97]

33. The formation of farmer organisations (e.g. co-operatives) has a key role to play in assisting smallholders to engage with corporations, as it reduces the transaction costs.[98] Only 10% of smallholders currently belong to such an organisation.[99] In his evidence Dr Fan underlined the need to build the management capacity of farmer organisations, and to strengthen their ability to negotiate with banks, credit unions, supermarkets and the like.[100] The International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC), an NGO, has played an important role in building the capacity of farmer organisations in Mozambique.[101] As Business Action for Africa highlights, farmer organisations must be representative (e.g. inclusive of women and marginalised farmers); fairly and transparently governed; and effective.[102] If we are to help smallholders to engage with large corporations, supporting the development of farmer organisations, including co-operatives, is vital. We recommend that DFID support the formation of farmer organisations, and seek to ensure that such organisations are fairly and transparently governed, with fair representation for women and marginalised farmers.

34. Donors can support the engagement between corporations and smallholders in a number of ways. There are a number of examples of this. Working with SABMiller, the Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF), part-funded by DFID, has offered co-investment for pilot projects; provided funding for R&D for new models; funded the creation of and provided of training for smallholder groups; and funded corporate outreach work to farmers.[103] The Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund (AECF), part-funded by DFID, has played a key role in helping smallholders to engage in corporate value chains. DFID should scale up its funding for initiatives such as AECF which help smallholders to engage with corporations.

35. Supplying large corporations provides a number of benefits to smallholders. Most obviously, it provides them access to high-yielding seeds and fertiliser, and to training.[104] Smallholders who supply large corporations may enjoy better access to finance; they are also likely to have a more nutritious diet.[105] However, the Fairtrade Foundation documents a number of the challenges smallholders face in their interactions with corporations. It suggests that smallholders be provided with information on what happens to their produce after sale, as well as information on global markets and commodity prices.[106] During our visit to Ethiopia we saw the use of electronic display boards in the provinces, to provide live market information about agricultural commodity prices in the capital. Mobile technology could also play a role:[107] the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development underlined its potential in her evidence.[108] Business Action for Africa suggests that smallholder groups have an important role to play in ensuring their members receive a fair share of the final profit: co-operatives should only enter into carefully-drafted contracts, adherence to which they are able to monitor.[109] Smallholders should be provided with information on global markets. We welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development's acknowledgement of the potential of mobile technology; this can play a key role in providing access to market information to smallholders.

36. The Fairtrade Foundation also makes a number of more general recommendations as to how smallholders might best be supported:

a) Companies which purchase crops from smallholders should offer payment in regular instalments throughout the year, rather than simply paying at harvest time;

b) As a form of pre-financing, companies should consider paying smallholders in advance, as a way of providing them with access to credit. The Fairtrade Foundation already operates this system: studies have shown that the smallholders with which it works have better access to credit and are more credit-worthy.[110]

We support the recommendations of the Fairtrade Foundation: companies which purchase crops from smallholders should contract to offer payment in regular instalments throughout the year, rather than simply paying at harvest time, and companies should also consider contracting to pay smallholders in advance.

Price stabilisation

37. Price stabilisation refers to a process whereby farmers are offered guaranteed prices for their crops, such as via a public marketing board. Some argue that this provides farmers with a degree of certainty and hence enables them to invest in their farms.[111] However, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is less enthusiastic about price stabilisation, arguing that it undermines the development of risk management by farmers, and can destabilise world markets. It argues that price stabilisation should only ever be used for a restricted period of time with a 'clear exit strategy'.[112] In a report last year, we found that price stabilisation in Zambia had been highly problematic:

113

Such objections, however, relate specifically to public sector price stabilisation. An alternative option is private sector price stabilisation, whereby corporations (as opposed to public marketing boards) offer guaranteed prices to farmers. The Fairtrade Foundation reports that in 29 out of 33 impact studies, price stabilisation benefited the income of Fairtrade producers.[114] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development acknowledged the potential of such schemes, and stressed that companies might also guarantee to buy a certain quantity, or quota, of crop from smallholders.[115] Offering smallholders a guaranteed price for their crop encourages them to invest in their farms, but price guarantees offered by the public sector are often problematic. Price guarantees offered by private companies are preferable. We recommend that DFID encourage more of its private sector partners to offer guaranteed prices to smallholders, or to guarantee to buy a certain quota of crop.

LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL FARMING

Contribution to food security

38. Many argue that large-scale agricultural investment is beneficial for food security. The OECD sees commercial investment in agriculture as a welcome departure from decades of underinvestment in the sector.[116] The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agriculture and Food for Development highlight the benefits of a 'hub-and-spoke' model whereby large commercial farms outsource some of their work to smallholders in the surrounding area: this model is seen as low-risk.[117]

39. Others are less convinced: it is argued that large commercial farms[118] (and indeed large fishing companies[119]) export much of their produce.[120] Oxfam argues that much of the food which is exported is in fact desperately needed on local markets.[121] However, it is argued that some degree of consolidation (i.e. a shift towards a smaller number of larger farms) may improve the efficiency of the agricultural sector.[122]

40. Both small- and large-scale farms have a role to play in feeding a growing population sustainably and in reducing rural poverty. For most countries a mixture of the two will be most appropriate. Determining the precise balance between small-scale and large-scale farms is a matter for each individual country: it is not our place to lecture developing countries about how their agricultural sectors should be structured. In some cases, a shift towards somewhat larger farms is likely to increase food production and improve the efficiency of the agricultural sector. However, in many cases, smallholders will retain a key role. In all cases, the generation of employment and the productive use of land will be paramount.

Concerns about changing land use and tenure

41. In many developing countries, large corporations are buying up areas of land previously farmed by smallholders.[123] In some countries it is primarily domestic corporations which invest in agriculture in this way, whereas in other countries multinational corporations predominate.[124] Some raise concerns about the implications of such investment. It is argued that much of the land acquired by corporations is either used to grow non-food crops[125] or not farmed at all[126]: this would clearly have major implications for food security. Some refer to large-scale commercial land acquisitions as 'land grabs;'[127] the UK Food Group claims that: 'Far too often the land grabs have displaced people, without genuine prior informed consent, through forced evictions and without adequate compensation.'[128] Oxfam, citing World Bank analysis, argues that:

129

In a speech outlining the UK's priorities for its Presidency of the G8 during 2013, the Prime Minister said: 'we're going to push for more transparency [...] on who's buying up land and for what purpose.'[130] In her evidence to this Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development said: 'what we are really pushing for is effectively an open, worldwide land register.'[131] With respect to land transparency, two key issues have been raised. The first is the extent to which donor money is used to finance land deals; the second is the conduct of investors.[132] We welcome the G8's focus on transparency. We recommend that the Government require UK-domiciled corporations to be transparent about land deals, and that it use its influence to ensure that the World Bank meets adequate standards of transparency and consultation in its own investments.

42. An important step towards protecting the rights of smallholders would be the implementation of the UN Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure. The principles of the Voluntary Guidelines are as follows:

a) Recognise and respect all legitimate tenure rights and the people who hold them;

b) Safeguard legitimate tenure rights against threats;

c) Promote and facilitate the enjoyment of legitimate tenure rights;

d) Provide access to justice when tenure rights are infringed upon;

e) Prevent tenure disputes, violent conflicts and opportunities for corruption[133]

The Voluntary Guidelines are not legally binding, but provide a basis which states can use when drafting their own national guidelines. They also provide a means against which national governments can be held to account.[134] In his evidence Max Lawson, Head of Policy and Advocacy at Oxfam, argued that developing countries should be provided with aid to help them to implement the Voluntary Guidelines.[135] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development told us that the Government would be pushing for implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines at the G8 summit,[136] and that it would work with developing countries on their implementation.[137] Implementation of the UN Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure would help to mitigate current concerns about commercial land acquisitions. We welcome the Government's support for the Voluntary Guidelines, and were pleased to be told by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development that the issue would be discussed during the forthcoming G8 summit. We ask the Government to explain the outcome of these discussions to us in its response to this report.

