Benin solar market garden project one of five most hopeful energy projects of 2012
The Center on Food Security and the Environment is a joint effort of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
FSI researchers examine the role of energy sources from regulatory, economic and societal angles. The Program on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD) investigates how the production and consumption of energy affect human welfare and environmental quality. Professors assess natural gas and coal markets, as well as the smart energy grid and how to create effective climate policy in an imperfect world. This includes how state-owned enterprises – like oil companies – affect energy markets around the world. Regulatory barriers are examined for understanding obstacles to lowering carbon in energy services. Realistic cap and trade policies in California are studied, as is the creation of a giant coal market in China.
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.
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.
Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment
473 Via Ortega
Stanford, CA 94305-4020
Amy Pickering is a research associate and lecturer at Stanford University. She received a BS in biological engineering at Cornell University, a MS in environmental engineering from the University of California, Berkeley and a PhD in interdisciplinary environment and resources at Stanford University. Her current research interests include understanding the relationship between water access, food security, sanitation and infectious disease in rural communities in Kenya, Bangladesh, and Mali.
Outside of China, the world now has more food insecure and nutrient deficient people than it had a decade ago, and the prevalence of obesity-related diabetes, high blood pressure and cardio-vascular diseases is increasing at very rapid rates. Expanded food production has done little to address the fact that between one-third and one-half of all deaths in children under five in developing countries are still related to malnutrition.
“With only three years away from the Millennium Development Goals deadline, this is a terrible track record,” said food and nutrition policy expert Per Pinstrup-Andersen at FSE's Global Food Policy and Food Security Symposium Series last week.
Pinstrup-Andersen, the only economist to win the World Food Prize (the ultimate award in the food security field), has dedicated his career to understanding the linkages between food, nutrition, and agriculture. What is driving persistent food insecurity and malnutrition in a food abundant world?
Poor food supply management is part of the problem. According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 20-30% of food produced globally is lost every year. That’s enough to feed an additional 3-3.5 billion people.
![]() |
|
Jatropha in Africa. Photo credit: Ton Rulkens/flickr.
|
Biofuels production, such as jatropha in Africa, now competes with food for land, and climate change is already negatively impacting crop yields in regions straddling the equator—with major implications for food supply.
For low-income consumers in both the U.S. and developing countries increasing and more volatile food prices, such as those seen in 2007, are also driving food insecurity. Poor consumers respond by purchasing cheaper, less nutrient food, and less of it.
Nutritional value chain
Consensus is developing—at least rhetorically—among national policymakers and international organizations that investments in agricultural development must be accelerated. Members of the G8 and G20 have committed $20 billion in international economic support for such investments and some developing countries such as Ethiopia and Ghana are planning large new investments.
While most of these recent initiatives focus on expanded food supplies, there is an increasing understanding that merely making more food available will not assure better food security, nutrition, and health at the household and individual levels.
“It matters for health and nutrition how increasing food supplies are brought about and of what it consists,” said Pinstrup-Andersen. “We need to turn the food supply chain into a nutritional value chain.”
Diet diversity is incredibly important for good nutrition. Agricultural researchers and food production companies need to look at a number of different commodities, not just the major food staples, said Pinstrup-Andersen.
“The Green Revolution successfully increased the production of corn, rice, and wheat, increasing incomes for farmers, and lowering prices for consumers, but now it is time to invest in fruits, vegetables and biofortification to deal with micronutrient deficiency,” said Pintrup-Andersen.
Biofortification, the breeding of crops to increase their nutritional value, offers tremendous opportunity for dealing with malnutrition in the developing world, but is not widely available.
This is particularly important for areas in sub-Saharan Africa where between one and three and one and four people are short in calories, protein, and micronutrients. Obesity is actually going up in these countries with the introduction of cheap, processed, energy-dense foods (those high in sugar and fat) contributing to the diabetes epidemic.
Pathways to better health
![]() |
|
Women hauling water to their gardens in Benin.
|
The path to better health and nutrition must look beyond the availability of food at affordable prices, clean water, and good sanitation, and consider behavioral factors such as time constraints for women in low-income households.
“Field studies have shown time and time again that one of the main factors preventing women from providing themselves and their families with good nutrition is time,” explained Pinstrup-Andersen.
He told the story of a woman in Bolivia too burdened with farm and household responsibilities to take the time to breastfeed her six-month old daughter. Enhancing productivity in activities traditionally undertaken by women could be a key intervention to improving good health and nutrition at the household level.
Access is another issue. A household may be considered food secure, in that sufficient food may be available, but food may not be equally allocated in the household.
“If we focus on the most limiting constraint we can be successful,” said Pinstrup-Anderen. “But we must tailor our response to each case.”
For sub-Saharan Africa, this includes investments in rural infrastructure, roads, irrigation systems, micronutrient fertilizer, climate adaptation strategies, and other barriers holding back small farmers.
Fortunately, there has been a renewed attention to the importance of guiding food system activities towards improved health and nutrition. The Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which facilitates the distribution of some of the G8 and G20 $20 billion commitments, prescribes that country proposals for funding of agricultural development projects must show a clear pathway from the proposed agricultural change to human nutrition.
“But it’s not going to be easy to implement good policies,” warned Pinstrup-Andersen. “There are few incentives in government for multidisciplinary problem solving. The economy is set up around silos and people are loyal to their silos. Agricultural and health sectors are largely disconnected in their priorities, policy, and analysis."
Incentives must change to encourage working across ministries and disciplines to identify the most important health and nutrition-related drivers of food systems, impact pathways, and policy and program interventions to find win-wins for positive health and nutrition.
