Water
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Join us for our final Global Food Policy and Food Security symposium Thursday, May 23. John Briscoe, Gordon McKay Professor of the Practice of Environmental Engineering at Harvard University will lead a lecture on Water and agriculture in a changing Africa: What might be done?. FSE fellow Jennifer Burney will provide commentary.

Hero Image
walking to garden logo Jennifer Burney
All News button
1
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

China’s commitment to agricultural development over the last thirty years has dramatically transformed the country’s economy. Rural income per capita has risen an astounding 20 times after 30 prior years of stagnation. Its poverty rate (US$1.25/day) has dropped from 40 percent to less than five, and 350 million rural people between the ages of 18-65 are now working in the industrial or service sector, enjoying rising wages and new economic opportunities.

This rapid transformation is largely the result of three key agricultural policy decisions: putting land in the hands of farmers, market deregulation, and major public investment in the agricultural sector. Although China must now contend with extreme inequality, high levels of pollution, and an aging farming sector there are still lessons to draw from China’s experience that could hasten the transformation of other developing countries.

China expert and agricultural economist Scott Rozelle broke these lessons down at FSE’s fourteenth Global Food Policy and Food Security Symposium Series last week, opening with an underlying theme of the series.

“Growth and development starts with agriculture,” said Rozelle. “Agriculture provides the basis for sound, sustained economic growth needed to build housing, invest in education for kids, start self-employed enterprises, and finance moves off the farm.”

To prove this point he referenced China’s ‘lost decades’ (1950s-1970s) when 80 percent of the population lived in the rural sector and relied on communal, subsistence agriculture. Poor land rights, weak incentives, incomplete markets and inappropriate investments left the average rural farmer poorer at the end of 70s than they were in the 50s with almost no off-farm employment growth.

So what changed? Incentives, market deregulation and strategic investments by the state were key.

Creating the right incentives

In 1978 the Chinese government broke the communes down into small “family farms” such that every rural resident was allocated a small parcel of land. A family of five farmed an area the size of a football field. While they did not own nor could sell the land, they had the right to choose what crops and inputs they used and the right to the income generated from their land.

“Incentives are important, and can be enough in the short run,” said Rozelle. “Hard work led to money in the pockets of farmers and China was off.”

“Every two and half years China added another California in term of agriculture,” said Rozelle.

Between 1979 and 1985 productivity for wheat, maize, and rice went up 50 percent using the same amount of labor, land and inputs. Agriculture across the spectrum has grown at an astounding rate of 5 percent since 1988 (about four times the population growth rate). Livestock and fisheries have grown even faster – accounting for most of the output of the agricultural sector by 2005.

Income growth from farming enabled family members to begin to seek work off the farm. Between 1980 and 2011, off-farm work increased 71 percent with more than 90 percent of households reporting that at least one family member worked off the farm.

Increasing efficiency through liberalization and investment

Another key policy decision was China’s commitment to market liberalization and investment in public goods.

“Markets can be an effective, pro-poor tool of development,” said Rozelle. “A remarkable partnership is formed when you let farmers do production and government do infrastructure…let markets guide decisions.”

The government dismantled state-owned grain trading companies and deregulated trading rules. Prices were set once a week the same day across China to better integrate markets, and eventually prices for major crops closely mirrored those of world prices. Villages began specializing in crops and livestock and incomes of the poor increased. By not providing government input subsidies (e.g, pesticides, fertilizers), traders were incentivized to participate in the market.

“Giving land to farmers and letting the private sector emerge is an easy thing for governments, even without a lot of money, to do,” said Rozelle.

The government provided more indirect market support by publicly investing in better roads, communications, and surface water irrigation. Groundwater was left to the private sector. There were no water or pumping fees nor subsidies for electricity, keeping it completely deregulated. As a result, 50 percent of cultivated land in China is irrigated, compared to 10 percent in the US and only four percent in sub-Saharan Africa.

Finally, China has invested heavily in agricultural research and development (R&D). One percent of China’s agricultural GDP is now invested in agricultural R&D while US investment has fallen over time. US$2 billion alone goes to investments in Chinese biotechnology.

Despite major investment, China only has one major success story to show for so far. The introduction of Bt cotton led to a significant drop in pesticide use (with important health benefits for farmers), and drop in labor and seed price; resulting in a huge 30 percent increase in net income.

