the global food – water – energy nexus · 2016-11-21 · increasing the production of food and...

Faculty of GeosciencesCopernicus Institute of

Sustainable Development

Development in aresource-constrained world

The globalfood – water – energy

nexus

AuthorsDetlef P. van Vuuren1,2, David L. Bijl1, Patrick W. Bogaart1, Elke Stehfest2, Hester Biemans3, Stefan C. Dekker1, Jonathan C. Doelman2, David Gernaat1,2, Mathijs Harmsen1,2, Bert J.M. de Vries1

1 Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development2 PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency3 Wageningen University Research centre

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentFaculty of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityHeidelberglaan 23584 CS UtrechtThe Netherlands

AcknowledgementsThe research benefitted from financial support by the Rabobank Project fund. The work has been built upon the development of the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) at PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.The analysis, the conclusions and recommendations remain the exclusive responsibility of the authors.

June 2016

Colophon

Language editing: Joy Burrough-Boenisch (Unclogged English)

Coverphoto: Rape planting. © iStock, Bihaiho.

Design and lay-out: C&M [9093], Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University

Table of Contents

Summary 5 Baseline trends 5 Response strategies 5

1 Human development within the limits of the planet 7 1.1 Introduction 7 1.2 Socio-economic trends 9 1.3 Increasing demand for natural resources 11 1.4 Linkages between food production, energy use and climate change 16 1.5 Summary: ‘Business as usual’ is not attractive. 19

2 Options for change 21 2.1 Response to climate change 21 2.2 Sustainable food systems 24 2.3 Taking it all together 29

3 Conclusions 31

References 33

Appendix: methods 37 A1. Models 37 A2. Scenario assumptions 40

In this report we explore possible developments and response strategies for sustainable development issues directly related to the so-called food – energy – water nexus. We do this in two steps. First, we describe possible trends assuming a continuation of current policies (the reference or ‘business-as-usual’ scenario) in order to assess how consumption and production of food, energy and water might develop. Subsequently, in Section 2 we describe a set of possible response strategies that would achieve a more sustainable development. Both steps are based on model-based scenario analysis.

BASELINE TRENDS

In the reference scenario developed for this report, it is projected that the production of food, energy and water will further increase mostly driven by increased demand in developing countries. The increase is 50-60% for food and energy and around 10% for water (literature ranges are around 50-60% for food, 50-80% for energy and 10-45% for water). The increased production is expected to lead to further pressure on natural resources and to climate change. For instance, land use is projected to increase by around 10% and greenhouse gas emissions are likely to lead to a warming of around 4oC by the end of the century. The latter is driven mostly by fossil fuel combustion, but the agriculture sector also contributes currently to around 25% of current emissions. At the same time, by 2050 a significant part of the global population will still be suffering from hunger, not have access to modern energy, or be living in water-scarce areas. Because the production and consumption chains of food, energy and water are tightly coupled, solutions need to be looked at from an integrative perspective. From the baseline trends, four, related, challenges can be derived:

• Providing access to modern energy for all while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.• Increasing world food production significantly to feed a world of 9 billion people in 2050,

without harming biodiversity.• Increasing the efficiency of water use, in order to prevent water scarcity.• In general, increasing resource efficiency while considering the linkages between food, modern

energy and water use.

Agriculture is one of the core areas in the endeavour to bring the world onto a more sustainable development path. Globally, expansion of land-use driven by the increase in food production is the main cause of biodiversity loss in the baseline scenario. Agriculture is also responsible for about 25% of GHG emissions, can be strongly impacted by climate change but also be part of several solution strategies.

RESPONSE STR ATEGIES

In terms of response strategies, we looked into the options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to

Summary

5 | The global food – water – energy nexus

deal with increasing land claims. This requires a successful transition to new production and consumption modes, technologies and institutions in the next 20-40 years.

Meeting the target of limiting warming to less than 2oC requires rapid emission reductions and total reconfiguration of the energy system. To meet the 2oC target, global CO2 emissions in the 21st century need to be constrained to around 1000 GtCO2 or less. This target is very stringent, and strategies to meet it require the use of many reduction options to achieve full decarbonisation of the energy system in a maximum of 5 – 6 decades. This rapid and deep carbonisation can – in principle – be achieved by the use of energy efficiency, renewable technologies possibly carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power.

Increasing resource use efficiency in food systems can contribute to reducing biodiversity loss and climate change. In order to respond to competing claims on land use resources, three types of measures are presented that could significantly change current trends: 1) promote alternative protein sources for diets and reduce the proportion of animal protein in diets; 2) invest in agriculture to increase yields (food, feed and grass) and animal feed efficiency; and 3) reduce food waste in households and during storage and distribution. Potentially, these three options together could totally offset the increase in food demand and lead to a declining agricultural land while still producing sufficient food for 9 billion people. Especially dietary change can have a large contribution. At the same time, agriculture will have to adapt to climate change, as even with effective international climate mitigation policies the world will still be about 1.5-2oC warmer at the end of the century.

Changing the agricultural system will also need to be an important component of climate change mitigation, by mitigating non-CO2 emissions (mostly from livestock, fertiliser use and rice cultivation), given its contribution to overall emission (around 25%) and possible contribution of land-use related response measures (bio-energy, reforestation). Although some emissions can be easily reduced, there is also a part for which mitigation measures are currently lacking. It is therefore important to find new technologies that could reduce these emission further.

Technology development and innovation are necessary for a more efficient use of resources, notably to achieve sustainable yield improvements, more efficient energy use and deployment, and integration of renewable energy. A way to foster this is to set ambitious goals with respect to outcomes but at the same time to allow competition between various solutions. Incentive structures should match these long-term goals. Innovative technology could also provide feasible new ways of implementing the measures discussed in the report, such as smart grid solutions, additional renewable energy, further use of IT in agriculture (higher yields) and alternative sources of protein.

All in all, our scenarios show that in spite of many challenges and risks, technically, measures exists to banish hunger and ensure long-term food security for all. To ensure that key decisions on investment and policies to end hunger are taken and implemented effectively, it is necessary to mobilise political will and build the necessary institutions. As these transitions will take time to implement, action must be taken rapidly, if the world is serious about meeting the agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).


1.1 INTRODUC TION

Provision and use of food, energy and water resources are interdependent and crucial for sustainable developmentThe 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) highlight a number of important challenges that the world is facing today with respect to human development, resource use and environmental degradation (UN, 2015b). First of all, whereas average per capita income has risen significantly during recent decades, a large number of people still do not have access to the basic resources required to sustain a decent life. Worldwide, around 800 million people are suffering from hunger (FAO et al., 2014), 2 billion people have no access to modern energy (IEA, 2015) and around 1 billion people have no access to a sufficient supply of good-quality water resources (World Water Coucil, 2016). Second, the economic growth in recent decades has been accompanied by a huge increase in total resource use. The consumption of food increased about 4-5 times, and energy consumption increased sevenfold in the period 1945-2010. One underlying reason for this is the threefold increase in world population during that period, but also average per capita consumption increased significantly. Finally, the increase in consumption and production rates has led to a number of key environmental problems. For instance, increasing the production of food and energy has caused an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a decline in global biodiversity, the degradation of arable land and a decline in environmental conditions, at least in some parts of the world. Water shortage, climate change, the energy crisis and biodiversity loss are all mentioned by the World Economic Forum in the top ten of highest global risks in terms of impact (World Economic Forum, 2015).

Recent research has highlighted that there are important linkages between trends in human development, use of basic resources and environmental problems. Box 1 discusses the linkages between food, energy and water consumption – the so-called food – energy – water nexus.

Human development within the limits of the planetMany studies have emphasised that to attain a more sustainable development path there must be a balance between keeping resource use within the limits set by the carrying capacity of the earth system and ensuring decent living conditions for all. As to the first requirement: in some studies it has been argued that it is possible to scientifically derive ‘objective’ estimates of these limits or planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009). However, most studies emphasise that these limits are actually an outcome of risk perceptions, human valuation of ecosystem services and ongoing scientific insights, especially given the key uncertainties about the functioning of the earth system. A large set of limits has been agreed upon as part of international environmental agreements (e.g. for climate change, biodiversity, desertification). The 2015 SDGs actually include both environmental targets and human development goals. In total, the SDGs describe 17 objectives for human development, with the aim of promoting sustainable use of natural resources, mitigating environmental degradation and ensuring human development (UN, 2015b). It should be noted that the SDGs have not been derived from an overall framework but instead result from a lengthy negotiation process. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify

1 Human development within the limits of the planet


four clusters of SDGs related to: achieving human development goals (welfare and equity); sustaining efficient and sustainable use of resources (for food, energy and water); preventing environmental degradation; and ensuring good governance and providing a support infrastructure (Figure 2).

The focus of this reportThe consumption and production of food, energy and water are key to answering the question of what is needed in order to attain a more ‘sustainable development’. Clearly, sustainable development strategies need to ensure a significant change in both the energy and the agricultural systems. In this report, we examine both systems in the context of sustainable development. While the energy system plays a key role, especially in climate change, agriculture is by far the most important driver of global land-use trends, and consequently of loss of biodiversity (Sala et al., 2006). Globally, agriculture accounts for 69% of total freshwater withdrawal (FAO Aquastat). Furthermore, there are important linkages between agriculture and climate change: agriculture is not only an important source of greenhouse gas emissions (see Figure 8), but is also one of the economic sectors most sensitive to climate change. At the same time, agriculture can play a role in mitigation strategies, e.g. via production of bio-based materials and fuels. Both agriculture and climate change are connected directly and in complex ways to other key resources, notably energy and water, via production chains and also via environmental degradation.

BOX 1: FOOD – ENERGY – WATER NEXUS

Figure 1 indicates the most important connections between the consumption and production of food, energy and water and their impacts. For instance, land is required for production of energy (e.g. bio-energy). Two important uses of water are for growing food crops (the water for the latter comes directly, from precipitation, and indirectly, via irrigation) for the cooling of thermal power plants and). In turn, food production uses energy (e.g. to power machinery and to manufacture fertiliser. It is important to take these linkages into account when developing strategies for sustainable development.

Figure 1 The important connections between the sustainable development challenges related to food, energy and water (often referred to as a nexus). These relationships are further quantified in this chapter (see Figures 5 and 7).

