Land Availability and Responsible Agricultural Investments Food Security Challenges in the 21 st Century: Focus on SSA

Transcription

1 Land Availability and Responsible Agricultural Investments Food Security Challenges in the 21 st Century: Focus on SSA Mahendra Shah* and Gunther Fischer** Director, Qatar National Food Security Programme and Senior Advisor, IIASA, ** Program Leader, Land Use Change and Sustainable Agriculture, IIASA Annual Bank Conference on Land Policy and Administration World Bank, Washington DC, 26-27th April

2 WHY Responsible Domestic and International Agricultural Investments Food Security Energy security Water Security Government Investors Private Sector Investors Local Communities Responsible Investments Knowledge: Informed Decisions HOW Land Purchase/Lease-RENT? Large and Small Scale Agricultural Technology. Exports and Local Markets Local Livelihoods Responsible, Transparent Benefits Sharing Developing Countries Developed Countries Cultivated Land: Yield Gaps (Small Farms) Grassland and Woodlands (Small / Large farms) Unprotected Forests? WHERE 2

3 OVERVIEW IIASA FAO Agro-ecological (AEZ) and Socio-economic (BLS) Methodology and Modelling System Global, Regional, National Results; SSA Regional and Country Results For any food, fuel and feed crop or mix of crops assess and quantify sustainable rainfed production potential (Area, Yield, Production); + Irrigated Current and Potential Production Low, Intermediate and High Agricultural Technology ( Seeds, Fertilizers, Labour, Mechanization etc) Spatially demarcated current cultivated land and unprotected grasslands, woodlands and forest areas ( + Population Density; + Transport Costs to Local Market or Shipping Port ; Yield gaps on current cultivated land); Impacts of future climate change : Adaptation and Mitigation Options Information for Investors and Recipients Net Value of production over temporal period; Land Rental Valuation; Land Purchase Valuation AEZ-BLS: Impacts on International Prices, Land Use Change, Food Security and Hunger; Imports and Exports, GDP Ag, etc ( Annual Change) A Proven AEZ BLS Methodology 3

4 World Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture IIASA - FAO METHODOLOGY and MODELING FRAMEWORK ( ) Spatial Agro-ecological Assessment with world-wide coverage(aez) World Agriculture System Applied General Equilibrium Model(BLS) Food Policy Analysis: global, regional, national, local Land Resources for Populations of the Future, UNFPA/FAO/IIASA, 1983 Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability, WSSD 2002 Johannesburg Biofuels and Food Security, OPEC Seminar, 2009, Vienna CHINAGRO, Land Acquisition Global Assessment, IIASA-WB, 2010 (in preparation) Land Acquisition IIASA-WB Forthcoming

5 Agro-ecological suitability and land productivity 3 IIASA Modeling Framework 2 Climate model 1 Development scenario Climate impact response relations Production Trade Demand 4 Global Food-Feed- Biofuel System World Market 5 Spatial distribution of land use 6 5

6 FAO-IIASA Agro-ecological Zones Methodology

7 Conceptual framework of Agro-ecological Zones methodology 1. Land Utilization types (LUTs) - Selected agricultural production systems with defined input and management relationships, and crop-specific environmental requirements and adaptability characteristics. These are termed Land Utilization Types (LUT); 2. Land Resources database - Geo-referenced climate, soil and terrain data which are combined into a land resources database; 3. Crop biomass and yield and LUT requirements matching - Procedures for the calculation of potential yields and for matching crop/lut environmental requirements with the respective environmental characteristics contained in the land resources database, by land unit and grid-cell; 4. Assessments of crop suitability and land productivity, and 5. Applications for agricultural development planning. 7

8 Agro-ecological Zones Methodology Geographical Data Layers 1. Monthly climatology ; CRU at University of East Anglia; at 0.5 deg. latitude/longitude

9 Agro-ecological Zones Methodology Geographical Data Layers 2. Terrain slope database; USGS Eros Data Center; digital elevation at 30 arc-seconds latitude/longitude

10 Agro-ecological Zones Methodology Geographical Data Layers 3. FAO/Unesco digital Soil Map of the World; UN Food and Agriculture Organization; at 5 arc-min. latitude/longitude

11 Agro-ecological Zones Methodology Geographical Data Layers 4. Global land cover characteristics database; USGS Eros Data Center; at 1 km resolution.

