FAO - Food 2050

2
The future
of food and
agriculture
Alternative
pathways to 2050
SUMMARY VERSION
The future
of food and
agriculture
Alternative
pathways to 2050
SUMMARY VERSION
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Rome, 2018
Required citation:
FAO. 2018. The future of food and agriculture – Alternative pathways to 2050. Summary version. Rome. 60 pp.
Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the
legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of
its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have
been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar
nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of FAO.
ISBN 978-92-5-130989-6
© FAO, 2018
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes,
provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any
specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be
licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons license. If a translation of this work is created, it must include
the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original
[Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as at present in force.
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables,
figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining
permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component
in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and
can be purchased through [email protected]. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.
org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: [email protected].
CONTENTS
This booklet summarizes the key messages and findings of the report
The future of food and agriculture – Alternative pathways to 2050.
The figures and graphs are taken from that publication.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4
ABBREVIATIONS 6
FOREWORD 8
THE FUTURE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE:

THE OVERARCHING CONCERN AND KEY MESSAGES 11
1 Overview 16
2 Alternative scenarios for possible futures 24
3 Managing food demand and changing people’s dietary preferences 30
4 Sustainably addressing the scarcity and reduced quality of land and

water resources 35
5 Addressing poverty and inequality to achieve food security and nutrition goals 42
6 Tackling the nexus between climate change, agricultural sectors

and livelihoods 52
7 Concluding remarks 58
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the FAO November 2017. Critical contributions
Global Perspectives Studies (GPS) were provided by:
team of the Economic and Social
Development (ES) Department. The Economic and Social Development
GPS team members Lorenzo Giovanni Department (ES):
Bellù, Senior Economist, Team Katherine Baldwin, Carlo Cafiero,
Leader and lead author of the report, Andrea Cattaneo, Filippo Gheri,
Katerina Kavallari, Marc Müller and Günter Hemrich, Holger Matthey,
Lan Huong Nguyen, Economists, and Carlos Mielitz Netto, Salar Tayyib and
Dominik Wisser, Natural Resources Francesco Tubiello.
Specialist, wrote the report after
carrying out the design of the study Agriculture and Consumer Protection
and related modelling, gathering Department (AG):
data and information, and analysing Teodardo Calles, Alessandra
quantitative and qualitative findings. Falcucci, Hilde Kruse, Anne Mottet,
Carolyn Opio, Timothy Robinson,
The whole process largely benefited Henning Steinfeld, Giuseppe Tempio
from the overall guidance of Kostas and Aimable Uwizeye.
Stamoulis, Assistant Director-General
of the ES Department. The preparation Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (FI):
of the first draft was supervised by Manuel Barange and
Rob Vos, former Director of FAO’s Stefania Vannuccini.
Agricultural Development Economics
Division (ESA) and current Director Climate, Biodiversity, Land and Water
of the Markets, Trade and Institutions Department (CB):
Division at the International Food Gianluca Franceschini,
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Jippe Hoogeveen and Nadia Scialabba.
Marco Vinicio Sánchez Cantillo,
Deputy Director of ESA, supervised the Strategic Programmes (SPs):
finalization of the report and provided Panagiotis Karfakis and Brave Ndisale
important editorial inputs. (SP1), Clayton Campanhola, Jean-Marc
Faurès and Ewald Rametsteiner (SP2),
Significant technical inputs and advice Maya Takagi (SP3), Jamie Morrison
were provided by specialists from (SP4) and Dominique Burgeon (SP5).
different FAO departments during
three preparatory workshops held Office of the Director-General (ODG):
in July and December 2016 and Yasaman Matinroshan.
|4|
THE FUTURE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
FAO gratefully acknowledges Raffaella Rucci, Outreach Specialist,