Consumption(households)

Food

Timber/fibre

Energy

Products& services

Water

Land surface

Pasture Forestry

Crop area Nature

Renewableenergy

Bio-energy

Fossil

Energy

Industry

Animalproductsdemand

Cropdemand

Animals

Cropproduction

Climatechange

GHGemissions

Water forEnergy/Industry

Watersupply

Irrigation


In this report we explore possible developments and response strategies for the interlinked food – energy – water nexus (see Box 1). We do this in two steps. First, to assess how the interlinked food – energy – water nexus might develop, we describe possible trends, assuming a continuation of current policies (the reference or ‘business-as-usual’ scenario). This scenario forms a continuation of historical socio-economic and technology trends. It assumes no new policies are introduced to meet sustainability or climate goals. The scenario forms a benchmark against which possible alternative future developments can be evaluated. Subsequently, in Section 2 we describe a set of possible response strategies. First, we discuss possible response policies for climate change, as they may be important for strategies with respect to food and energy (Section 2.1). Next, we focus on several strategies that significantly improve the efficiency of land use and thereby improve the total food – energy – water nexus (Section 2.2). Finally, in Section 3 we draw conclusions. In our calculations we use two coupled model systems – as discussed in Appendix A.

BOX 2: MODELS TO ASSESS THE FOOD – ENERGY – WATER NEXUS

In order to study the linkages of the food-energy-water nexus, so-called Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) can be used. In this study, we used the integrated Assessment model IMAGE 3.0 (Stehfest et al., 2014), developed by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, to calculate the land-use implications of food demand, and to describe the energy and climate system. The LPJmL model, as integral part of IMAGE, provides all water-related calculations. Projections for per capita food demand were made using the Food-Demand-Model (FDM) developed by Bijl et al. (2016). Further detail on the modelling approach for this study can be found in the appendix.

1.2 SOCIO -ECONOMIC TRENDS

The global population is projected to have grown by around 2.2 billion people by 2050, attaining a level of approximately 9.5 billion (medium projection). Most of the increase will be in urban areas. In the coming decades, the demand for key resources is expected to grow proportionately, driven by the expected growth of population and economic activity.


Human development goals

Nopoverty

SDG1 SDG5 SDG10

Genderequality

ReducedInequality

Goodhealth

SDG3 SDG4 SDG8

Qualityeducation

Good jobs andeconomic growth

Efficient and sustainable resource use

Zerohunger

SDG2 SDG6 SDG7

Clean water& sanitation

Peaceand justice

SDG16

SDG17

Partnerships

Responsibleconsumption

SDG12SDG9

Innovation andinfrastructureRenewable

energy

Prevent environment degradation

Climateaction

SDG13 SDG14 SDG15

Lifebelow water

Lifeon land

Good governanceand infrastructure

Sustainable citiesand communities

SDG11

Figure 2 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be grouped into four main clusters.

There are a number of trends driving future development, including demographic and economic trends, technology, governance and political issues, and lifestyle. In the reference scenario, continued economic growth will lead to a further spread of modern, resource-intensive lifestyles worldwide. For population growth, the reference scenario follows the central projections of key demographic institutes, adding by 2050 another 2.2 billion people to the current 7 billion people (population projections for 2050 range from 8 to 10.5 billion) (KC and Lutz, 2016). The population growth is concentrated almost entirely in the current low-income countries (Figure 3). With the exception of North America, high-income regions show a decline in population. Diff erences also show up in the age distribution of populations. China and the OECD countries are projected to experience signifi cant population ageing, whereas the populations in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa are younger on average and are therefore projected to continue to grow in the coming decades. Another trend is that the world’s population is becoming increasingly urbanised. Currently, around 50% of the world’s population lives in urban areas. This is projected to have risen to nearly 70% by 2050 (UNDESA, 2012).

In the reference scenario, the growth rate of income (GDP per capita) in OECD countries is projected to be around 1.4% per year. In low-income regions, the income growth rates are assumed to be in the order of 3-5% per year due to the large potential for growth in labour and capital productivity increase, and a large unmet demand (Dellink et al., 2016). Income growth rate projections for Asia are lower than in recent history because of the assumed maturing of their economies. For Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, projections are higher than the historical rates because of their continuing high population growth and their potential to catch up with higher-income economies.


History History History History History History Future Future Future Future Future Future

0

1

2

3

4

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Popu

latio

n (b

illio

ns)

History History History Future Future Future

0

10

20

30

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050G

DP

per

capi

ta (x

1000

PPP

200

5 $)

RegionAsiaLatin AmericaMiddle East and Africa

OECDReforming Economies

Figure 3 Population and income are expected to grow further in all parts of the world (ppp = purchasing power parity). Source: SSP2 baseline scenario: fi gures from KC and Lutz (2016) and Dellink et al. (2016).

1.3 INCREASING DEMAND FOR NATUR AL RESOURCES

In the reference scenario there is further growth in per capita use of food, energy and water resources.Historically, there has been a strong correlation between income levels and consumption of key resources. For instance, both total food demand and the proportion of animal products in diets have been shown to be strongly related to income. In Figure 4, we show the development of per capita consumption for food, energy and water in the five different regions in the reference scenario as a function of income.

As shown in Figure 4, there is a clear relationship between per capita food intake and income. At higher income levels especially demand for animal products (animal protein), sugar and oil products continue to grow. Above a per capita income of 10,000 US$/yr, the increase in food intake starts to level off in historical data. Consistently, OECD per capita consumption is expected to grow only modestly in the future. In contrast, per capita consumption is projected to grow rapidly in-low income regions. Average consumption levels below 2000 kcal per capita per day are often associated with incidence of hunger. For hunger, issues surrounding food distribution often play a key role: whereas in most regions, the average consumption level lies well above 2000 kcal per capita per day, higher incidences of hunger are common in low-income countries as a result of an unequal distribution. It is expected that in the coming decades, increasing income levels will be able to contribute to a reduction of hunger in the world. However, it is not expected that this will lead to hunger being eradicated (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; van Vuuren et al., 2015). Feeding every person will thus require a more targeted approach

Food – Sustainable Development Goal 2:‘End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture’


2000

2500

3000

0 10000 20000 30000

GDP per capita (PPP 2005$)

Food

Inta

ke (k

cal /

cap

ita /

day)

Min. Req. (WGBU)

50

100

150

200

0 10000 20000 30000


Prim

ary

Ener

gy U

se (G

J / c

apita

/ yr

)

200

400

600

0 10000 20000 30000


Non

−irr

igat

ion

With

draw

al (m

3 / c

apita

/ yr

)

RegionAsia OECDLatin America Reforming economiesMiddle Eastand Africa

Global average

EraHistory: 1971-2015Future: 2015-2050

East Africa Min. Req. (FAO 2007)

USA Min. Req. (FAO 2007)

Female Avg. Recomm. (UK NHS)

Male Avg. Recomm. (UK NHS)

Figure 4 Global per capita consumption of food, energy and water increases concomitantly with income growth; regional trends can be different. Projections are indicated by the dashed line. Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations.

that includes but extends beyond raising incomes. In addition to issues related to having not enough and insufficiently diverse food, there are also risks associated with eating too much food (obesity) and with low-quality food. There are also other problems related to imbalanced diets: for instance, in developed countries, comparing consumption with the recommendations for healthy diets reveals that there is overconsumption of red meat (e.g. beef and pork), sugar and saturated fats (Willett, 2005). The combination of population growth and dietary change is expected to lead to food and feed production (dry matter) increasing by around 55% between 2015 and 2050 (Figure 5). This is consistent the range found by several other studies that have investigated the expected increase (see Table 1): 47-64%. Although such an increase is not faster than the historical increase, at the same time further expansion of production will increase the pressure on natural resources such as land, the nitrogen cycle and water use. It is important to note that most of the increase occurs in the present-day low-income regions (see Table 1). Moreover, a considerable part of this growth in food production and consumption is an increase in feed for livestock. This is why a transition to low animal protein diets can be very attractive in terms of reducing land use and greenhouse gas emissions (see also Figure 7 and Section 2.2).

Energy – Sustainable Development Goal 7:‘Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all’

The reference scenario also projects a worldwide increase in per capita energy consumption, as shown in Figure 5. Again, most of the increase in energy consumption takes place in the present-day low-income regions. In the last few decades, per capita energy consumption in high-income countries has changed little, mostly due to increasing efficiency – which is projected to continue into the future. In many low-income countries, per capita energy use is increasing strongly, with the largest increases in oil (for transport) and electricity use. In the case of developing countries, this partly reflects the provision of modern energy carriers to the poor, but similar scenarios indicate that unless additional specific policies are introduced, by 2050 a large number of people will still have no access to modern energy, partly due to high energy costs. Total energy use is expected to increase by 50% in the 2015-2050 period, which is somewhat on the low side of most reference scenario projections in the literature which show a typical range of 50-85% growth over the 2015-2050 period (Table 1). In terms of energy supply, fossil fuels are expected to retain a large market share, as their price in many markets is expected to stay below that of alternative fuels, and also as a result of inertia in energy systems.

Water – Sustainable Development Goal 6:‘Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’


Table 1 Increase in energy, food and water consumption (2015-2050)

FDM and IMAGE calculation Other models

Developedcountries

Developing countries World World

Food Use 15% 29% 26%

47-64%Food + Feed Use 45% 57% 54%

Energy 1% 78% 50% 50-85%

Water -26% 20% 10% 10-45%

Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations. Results for other models are based on the AgMIP projections for food (Valin et al., 2014), the 10-90th percentile range for reference scenarios included in the IPCC database for energy (Krey et al., 2014), and the overview presented in GEO5 (Ozkaynak et al., 2012).

Finally, globally demand for water (i.e. for irrigation to support agricultural production, and water withdrawal for energy production, industry and domestic use) is also expected to grow s. Again, we have plotted both the increase in per capita water withdrawal (Figure 4) and the total water withdrawal (Figure 5). Most water is used for agricultural production. In the absence of new policies, growth is expected to be fastest outside agriculture especially in low-income countries and will be for water use at the level of individual consumers and industries (see Figure 5). The demand for water for cooling thermal power plants could also increase, but it is expected that increasing effi ciency of water use will outrun demand. On a per capita basis, water use outside irrigation has historically been falling in OECD countries. As this trend is expected to continue, water demand is growing only modest compared to food and energy. Other reference scenarios in the literature typically include either a faster growth in irrigation water use or energy and industry water use being typically less optimistic on effi ciency improvement.