12 Agro-ecological Zones Methodology Geographical Data Layers 5. Global gridded population distribution data of 1995; CIESIN; at 2.5 arc-min. latitude/longitude resolution.

13 Global Agro-ecological Zones Environmental resources database including climate, soil, terrain, and land cover comprising 2.2 million grid cells, assessing the agricultural potential of all crops, pastures, trees, shrubs at three levels of farming technology.

14 The International Linkage in the World Food System Model 18 national models, 2 country-group models, 14 regional models EXCHANGE EQUILIBRIUM Prices, consumption, stocks, net exports to satisfy: Budget constraint Market clearance Trade balance Trade quota COUNTRY A GOVERNMENT POLICIES Target price, tariffs, taxes, quota, etc. PRODUCTION Non-agriculture production Agriculture production Production inputs: Land Fertilizer Labour Others Capital Commodities: wheat, rice, coarse grains, protein feed, bovine & ovine meat, dairy products, other animal products, other food, nonfood agriculture, nonagriculture. International commodity prices PW Net trade EA WORLD MARKETS International prices to satisfy: commodity balances financial transfer balance EB COUNTRY B PW EC ED EE Linkage: trade, world market prices and financial flows PW COUNTRY C PW COUNTRY D PW COUNTRY E

15 Environmental constraints to rain-fed agriculture, reference climate Environmental constraints to rain-fed agriculture, HadCM3-A1FI 2080s

16 Suitability for rain-fed cereals, reference climate Change in suitability for rain-fed cereals, HadCM3-A1FI, 2080s

17 Changes in Rain-fed Cereal Potential Reference climate vs climate of 2080s HadCM3-A2 Scenario WHEAT MAIZE Undefined > 25 % 5 to 25 % -5 to 5 % -25 to -5 % < -25 % Not suitable Water MILLET, SORGHUM ALL CEREALS

18 India :Climate Change Yield Impact Wheat Rice Maize Pulses Roots Oil Sugar H3A1f H3A H3B H3B CSA CSA CSB CSB C2A C2B NCA NCB Note: weighted yield impact for rain-fed and irrigated cultivation (% change).

19 India : Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture 2080s Cereal GDP Cereal Production Agriculture Consumption H3A1f H3A H3B H3B CSA1b CSA CSB CSB CSA CSB NCA NCB Note: percent change relative to respective reference projection without climate change 19

20 Table 3: Impact of climate change on land suitability and production of Cereals for rainfed culti Current climate HadCM3 A2 2080s CSIRO A2 2080s Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield mln ha mln tons t/ha % change % change Sub-Saharan Africa Eastern Africa Middle Africa Western Africa Southern Africa Developed Developing World Note: Results include CO2 fertilization and assume rational adaptation and transfer of crop types and

21 Cereal Production (million tons) PRODUCTION Source: Fischer et al., B1 A1 B2 A2 Cereal Production, Net Imports of Developing Countries projected for different IPCC economic development paths B1 B2 A2 NET IMPORTS, CEREALS Cereal Net Imports (million tons) 21

22 Impacts of climate change on regional net irrigation water requirements in 2080 WORLD LDC PAS SAS CPA LAM AFR MDC FSU+EE PAO WEU NAM A2ref Climate Season HADCM3 A Irrigation (mm per year) 271 million ha irrigated out of total 1540 million ha cultivated (~ 18 %). Agriculture uses 2630 billion m 3 out of 3816 billion m 3 annual water withdrawals (~ 70%). On average, annual global crop water deficit is 500 mm (i.e., 1350 billion m 3 in 2000); about 970 mm water per irrigated hectare were applied.