“GM technology benefits exist but big policy decisions still need to be made in the face of much resistance both in China and elsewhere in the world on its application,” said Rozelle.

Status of China’s economy

China has largely solved the country’s macro-nutrient food security problem at the household level (>3000 Kcal/day/person) and millions have been lifted out of poverty. Practically all 16-25 years old are now working off the farm.

“This is a real transformation, and one that could not have happened without a major investment in agriculture,” said Rozelle.

While China’s agricultural accomplishments have been major, Rozelle recognizes the system is far from perfect. For starters, there are serious food safety concerns due to lack of traceability. An astounding 98 percent of Beijing consumers think their food is tainted, said Rozelle.

Water is being pumped like crazy and farmers are aging. The younger generation is neither willing nor interested in following in their parents’ farming footsteps. To make up for a labor deficit farmers are applying huge amounts of fertilizer on their land with serious environmental consequences. As a result of changing demographics and an increasing demand for meat, fish, fruits and vegetables, China is likely to be a net importer of food in the long run.

China also faces major urban and rural inequality issues. Even though wages have risen, inequality has not fallen, largely a result of China’s decision not to privatize rural land.

“Rural people have no assets on which to build wealth while urban people were given assets in the form of housing,” said Rozelle. “Housing prices in major cities in China now rival those in the Bay Area!”

The Chinese government fears losing control of the land, but this comes at a price of less individual incentive to invest and inability to build larger farmers. As agricultural growth slows, Rozelle worries high levels of inequality could lead to instability.

Adding fuel to the fire, investment in rural health, nutrition, and education remains far from sufficient. Only 40 percent of the rural poor go to high school resulting in 200 million people who can barely read or write.

“What’s going to happen in 20 years when low skill manufacturing jobs move to other countries?” asked Rozelle. “The rural, uneducated poor are going to become unemployable.”

China’s record leaves room for improvement, but presents a strong case for supporting smallholder agriculture. For those countries emerging out of their own lost decades, smallholder agriculture should remain a primary focus of investment and development.

Hero Image
china rice Sevents
All News button
1
-

Stanford experts from a range of disciplines will discuss the interconnections and interactions among humanity’s need for and use of energy, food, water, and environmental resources. Drawing on their own research, each speaker will illustrate and evaluate some of the ways in which decisions in one resource area can lead to trade-offs or co-benefits in other areas. Stanford students and faculty will lead interactive breakout sessions to explore a range of challenges associated with energy transitioning to a sustainable system.

Featured videos:

Energy and Food Nexus: David Lobell, Assistant Professor of Environmental Earth System Science

Plenary Discussion: The Way Forward
  • Moderated by Margot Gerritsen, Associate Professor of Energy Resources Engineering; Director, Institute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering 
  • Donald Kennedy, President, Emeritus, Stanford University; Bing Professor of Environmental Science, Emeritus
  • Rosamond Naylor, Professor of Environmental Earth System Science; Director, Center on Food Security and the Environment
  • Adam Brandt, Assistant Professor of Energy Resources Engineering


 

Video link to additional Stanford faculty talks

Introduction: Energy System Overview by Roland Horne, Professor of Energy Resources Engineering

Overview of Natural Gas Issues: Mark Zoback, Professor of Geophysics

Energy and Environment Nexus: Stefan Reichelstein, Professor in the Graduate School of Business

Energy and Water Nexus: Richard Luthy, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Director of ReNUWIt

Energy and Climate Change Nexus: Michael Wara, Associate Professor of Law

Breakout Sessions

Led by postdoc/graduate students, breakout sessions will actively engage the participant on provocative and real world energy topics such as: 

  • Boon or Bust? Fracking’s Socioeconomic Costs and Benefits
  • Keystone XL: Band Guy or Fall Guy?
  • Wind Energy and Wildlife Conservation: Green vs. Green?
  • Are you Aware of Your Habits? Tweaking Our Routines to Conserve
  • Is America Neglecting America?  The Forgotten Frontier of the Alaskan Arctic
  • Is Water scarcity a Threat to the World’s Energy Future?

Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center

CESP
Stanford University
Encina Hall E401
Stanford, CA 94305

0
1931 - 2020
President Emeritus of Stanford University
Bing Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, Emeritus
dkennedy.jpg PhD

Donald Kennedy is the editor-in-chief of Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a CESP senior fellow by courtesy. His present research program entails policy on such trans-boundary environmental problems as: major land-use changes; economically-driven alterations in agricultural practice; global climate change; and the development of regulatory policies.