History History History History Future Future

0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Con

sum

ptio

n (m

illio

n M

ton

dry

mat

ter

/ yr)

History History History History Future Future Future

0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Con

sum

ptio

n (m

illio

n M

ton

dry

mat

ter

/ yr)

History History History Future FutureHistory FutureHistory

0

200

400

600

800

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Prim

ary

Ener

gy C

onsu

mpt

ion

(EJ

/ yr)

History History History Future FutureHistory FutureHistory

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Wat

er W

ithdr

awal

(km

3 / y

r)

UsesFeed Food Other

ProductsGrass Roots, pulses and oilcrops Cereals Other

Water withdrawelElectricity MunicipalIndustry Agriculture

Energy carrierHydropower Modern energySolar/wind Natural gasNuclear OilTrad. biofuels Coal

Figure 5 In the reference scenario, consumption of food, energy and water continues to increase. Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations.

Increasing consumption means increasing scarcity of land, water and energy resources.The expected growing demand for food, water and energy will lead to increasing scarcity of the resources needed to assure their supply. In recent decades, most (80%) of the increase in food production has been achieved thanks to increases in crop yield; the expansion of agriculture accounted for the remaining 20% (Smith et al., 2010; Van Vuuren et al., 2008). In the reference scenario, this trend is expected to continue. There still is ample room for yield increase in many parts of the world where yields are currently far below attainable levels. However, in areas that already have relatively high agricultural yields (e.g. OECD countries) it may become more diffi cult to increase yields further, as here yields sometimes approach the maximum attainable. All in all, this means that although agricultural yields are expected to improve, in the reference scenario agricultural area is still expected to increase between 2010 and 2050 by more than 10% (leading to further loss of biodiversity: Figure 6). Similar scenarios in literature typically show an increase in agricultural land, although the reference scenario shown here is on the higher end (consistent with relatively high consumption increase). The calculations here uses the ‘middle-of-the-road’ assumptions on changes in agriculture system parameters as defi ned by the IMAGE model, with exception of a slightly faster progress in grazing intensity (see Appendix A). Note that land use per capita will continue to decrease up to 2050, which also illustrates the need for further intensifi cation.

The production of energy is intensely connected to several environmental problems, including climate change and air pollution, as will be discussed below. For water, it is expected that population growth and an increasing per capita water consumption will lead to a major increase in the proportion of people living in water-scarce areas at the global scale: it might even double, from around 2 billion people to 3.7 billion people. The use of bio-energy is projected to increase driven by increases in oil prices (but remainsl modest). The bio-energy contributes to further land (Figure 6).

Important connections exist between the consumption and production of food, water and energy resources. Improved resource effi ciency can help to reduce environmental degradation.There are very important linkages between the use of key resources and global environmental problems (Box 1 and Figure 1). In Figure 7 we have drawn the fl ows of food, energy and water in mass and energy, as estimated for the reference year 2015 and projected in the reference scenario for the year 2050. The line widths are proportional to the magnitude of the fl ows. The graphs, known as Sankey diagrams, illustrate the complex conversion pathways and interdependencies, and give an interesting perspective


History History History History Future Future Future FutureHistory FutureHistory History FutureHistory

0

20

40

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Land

-use

(mill

ion

km2 )

History History History History Future Future FutureHistory FutureHistory History FutureHistory

0

1

2

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Agr

icul

tura

l Lan

d-us

e (h

a / c

ap)


Global average

Land-useExt. grassland Rainfed cropsInt. grassland Irrigated cropsBioenergy

Figure 6 Land use is projected to increase, leading to further loss of biodiversity. Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations.


Figure 7 Sankey diagrams showing the main flows of food , energy and water in mass and energy as estimated for 2015 and 2050 (reference scenario). The line widths are proportional to the magnitude of the flows. Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations. Note that end-use energy inefficiencies are illustrative (see text).

Pulses, roots, etc

Power

Primary production Conversion Final consumption Primary production Conversion Final consumption

Foodavailability

LandCrops

Grass

Cereals

Maize

Rice

Oilcrops

Residues

Other use

Food

Feed

Scavenging

Bio energyRecycling

Beef

Waste andrespiration

Milk

Pork

Mutton/Goat

Poultry/eggs

Foodavailability

LandCrops

Grass

Cereals

Maize

Rice

Oilcrops

Residues

Other use

Food

Feed

Scavenging

Bio energyRecycling

Beef


Milk

Pork

Mutton/Goat

Poultry/eggs

Foo

d (

kg d

m)

2015 2050

Primary Conversion Final Useful

Nuclear

Hydro

Biomass

Gas

Oil

CoalPower

Solids

Liquids

Conversionlosses

Gases

Agriculture

Municipal

Transport

Industry

Feedstock

Power stationlosses

End-useinefficiencies

Power


Geo+Solar+Wind

Geo+Solar+Wind

Nuclear

Hydro

Biomass

Gas

Oil

CoalPower

Solids

Liquids

Conversionlosses

Gases

Agriculture

Municipal

Transport

Industry

Feedstock

Power stationlosses


Precipitation

Rainfedagriculture

Irrigatedagriculture

Non-agriculturalland

Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration

Blue water

Irrigation

Powerproduction

Industry

Municipal

Dischargeto ocean

Precipitation

Rainfedagriculture

Irrigatedagriculture

Non-agriculturalland

Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration

Blue water

Irrigation

Powerproduction

Industry

Municipal

Dischargeto ocean

Wat

er (

km3 )

Ener

gy

(J)

on the options available for improving resource use. For food, they show how the biomass taken from the land is mostly converted into food products; for energy, they show how the primary energy carriers (fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear) are converted into electricity and final use carriers, and finally into end-use services in buildings, industry and transport. The graphs also show the various conversion processes in between these two extremes. In addition, the vertical lines indicate resources that are not converted into end-products. In some cases, this includes sources that are used for other functions – but it also includes various waste categories (although in many cases these cannot be defined unambiguously). The graphs nevertheless provide insight into the overall efficiency of the system. Figure 8 also depicts the associated greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2 equivalent units). Although here the lines do not represent physical flows from resource to end use, they do show how different classifications of greenhouse gas emissions are connected to food and energy flows.

For food, the Sankey graph clearly shows how in terms of dry matter, most supply flows are related to the animal production sector (as feed). Only relatively small amounts from these flows are finally available for final consumption (in terms of dry matter); a much larger amount leaves the system or is recycled. Important processes involving waste flows occur in the production of food crops and ‘residues’ left on the field, the transformation of feed into animal products and the post-harvest waste losses. Although the vertical lines in the Sankey diagram indicate that not all mass/energy is converted into a final product, it is important to realise that these flows are not just losses. An important proportion of the residues is used for different purposes, for example, to prevent soil degradation) (Daioglou et al., 2015). Also, some of the loss from animal production is reused as manure. In Chapter 2 we will use this information when discussing options to improve the chain efficiency (e.g. dietary change and preventing post-harvest losses).

For energy, the Sankey diagram shows the conversion of primary energy sources into useful energy (or energy services). The Sankey diagram emphasises the important role of the thermal electricity system. It should be noted, however, that electricity can often be used more efficiently at the point of end use. Important losses in the system occur during electricity production, and during end use. Precise definitions are somewhat difficult here (due fuzzy system boundaries), but nevertheless, different studies have consistently indicated that major efficiency gains can be made (GEA, 2012).

For water, the flows are more complicated because natural and anthropogenic flows are more inter-twined (e.g. the use of precipitation by agricultural crops). The Sankey diagrams also show important connections between the different resource flows. For instance, the bio-energy flow in the energy system translates into land use in the food system. Both energy and agriculture are clearly visible in the water Sankey.

Finally, we also plotted the GHG emissions. On the left-hand side we show total emissions based on the different sectors in terms of CO2 equivalents, indicating their relative contribution to long-term climate change. On the right-hand side, the same emissions are shown, broken down by type of gas. Overall, this graph shows how emissions are dominated by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The left-hand side, however, shows that in terms of underlying sources, almost equal contributions to climate change are made by agriculture, industry and emissions from buildings (including transport). The CO2 emissions from land-use change are mostly driven by land clearing for agricultural use; other factors, such as additional land use for urbanisation, are much less important.

1.4 L INK AGES BET WEEN FOOD PRODUC TION, ENERGY USE AND CL IMATE CHANGE

Agricultural production is strongly linked to climate change: it forms a source of greenhouse gas emissions, but can also be heavily impacted by climate change.Both energy use and land use will lead to increasing GHG emissions. For the 2010-2050 period, GHG emissions are projected to increase by about 60%. Although most of this increase will take place in low-


income countries, per capita emissions remain highest in the OECD countries. In terms of absolute emissions, by 2050 less than 25% of emissions will originate from OECD countries. As a result of the global increase in emissions, by 2100, average global temperature is expected to have risen to around 4 °C above pre-industrial levels and will probably pass the 2°C target even before 2050, unless new, stringent policies are introduced (see also Chapter 2).

Sustainable Development Goal 3:‘Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’

In terms of the diff erent emission sources, Figure 8 and 9 show that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are expected to grow fastest in terms of absolute emissions. The emissions from land-use change are expected to remain more or less constant. The non-CO2 emissions emissions from agriculture


Figure 8 Greenhouse gas emissions per category. Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations.

Sector Process Greenhouse gas

Powerproduction

Energycombusion

Land-usechange

Agriculturalproduction

Processemissions

Waste treatment

Agriculture

Industry

Municipaly

CO2

CH4

N2O

Othergasses


Powerproduction

Energycombusion

Land-usechange


Processemissions

Waste treatment

Agriculture

Industry

Municipaly

GH

G (

CO

2 eq

uiv

.)

