FOFA DTT: Future Scenarios for Agrifood Systems to 2030
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•169 vues
This report summarizes the corporate strategic foresight exercise conducted by FAO on the future of food and agriculture. It identifies key drivers that will shape agrifood systems, analyzes their interactions, and detects weak signals of potential challenges. Four scenarios are presented for 2030 and beyond: continuing on the current path leads to degradation, while achieving sustainability requires trading short-term gains for long-term resilience. The report highlights policy options focused on governance, consumer awareness, wealth distribution, and innovation to trigger transformations toward sustainability. While challenges are significant, the report maintains an optimistic view that collapse can be avoided through coordinated global action.
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à FOFA DTT: Future Scenarios for Agrifood Systems to 2030
Similaire à FOFA DTT: Future Scenarios for Agrifood Systems to 2030 (20)
Plus de International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Plus de International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
FOFA DTT: Future Scenarios for Agrifood Systems to 2030
- 1. IFPRI – Washington DC, 01 February 2023 Seminar Co-organized by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), IFPRI, and the CGIAR Research Initiative on Foresight Lorenzo Giovanni Bellù, Senior Economist, Lead Policy Intelligence Branch - Global Perspectives, FAO UN – Rome The future of food and agriculture Drivers and triggers for transformation
- 2. The corporate strategic foresight process This report illustrates the process and findings of the corporate strategic foresight exercise (CFSE). Here are the essential steps of the CSFE process: Mapping agrifood systems Identification of agrifood systems’ drivers Analysis of drivers’ interactions Detection of “weak signals” Narratives of future scenarios (snapshots and pathways) Triggers and/or accelerators for desired transformations Strategies and policy options for desired outcomes Backward steps (iterative processes) Sequential workflow Main steps
- 3. FOFA DTT: Four alternative scenarios to 2030, 2050 and beyond More of the same (MOS). Muddling through reactions to events and crises, while doing just enough to avoid systemic collapses, led to degradation of agrifood systems sustainability and to poor living conditions for a large number of people, thus increasing the long-run likelihood of systemic failures. Adjusted future (AFU). Some moves towards sustainable agrifood systems were triggered in an attempt to achieve Agenda 2030 goals and some improvements in terms of well-being were obtained, but the lack of overall sustainability and systemic resilience hampered their maintenance in the long run. Race to the bottom (RAB). Gravely ill-incentivized decisions led the world to the worst version of itself after the collapse of substantial parts of socioeconomic, environmental and agrifood systems with costly and almost irreversible consequences for a very large number of people and ecosystems. Trading off for sustainability (TOS). Awareness, education, social commitment, sense of responsibility and participation triggered new power relationships, and shifted the development paradigm in most countries. Gross domestic product (GDP) growth (and/or final consumption) was traded off for inclusiveness, resilience and sustainability of agrifood, socioeconomic and environmental systems.
- 4. Mapping agrifood systems: drivers, activities and outcomes Socioeconomic systems’ drivers affect agrifood systems both on the demand and supply sides. Source: FAO. 2022. The future of food and agriculture – Drivers and triggers for transformation. Rome. Agrifood systems’ activities are influenced by selected drivers that largely depend on choices and behaviours of agents within the agrifood systems themselves. Environmental systems frame both agrifood and socioeconomic systems. Climate change, together with the other environmental drivers, influence all the drivers and are in turn influenced by them. Agrifood systems’ outcomes depend on complex relationships with socioeconomic and environmental systems and co-determine, via systemic linkages and feedback effects, the other systems.
- 5. Identification of drivers: what is new? • Some drivers had already been identified and analysed in previous FOFA works. In this report, they have been updated/upgraded • Given the changing circumstances and the proximity to 2030, The future of food and agriculture – Drivers and triggers for transformation, this report, compared to previous ones, puts more emphasis on aspects such as: – cross-country interdependencies – epidemics and degradation of ecosystems – market concentration – increasing food prices – science and innovation – capital and information intensification of agrifood production processes – big data generation, control, and ownership – uncertainties at all levels.
- 6. Selected drivers and ‘weak signals’: Economic growth (Driver 2) Source: FAO UN, 2022. The future of food and agriculture – Drivers and triggers for transformation. Historical trend: Convergence between HICs and LMICS in terms of per capita income remains highly problematic’. ‘Weak signal’: Convergence between HICs and LMICS in terms of per capita income may not materialize at all in the next decades (but see China) GDP per capita at purchasing power parity by region (1990–2020)
- 7. Structural transformation: agricultural GDP and employment Historical trends: The share of agricultural value added with respect to the share of employment in agriculture exhibits different dynamics in different regions. SSA reduced share of employment but increased value added. ‘Weak signal’: The traditional, schoolbook type of transition may not work (anymore) for selected regions. A future of structural unemployment and/or strong migration of former agricultural work cannot be ruled out. Share of agricultural value added in GDP and the share of agricultural employment (1991–2019)
- 8. Outcomes and ‘weak signals’: Food security and nutrition 0 5 10 15 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Percentage Historical Business as usual Towards sustainability Stratified societies Base-year for projections Sources: Scenario projections are based on FAO, 2018: The future of food and agriculture - Alternative pathways to 2050. The base-year for projections is recalibrated as in FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020: The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Historical data from 2000 to 2019 are drawn from FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020: The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Historical data from 2020 to 2021 are drawn from FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2022: The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Prevalence of undernourishment: Historical (2000-21) and projected (2012-2050) Historical and projected trends: Some successes, signalled by nutrition indicators have been achieved but the PoU has increased in the last five years. After a decade of successes, and is moving along what was considered a ‘worst case’ scenario. ‘Weak signal’: Historical achievements are not resilient and easily reversible. Possible futures should comprise cases of increasing food insecurity due to lack of control over causes such as climate change, conflicts and inequalities.