Kennedy has served on the faculty of Stanford University from 1960 to the present. From 1980 to 1992 he served as President of Stanford University. He was Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration from 1977-79. Previously at Stanford, he was as director of the Program in Human Biology from 1973-1977 and chair of the Department of Biology from 1964-1972.

Kennedy is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. He served on the National Commission for Public Service and the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, and as a founding director of the Health Effects Institute. He currently serves as a director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and as co-chair of the National Academies' Project on Science, Technology and Law. Kennedy received AB and PhD degrees in biology from Harvard University.

FSI Senior Fellow by courtesy
Donald Kennedy Speaker

Energy and Environment Building
473 Via Ortega
Stanford CA 94305

(650) 721-6207
0
Professor, Earth System Science
Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Senior Fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment
Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR)
Affiliate, Precourt Institute of Energy
shg_ff1a1284.jpg PhD

David Lobell is the Benjamin M. Page Professor at Stanford University in the Department of Earth System Science and the Gloria and Richard Kushel Director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment. He is also the William Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy and Research (SIEPR).

Lobell's research focuses on agriculture and food security, specifically on generating and using unique datasets to study rural areas throughout the world. His early research focused on climate change risks and adaptations in cropping systems, and he served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report as lead author for the food chapter and core writing team member for the Summary for Policymakers. More recent work has developed new techniques to measure progress on sustainable development goals and study the impacts of climate-smart practices in agriculture. His work has been recognized with various awards, including the Macelwane Medal from the American Geophysical Union (2010), a Macarthur Fellowship (2013), the National Academy of Sciences Prize in Food and Agriculture Sciences (2022) and election to the National Academy of Sciences (2023).

Prior to his Stanford appointment, Lobell was a Lawrence Post-doctoral Fellow at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He holds a PhD in Geological and Environmental Sciences from Stanford University and a Sc.B. in Applied Mathematics from Brown University.

CV
David Lobell Speaker

The Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki
Environment and Energy Building
Stanford University
473 Via Ortega, Office 363
Stanford, CA 94305

(650) 723-5697 (650) 725-1992
0
Senior Fellow, Stanford Woods Institute and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
William Wrigley Professor of Earth System Science
Senior Fellow and Founding Director, Center on Food Security and the Environment
Roz_low_res_9_11_cropped.jpg PhD

Rosamond Naylor is the William Wrigley Professor in Earth System Science, a Senior Fellow at Stanford Woods Institute and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the founding Director at the Center on Food Security and the Environment, and Professor of Economics (by courtesy) at Stanford University. She received her B.A. in Economics and Environmental Studies from the University of Colorado, her M.Sc. in Economics from the London School of Economics, and her Ph.D. in applied economics from Stanford University. Her research focuses on policies and practices to improve global food security and protect the environment on land and at sea. She works with her students in many locations around the world. She has been involved in many field-level research projects around the world and has published widely on issues related to intensive crop production, aquaculture and livestock systems, biofuels, climate change, food price volatility, and food policy analysis. In addition to her many peer-reviewed papers, Naylor has published two books on her work: The Evolving Sphere of Food Security (Naylor, ed., 2014), and The Tropical Oil Crops Revolution: Food, Farmers, Fuels, and Forests (Byerlee, Falcon, and Naylor, 2017).

She is a Fellow of the Ecological Society of America, a Pew Marine Fellow, a Leopold Leadership Fellow, a Fellow of the Beijer Institute for Ecological Economics, a member of Sigma Xi, and the co-Chair of the Blue Food Assessment. Naylor serves as the President of the Board of Directors for Aspen Global Change Institute, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee for Oceana and is a member of the Forest Advisory Panel for Cargill. At Stanford, Naylor teaches courses on the World Food Economy, Human-Environment Interactions, and Food and Security. 

CV
Rosamond L. Naylor Speaker
Conferences
Authors
David Lobell
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

We have read the headline a number of times now warning us that increasing temperatures are threatening global crop production. One need only to recall the drought and heat wave that hit the mid-western United States last summer, damaging corn and soybean production. Higher temperatures are certainly part of the problem, but a new study led by FSE associate director David Lobell finds its impacts in the U.S. are more indirect. Water stress may be the main culprit.