23 South Africa: Climate Change Impacts (% change) on Indicators of Agricultural Water Use 2080 Precipitation Crop Water Crop Water Internal Water Requirements Deficits Resources H3A2-11,0 13,7 24,5-26,1 CSA2-9,8 10,2 18,8-22,3 C2A2-9,2 10,3 18,8-21,4 NCA2-3,1 5,0 8,5-9,2 H3B1-11,0 9,6 18,6-23,9 CSB1-6,3 7,3 13,1-15,2 Note: percent change relative to respective reference projection without climate change. Crop water requirements calculated as crop-specific potential evapotranspiration (plus extra allowance for paddy). 1.5 million ha irrigated out of total 15.7 million ha cultivated (~ 9.5 %) Agriculture uses 8 billion m 3 out of 12.5 billion m 3 annual water withdrawals (~ 65%) Internal WR 44.8 bln m 3 /yr, external WR 5.2 bln m 3 /yr, < 1000 m 3 /cap/yr

24 2 IFPRI 1 (30 arc-seconds grid) GLC2000 (30 arc-seconds grid) FRA (30 arc-seconds grid) 4 Protected areas and areas required for settlement and infrastructure 6 Land cover Classification Procedures Inventory Irrigated areas (30 arc-seconds grid) 5 Shares Major Land Categories: 7 (i) Rain-fed cultivated land, (ii) Irrigated cultivated land, (iii) Forest (iv) Pastures and shrubs, (v) Barren and sparsely vegetated land, (vi) Urban land + rural land required for housing and infrastructure (5 arc-minute grid) Spatial explicit 8 prior information Crop suitability (AEZ) Population distribution Farming system zones Commodity prices Availability of Inputs Distance to market, etc. 10 Spatially explicit estimation of agricultural production activities National 9 agricultural statistics by major crops (FAOSTAT and AT 2015/30) 12 Potential agricultural Current agricultural 11 production value for high production value and intermediate input levels Current cropping systems Current cropping systems for rain-fed and irrigated for rain-fed and irrigated production production 13 Production Gap Analysis Production gaps between current production and potential production under respectively high and intermediate input levels 14

25 Down-scaling Results: Value of Agricultural Output per Grid-cell >=4000

26 OFID - IIASA Biofuels and Food Security Study, 2009 Mandates and Targets Country/ Region Mandatory, voluntary or indicative target Australia At least 350 million liters biofuels by 2010 Canada 5 percent renewable content in gasoline by 2010 Country/ Region Brazil Mandatory, voluntary or indicative target Mandatory 25 percent ethanol blend with gasoline; 5 percent biodiesel blend by European Union 5.75 percent by percent by 2020 Germany 6.25 percent by percent by 2020 China 2 million tons ethanol by 2010 increasing to 10 million tons by 2020; 0.2 million tons biodiesel by 2010 increasing to 2 million tons by France 7 percent by 2010, 10 percent by 2015, 10 percent by 2020 Japan 0.6 percent of auto fuel by 2010; a goal to reduce fossil oil dependence of transport sector from 98% to 80% by 2030 New Zealand 3.4 percent target for both gasoline and diesel by 2012 India Indonesia 5 percent ethanol blending in gasoline in 2008, 10 percent as of 2009; indicative target of 20 percent ethanol blending in gasoline and 20 percent biodiesel blending by percent biofuels in energy mix by 2010, 3 percent by 2015, and 5 percent by United States 12 billion gallons by 2010, rising to 20.5 billion gallons by 2015 and to 36 billion gallons by 2022 (with 16 billion gallons from advanced cellulosic ethanol) Thailand 2 percent biodiesel blend by 2008, 10 percent biodiesel blend by 2012; 10 percent ethanol blend by South Africa 2 percent of biofuels by

27 OFID-IIASA study in a nutshell Implications in 2020 of an accelerated biofuels production Upwards Pressure on World Food Prices: + 30 to 50% A Factor in Rising Hunger: Million people Absorbing Cereal Production: Million tons (2030) Benefits for Rural Development: + 3% to 8% GDPA Mitigating Climate Change: Gt CO2e over 50 years Competition for Arable Land: + 30 to 45 Million ha Fueling Deforestation: + 15 to 18 Million ha 6 to 12 % in transport fuel Energy security: Imperative for a transition from 1st to 2nd Generation Biofuels 27

28 Estimated Use of SSA Land in % 1% 18% 37% Grass/Shrub Unvegetated Forest Crops Built-up 36% Area % of global Cropland 243 mln ha 15.6 Forests 519 mln ha 13.9 Grass/woodland 1111 mln ha 24.4 Other land 1074 mln ha 31.2 TOTAL 2947 mln ha 22.1