- 9. Triggers of development, strategies and policies The corporate FOFA-DTT report portrays and analyses four “priority triggers” for transformation, identified by FAO’s Corporate Strategic Foresight Exercise (CSFE), and incorporated in FAO Strategic Framework 2022–31: 1) institutions and governance; 2) consumer awareness; 3) income and wealth distribution; and 4) innovative technologies and approaches • With no pretention to be exhaustive, this FOFA report suggests strategic and policy options that exploit (trigger) these triggers. • Strategic and policy options may shift actual future across scenarios.
- 10. Highlighting trade-offs along development patterns Win-win situations may be possible but in many instances conflicting objectives will have to be addressed. A sustainable and resilient future leaving no one behind requires enduring some costs. Selected conflicting objectives Achieving sustainable yields (by internalizing social and environmental costs) Achieving food security and nutrition (improving purchasing power of vulnerable people) Increasing agrifood output Reducing agrifood GHG emissions Achieving sustainable yields Minimizing land use expansion Increasing employment Increasing wages Innovating technologies Increasing employment Increasing foreign exchange inflows from few exports Increasing economic diversification Increasing food availability Using biomass as renewable energy Funding social protection schemes Funding public infrastructure and R&D Achieving food security Pursuing food safety
- 11. Strategic options and investment priorities to “trigger triggers” Overarching: Invest in human capital for sound diagnoses and design of theories and practices of change based on solid causal linkages between actions and expected outcomes. 1. Governance: transforming voluntary guidelines into enforceable legislation. Set trade rules and negotiating skills to protect virtuous countries adopting stricter social and environmental rules; 2. Consumer awareness: supporting certifications and labelling for socially and environmentally sustainable value chains. Preventing “social and green washing”. 3. Income and wealth distribution: Focusing on arrangements for retaining and sharing value added. Tracking and stopping illicit financial flows (SDG 16.4); 4. Technologies and other innovating approaches. Support national and local R&D that allow reducing leakages for profit expatriation, royalties, various costs relted to import of ‘second hand’ obsolete technologies.
- 12. Overarching message of the FAO flagship report FOFA –DTT It is still possible to avoid the collapse of agrifood, socio-economic and environmental systems, provided that short-term unsustainable achievements be traded off for longer-term sustainability and resilience. Indeed, sustainable and resilient development does not run along a ‘toll-free motorway’: wealthier countries and social groups that can afford the inevitable costs of transformation should bear them to support to those already affected by the negative impacts of unsustainable development. In this endeavor, “…my mind is pessimistic, but my will is optimistic. Whatever the situation, I imagine the worst that could happen in order to summon up all my reserves and will power to overcome every obstacle.” (Antonio Gramsci, Italian philosopher, 1927). Overall, pessimism is a luxury that we cannot afford.
- 13. The future of food and agriculture: stay tuned Drivers and triggers for transformation https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0959en Dashboard www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/fofa-dtt- dashboard FOFA series www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/fofa
Notes de l'éditeur
- This FAO flagship report fits within a long lasting corporate tradition of carrying out forward-looking studies in support to corporate strategic planning activities and to the service of the development community at large. It is the fourth issue in the corporate series “The future of food and agriculture”. The number 0, Achieving zero hunger, preliminary to the formal set-up of the series, served to set up FAO’s position at the Conference on Financing for Development, In Addis Ababa in 2015. The second report Trends and challenges, constituted the conceptual backbone of the FAO Medium Term Plan in 2017. The third one, Alternative pathways to 2050, for the first time at FAO provided alternative scenarios for agrifood systems and related quantitative projections. This FOFA report has been developed in close synergy with the preparation of the FAO Strategic Framework 2022-2031, thanks to a Corporate Strategic Foresight Exercise
- Notes: Core activities of agrifood systems (production, processing, retailing etc.), which are interlinked through flows of goods and services (items in the white box at the centre), occur within broader socioeconomic and environmental systems (light blue and dark blue boxes). Socioeconomic and environmental drivers, as well as selected drivers determined within the agrifood systems themselves, (labels on the lefthand side of the figure), influence the state and dynamics of agrifood systems and their socioeconomic and environmental outcomes (labels on the right-hand side of the figure). Triggers of change (top of the figure) affect agrifood systems and their outcomes through their impacts on selected environmental, socioeconomic and agrifood drivers (labels on the left of the figure in the first, second and third columns, respectively). The different colours of drivers reflect their relationship with the trigger affecting them. The trigger designated "Institutions and governance’" affects all drivers and directly impinges on the functioning of the whole agrifood system and its relationships with the other systems. Given the systemic relationships among drivers, core activities of agrifood systems and their outcomes, the various triggers may concurrently affect different drivers, while each driver can be also affected by different triggers of change. The overall graph, core activities and outcomes were adapted from the Foresight4Food website (www.foresight4food.net/category/blog)
- Some drivers had already been identified and analysed in previous FOFA works. In this report, their analyses have been updated/upgraded: this concerns for instance drivers such as Population, climate change economic growth, poverty and inequalities, for instance
- Economic growth in the last 30 years. Significant in some regions and countries (including India and China). However, per capita income (PPP) barely increasing in LAC and Near East and North Africa, stagnant if not decreasing in SSA. Due to the significant per capita growth in HIC, convergence may remain a dream for quite some time.