To validate this hypothesis and to help differentiate the different mechanisms impacting crop yields at higher temperatures, the research team used a model known as an Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM). High temperatures had a strong negative effect on corn yield response in the United States, in agreement with the data, but the predominate effect of heat in the model was via increased water stress.

As temperatures increase, plants transpire more water into the atmosphere, just as people sweat more on hotter days. With more hot days, the corn plant finds it harder to maintain growth rates, and at the same time loses more water, which sets up the risk of even more drought stress later in the season.

“APSIM computes daily water stress as the ratio of water supply to demand, and during the critical month of July this ratio is three times more responsive to 2 ºC warming than to a 20 percent precipitation reduction,” writes Lobell and co-authors in a new paper published in Nature Climate Change. “Water stress during July is particularly important for overall biomass growth and final yield, with July being the month with the most total biomass growth.”

Direct heat stress on the plant, such as happens on extremely hot days, played a more minor role in determining final yield. The study suggests that increased CO2 may reduce crop sensitivity to extreme heat by increasing water use efficiency, but gains are likely to be no more than 25 percent.

“The APSIM model has been valuable in its ability to discriminate the importance of these factors,” said Lobell. “Models like these are useful for guiding efforts to develop crops with greater tolerance to increased temperatures, an important component of most adaptation strategies in agriculture, and helping to identify which processes are critical for modeling efforts to consider when projecting climate change impacts.”

The researchers project sensitivity to extreme heat will remain a severe constraint to crop production in the foreseeable future, especially as the region warms. They are now using the models to evaluate different strategies for developing new varieties of corn that can better handle the heat.

Hero Image
Corn ScottStamile logo Scott Stamile
All News button
1
Paragraphs

Statistical studies of rainfed maize yields in the United States and elsewhere have indicated two clear features: a strong negative yield response to accumulation of temperatures above 30°C (or extreme degree days (EDD)), and a relatively weak response to seasonal rainfall. Here we show that the process-based Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM) is able to reproduce both of these relationships in the Midwestern United States and provide insight into underlying mechanisms. The predominant effects of EDD in APSIM are associated with increased vapour pressure deficit, which contributes to water stress in two ways: by increasing demand for soil water to sustain a given rate of carbon assimilation, and by reducing future supply of soil water by raising transpiration rates. APSIM computes daily water stress as the ratio of water supply to demand, and during the critical month of July this ratio is three times more responsive to 2°C warming than to a 20% precipitation reduction. The results suggest a relatively minor role for direct heat stress on reproductive organs at present temperatures in this region. Effects of elevated CO2 on transpiration efficiency should reduce yield sensitivity to EDD in the coming decades, but at most by 25%.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Nature Climate Change
Authors
David Lobell
Wolfram Schlenker
Number
doi:10.1038/nclimate1832
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
Study reveals scale of nitrogen’s effect on people and ecosystems

It’s no secret that China is faced with some of the world’s worst pollution. Until now, however, information on the magnitude, scope and impacts of a major contributor to that pollution – human-caused nitrogen emissions – was lacking.

A new study co-authored by Stanford Woods Institute Senior Fellow Peter Vitousek (Biology) reveals, among other findings, that amounts of nitrogen deposited on land and water in China by way of rain, dust and other carriers increased by 60 percent annually from the 1980s to the 2000s, with profound consequences for the country’s people and ecosystems. Xuejun Liu and Fusuo Zhang at China Agricultural University in Beijing led the study, which is part of an ongoing collaboration with Stanford aimed at reducing agricultural nutrient pollution while increasing food production in China – a collaboration that includes Vitousek and Pamela Matson, a Stanford Woods Institute senior fellow and dean of the School of Earth Sciences. The researchers analyzed all available data on bulk nitrogen deposition results from monitoring sites throughout China from 1980 to 2010.

During the past 30 years, China has become by far the largest creator and emitter of nitrogen globally. The country’s use of nitrogen as a fertilizer increased about threefold from the 1980s to 2000s, while livestock numbers and coal combustion increased about fourfold, and the number of automobiles about 20-fold. All of these activities release reactive nitrogen into the environment. Increased levels of nitrogen have led to a range of deleterious impacts, including decreased air quality, acidification of soil and water, increased greenhouse gas concentrations and reduced biological diversity.

