Category: Policy

Posted on

Day 1 at the Amman drylands conference draws to a close

The afternoon plenary (see here for the morning) consisted of talks by Drs Adel El Beltagy (GFAR) and Mark Rosegrant (IFPRI). Again, here’s what struck me particularly out of the many interesting things they said.

  • Svalbard Global Seed Vault provides a Noah’s Ark for the world’s crop germplasm collections, which we’ll need for both adaptation and mitigation.
  • Transboundary livestock diseases will increase, but there are opportunities for mitigation through better livestock genetics, feeding and management.
  • Agro-ecosystems will be disrupted by climate change, and we don’t have the methods to predict what the new ones will look like, or whether they will be able to function.
  • Nanotech can be used not just in a bunch of molecular genetics applications, but also for smarter delivery or inputs.
  • It’s not just climate change: there’s a host of both demand and supply drivers behind the bad stuff that’s happening to food security.
  • Biophysical models predict following changes in global production: irrigated rice -27% (but N. China a winner); rainfed rice -13%; irrigated maize -13% (it will reach the Canadian border!); irrigated maize -16% (N. China a winner again); irrigated wheat -42% (disaster in India); rainfed wheat -28% (India again in trouble).
  • Add economic models to that and you have a predicted doubling of prices by 2050, a 22% drop in calorie consumption in developing countries and a 21% increase in child malnutrition in developing countries.
  • To fix this, via expansion of irrigation, better roads and more research, will cost an extra $7 billion a year, on top of the current $12 billion being spent on those things now.
  • Increased productivity is fundamental, sure, but let’s not forget rural infrastructure.
  • There may well be a potential $150 billion a year up for grabs for agriculture if a decent C trading system develops. But will need low-cost monitoring and verification, and innovative payment schemes.
  • We’re going to need better local scenarios, but the danger of that is that you begin to not see the wood for the trees (too much weather, not enough climate).
    • Posted on

    Nibbles: Orissa, Salatin, Economic impact, Olives, Food security, Lettuce, Chayote

    Posted on

    Stop deforestation with pretty videos

    With regard to the false choice between rainforests and beef, here’s a nice little bit of propaganda.

    I expect it plays better on Central Park West and Holland Park than in Brazil or Indonesia, and a single tree downed by a chainsaw is no match for two Caterpillar tractors chugging through the rainforest linked by a massive chain. My question is this: what does the video, pretty and moving though it is, want me to do? All may be revealed on Earth Day 2010, apparently.

    Thanks to Jeremy Yoder, who found it originally at kottke.

    Posted on

    Oh dear: biodiversity in the firing line

    Richard Black, a BBC environment correspondent, has stirred up the most remarkable hornet’s nest with a post yesterday predicting that the conservation of biodiversity would become as controversial as climate change — at least to a rabid few — because both require people to change the way they live. He analyses US objections to ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity and points out that the fear that the CBD might cramp unfettered US access to the world’s biodiversity was the underlying reason for many of the politicians who blocked ratification. And here’s how he explains the problem:

    Here’s a hypothetical example raised at the InterAcademy panel meeting.

    Let’s say you want to protect the Amazon rainforest and the rich biodiversity it contains.

    One way you might look to do that is by reducing deforestation; and one of the main causes of Amazonian deforestation is clearance for cattle ranches.

    So you might choose to campaign among Western consumers, or to lobby Western governments, to reduce the amount of beef consumed on Western plates; less beef equals more trees.

    Does the issue look uncontroversial now?

    See! Farming and the supply of food is the enemy of biodiversity conservation. Black doesn’t actually talk about the need to conserve the biodiversity on which our food supply depends — although buried among the outpourings from commenters who agree that biodiversity is useless and has no value are some who point out that it might help to feed us. But hey, who cares about that?

    Thanks to catofstripes for the pointer.

    Posted on

    Nibbles: Spud, Mali’s farmers, Pollan, Geneflow, Taiwan botanic garden, Pollinators squared, Vegetarianism