2015 2050

CO2

CH4

N2O

Othergasses

0

20

40

60

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Emis

sion

s (G

tCO

2−eq

uiva

lent

/ yr

)

0

20

40

60

60

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Emis

sion

s (G

tCO

2−eq

uiva

lent

/ yr

)


SectorEnergy AgricultureProcess WasteLand-use change

History History History History History Future FutureHistory FutureHistory History History Future FutureHistory FutureHistory

Figure 9 Energy combustion is the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions, but agriculture and land-use change are also important sources. Emissions are uncertain – and moreover, defi nitions of the sectors diff er across diff erent studies. In this report, the waste sector includes landfi lls and wastewater management. Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations.

and from industrial processes are expected to grow slowly over time. In total, agriculture contributes to around 25% of emissions (non-CO2 and land-use change). The emissions of food production, including also fertiliser and food processing are higher and could amount to around one-third of global emissions.As a result of the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, the reference scenario is expected to lead to significant climate change. The reference projection predicts a global warming of about 4oC by the end of the century – with a range of 2.5oC to 6oC, as a result of uncertainties in the climate system. The so-called 2oC threshold would already be surpassed by the middle of the century. Figure 10 shows the simulated rise in temperature across the globe for 2100, according to the IMAGE model calculations. But such detailed patterns of climate change variables are still uncertain. In many places, the expected warming would exceed the global mean temperature increase (which is defined as the increase in temperature above land and oceans).

Using projected changes in temperature, the IPCC has assessed the impacts associated with climate change (Field et al., 2014). For agriculture, climate change is expected to pose significant risks by changing the seasonal rainfall patterns, increasing the peak temperatures and frequency and severity of droughts, increasing the risks of catastrophic events (storms) and disrupting ecosystem services to agriculture. Projected impacts vary across crops and regions, and for different adaptation scenarios. In general, tropical regions are expected to experience more severe negative impacts than temperate regions – and to do so already at lower levels of warming (in the historical period, stronger impacts in temperate regions have been report according to IPCC). If adaption to climate change is implemented, yields can also increase particularly in temperate regions, via the combined effect of climate change and CO2 fertilisation. According to the IPCC assessment, after 2050 there is a greater risk of more severe impacts. The combination of the growing demand for food and a temperature rise in the high end of the projections implies large risks to food security globally and regionally. This means that in the coming decades agriculture needs to become climate smart, i.e. must adapt to climate change.


Figure 10 Global average and global spatial increase in temperature from 1970 to 2100. The expected changes in precipitation between 2010 and 2050 will result in some regions becoming drier (red) and others becoming wetter (blue). Source: IMAGE model calculations.

0

1

2

3

6

4

5

1980 2020 2060 2100

References scenarioUncertainty margins from literature

Tem

pera

ture

incr

ease

com

pare

d to

pre

-indu

stria

l (˚C

)

Temperature change 2010-2050 (˚C)

3.02.52.01.51.00.5

Precipitation change 2010-2050 (mm/yr)

10050 7525-100 0-50-75 -25

In summary, there are several important relationships between agriculture and climate change:

• Agriculture is a key source of GHG emissions. The reference scenarios predict that the contribution of agriculture to the total GHG emissions will decrease somewhat in the future, but the emissions from this sector will remain important and play a major role in mitigation strategies. Agricultural emissions are around 25% of total GHG emissions, see Figures 8 and 9, and the total emissions for food production (including processing and transport) are even around one-third of total emissions.

• Second, agriculture, especially in tropical regions, could be severely impacted by climate change.

• Finally, agriculture can play an important part in solution strategies (see Chapter 2).

1.5 SUMMARY: ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL’ IS NOT AT TR AC TIVE

Based on the description of the reference or ‘business-as-usual’ scenario in the previous paragraphs, the conclusion must be that such a future scenario does not meet the SDGs.

• The production of food, energy and water will further increase (by about 55% for food, 50% for energy and 10% for water).

• The increase in production will lead to further degradation of resources and environmental


References scenarioUncertainty margins from literature

% c

hang

e in

mea

n yi

eld

/ dec

ade

-6

6

-2

2

14

0

-4

4

8

Historicaltrends

n = 56

n = 186

n = 251

n = 186

n = 251

Noadaptation

Withadaptation

Historical Projected Global demand rising-14%/decade to 2050 (FAO)

All regions

n = 132 n = 293n = 132 n = 293

Noadaptation

Withadaptation

Tropical regions Temperate regions

90th percentile75th percentile

Median25th percentile10th percentile

Figure 11 Box plot summary of data from studies that quantify impact of climate and CO2 changes on crop yields, including historical and projected impacts, mean and range of yields changes, for crops in temperate and tropical regions. (source (Field et al., 2014)). All impacts are expressed as average impact per decade (a 10% total impact from a 50-year period of climate change would be represented as 2% per decade). The underlying studies use very different methods and may include the impact of extreme events or only focus on changes in average climate.

pressure. For instance, agricultural land is projected to increase by more 10%, leading to loss of biodiversity; energy and land use is expected to lead to an increase of the global mean temperature of about 4oC by the end of century.

• At the same time, even by 2050 significant part of the global population would still be suffering from hunger, not have access to modern energy, or be living in water-scarce areas (despite corresponding goals as part of the recently adopted SDGs).

• There are important linkages between food, energy and water consumption and production. For instance, both food production and energy production contribute to further growth of water consumption. Food production and energy production also contribute to climate change and are responsible for about 30% and 70% of global emissions.

• Climate change can lead to reduction of yields; central estimates are around 1% per decade, but uncertainty ranges are large.

• Because the production and consumption chains of food, energy and water are tightly coupled, solutions need to be looked at from an integrative perspective.

Based on these observations, several key challenges for humanity can be derived for the period up to 2050 (Box 3). They basically imply that in order to slow down and reverse environmental degradation and to sustain healthy livelihoods, it will be necessary for consumption and production patterns worldwide to be realigned with a sustainable use of resources. Agriculture plays an important role in this, as will be discussed further in the next chapter.

BOX 3: KEY CHALLENGES FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE L IMITS OF THE PL ANET

1. Increasing energy efficiency, decarbonising the energy system and reducing other GHG emissions, in order to limit climate change while still providing everyone with access to modern energy.

2. Increasing world food production significantly to feed a world of 9 billion people in 2050, without creating additional pressures for biodiversity.

3. Ensuring well-managed water systems and water consumption, in order to prevent water scarcity.

4. In general, increasing resource efficiency while taking care of the linkages between the various supply chains and ensuring everyone has access to food, modern energy and sufficient water.


2 Options for change

There are clear opportunities to respond to the challenges formulated in Section 1.5. In this chapter, we first focus on the challenge to significantly decarbonise the energy system in order to achieve the climate goals agreed to in 2015 in the Paris Agreement. Subsequently, we focus on the second challenge and discuss how increasing efficiency could contribute to providing sufficient food for all while maintaining the world’s biodiversity. In the Section 3, we discuss the overall implications of our findings.

2 .1 RESPONSE TO CL IMATE CHANGE

Global CO2 emissions in the 21st century need to be constrained to 1000 GtCO2 or less to meet the 2°C target.The Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment of IPCC shows how global mean temperature, climate impacts and cumulative emissions of CO2 are linked (Figure 12) (IPCC, 2014). Figure 12 is based on two key findings. First, the correlation of risks associated with climate change and global mean temperature (left-hand panel). Second, the strong relationship found by IPCC between the long-term climate


Figure 12 The relationship between climate impacts, global mean temperature and cumulative CO2 emissions. Source: IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report, (IPCC, 2014).

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissionsfrom 1870 (Gt CO2)

Additional risk due to climate changeVery highHigh

ModerateUndetectable

Temperature change relative to pre-industrialTemperature change relative to pre-industrial

0

1

2

3

4

5˚C

0

1

2

3

4

5˚C

Risks from climate change Relationship CO2 / temperature

RCP 8.5

RCP 6.0

RCP 4.5

RCP 2.6

2010

2000

2˚C target

HistoryIndication of uncertaintyThe spread of past and future projectionsfrom a hierarchy of climate carbon cyclemodels (fades with the increasing numberof available models

Unique andthreatened

systems

Distributionof impacts

Extremeweather events

Globalaggregateimpacts

Large-scalesingularevents

implications of different scenarios and their cumulative CO2 emissions, referred to as ‘carbon budget’ (right-hand panel) (see also Friedlingstein et al., 2014). Based on, among other things, the information in the IPCC report, countries worldwide agreed in 2015 to aim to limit the global mean temperature increase to ‘well below 2.0°C’ and ‘to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’(UN, 2015a).

Without climate policy, the projected GHG emissions might lead to a global warming of 4oC (see Chapter 1). The right-hand side panel of Figure 12 can be used to translate the 2oC target into the maximum amount of CO2 emissions that may be emitted to ensure that this target is met. The relationship between temperature and the cumulative CO2 emissions is beset with uncertainty arising from unknown relationships in the physical climate system (explicitly shown as the coloured area in Figure 12), the emissions of non-CO2 GHG and the timing of climate policy. Taking account of these uncertainties, a 66% probability of staying below the 2 °C target corresponds to the cumulative emissions between 2010-2100 being less than 600-1200 GtCO2 (Rogelj et al., 2016).

Strategies to meet the 2°C target require the use of many reduction optionsFigure 13 shows the causal chain of climate change, going from emissions to concentrations, climate and final impacts. The figure shows the various leverage points in the system which can be used to respond to climate change. At the most aggregate level, there are four main categories of response: reducing GHG emissions (mitigation), carbon dioxide removal or negative emissions, geo-engineering (solar radiation management, such as deliberate emissions of aerosols) and limiting climate impacts through adaptation measures. With regard to mitigation, Figure 13 also shows that it is possible to achieve reductions in emissions in both the energy system and the agricultural production system. In the rest of this section we focus on these options.