valuable contributions from: coordinated the publication and
communications workflow, while
Linda Arata (Università Cattolica Christopher Emsden, Communications
del Sacro Cuore, Italy), Wolfgang Britz Officer, advised on the preparation
(University of Bonn, Germany), of key messages and Eleonora Boni,
Günther Fischer (International Office Assistant, supported the
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), preparation of the summary version
Steve Frolking (University of of the report.
New Hampshire, USA), David Hallam
(former Director of the Trade Anna Doria Antonazzo, Office Assistant,
and Markets Division, FAO), provided administrative support.
Dominique van der Mensbrugghe
(Purdue University, USA), The Publishing Group of FAO’s Office
Daniele Moro (Università Cattolica for Corporate Communication (OCC)
del Sacro Cuore, Italy) and provided editorial, translation and
Paolo Sckokai (Università Cattolica printing support.
del Sacro Cuore, Italy).
Jim Curtiss, Editorial Advisor,

edited the various versions of the
report. Daniela Verona, Publishing
Expert, prepared the graphics
and the final layout.
|5|
ABBREVIATIONS
AfDB African Development Bank
BAU Business as usual scenario
CFS Committee on World Food Security
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalent
COP21 Twenty-first Conference of the Parties of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (Paris, 2015)
EAP East Asia and the Pacific
ECA Europe and Central Asia
ENVISAGE Environmental Impact and Sustainability Applied General
Equilibrium model
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FDI Foreign direct investment
GAEZ Global Agro-Ecological Zones (FAO-IIASA)
GAPS Global Agriculture Perspectives System (FAO)
GHG Greenhouse gasses
GLEAM Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (FAO)
GTAP Global Trade Analysis Project
GtCO2eq Gigatonnes carbon dioxide equivalent
HIC High-income countries
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IIASA International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kcal Kilocalories
LAC Latin America and the Caribbean
LMIC Low- and middle-income countries
NNA Near East and North Africa
|6|
OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ODA Official development assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PoU Prevalence of Undernourishment
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
SAS South Asia
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
SSP Shared Socio-economic Pathways
SSS Stratified societies scenario
TSS Towards sustainability scenario
UN United Nations
UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
USD United States dollar
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
WRI World Resources Institute
|7|
FOREWORD
T
he last century has seen from vital goods and services. FAO’s
great socio-economic most recent estimates indicate that
progress and significant 821 million people, approximately
welfare improvements one out of every nine people in the
worldwide. However, world, were undernourished in 2017.
a world of “freedom Worse still, after a prolonged
from fear and want”, as envisioned decline, both the absolute number
by the founders of the United of undernourished people and the
Nations, has yet to be achieved. prevalence of undernourishment
(PoU) have started increasing again,
Much also remains to be done signalling a possible reversal of trends.
to fulfil FAO’s vision of creating At the same time, food insecurity is
“a world free from hunger and contributing to undernutrition, as well
malnutrition, where food and as overweight and obesity, and high
agriculture contribute to improving rates of these forms of malnutrition
the living standards of all, especially coexist in many countries.
the poorest, in an economically,
socially and environmentally Agriculture, including fisheries and
sustainable manner”. forestry, is far from being sustainable
Progress towards eliminating hunger Much of humanity’s progress has