“All these changes can be linked to a common driving factor: strong economic growth, which has led to continuous increases in agricultural and nonagricultural reactive nitrogen emissions and consequently increased nitrogen deposition,” the study’s authors write.

Researchers found highly significant increases in bulk nitrogen deposition since the 1980s in China’s industrialized north, southeast and southwest regions. Nitrogen levels on the North China Plain are much higher than those observed in any region in the U.S., and are comparable to the maximum values observed in the U.K. and the Netherlands when nitrogen deposition was at its peak in the 1980s.

China’s rapid industrialization and agricultural expansion have led to continuous increases in nitrogen emissions and nitrogen deposition. China’s production and use of nitrogen-based fertilizers is greater than that of the U.S. and the E.U. combined. Because of inefficiencies, more than half of that fertilizer is lost to the environment in gaseous or dissolved forms.

China’s nitrogen deposition problem could be brought under control, the study’s authors state, if the country’s environmental policy focused on improving nitrogen agricultural use efficiency and reducing nitrogen emissions from all sources, including industry and transit.

Hero Image
smog in Shanghai publicdomain logo
All News button
1
Authors
Jennifer Burney
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
FSE's Benin solar market garden project was picked as one of the most five hopeful energy stories of 2012 by National Geographic. Jennifer Burney, FSE fellow and lead on the Benin project, is a National Geographic Emerging Explorer. FSE began its partnership with the Solar Electric Light Fund in 2007 and continues to work together to spread the technology into new villages in West Africa.
Hero Image
woman panel crops hl Jennifer Burney
All News button
1
Paragraphs

Evaluating the contribution of weather and its individual components to recent yield trends can be useful to predict the response of crop production to future climate change, but different modeling approaches can yield diverging results. We used two common approaches to evaluate the effect of weather trends on maize (Zea mays L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production in 12 U.S. counties, and investigate sources of disparities between the two methods. We first used the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) model from 1984 to 2008 to evaluate the contribution of weather changes to simulated yield trends in six counties for each crop, each county being located in one of the top 10 U.S. producing states for that crop. A parallel analysis was conducted by multiplying inter-annual weather sensitivity of county-level yields with observed weather trends to estimate weather contributions to empirical yield trends. Weather had a low (maize) to high (wheat) contribution to simulated yield trends, with rain having the largest effect. In contrast, weather and rain had lower contributions to empirical yield trends. Along with evidence from previous studies, this suggests that DSSAT may be too sensitive to water thus inflating the importance of rain. Moreover, the time period used to compute yield trends also had a large effect on the importance of weather and its individual components. Our results highlight the importance of using multiple computation approaches and different time periods when estimating weather-related yield trends.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Agronomy Journal
Authors
David Lobell
Paragraphs

Currently, more than two-thirds of the population in Africa must leave their home to fetch water for drinking and domestic use. The time burden of water fetching has been suggested to influence the volume of water collected by households as well as time spent on income generating activities and child care. However, little is known about the potential health benefits of reducing water fetching distances. Data from almost 200 000 Demographic and Health Surveys carried out in 26 countries were used to assess the relationship between household walk time to water source and child health outcomes. To estimate the causal effect of decreased water fetching time on health, geographic variation in freshwater availability was employed as an instrumental variable for one-way walk time to water source in a two-stage regression model. Time spent walking to a household’s main water source was found to be a significant determinant of under-five child health. A 15-min decrease in one-way walk time to water source is associated with a 41% average relative reduction in diarrhea prevalence, improved anthropometric indicators of child nutritional status, and a 11% relative reduction in under-five child mortality. These results suggest that reducing the time cost of fetching water should be a priority for water infrastructure investments in Africa.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Environmental Science and Technology
Authors
Jenna Davis
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
What does drought in Kansas have to do with underutilized groundwater in sub-Saharan Africa? Potentially a lot, according to a new study by researchers with the Global Freshwater Initiative (GFI), a program of the Stanford Woods Institute. The study, co-authored by FSE senior fellow Scott Rozelle, is the first to systematically analyze and classify water crises around the world. It finds that water systems have a limited set of patterns or "syndromes" which can be classified into one of four categories: unsustainability, vulnerability, chronic scarcity or adaptation. These syndromes have their root causes in just a few factors that influence demand, supply, infrastructure and governance - a finding that challenges long-held views that freshwater issues require highly individualized solutions.
Hero Image
drought crop cover logo
All News button
1
Subscribe to Water