29 How much land is available in SSA? 35 Built-up Crops Forest Unvegetated Grass/Shrub million km Very marginal 8% Unproductive 15% Too steep 3% Total land (excl. Antarctica and Greenland) 2... excluding built-up land 3... excluding arable and perennial cropland 4... excluding forests 5... excluding barren land & water Livestock& Bioenergy 58% Source: IIASA-LUC, 2007 Protected 16%

30 Current Cultivated Land: Food Production Potential, High Technology Transpsort Cost Suitable Area( VS + S + MS, 1000 Ha Average Yield Region TC< $30 TC $30 to $60 TC > $60 TOTAL GK$2000/Ha SSA E. Africa M. Africa S. Africa W. Africa Grassland and Woodland: Food Production Potential, High Technology Region TC< $30 TC $30 to $60 TC > $60 TOTAL GK$2000/Ha SSA E. Africa M. Africa S. Africa W. Africa

31 Current Cultivated Land: Food Production Potential, High Technology Population Density Suitable Area( VS + S + MS, 1000 Ha) Average Yield Region PD< 10 PD 10 to 25 PD> 35 TOTAL GK$2000/Ha SSA E. Africa M. Africa S. Africa W. Africa Grassland and Woodland: Food Production Potential, High Technology Region PD< 10 PD 10 to 25 PD> 25 TOTAL GK$2000/Ha SSA E. Africa M. Africa S. Africa W. Africa

32 Population Density < 10 per km per km2 > 25 per km2 Water 32

33 None < > 200 Water Density Of Ruminant Livestock in SSA

34 Distance to Market < 2h 2h - 5h > 5h Water 34

35 Transport Cost to Port ($/ton) 35

36 Suitability for Rain-fed Maize Undefined SI > 85 : Very high SI > 70 : High SI > 55 : Good SI > 40 : Medium SI > 25 : Moderate SI > 10 : Marginal SI > 0 : Very marginal SI = 0 : Not suitable Water 36

37 Suitability for Rain-fed Wheat Undefined SI > 85 : Very high SI > 70 : High SI > 55 : Good SI > 40 : Medium SI > 25 : Moderate SI > 10 : Marginal SI > 0 : Very marginal SI = 0 : Not suitable Water 37

38 Suitability for Rain-fed Sugarcane Undefined SI > 85 : Very high SI > 70 : High SI > 55 : Good SI > 40 : Medium SI > 25 : Moderate SI > 10 : Marginal SI > 0 : Very marginal SI = 0 : Not suitable Water 38

39 Suitability for Rain-fed Soybeans Undefined SI > 85 : Very high SI > 70 : High SI > 55 : Good SI > 40 : Medium SI > 25 : Moderate SI > 10 : Marginal SI > 0 : Very marginal SI = 0 : Not suitable Water 39

40 Suitability for Rain-fed Yams Undefined SI > 85 : Very high SI > 70 : High SI > 55 : Good SI > 40 : Medium SI > 25 : Moderate SI > 10 : Marginal SI > 0 : Very marginal SI = 0 : Not suitable Water 40

41 Suitability for Rain-fed Food Crops Undefined SI > 85 : Very high SI > 70 : High SI > 55 : Good SI > 40 : Medium SI > 25 : Moderate SI > 10 : Marginal SI > 0 : Very marginal SI = 0 : Not suitable Water 41

42 Potential Output Density of Food Crops (GK$/ha) 42

43 Forest Land and its Suitability for Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa (million ha) 2500 Water 2000 Built-up Barren % 14% Non-forest Forest Cultivated % Protected VS or S MS ms or NS 0 Source: IIASA, % 43

44 Non-forest Land and its Suitability for Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa (million ha) % Water 2000 Built-up Barren Non-forest Forest ,085 43% Protected VS or S 25% MS ms or NS Cultivated % Source: IIASA,

45 Suitability of Non-forest Land in Sub-Saharan Africa Food crops Wheat Maize 13% 13% 13% 2% 5% Protected VS or S MS 43% 25% 54% 21% ms or NS Total Nonforest Land = 19% Soybean 80% Sugarcane Groundnut 12% 1085 mln ha 13% 14% 14% 4% 5% 11% 50% 20% 62% 13% Source: IIASA, % 77% 45

46 Non-forest Land and its Suitability for Food Crops in Eastern Africa (million ha) 1000 Water Built-up Barren Non-forest Forest Cultivated % 41% Protected VS or S MS 27% ms or NS % Source: IIASA,