Short-term reductions in emissions depend on the potential for ‘negative emissions’How to stay within the 1000 GtCO2 budget depends on, among other things, whether it is possible to


Climate change casuality, targets and measures

Casuality

Uncertainty

Targets

Measures

Emissions Impacts

Emissionreduction

Concentrations

Carbon dioxideremoval (CDR) Adaptation

40-70%reduction by 2050

< 430-480 ppmCO2 eq

Climate

Solar radiationmanagement

(SRM)

2˚C target Non-dangerousclimate change

Climatesensetivity

Carbon cyclefeedback

Atm. chemistry

Pattern ofclimate change

Adaptive capacity

Energy-related emissions

Activities Economic structureGrowth reduction

Energy demand EfficiencyLifestyle change

Energy supply Decarbonisation

Capture Carbon captureand storage

Agricultural emissions

Food demand Lifestyle change


Alternativeagricultural practices

Figure 13 Options to reduce GHG emissions in response to climate change.

create net ‘negative CO2 emissions’ i.e. to deliberately remove CO2 from the atmosphere. If net negative emissions are not implemented, global emissions need to be reduced to around zero emissions shortly after 2050 in order to keep within this budget. As the lifetime of many of the energy technologies is about 40 to 50 years, this implies that a large proportion of newly installed power plants, factories and buildings worldwide will have to become CO2-neutral in the next 5 to 10 years. Clearly, to achieve this, the current policies of countries worldwide would need to be strengthened urgently. Scenarios with negative emissions options also require a rapid transition, but not as fast: these scenarios typically predict global emissions reductions of around 50% by 2050 and negative emissions from 2070 onwards. The options that seem to be most promising for achieving negative emissions are large-scale reforestation and the combination of bio-energy combustion plus carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The potential for these options, however, is not unlimited: estimates of the potential emission reduction by use of negative emission reduction options typically vary between 0-10 GtCO2 per year (Smith et al., 2016; van Vuuren et al., 2013). Constraints include the use of land and water and the CO2 storage potential, and the possible trade-off s with food security and biodiversity. In the scenario presented here, net negative emissions are included.

Decarbonising the energy system while ensuring energy access for allIn the energy systems, emissions can be reduced by changing economic activity, improving energy effi ciency and making changes in energy supply, including the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) (Figure 14). Figure 14 shows a recently developed IMAGE scenario consistent with this target, illustrative for other ‘default’ 2oC scenarios in the literature. A reduction of 35% in primary reduction is achieved vis-à-vis the reference scenario (including the effi ciency gains in power generation obtained by the substitution of wind and solar power for fossil-fuel based power plants). The reference scenario (see previous Section 2) itself already includes an energy effi ciency improvement, so it can be seen that strenuous eff orts will have to be made to implement energy effi ciency technologies and measures. To satisfy the resulting demand for primary energy, the contribution of low-carbon energy technologies would need to increase from only 30 EJ today to around 200 EJ/yr by 2030 (around 30-40% of primary energy use) and to 300-500 EJ/yr by 2050 (around 60-70% of primary energy use). Clearly, achieving a 2oC scenario will be challenging. For most options, there are serious constraints, and there are trade-off s and synergies with other societal goals. For several renewable energy options (solar and wind power),


0

200

400

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Prim

ary

Ener

gy C

onsu

mpt

ion

(EJ

/ yr)

0

10

20

30

40

50

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Emis

sion

s (G

tCO

2−eq

uiva

lent

/ yr

)

RegionAsia OECDLatin America Reforming

economiesMiddle Eastand Africa

Energy carrierHydropower Natural gasSolar/wind Light oilNuclear OilTrad. biofuelsModern energy

Coal

History History History History Future Future Future FutureHistory FutureHistory History FutureHistory History FutureHistory History History History History Future Future Future Future FutureHistory FutureHistory History FutureHistory History FutureHistory

Figure 14 An illustration of scenario consistent with attaining the 2°C target, showing the consequences of the energy system and sectoral emissions. Source: IMAGE calculations.

supply is intermittent and these options therefore need to be integrated into the energy system in a way that ensures reliable electricity supply. For CCS (whether related to fossil fuels or to bio-energy), the feasibility of large-scale application is still uncertain. The same holds for bio-energy, given the possible trade-offs with food production and biodiversity protection. The estimated costs for achieving the 2oC target vary across the different studies, ranging from 2-6% of GDP in 2050, with a median estimate slightly above 3% (these estimates do not account of the avoided climate damage, which are too uncertain to quantify) (Clarke et al., 2014).

Changing the agricultural system will also need to be an important component of climate change mitigationGHG emission from agriculture mainly falls into two categories: a) methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) resulting directly from agricultural production, and b) carbon dioxide (CO2) from land-use change – mostly driven by land-use trends for agriculture (Figure 9). Other, smaller categories include the CO2 emissions from fuel consumption for farm equipment, storage, etc., and the process emissions from manufacture of agricultural chemicals. The literature shows that a wide range of options is available for reducing non-CO2 emissions from agriculture by around 30-40%, sometimes even at limited costs; the options include measures such as making changes to animal feed, applying fertiliser more efficiently and capturing CH4 from livestock sheds (Herrero et al., 2016; Lucas et al., 2007). Further reduction would probably require changes in consumption and production patterns. One such change could be a shift from animal protein to plant-based protein. The emissions from land-use change can be reduced by policies that specifically reduce deforestation. Several of the measures addressing biodiversity and hunger concerns that are discussed in the next section are synergistic with the climate policy oriented measures discussed here (e.g. a dietary change towards less animal-intensive consumption and waste reduction will lead to synergy, whereas bio-energy and reforestation involve trade-offs); given the issues at stake, it will be crucial to find the right balance (Smith et al., 2013).

Agriculture also plays a role in land-based GHG mitigation options such as reforestation, biomass production for bio-energy and materials, and to some extent also in solar and wind farms. Scenario analysis shows that it will be very hard to reach ambitious climate targets without bio-energy: biomass is expected to be an important feedstock for biomaterials and for bio-energy in sectors that are difficult to decarbonise otherwise, such as various transport modes. It can also play an important role in combination with CCS to achieve negative emissions, as previously discussed. The area of land needed for bio-energy production and the associated impacts depend critically on the type of bio-energy, the yields of bio-energy production and the efficiency of the agricultural system in general. In general, the use of residues and the production of cellulosic ethanol are found to result in less impacts than several biofuels used today (although some 1st generation crops can also lead to low emission factors per hectare) (Gibbs et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2014). Given the abovementioned uncertainties, land-use estimates for bio-energy in the literature vary widely, ranging from very small to at least half the current area under crops (Smith et al., 2014). The higher-end estimates would almost certainly lead to trade-offs with other goals such as food security and biodiversity protection. In the scenario presented here, bio-energy uses around 100 EJ from residues, grass and woody crops as input for second generation biofuels, for power supply; additionally in some tropical regions sugar cane continues to be an input for ethanol production. It is possible to limit the impact of bio-energy on food security and biodiversity by focusing application on specific sectors, by implementing measures to prevent indirect impacts and by using mostly residues and high-yielding crops as input, as done in the IMAGE scenarios presented here. Even so, it will still be important to monitor the impacts of ambitious policies promoting the use of bio-energy.

2 .2 SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS

The overarching goal for world food systems in the coming decades is to eradicate hunger and to achieve stable and sufficient food production by 2050, while conserving biodiversity and ecosystems and contributing to international climate policy. As indicated in the previous chapter, these ‘sustainable food’


goals are to be achieved against a backdrop of an increasing demand for food, feed, biomaterials and fuel, which to be satisfied requires crop and grass production to increase by 55% in about 35 years. In order to achieve this, integrated land-use policies are needed that find the right balance between increasing yields (but constraining associated environmental impacts), limited increase in demand (to be achieved by increasing efficiency – see below) and spatial planning policies.

There are several options that could contribute to achieving the overall objective of ensuring sufficient food supply by 2050, while ensuring the protection of biodiversity and limiting the environmental impacts of agriculture. Figure 15 outlines the causal chain between demand for agricultural goods and its possible impacts. It also indicates several measures that can be taken to achieve the overall sustainability objectives and avoid the development described for the reference scenario (see also Foley et al., 2011). In the discussion here, we concentrate on four options:

1. Promote alternative protein sources for diets and reduce the proportion of animal protein in diets;

2. Invest in agriculture to increase yields (food, feed and grass) and animal feed efficiency;3. Reduce food waste in households and during storage and distribution;4. Make better use of municipal and industrial organic waste flows.

BOX 4: ENDING HUNGER DOES NOT REPRESENT A TR ADE- OFF WITH PRESERVING B IODIVERSIT Y

As a consequence of population growth and dietary changes the agricultural system could be confronted with increase in demand around 55% up to 2050 (Chapter 1). Compared to this, the amount of additional food required to eradicate hunger worldwide is only small: it has been estimated that in order to produce sufficient food to avoid hunger, without any redistribution, the necessary increase in agricultural production would only be around 5% (van Vuuren et al., 2015). Thus, giving everyone full access to food need not per se represent a serious trade-off with the conservation of habitats and biodiversity.

Protect biodiversity and ecosystems

Bio-energydemand

Limit climate change

Fooddemand

Eradicate hunger


Waterdemand

Reduce water stress

Casuality

Goals

MeasuresManage

bio-energydemand

Increaseaccessto food

Reducepost-harvest

losses

Reduce otherimpacts of

agriculture onecosystems

Reduce negativeimpacts of

agriculture onecosystems

Protectimportantecosystems

Ecosystems

Protectedarea

Agriculturalarea

Dietary changeand waste reduction

Increase agriculturalyields and efficiency

Other pressures of biodiversity loss(e.g. infrastructure, forestry and climate change)


Figure 15 Options for changes to the agricultural production sector in order to provide sufficient food, while preserving biodiversity.

Promote alternative protein sources and reduce the proportion of animal protein in dietsReducing the proportion of animal protein in the overall diet can be an important way to conserve land for biodiversity and reduce GHG emissions from land use and land cover changes (Alexander et al., 2015; Foley et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2013; Tilman and Clarke, 2014). As shown in Figure 7, in fact the most important inefficiency in food production is associated with animal products, implying that reducing the consumption of these products can greatly increase the overall efficiency of the system. One possibility is widespread adoption of fully or partly vegetarian lifestyles (Stehfest et al., 2009). In Western societies, adherence to such diets has grown, motivated by environmental, ethical and health reasons. However, it is not clear whether such diets would ever become mainstream, especially in a global context. An alternative route is to produce high quality meat substitutes. These could be based on protein-rich crops such as soybean and pulses, or on more experimental sources such as seaweed or algae. Fish from aquaculture could also be part of this solution if the feed efficiency is high enough and pollution concerns are addressed. In the calculations shown here (Figure 16), we assume that meat consumption does not disappear, but that by 2050, meat consumption in all regions would by at a ‘healthy’ level (Willett diet) (we assumed a weekly per capita consumption of 70g beef, 70 g pork and 350 g of chicken and eggs). The dietary shift results in a significant reduction of crop production and associated land use. Figure 16 also shows that dietary shift would not only have a significant impact on reducing land use, it would also reduce global water use and lead to an almost 20% reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. The strong impact on greenhouse gas emissions is a result of reduced land use, resulting in a reduction of CO2 emissions from land-use change and of non-CO2 emissions related to agriculture.