In advance of the third presidential debate, Freeman Spogli Institute center directors thought about key international policy issues that need addressing by presidential candidates Barak Obama and Mitt Romney. FSE center director Rosamond L. Naylor posed the question below among a list of other suggested FSI foreign policy questions to debate:
Should our government help American farmers cope with climate impacts on food production, and should this assistance be extended to other countries – particularly poor countries – whose food production is also threatened by climate variability and climate change?
What to listen for: Most representatives in Congress would like to eliminate government handouts, and many would also like to turn away from any discussion of climate change. Yet this year, U.S. taxpayers are set to pay up to $20 billion to farmers for crop insurance after extreme drought and heat conditions damaged yields in the Midwest.
With the 2012 farm bill stalled in Congress, the candidates need to be clear about whether they support government subsidized crop insurance for American farmers. They should also articulate their views on climate threats to food production in the U.S. and abroad.
Without a substantial crop insurance program, American farmers will face serious risks of income losses and loan defaults. And without foreign assistance for climate adaptation, the number of people going hungry could well exceed 15 percent of the world's population.
~Rosamond L. Naylor, director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment
Inspired by the spirit of debate, FSE fellows took the opportunity to pose a few additional questions for the candidates.
Questions from FSE deputy director Walter P. Falcon:
The US now uses more that 40% of its corn crop for biofuel. While some argue this contributes to long-term energy independence, others note that ethanol mandates, along with unfavorable weather, can contribute to higher and more volatile food prices like those seen in recent years. Do you regard the US policy emphasis on biofuels, especially corn-based ethanol, as being a successful program to date? Have the benefits from biofuels outweighed the negative impacts on higher food costs around the world, and do you believe that mandates continue to be the most appropriate policy going forward?
One of the largest agricultural programs in the US is in the form of food stamps to poor consumers. Would you prefer to cap, perhaps even eliminate, the food stamp (SNAP) program? Would you prefer to replace it with a direct cash transfer system? Whom do you think generally should qualify either for food stamps or cash transfers?
Questions from FSE associate director David Lobell:
A major initiative of the Obama Administration has been Feed the Future, which aims at improving food security in other countries. Is the U.S. focused sufficiently on hunger in other parts of the world? Have actions matched rhetoric? Is a $3 billion expenditure on this initiative the right sum in an era of large fiscal deficits in the U.S.?
Question from research scholar Bill Burke:
The United States is viewed by many as a world leader, but its role in foreign assistance is contentious. In dollar terms, the United States consistently gives more foreign assistance than any other donor nation. In 2012, for example, the U.S. provided nearly 34 billion dollars, or more than twice as much as any other country. On the other hand, many criticize the U.S. for contributing relatively little in comparison to other countries when donations are measured as a share of GDP. Some also point out that much of what is labeled foreign assistance is actually military or security assistance, and does not contribute directly towards economic development. Does the U.S. spend too little or too much on foreign assistance, and should a greater proportion of U.S. funding go directly towards poverty reduction and food security?
Freshwater scarcity has been cited as the major crisis of the 21st century, but it is surprisingly hard to describe the nature of the global water crisis. We conducted a meta- analysis of 22 coupled human–water system case studies, using qualitative comparison analysis (QCA) to identify water resource system outcomes and the factors that drive them. The cases exhibited different outcomes for human wellbeing that could be grouped into a six “syndromes”: groundwater depletion, ecological destruction, drought-driven conflicts, unmet subsistence needs, resource capture by elite, and water reallocation to nature. For syndromes that were not successful adaptations, three characteristics gave cause for concern: (1) unsustainability—a decline in the water stock or ecosystem function that could result in a long-term steep decline in future human wellbeing; (2) vulnerability—high variability in water resource availability combined with inadequate coping capacity, leading to temporary drops in human wellbeing; (3) chronic scarcity—persistent inadequate access and hence low conditions of human wellbeing. All syndromes could be explained by a limited set of causal factors that fell into four categories: demand changes, supply changes, governance systems, and infrastructure/technology. By considering basins as members of syndrome classes and tracing common causal pathways of water crises, water resource analysts and planners might develop improved water policies aimed at reducing vulnerability, inequity, and unsustainability of freshwater systems.
Soybean production has become a significant force for economic development in Brazil. It has also received considerable attention from environmental and social non-governmental organizations as a driver of deforestation and land consolidation. While many researchers have examined the impacts of soybean production on human and environmental landscapes, there has been little investigation into the economic and institutional context of Brazilian soybean production or the relationship between soy yields and planted area. This study examines the influence of land tenure, land use policy, cooperatives, and credit access on soy production in Brazil. Using county level data we provide statistical evidence that soy planted area and yields are higher in regions where cooperative membership and credit levels are high, and cheap credit sources are more accessible. This result suggests that soybean production and profitability will increase as supply chain infrastructure improves in the Cerrado and Amazon biomes in Brazil. The yields of competing land uses, wheat, coffee, and cattle production and a complementary use, corn production, also help to determine the location of soybean planted area in Brazil. We do not find a significant relationship between land tenure and planted area or land tenure and yields. Soy yields decline as transportation costs increase, but planted area as a proportion of arable land is highest in some of the areas with very high transportation costs. In particular, counties located within Mato Grosso and counties within the Amazon biome have a larger proportion of their arable, legally available land planted in soy than counties outside of the biome. Finally, we provide evidence that soy yields are positively associated with planted area, implying that policies intending to spare land through yield improvements could actually lead to land expansion in the absence of strong land use regulations. While this study focuses on Brazil, the results underscore the importance of understanding how supply chains influence land use associated with cash crops in other countries.