47 Non-forest Land and its Suitability for Food Crops in Western Africa (million ha) Water Built-up 500 9% Barren 400 Non-forest Forest Cultivated % 22% Protected VS or S MS 100 ms or NS 0 Source: IIASA, % 47

48 Non-forest Land and its Suitability for Food Crops in Middle Africa (million ha) % 14% 600 Water Built-up Barren Non-forest Forest Cultivated % 40% Protected VS or S MS ms or NS Source: IIASA,

49 Non-forest Land and its Suitability for Food Crops in Southern Africa (million ha) 300 Water Built-up Barren Non-forest Forest Cultivated % 15% 4% 9% Protected VS or S MS ms or NS 0 Source: IIASA,

50 Water Ethiopia 21% Built-up Barren Non-forest Forest Cultivated % 11% Protected VS or S MS ms or NS 20 9% Non-forest Land and its Suitability for Food Crops Water Built-up Barren Non-forest Forest Cultivated Sudan 37% 2% 27% Protected VS or S MS ms or NS 50 Source: IIASA, % 50

51 % 12% Water Built-up Barren Non-forest Forest % Protected VS or S MS ms or NS Cultivated D.R. Congo % Non-forest Land and its Suitability for Food Crops Water Built-up % 18% Barren 80 Protected Non-forest Forest Cultivated % VS or S MS ms or NS Source: IIASA, % Angola 51

52 Suitability for Food Crops in Mozambique 90 Million hectares 16% 19% 80 Protected Water 70 16% VS or S MS Built-up Barren ms or NS Non-forest Forest % 49% 17% Cultivated % Protected VS or S MS ms or NS Source: IIASA, % 52

53 Land by Classes of Population Density and Cost of Transport (million hectares) Note: The bars show the distribution of forest and non-forest vegetated land by broad classes of transport costs to port of export ($/ton). The color segments indicate broad classes of population density (persons/sqkm) Grass, scrub, wood land (45 million ha) Forest land (25 million ha) < 30$ 30$ - 60$ > 60$ Protected Pdens > 25 10<Pdens<25 Pdens < 10 Protected Pdens > 25 10<Pdens<25 Pdens < 10 Source: IIASA, < 30$ 30$ - 60$ > 60$ Mozambique 53

54 Suitability of Land for Food Crops by Cost of Transport (million hectares) Note: The bars show the distribution of forest and non-forest vegetated land by broad classes of transport costs to port of export ($/ton). The color segments indicate suitability of land for rain-fed cultivation of food crops Grass, scrub, wood land (45 million ha) Forest land (25 million ha) < 30$ 30$ - 60$ > 60$ Protected ms or NS MS VS or S Protected ms or NS MS VS or S Source: IIASA, < 30$ 30$ - 60$ > 60$ Mozambique 54

55 Concluding Remarks Current Cultivated Land Closing the Yield Gap; Investments Partnerships and Contract Farming New Land Grasslands and Woodlands Create Opportunities for Nationals, reducing pressures in current cultivated land Joint Venture partnerships with Investors, small and large farms Land Lease Rental Valuation, Investors - Large Farms Access to pertinent, comprehensive and timely information, Recipients and Investors Principles for responsible Domestic and International Agricultural Investments Capacity building Recipients, assessment, policy analysis, negotiation skills Due diligence and expert advise, multilateral institutions ( cf WB Inspection Panel) Universal Right to Food Responsible International Agricultural Investments An end to a Century of Promises for a Food Secure World 55

56 Food Security: Ending a century of promises 1905 International Institute of Agriculture 1941 US Conference for Defense 1943 Hot Springs Conference Food and Agriculture 1948 Food as Human Right 1972 Stockholm: Preserving & Enhancing the Environment 1973 First World Food summit 1992 Rio Earth Summit 1996 Second World Food summit 2000 Millennium Summit 2002 Third World Food Summit 2009 World Food Security Summit Country Lead Food Security Programme 56

57 QNFSP Qatar National Food Security Programme First Invest in Enhancing Domestic Production Second Responsible International Investments

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69 Qatar National Food Security Programme THANK YOU

70 QNFSP Qatar National Food Security Programme First Invest in Enhancing Domestic Production Second Responsible International Investments