Figure 16 Showing the impact on consumption, land use, water withdrawal and greenhouse gas emissions of reducing meat consumption, increasing yield and feed efficiency, and reducing food waste.

Consumption (million Mton dry matter / yr)0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

20102050

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

20102050

0 20 40

20102050

Land Use (million km2)

0 20 40 60

20102050

80

Reference Scenario

Reference Scenario

Promote Alternative Proteins

Increase Yields & Feed Eff.

Reduce Food Waste

Reference Scenario

Reference Scenario



Reduce Food Waste

Reference Scenario

Reference Scenario



Reduce Food Waste

Reference Scenario

Reference Scenario



Reduce Food Waste

Water Withdrawal (km3/yr) Emissions (GtCO2−equivalent / yr)

ProductsGrassCereals

Roots, pulses and oilcrops Other


Land useExt. grassland Rainfed cropsInt. grassland Irrigated cropsBio energy


Increase yields and feed efficiencyIn the reference scenario yields have already been assumed to increase. Nevertheless, an additional improvement of yields could significantly reduce total land use. There are ample studies that show that it is possible to increase yields further, especially by reducing the so-called yield gap in developing countries (Foley et al., 2011; Mueller et al., 2012; Neumann et al., 2010; Rosegrant et al., 2009) or by further use, globally, of new technologies such as ICT and big data applications. The ‘yield gap’ refers to the difference between actual yields and the maximum potential yield that is determined by fundamental characteristics of leaf photosynthesis and respiration, crop canopy development, and the partitioning of newly formed biomass between plant roots, leaves, stems and seed. Although yields in developed countries can also be improved further, the gap is typically larger in developing countries, as a result of lack of technology and possible improvements in agricultural management. Trends in regions with technologically advanced agriculture suggest that, as a rule of thumb, commercial farm yields tend to converge to a level of about 80% of potential yields (Lobell et al., 2009). This can be done in ways that do not necessarily lead to major environmental damage through ‘sustainable intensification’, which entails, among other things, better nutrient and water management (Mueller et al., 2012). Using an illustrative calculation, here we explore the impact of a 15% improvement compared to the reference scenario, based on earlier assessments made as part of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Rosegrant et al., 2009) (the 15% is within the estimates on yield gaps). Not only yields but also animal feed efficiencies could be improved. In the calculation, the amounts and types of feed needed per animal product develop along the lines of a scenario, which is characterised by faster development and worldwide adoption of technologies (van Vuuren et al., 2016). Figure 16 shows that the combination of improved yields and feed efficiencies can significantly reduce global land use. Note, however, that in these illustrative calculations we do not take account of economic feedbacks. Higher efficiency could actually result in decreasing agricultural prices, and hence in greater demand for agricultural products, especially in developing countries. While such feedback would reduce hunger, it would also lead to more land use than projected here. The same might hold for the other options discussed below. Lower prices could also lead to reduced agricultural investments, undermining yield assumptions. The increased yield (and associated impacts on agricultural land) also leads to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Reduce food wasteFood losses and waste have recently been estimated at roughly one-third of global production, which is about 1.3 billion tonnes a year (Gustavsson et al., 2011) (see Figure 7). Some of these losses actually occur on the farm (pre-harvest) and were mentioned in the discussion of yields in the previous section. Here, we focus on the losses and waste during storage and distribution and in households. Clearly, reducing these waste categories can increase the efficiency of the entire production chain and also reduce environmental impacts.

There are large regional differences in terms of waste. The highest waste per capita at the end of the food chain (at the retail and consumption stage) occurs in North America (estimated at 115 kg/year/capita), which is almost 20 times higher than these types of food losses in sub-Saharan Africa (estimated at 6 kg/year/capita). Per capita food losses during production, or post-harvest and processing stages, range between 110 kg/year in South Asia and Southeast Asia and around 180 kg/year in North America, Oceania and Europe. This implies that in all regions there is scope for improvement (Gustavsson et al., 2011). In the calculations here we assume that the gap between actual (income-related) and unavoidable waste fractions at the end of the food chain decreases by 10% every year. We use that the waste fractions in storage and distribution can be reduced to zero, but at a slower pace. Actual and unavoidable waste fractions are specified separately for each food category and region. The various assumptions amount to 84% less waste (by weight) overall in 2050 compared to the reference scenario (in the reference scenario, no explicit assumptions on waste reduction were assumed). The projected savings are 8% of total food demand, 6% of land use and 5% of water withdrawal and some reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Use of municipal and industrial organic wasteSo far, we have concentrated on increasing efficiency by reducing the waste and losses of food before



Figure 17 Example of an integrated, response strategy. Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations.

History History History Future Future

0

2

4

6

8

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Con

sum

ptio

n (m

illio

n M

ton

dry

mat

ter

/ yr)


0

2

4

6

8

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Con

sum

ptio

n (m

illio

n M

ton

dry

mat

ter

/ yr)


0

10

20

30

40

50

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Land

-use

(mill

ion

km2 )


0

1000

2000

3000

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Wat

er W

ithdr

awal

(km

3 /yr

)


0

5

10

1971 1990 2010 2030 2050

Emis

sion

s (G

tC−

equi

vale

nt /

yr)

UsesFeed Food Other

ProductsGrass Roots, pulses and oilcrops Cereals Other


Land-useExt. grassland Rainfed cropsInt. grassland Irrigated cropsBioenergy


consumption and increasing the efficiency of agricultural production. It is also important to decrease the wastage of goods after their use. Overall efficiency can be improved by further reuse and up-cycling of these waste flows. At the moment, only part of these waste flows is recovered. There are several ways of reusing the municipal and industrial organic waste flows, thereby reducing the need to use primary resources: they include making compost and using waste as feedstock for bio-energy production. An important factor in reuse of waste flows is the development of a solid waste management plan (Troschinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). In our calculations we have not yet quantified the impacts of these options, due to lack of sufficient data.

2 .3 TAKING IT ALL TOGETHER

In Sections 2.1 and 2.2 we discussed several ways of achieving more sustainable agricultural development in order to meet future food production needs, preserve biodiversity and reduce environmental impacts (in particular, climate change). The analysis suggests that to achieve these targets and avoid damage to the environment, a number of options are available, including reducing food waste, promoting dietary changes, allowing for sustainable bio-energy production and yield increases. Clearly, a future strategy would need to strike a balance between these options, taking due consideration of their costs, practical implications and rebound effects. In order to demonstrate how these options can be combined, we show here a scenario (up to 2050) that is based on a combination of the options discussed above (we have not used them to their full potential, compared to the discussion in Section 2.2 – as they already lead to substantial changes):

• Policies limit climate change to a maximum of 2oC increase of global mean temperature.• Alternative protein sources are used: we assume that 44% of meat consumption is replaced by a

vegetarian alternative.• We assume that yields have improved by 2050 by 7% compared to the baseline scenario, while

feed efficiency follows an efficient technology scenario.• We assume that waste fractions for food storage and distribution are reduced by 1.5% per year.

Introducing these options simultaneously results in the trends depicted in Figure 17. Note that the combination of these options is more effective that the single strategies considered so far. If fully implemented, the set of measures could achieve a development that would already be mostly cover with the challenges described in Section 1.5 in terms of mitigating climate change, increasing agricultural production for feeding 9 billion people and preserving biodiversity by reducing agricultural land use. The strategy would also be able to decrease total water consumption to a level lower than today’s.

It should be noted that the modelling experiments described here explores the physical feasibility of particular trends in predominantly the agriculture and energy systems. The models do not make statements about the transformations to the economic system and to the government, market and civic society institutions that will be needed in order to implement these changes. Yet these are a crucial part of a more sustainable future. It should also be noted that in our calculations we have not taken account of so-called rebound effects: as increased efficiency could lead to lower prices, some measures that have been evaluated may therefore lead to higher consumption rates.



Figure 18 Sankey diagrams showing the main flows of food , energy and greenhouse gas emissions for 2050 (reference scenario and integrated, response scenario). The line widths are proportional to the magnitude of the flows. Source: FDM and IMAGE calculations. Note that end-use energy inefficiencies are illustrative.

Primary production Conversion Final consumption Primary production Conversion Final consumption

Power

Foodavailability

LandCrops

Grass

Cereals

Maize

Rice

Oilcrops

Residues

Other use

Food

Feed

Scavenging

Bio energyRecycling

Beef


Milk

Pork

Mutton/Goat

Poultry/eggs

Foodavailability

LandCrops

Grass

Cereals

Maize

Rice

Oilcrops

Residues

Other use

Food

Feed

Scavenging

Bio energyRecycling

Beef


Milk

Pork

Mutton/Goat

Poultry/eggs

Foo

d (

kg d

m)


Nuclear

Hydro

Biomass

Gas

Oil

Coal Power

Solids

Liquids

Conversionlosses

Gases

Agriculture

Municipal

Transport

Industry

Feedstock

Power stationlosses


Power


Geo+Solar+Wind

Geo+Solar+Wind

Nuclear

Hydro

Biomass

Gas

Oil

CoalPower

Solids

Liquids

Conversionlosses

Gases

Agriculture

Municipal

Transport

Industry

Feedstock

Power stationlosses


Ener

gy

(J)


Powerproduction

Energycombusion

Land usechange


Processemissions

Waste treatment

Agricultur

Industry

Municipay

CO2

CH4

N2O

Othergasses

Gre

enh

ou

se g

as e

mis

sio

ns

(CO

2 eq

uiv

.)

Reference scenario, 2050 Response Scenario, 2050


Powerproduction

Energycombusion

Land usechange


Processemissions

Waste treatment

Agricultur

Industry

Municipay

CO2

CH4

N2O

Othergasses

3 Conclusions

In this report we have looked at the future demands for food, energy and water and their relationship with sustainable development. A number of key conclusions can be drawn.