CREATING AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

Land tenure

43. Work to improve smallholders' security of tenure through land registers is critical to food security. Security of tenure provides smallholders with an asset against which to borrow, while also enabling them to invest in their land: as Business Action for Africa highlights, smallholders who lack secure tenure are often reluctant to invest in better seeds or machinery.[138] Additionally, security of tenure provides smallholders with greater security against 'land grabs.'[139] In her evidence Dr. Camilla Toulmin, Director of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), underlined the importance of collective tenure of shared lands, especially for groups such as nomadic pastoralist communities.[140] DFID implemented a £40 million project on land tenure in Rwanda;[141] in its written evidence, it tells us that it is currently designing a similar programme in Ethiopia. In total, DFID works on land and property rights in eight countries.[142] Work to establish land registers which improve smallholders' security of tenure, such as that conducted by DFID in Rwanda, has a dual benefit: it enables smallholders to invest in their land while also providing them with greater security against so-called 'land grabs'. We welcome the news that DFID is designing a similar programme in Ethiopia, and we suggest that it consider launching additional projects of this nature elsewhere.

Infrastructure

44. The relationship between infrastructural development and food security is widely recognised.[143] Professor Tim Lang stressed the importance of roads.[144] The 2011 Foresight report on 'The Future of Food and Farming' stresses the importance of ports and ICT.[145] Improvements to roads, ICT (to provide market information) and storage, it is argued, would lead to considerable reductions in post-harvest losses of food.[146]

45. The question of access to water and irrigation is also of great importance: estimates indicate that by 2050, supply of irrigated water will be just 66% of demand.[147] In its 2007 report on Sanitation and Water, our predecessor Committee found that only 3.7% of arable land in sub-Saharan Africa was irrigated, compared to 26% in India and 44% in China. The Committee recommended a 50% increase in funding for irrigation by 2010; it also recommended the use of national water resources management strategies for efficient community-level use.[148]

46. Groundwater reserves are potentially of great value, as highlighted by the report of our predecessor Committee.[149] The British Geological Survey has recently discovered large-scale groundwater reserves in Africa. In their evidence Dr Toulmin and Sir John Beddington, then Government Chief Scientific Adviser, argued that these resources had great potential[150] (though Sir John warned that similar resources in India had become saline due to over-exploitation, while Dr Fan warns of the risks of pollution)[151]. Mapping of aquifers is constrained by the shortage of local hydrogeologists,[152] whilst in Africa, the number of World Meteorological Organisation climate stations per thousand square kilometres is only one-eighth of the recommended level.[153] We warmly welcome the discovery of large-scale groundwater reserves in Africa by the British Geological Survey. In the long-term, this discovery may have major benefits for food security. DFID should support the development of scientific knowledge and capacity in these areas. For example, DFID could support an increase in the number of climate stations, and the training of hydrogeologists.

47. On a more general level, low-tech solutions are often tremendously successful in improving access to water and irrigation.[154] In Gansu province in China, for example, surface run-off is captured in a catchment and stored in underground tanks. We were told that this had been extremely successful. [155]

48. The question of food storage is also of great importance. WFP and FAO have recognised this and are working to improve storage facilities at various levels: WFP is working with smallholder associations on community storage, while FAO is supporting on-farm storage and larger bulk storage facilities.[156] As Dr Fan highlights, technology can be harnessed to improve storage.[157] Low-tech solutions can be equally important: during our visit to Afghanistan in 2012, we were told about a simple system for potato storage which had been very effective. Improving storage facilities has duel benefits: it reduces the risk of food insecurity while also reducing waste.[158]

49. Improving rural infrastructure would have a dramatic effect on food security. Across much of the developing world, inadequate roads and storage facilities lead to large-scale post-harvest crop losses. Particularly in Africa, a lack of irrigation undermines agricultural productivity. DFID should give a higher priority to these issues.