- Note the peculiarities of LAC, NNA and above all SSA, compared with China and SAS
- The Strategic Foresight Exercise, which created the ground for the FOFA-DTT report, identified key families of “triggers for transformation” to be considered in this process. They are effective starting points or boosters (depending on the context) for transformative processes to move away from “more of the same” types of future. These families of triggers include: Significantly reinforcing Institutions and governance. It is clear that there is a mismatch between issues at stake and capacities to govern them. Climate change issues is just an evident example, another is international conflicts, but also international migrations (and, if income gaps persist, what we have seen so far is just the top of the iceberg), trade, pandemics, illicit financial flows (SDG 16.4). The UN could have a great role to play, only if influential Members had the political will to reinforce global institutions. Consumer awareness; Demand-side policies. Aware and conscious consumers can largely contribute to reducing the pressure through shifting diets away from resource intensive and/or socially inequitable foods, specifically in HICS and selected upper-middle income countries. This may have a global transformative impact. Income and wealth distribution; food prices have been increasing since the new millennium and are possibly further increasing if social and environmental externalities are going to be internalized. Keeping prices artificially low is a no go. Inefficiencies, overuse of resources etc. Access to food has to be granted via better income distribution (fiscal systems, access to resources, health-care services etc.) Innovative technologies and approaches. We still has to learn how to produce more with less, including how to transition away from fossil fuels. There are attempts that may reveal possible futures but much more needs to be done, also in view of increasing population. These triggers, to be still further articulated, complemented and made context-specific, are expected to influence important drivers of agrifood systems and, through multiple systemic linkages and feedback effects, to spread their impacts throughout the socioeconomic and environmental systems for achieving the desired agrifood systems outcomes. Given their potentially high transformative impacts, activating these triggers in the complex multilateral arena can be politically sensitive, because their effective activation may imply impinging on consolidated power relationships not only within countries but, even more, across countries, including between HICS and LMICS.
- Trade-offs in policymaking. The position of each end-state, and the pattern followed to reach there, will both depend on the sets of strategies and policies presumed to be implemented under each of the scenarios. More specifically, the narratives are characterized by different ways in which strategies and policies will address emerging trade-offs along development patterns. Overall, trade-offs emerging along development patterns may not reflect contrasting objectives in absolute terms. Given the multiple cross-linkages among the various elements in agrifood systems, policy solutions may exist which reconcile apparently contrasting objectives. In the TOS scenario, for example, adopting sustainable agricultural practices that may imply lower yields in comparison to conventional agriculture, can concurrently lead to limited expansion of arable land if full-cost accounting for food prices is adopted. This would imply higher food prices which would be likely to lead to a comparatively lower expansion of food demand and reduced pressure on land requirements.cd At the same time, food security in a context of higher food prices could be achieved if income and food distribution were improved by means of appropriate governance at all levels, fiscal policies and other policies aimed at increasing wages and income earning opportunities.
- Forward-looking (foresight) and investment are conceptually closely linked. In both cases we need to look at forces that currently determine the state and performances of agrifood systems. In other words, Identifying possible future patterns of aTgrifood systems and investing to transform them implies: 1) analyzing current and future patterns of each driver; 2) understand how all the different drivers interact to determine the state and current performances of agrifood systems (causal linkages i.e. cause-effect relationships); and 3) detect ‘weak signals’ of possible futures of agrifood systems; 4) Invest in actions that counteract negative signals and boost positive ones. Investing to “trigger triggers” of transformation may help to move agrifood systems towards sustainability and resilience.
- Ultimately, a strategic foresight report has also to convey unfortunate, but plausible, scenarios such as a “more of the same” or even or worse. Win-win solutions are welcome, but they may not exist anymore or be less frequent than what we have thought until now.