• Business as usual is not sustainable. Further growth of the consumption of food, energy and water will put additional stress upon natural resources, which in many places are already overexploited. Growth will be needed to ensure sufficient access to key resources is available to all (as also expressed in the SDGs), bearing in mind the projected trends in global population. Clearly, this requires finding a right balance between resource use and human development. In Section 1.5, a number of key challenges for energy, food and water were identified with respect to the achievement of more sustainable development.

• Meeting the SDGs implies successfully transitioning to new production and consumption modes, technologies and institutions in the next 20-40 years. Important elements will be: much higher resource efficiency, large-scale penetration of renewable resources and significant further reduction of environmental impacts. The measures and policies needed will have to focus on synergies and co-benefits. An integrated, nexus-based, approach is therefore needed. Given all the uncertainties and sometimes competing stakeholder interests, such an approach cannot be based on a fixed blueprint.

• Strategies to meet the 2oC target require the use of many reduction options. For the climate challenge, the analysis shows that global CO2 emissions in the 21st century need to be constrained to around 1000 GtCO2 or less to meet the 2oC target. This target is very stringent, and strategies to meet it require the use of many reduction options to achieve full decarbonisation of the energy system in a maximum of 5-6 decades. Meeting the 2oC target requires rapid emission reductions and total reconfiguration of the energy system. Other sectors causing greenhouse gas emissions, such as agriculture, will also need to contribute to emission reductions (as otherwise it is simply impossible to stay to reach the climate target).

• Food and agriculture are core areas in this endeavour to bring the world onto a more sustainable development path. In order to meet the challenge of feeding 9 billion people, preserving biodiversity and limiting climate change, a further intensification of agricultural production is necessary. Other important solutions are dietary change towards diets that are based on more land-efficient protein sources (and less on animal products), and reduction of waste. This could free up a lot of land that can be used for other purposes including reforestation. The reduction of waste along food supply chains remains an important priority give the relative high carbon footprint of food production. Agriculture also needs to be an important component of a comprehensive climate policy by reducing other greenhouse gas emissions (CH4 and N2O) and contributing to land-based mitigation. At the same time, also adaptation policies to climate change will be needed, as even with effective international climate policies the world will still be about 1.5-2oC warmer at the end of the century.

• Diverging from a business-as-usual scenario implies a massive reorientation of investments towards more long-term oriented options on the basis of more integrated, long-term risk assessments. This requires all actors involved in these


investment decisions to play new roles, including those in the financial system.• Technology development and innovation are necessary for a more efficient use of

resources, notably to achieve sustainable yield improvements, more efficient energy use and deployment, and integration of renewable energy. A way to foster this is to set ambitious goals with respect to outcomes but at the same time to allow competition between various solutions. Incentive structures should match these long-term goals. Innovative technology could also provide feasible new ways of increasing resource efficiency, such as smart grid solutions, further use of IT in agriculture and alternative sources of protein.

• All in all, our scenarios show that in spite of many challenges and risks, the world has the resources and technology to banish hunger and ensure long-term food security for all. To ensure that key decisions on investment and policies to end hunger are taken and implemented effectively, it is necessary to mobilise political will and build the necessary institutions. As these transitions will take time to implement, action must be taken rapidly in case the world is serious about meeting the SDG agenda.


References

Alexander, P., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Dislich, C., Dodson, J.R., Engström, K., Moran, D. (2015) Drivers for global agricultural land use change: The nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy. Global Environmental Change 15, 138-147.

Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., (2012) World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision, ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, p. 147.

Bijl, D.L., Bogaart, P.W., Dekker, S.C., Stehfest, E., De Vries, H.J.M. and Van Vuuren, D.P. (2016). A Physically-based Model of Long-Term Food Demand.

Bondeau, A., Smith, P.C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W., Gerten, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Müller, C., Reichstein, M., Smith, B. (2007) Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Global Change Biology 13, 679-706.

Clarke, L., Jiang, K., Akimoto, K., Babiker, M., Blanford, G., Fisher Vanden, K., Hourcade, J., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Löschel, A., McCollum, D., Paltsev, S., Rose, S., R. Shukla, P., Tavoni, M., van der Zwaan, B., van Vuuren, D.P., (2014) Assessing Transformation Pathways, in: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Daioglou, V., Stehfest, E., Wicke, B., Faaij, A., van Vuuren, D.P. (2015) Projections of the availability and cost of residues from agriculture and forestry. GCB Bioenergy.

Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E., Magné, B. (2016) Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Global Environmental Change.

FAO, IFAD, WFP, (2014) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014: Strengthening the Enabling Environment for Food Security and Nutrition.. FAO, Rome.

Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L., (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D.K., West, P.C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S.R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D., Zaks, D.P.M. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337-342.

Friedlingstein, P., Andrew, R.M., Rogelj, J., Peters, G.P., Canadell, J.G., Knutti, R., Luderer, G., Raupach, M.R., Schaeffer, M., Van Vuuren, D.P., Le Quéré, C. (2014) Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nature Geoscience 7, 709-715.

GEA (2012) The Global Energy Assessment: Toward a More Sustainable Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and IIASA, Laxenburg.


Gibbs, H.K., Johnston, M., Foley, J.A., Holloway, T., Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., Zaks, D. (2008) Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 034001.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., Meybeck, A., (2011) Global food losses and food waste. FAO, Rome.

Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P., Conant, R., Smith, P., Wirsenius, S., Hristov, A., Gerber, P., Gill, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Valin, H., Garnett, T., Stehfest, E. (2016) Greenhouse gas emission potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Clim. Change.

IEA, (2015) http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/energyaccessdatabase/.IPCC, (2014) Climate Change 2014 – Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change.KC, S., Lutz, W. (2016) The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: Population scenarios by

age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Global Environmental Change.Krey, V., Masera, O., Blanford, G., Bruckner, T., Cooke, R., Fisher-Vanden, K., Haberl, H., Hertwich,

E.G., Kriegler, E., Mueller, D., Paltsev, S., Price, L., Schlömer, S., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Van Vuuren, D.P., Zwickel, T., (2014) Annex II: Metrics & Methodology, in: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Minx, J.C., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Salvolainen, J., Schlömer S, Stechow Cv, T, Z. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Lucas, P.L., van Vuuren, D.P., Olivier, J.G.J., den Elzen, M.G.J. (2007) Long-term reduction potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Environmental Science and Policy 10, 85-103.

Meinshausen, M., Raper, S.C.B., Wigley, T.M.L. (2011) Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6: Part I – model description and calibration. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1417-1456.

Mueller, N.D., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Ray, D.K., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A. (2012) Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254-257.

Neumann, K., Verburg, P.H., Stehfest, E., Müller, C. (2010) The yield gap of global grain production: A spatial analysis. Agricultural Systems 103.

Ozkaynak, B., Pinter, L., van Vuuren, D.P., (2012) Scenarios and Sustainability Transformation, in: UNEP (Ed.), Global Environment Outlook 5. PROGRESS PRESS LTD, Malta.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Ã., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., Van Der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sarlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472-475.

Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Friedlingstein, P., Gillett, N., van Vuuren, D.P., Riahi, K., Allen, M.R., Knutti, R. (2016) Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nature Clim. Change accepted.

Rosegrant, M.W., Fernandez, M., Sinha, A., Alder, J., Ahammad, H., de Fraiture, C., Eickhour, B., Fonseca, J., Huang, J., Koyama, O., Omezzine, A.M., Pingali, P., Ramirez, R., Ringler, C., Robinson, S., Thornton, P., van Vuuren, D., Yana-Shapiro, H., (2009) Looking Into the Future for Agriculture and AKS, in: McIntyre, B.D., Herren, H.R., Wakhungu, J., Watson, R.T. (Eds.), International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology (IAASTD): Agriculture at a Crossroads, global report. Island Press, Washington DC.

Sala, O.E., Van Vuuren, D.P., Pereira, P., Lodge, D., Alder, J., Cumming, G., Dobson, A., Wolters, V., Xenopoulos, M.A., Zaitsev, A.S., Polo, M.G., Gomes, I., Queiroz, C., Rusak, J.A., (2006) Biodiversity across scenarios, in: Carpenter, S., Pingali, P. (Eds.), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Smith, P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H., Harper, R., House, J.I., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H., Rice, C., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F., Tubiello, F.N., (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU), in: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S.,


von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Smith, P., Davis, S.J., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J.C., Gabrielle, B., Kato, E., Jackson, R.B., Cowie, A., Kriegler, E., van Vuuren, D.P., Rogelj, J., Ciais, P., Milne, J., Canadell, J.G., McCollum, D., Peters, G.M., Andrew, R.M., Krey, V., Shrestha, G., Friedlingstein, P., Gasser, T., Grübler, A., Heidug, W.K., Jonas, M., Jones, C.D., Kraxner, F., Littleton, E., Lowe, J., Moreira, J.R., Nakicenovic, N., Obersteiner, M., Patwardhan, A., Rogner, M., Rubin, E.S., Sharifi, A., Torvanger, A., Yamagata, Y., Edmonds, J., Yongsung, C. (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Clim. Change, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.

Smith, P., Gregory, P.J., Van Vuuren, D., Obersteiner, M., Havlík, P., Rounsevell, M., Woods, J., Stehfest, E., Bellarby, J. (2010) Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 2941-2957.

Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K., Lauk, C., Harper, R., Tubiello, F., Siqueira, D., Pinto, A., Jafari, M., Sohi, S., Masera, O., Bottcher, H., Berndes, G., Bustamantek, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H., Rice, C.W., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F., Herrero, M., House, J.I., Rose, S. (2013) How much land based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? Global Change Biology 19, 2285-2302.

Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., Van Vuuren, D.P., Den Elzen, M.G.J., Eickhout, B., Kabat, P. (2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change 95, 83-102.

Stehfest, E., Van Vuuren, D.P., Kram, T., Bouwman, A.F., (2014) IMAGE 3.0. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Tilman, D., Clarke, M. (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518-522.

Troschinetz, A.M., Mihelcic, J.R. (2009) Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Management 29, 915-923.

UN (2015a) Paris Agreement – Reference: C.N.63.2016.TREATIES-XXVII.7.d (Depositary Notification).