Technology

50. There is a debate as to the contribution genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can, or cannot, make to global food security. Organisations such as the UK Food Group are opposed to their use,[159] while a report published as part of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) argues that the link between GMOs and higher yields has never been definitively proven.[160] In its written evidence, Friends of the Earth claims that none of the GMOs presently on the market are designed with increased drought resistant or improved yields in mind; instead the focus has been on resistance to pests.[161] Friends of the Earth in fact argues that yields of genetically modified soya beans are 5-10% lower than yields of conventional soya beans.[162] Additionally, the use of GMOs may prevent farmers from using the previous year's produce as seed.[163]

51. However, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council claims that resistance to pests and disease leads to higher yields,[164] while Research Councils UK argue that pest-resistant crops such as aphid-resistant wheat reduce pesticide use.[165] The Agricultural Biotechnology Council states that GMOs led to the production of 229 million tons of additional food, feed and fibre between 1996 and 2009. Were it not for the use of GMOs, 75 million hectares of additional land would have had to be cultivated to achieve this level of output. The inevitable consequence of this would have been deforestation.[166]

52. At our last evidence session, witnesses were highly critical of some of the main arguments against GMOs. Kanayo Nwanze, President of IFAD, and Dr Fan both pointed out that GMOs had been used in medicine for many years.[167] Sir John Beddington said:

168

53. The Agricultural Biotechnology Council claims that some GMOs (e.g. those which are not global commodity crops), while beneficial in terms of food security, may not be commercially viable. It therefore advocates the use of public-private partnerships, with the companies involved waiving their intellectual property rights, in order to get these technologies off the ground.[169]

54. We recognise that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are controversial and clearly not a panacea. However, it could be argued that GMOs have the potential to make a valuable contribution to food security. DFID should ensure that any support it gives is beneficial to the poorest and most food insecure, and that any commercialisation or extension of GM seeds to smallholder farmers does not undermine their ability to save and store traditional seed varieties.

Research

55. DFID has an Agriculture Research Programme, which is comprised of the following four main strands:

a) Approximately 15% of funding: research projects jointly with partners in developing countries, and with the UK Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council (BBSRC), to provide the scientific basis for new technologies;

b) Approximately 50% of funding: funding to international research organisations such as CGIAR (formerly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), and to regional research organisations in Africa and Asia, for the development of new technologies;

c) Approximately 25% of funding: providing farmers, especially women, with access to technology

d) Approximately 10% of funding: research on agricultural policy.[170]

56. Business Action for Africa argues that public investment in agricultural research should be increased.[171] The Food Ethics Council also suggests that spending on research be scaled up, with smallholder participation in research as a necessary condition. It argues that smallholders' views should be taken into account when deciding what research to conduct.[172] Agricultural research has a key role to play in ensuring food security. We support the recommendation of the Food Ethics Council: DFID should make agricultural research a high priority. We welcome the Government's current work on this, and we urge DFID and DEFRA to ensure that their work in this area is joined-up. Progress in agricultural research will have benefits in the UK as well as in developing countries.

CLIMATE CHANGE

57. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion about food security without considering the impact of climate change. The World Bank is now predicting an increase of over 3°C in global average temperatures,[173] and the speed of increase is faster than previously expected.[174] One-third of total greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to agriculture, such as emissions from livestock and emissions from agriculture-related deforestation.[175] The contribution of agriculture to climate change is expected to increase.[176] For the poorest people in the poorest countries, the effects of climate change are being felt sooner and more severely.[177] Climate change is making it more difficult for farmers to decide when to sow, cultivate and harvest their crops - dry periods are becoming longer and hotter, growing seasons are becoming shorter, and rainy seasons are becoming more difficult to predict.[178] Fertile mega-deltas have been especially badly affected by rising sea levels, increasing temperatures and soil acidification.[179] Climate change is expected to have numerous other impacts on food security. Benny Dembitzer argues that it will lead to problems in terms of storage and distribution.[180] Climate change is expected to lead to greater reliance on trade or aid,[181] while extreme weather events are likely to drive up food prices.[182] WWF-UK argues that climate change will lead to the rapid movement of viruses like foot and mouth, bluetongue and avian flu; plant diseases such as those spread by whiteflies; and pests like diamond back moth.[183]

