Next Generation Delegation 2014 Commentary Series
By Jennie Lane, DVM, Master of Public Health from University of California, Berkeley and 2014 Next Generation Delegate
I felt fortunate to attend The Chicago Council’s Global Food Security Symposium 2014 as a Next Generation Delegate and meet my fellow delegates, as well as sponsors and attendees. The Symposium was an excellent forum to understand the different aspects of food security and to learn about the diverse breadth of solutions to some of the toughest global challenges of our time.
It was especially exciting to listen to the remarks by US National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah regarding USAID’s 2014-2015 Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy. In my opinion, agriculture for nutrition and health, or A4NH, is one of the most important aspects of food security. Integrating the disciplines of public health, agriculture, water, sanitation and food assistance into a cohesive strategy is an obvious step in the mission to eliminate extreme poverty around the world. I firmly believe in the potential of agricultural interventions through education and environmentally appropriate techniques to contribute to food security, decrease the prevalence of malnutrition, empower populations, withstand climate change and promote sustainable development. But we need more rigorous evaluation of the diverse and context-specific agricultural interventions designed to improve health and nutrition, learn what solutions work, what don’t and why, and how to scale those that succeed.
Livestock and animal agriculture is another important aspect of agricultural production. While food systems involving animals are recognized as essential to global food security, the impact of smallholder animal agriculture as well as draught animals - cattle, oxen, horses, donkeys, and mules - at all levels of the food system is poorly understood. These animals are essential to rural and traditional forms of agriculture. Learning more about their effects on farming systems has implications for national and international policy, the provision of veterinary services and education, and sustainable agriculture worldwide. Improving animal agriculture, in part through improved veterinary care, will remain essential to feeding a growing population. In tandem, we need an even better understanding of the effects that livestock systems have on household socioeconomics, human health, the local environment and the potential to mitigate climate change.
To sustain the planet’s growing population, we need to integrate strategies to improve food production while adapting to and mitigating climate change through attention to soil improvement, increased use of perennial and forestry crops, improved grazing techniques, and advanced water retention methods. To this point, Dr. Cynthia E. Rosenzweig made excellent recommendations to the panel discussion of the climate-food nexus: she suggests we need increased collaboration and rigorous, cross-disciplinary research employing public health, agricultural, climate, agroeconomic, and social science techniques to fully understand the complexity of these systems.
At the Symposium, numerous experts called for increased collaboration across sectors; similarly, two of the four recommendations in the Chicago Council’s report, Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate, called for increased partnerships. These recommendations must be converted into action. With increased knowledge paired with human-centered design and community involvement at all levels, we can continue to develop solutions that result in food security and support sustainable societies.
Losing the Plot? Agricultural Research Policy and the 2014 Farm Bill
This post originally appeared on Choices Magazine.
By Philip G. Pardey, Jason M. Beddow, and Steven T. Buccola
A large part of U.S. agricultural output and its competiveness in international commodity markets is attributable to research-induced gains in productivity accumulated over the 20th century. In 2012, the United States accounted for a sizable share (9.5% by value) of the global food, feed, and fiber economy. This is substantially smaller than its 1961 share of 14.8% (United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2014). Over the same period, the Asia-Pacific region (including India and China) grew its global share from 24.2% to 45.1%. Productivity growth in U.S. agriculture has declined along with its global market share. For the post-World War II period through 1990, agricultural productivity—measured by accounting for changes in the use of multiple factors of production—grew on average by 2.1% per year, but dropped to almost half that rate (1.2% per year) during the subsequent two decades (Pardey, Alston, and Chan-Kang, 2013).
As the 21st century unfolds, a question of major importance is whether a continuation of contemporary trends in public investments in research and development (R&D) are sufficient to preserve or enhance past productivity gains and ensure the United States remains competitive in global agricultural markets (Alston et al., 2010, especially chapter 11). While the links between R&D investments and changes in productivity are difficult to disentangle, there is compelling evidence that these investments continue to yield relatively large social dividends (Hurley, Rao, and Pardey, 2014), but with several major, and politically crippling, caveats. The lags between investing in R&D and realizing returns on those investments are long (often spanning decades), and the benefits are diffuse, accruing to a broad range of producers and consumers, and not limited to any particular political jurisdiction or constituency. It is, therefore, harder for politicians to reap short-term electoral benefits by acting in a far-sighted fashion for the country’s long-run economic and environmental gains. Nevertheless, decisions taken now will have potentially profound consequences for U.S. and global agriculture at least through the middle of this century.
So how have political commitments to the public investments in R&D that affect the food and agricultural sectors fared of late? Are the institutional arrangements for funding and performing public agricultural R&D evolving in ways that will lead to a robust future for U.S. agriculture? Are the investment and institutional changes envisaged in the 2014 Farm Bill sufficient in light of substantive shifts in the roles of public versus private R&D within the United States, and the position of the United States in global innovation markets for food and agriculture?
Read the full story on Choices Magazine >
Posted at 01:29 PM in Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0) | | Digg This | |