UN, (2015b) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations.Valin, H., Sands, R.D., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Nelson, G.C., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Bodirsky, B.,

Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Heyhoe, E., Kyle, P., Mason-D’Croz, D., Paltsev, S., Rolinski, S., Tabeau, A., van Meijl, H., von Lampe, M., Willenbockel, D. (2014) The future of food demand: understanding differences in global economic models. Agric. Econ. 45, 51-67.

van Meijl, H., van Rheenen, T., Tabeau, A., Eickhout, B. (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114, 21-38.

van Vuuren, D.P., Deetman, S., van Vliet, J., van den Berg, M., van Ruijven, B.J., Koelbl, B. (2013) The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2 °C-insights from integrated assessment modelling. Climatic Change 118, 15-27.

van Vuuren, D.P., Kok, M., Lucas, P.L., Prins, A.G., Alkemade, R., van den Berg, M., Bouwman, L., van der Esch, S., Jeuken, M., Kram, T., Stehfest, E. (2015) Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050: Explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 98, 303-323.

Van Vuuren, D.P., Ochola, W.O., Riha, S., Giampietro, M., Ginzo, H., Henrichs, T., Kok, K., Makhura, M., Mirza, M., Palanisami, K.P., Ranganathan, C.R., Ray, S., Ringler, C., Rola, A., Westhoek, H., Zurek, M., (2008) Outlook on agricultural change and its drivers, in: Watson, B. (Ed.), International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology Development.

van Vuuren, D.P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D., Doelman, J., van Den Berg, M., Harmsen, M., de Boer, H.S., Bouwman, A.F., Daioglou, V., Edelenbosch, O.Y., Girod, B., Kram, T., Lassaletta, L., Lucas, P., van Meijl, H., Müller, C., van Ruijven, B., van der Sluis, S., Tabeau, A. (2016) Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm.. Global Environmental Change.


Willett, M.D.W.C. (2005) Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating. Free Press.

Woltjer, G.B., Kuiper, M., Kavallari, A., van Meijl, H., Powell, J., Rutten, M., Shutes, L., Tabeau, A., (2014) The Magnet Model – Module description. LEI – part of Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Hague.

World Water Coucil, (2016) Water Supply & Sanitation http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/library/archives/water-supply-sanitation/.


Appendix: methods

A1. MODELS

In the calculations we used a combination of two models: the Food-Demand-Model developed by Bijl et al. (2016) coupled to the IMAGE 3.0 model. The food demand calculated by FDM was forwarded to IMAGE 3.0 to calculate possible changes in land use and other indicators. For the calculations presented here, the FDM was driven by the SSP2 assumptions (population, GDP and storyline). The IMAGE 3.0 model was used to investigate trends in land, energy and water use. In the IMAGE model, we used the information on the IMAGE implementation of the SSP2 scenario, replacing the food demand data by the ones of FDM. Given the higher food demand in the FDM demand model and the original food demand in the IMAGE SSP2, we increased the grazing intensity (in order to represent scarcity driven technology improvement) so that the final grassland use was equal to the highest reported grassland area in the IPCC database.

Food-Demand-Model (FDM)The FDM model is based on a well-known starting relationship in food demand modelling, i.e. Engel’s law, which states that households with lower incomes spend a larger share of their income on food (Engel, 1857). In Engel’s study and many subsequent empirical studies, it has also been shown that absolute expenditure on food does increase with income (albeit less than proportionally). In general, the average expenditure per calorie also increases with income, since richer households buy more luxury items such as coffee or meat products and spend more on ‘value added’ such as service in restaurants, or premium packaging and advertising in supermarkets. In the FDM model, we established the relationship between 6 main food categories for 26 world regions on the basis of FAO data, using the following equation:

Dr,f = af • ln(Ir) + bf + Rr,f [kcal/per capita] (1)

For this equation, the different parameters were estimated on the basis of the data of all 26 regions together, while subsequently a region-specific offset R was introduced. In the calculations, we applied the equation for each region to 10 different population segments (based on income and rural/urban). We assumed that the income-demand-relations remain fixed over time, which means that the behavioural difference between two points in time for a single population segment (due to increasing income) is the same as the behavioural difference between a poor population segment and a richer population segment at a single point in time. For each of the 6 major categories, we observed roughly linear relations between kcal per capita food availability and the logarithm of average income (see Figure S1). Within each food category, minor food categories were defined (e.g. different cereal types within the category of staple crops). In the scenario calculations, the consumption of these minor categories was derived by assuming that the shares converge very slowly over time (by 2050 about one-third of this process will have taken place).

Urban and rural income-based population quintiles with their corresponding average income were obtained from the TIMER model (constructed from GINI coefficients using the Atlas method). The


slope of the global income relationship was then applied to each quintile separately, and the result recalibrated such that regional average demand exactly matched the data in 2011 (FAOSTAT, 2014). This step is necessary due to the non-linear relation between food demand and income, which means the average of population segments’ food demands is not the same as the food demand pertaining to the average income.

IMAGE 3.0IMAGE is an integrated assessment model framework that simulates global and regional environmental consequences of changes in human activities (Stehfest et al., 2014). The model is a simulation model, i.e. changes in model variables are calculated on the basis of the information from the previous time-step. The model includes a detailed description of the energy and land-use system and simulates most of the socio-economic parameters for 26 regions and most of the environmental parameters, depending on the variable, on the basis of a geographical grid of 30 by 30 minutes or 5 by 5 minutes (respectively 50 km and around 10 km at the equator). The model has been designed to analyse large-scale and long-term interactions between human development and the natural environment, and to identify response strategies to global environmental change based on assessment of options for mitigation and adaption. IMAGE is a framework with a modular structure, with some components linked directly to the model code of IMAGE, and others connected through soft links (where models run independently with information exchange via data fi les). The IMAGE framework is structured around to the causal chain of key global sustainability issues and comprises two main systems: 1) the human or socio-economic system


CANUSA

MEX

RCAM

BRA

RSAM

NAF

WAF

EAF

SAF

WEU

CEU

TUR

UKRSTAN

RUS

MEINDIA

KOR

CHN

SEAS

INDO

JAP

OCE

RSAS

RSAF

CANUSA

MEXRCAM

BRA

RSAM

NAF

WAFEAFSAF

WEU

CEU

TUR

UKR

STAN

RUS

ME

INDIA

KOR

CHN

SEASINDO

JAP

OCE

RSAS

RSAF

CAN

USA

MEXRCAM

BRARSAM

NAF

WAFEAF

SAF

WEUCEU

TUR

UKR

STAN

RUS

MEINDIA

KOR

CHN

SEAS

INDO

JAP

OCE

RSASRSAF

CAN

USA

MEXRCAM

BRA

RSAM

NAF

WAF

EAF

SAF

WEU

CEU

TUR

UKR

STAN

RUS

ME

INDIA

KOR

CHNSEAS

INDO

JAPOCE

RSASRSAF

CAN

USA

MEX

RCAM

BRA

RSAMNAF

WAF

EAF

SAF WEUCEU

TUR

UKRSTAN RUS

ME

INDIA

KOR

CHN

SEAS

INDO JAP

OCERSAS

RSAF CAN

USAMEX

RCAMBRA

RSAM

NAF

WAFEAF SAF

WEUCEU

TURUKRSTAN RUSMEINDIA

KORCHNSEAS

INDO

JAP

OCE

RSASRSAF

animal fruit and vegetables luxuries

oils and oilcrops pulses staples

0

400

800

1200

0

200

400

0

200

400

600

800

0

200

400

600

0

100

200

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

500

1000

2000

5000

1000

0

2000

0

5000

0

500

1000

2000

5000

1000

0

2000

0

5000

0

500

1000

2000

5000

1000

0

2000

0

5000

0

GDP per capita [constant 2000 PPP dollar] (log scale)

Food

Ava

ilabi

lity

(kca

l / c

apita

/ da

y)

Income effects on food demand

Year1971 20011981 20101991

F igure A1 Relations between income and food demand for 6 major food categories. Food availability (kcal/per capita) on the vertical axis is regionally aggregated from FAOSTAT (2014).

that describes the long-term development of human activities relevant for sustainable development; and 2) the earth system that describes changes in natural systems, such as the carbon and hydrological cycle and climate. The two systems are linked through emissions, land use, climate feedbacks and potential human policy responses.

Important inputs to the model are descriptions of the future development of so-called direct and indirect drivers of global environmental change: exogenous assumptions on population, economic development, lifestyle, policies and technology change form a key input into the components calculating energy and food demand projections. For energy, this is the energy system model TIMER. For food, normally the MAGNET (Woltjer et al., 2014) is used – but in this report the inputs have been replaced with those from FDM. TIMER is a system-dynamics energy system simulation model describing key trends in energy use and supply. MAGNET is a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model (van Meijl et al., 2006; Woltjer et al., 2014) that is connected via a soft link to the core model of IMAGE. In IMAGE, the main interaction with the earth system occurs with changes in energy, food and biofuel production that induce land-use changes and emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A key component of the earth system is the LPJmL model (Bondeau et al., 2007) that is included in IMAGE 3.0. LPJmL covers the terrestrial carbon cycle and vegetation dynamics in IMAGE 3.0. This model is used to determine productivity at grid cell level for natural and cultivated ecosystems, on the basis of plant and crop functional types. Based on the regional production levels and the output of LPJml, a set of allocation rules in IMAGE determine the actual land cover. The calculated emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants are used in IMAGE to derive changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases, ozone precursors and species involved in aerosol formation on a global scale. Climatic change is calculated as global mean temperature change, using a slightly modified version of the MAGICC 6.0 climate model (Meinshausen et al., 2011). The changes in temperature and precipitation in each grid cell are derived from the global mean temperature, using a pattern-scaling approach. The model takes account of several feedback mechanisms.


A2. SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS

The scenarios presented in this report used the IMAGE implementation of the SSP scenarios, except for the demand for crops and animal products. (For details on implementing IMAGE, see Van Vuuren et al., 2016.) The IMAGE scenarios used the SSP population (KC and Lutz, 2016) and GDP scenarios (Dellink et al., 2016).


the global food – water – energy nexus · 2016-11-21 · increasing the production of food and...

Documents