58. Climate change mitigation is therefore of fundamental importance for food security. As Dr Toulmin told us:

184

In his evidence to this Committee, Professor Dorward said:

185

Through its International Climate Fund (ICF), the UK is providing £2.9 billion of funding to tackle climate change ('climate finance') during the period April 2011 - March 2015. £1.8 billion of this funding is provided by DFID.[186] In addition, at the Copenhagen conference in 2010, international agreement was reached to provide $100 billion of climate finance, additional to aid, each year from 2020.[187] Tearfund suggests that this should be funded partly by a global tax on emissions from the shipping industry,[188] while Oxfam urges the UK Government to seek global agreement on carbon pricing for international transport.[189] We welcome the Government's pledge to provide £1.8 billion of funding to tackle climate change over the next two years. Making detailed recommendations as to how this money should be spent is beyond the remit of this report; however, it is crucial that the Government sticks to its pledge. The Government should also work with its international partners to ensure that the commitments made at the Copenhagen conference are met.

59. Agriculture can make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation.[190] Sir John Beddington argued that famers should be encouraged to engage in agroforestry— using trees and shrubs alongside crops and/or livestock, with a view to improving carbon sequestration. Sir John Beddington and Dr Toulmin both stressed the importance of creating incentives to encourage farmers to engage in such practices.[191] In 2010 the World Bank made a similar argument, stressing the importance of offering farmers incentives to intensify production on a smaller land area while protecting surrounding grasslands and forests.[192] Agroforestry also offers a much-needed opportunity to conserve biodiversity;[193] estimates indicate that the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has declined by 75% over the last 100 years.[194] While much discussion focuses on the implications of climate change for agricultural productivity, DFID should not lose sight of the fact that agriculture can in fact make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation. Agroforestry, for example, can help to improve carbon sequestration. Where appropriate DFID should support models of agricultural production that have the potential to contribute to emissions reductions.

60. Farmers can boost their resilience to climate change in a variety of ways including crop diversification; insurance;[195] improved land management; more appropriate planting dates; and the use of more resilient crop varieties.[196] For farmers, improving levels of resilience to climate change is vital. DFID should help farmers to boost their resilience through techniques such as crop diversification, insurance, improved land management, more appropriate planting dates, and the use of more resilient crop varieties.

Implications

61. As this chapter has illustrated, there are a number of structural factors affecting demand for and supply of food. As a consequence, food prices have been increasing, a trend which is expected to continue for many years to come.[197] Research indicates that staple crops could double in price by 2030, with half of this increase attributable to the effects of climate change.[198]

62. In this context, it will be imperative for the international community to support measures both to curb the projected increases in demand and to increase the supply of food. It is widely argued, for example, that food production will have to increase by 60-70% by 2050.[199]

20 Rob Bailey, The Trouble with Biofuels: Costs and Consequences of Expanding Biofuel Use in the United Kingdom (Chatham House, 2013), p 3 Back

21 "Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation",Inside Government, 5 November 2012, www.gov.uk Back

22 "Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation",Inside Government, 5 November 2012, www.gov.uk Back

23 ActionAid, Biofuelling the global food crisis: why the EU must act at the G20, January 2012, p 6 Back

24 ActionAid, Biofuelling the global food crisis: why the EU must act at the G20, January 2012, p 6 Back

25 Ev 64, 75; Ev w2 Back

26 Ev w2 Back

27 Ev w49 Back

28 Ev w16 Back

29 Ev 60 Back

30 Ev 60 Back

31 Q 125 Back