and malnutrition is still insufficient to come at considerable cost to the
meet the goals of the 2030 Agenda for environment. To produce more food
Sustainable Development and other non-food agricultural
goods, a combination of intensified
Addressing the challenges of hunger, agricultural production processes and
food insecurity and malnutrition in the clearing of forests has led to the
all its forms features prominently in degradation of natural resources and
the targets of the second Sustainable is contributing to climate change.
Development Goal (SDG) of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Should we continue to address
However, despite great progress towards these challenges with a “business
increasing income and wealth globally, as usual” approach, the future will
billions of people still face pervasive not look promising. Sustainable food
poverty, hunger and malnutrition, and agricultural systems cannot
and various dimensions of inequality, be achieved without significant
joblessness, disease and deprivation additional efforts.
|8|
Still, options to face these challenges the future of food and agriculture.
are available On the basis of these findings,
the report highlights possible
Options to face these challenges strategic options to guide food
exist, but they need to be considered and agricultural systems along a
carefully. Food and agriculture more socially, environmentally and
systems may follow alternative economically sustainable path.
pathways, depending on the evolution
of a variety of factors such as This report shows convincingly,
population growth, dietary choices, on the basis of quantitative evidence,
technological progress, income that we can achieve more with less,
distribution, the state and use of and produce safe and nutritious food
natural resources, climatic changes for all, while containing the expansion
and efforts to prevent and resolve of agricultural sectors and hence limit
conflicts. These pathways can and the use of natural resources.
will be impacted by strategic choices
and policy decisions. Swift and The purpose of this publication is to
purposeful actions are needed to bridge a knowledge gap regarding
ensure the sustainability of food the future of food and agriculture at
and agriculture systems in the long a time when countries, international
run. The future is uncertain, but to organizations, civil society and
act now, we need a good sense of academia are increasingly requesting
what the world may look like under an authoritative foresight exercise in
potentially different pathways. this domain. This work catalyses a
wealth of multidisciplinary expertise
This report explores different future and draws on many different data
pathways for food and agriculture sources, from both inside and outside
systems through three distinct FAO. In rigorous but accessible
scenarios characterized by the language, the report sheds light on
way the key challenges to food our responsibilities in shaping our
security, nutrition and sustainability common future.
are dealt with: boldly, partially or
not at all. It improves our ex ante Decision makers, the international
understanding of alternative future community, academia and civil society
long-term trends, both globally are invited to give this report due
and at the regional level, of key consideration, not as the end point of
variables and indicators affecting an analytical endeavor, but rather as
|9|
FOREWORD
the starting point for a dialogue on
strategic policy choices and processes
aimed at shaping sustainable
development patterns at country,
regional and global levels.
Kostas Stamoulis
Assistant Director-General
Economic and Social Development Department
Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations
| 10 |
T H E F U T U R E O F F O O D A N D A G R I C U LT U R E
The future of food

and agriculture:
the overarching concern
and key messages
| 11 |
The future of food and agriculture:
the overarching concern and key messages
The future of food and agriculture1 sustainability of food and agricultural

faces uncertainties that give rise systems. The analysis is quantitative
to serious questions and concerns in nature, given the need to
regarding its performance and substantiate the possible scenarios
sustainability. Uncertainties revolve with quantitative long-term projections
around different factors, including of food and agriculture. At the
population growth, dietary choices, same time, the interpretation of the
technological progress, income quantitative findings relies on extensive
distribution, the state of natural qualitative analysis.
resources, climate change, the
sustainability of peace, etc. Nobody The analysis of the alternative
knows with precision how these scenarios detailed in this report
factors will evolve over time; however, addresses fundamental questions
they are certain to shape the future. regarding the future of food
For this reason, countries, international and agriculture; it supports the
organizations, civil society and identification of strategic orientations
academia are increasingly requesting that nurture national, regional and
an authoritative foresight exercise global dialogues and policymaking
that outlines alternative scenarios and processes, and helps shape
highlights potential pathways for food key messages to guide food and
and agricultural systems. agricultural systems along
sustainable pathways.
This publication bridges the knowledge
gap regarding the future of food and
agriculture. It does not provide a
detailed list of specific policy measures
to achieve an ideal future, which is
beyond the scope of a global long-
term foresight exercise. Rather, this
report highlights global challenges
for the future of food and agricultural
systems, and discusses how tackling
these challenges − or leaving
them unaddressed − will affect the
In this report, “agriculture” comprises all agricultural

1
sectors, including crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry.
| 12 |
WILL GLOBAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS BE ABLE TO

FEED HUMANITY SUSTAINABLY AND SATISFACTORILY
IN THE FUTURE, WHILE ALSO ACCOMMODATING ADDITIONAL
NON-FOOD AGRICULTURAL DEMAND?
KEY MESSAGES
Food and agricultural systems are However, fully meeting Sustainable
affected by trends that could jeopardize Development Goals (SDGs) targets,
their future sustainability. Population as envisaged by the 2030 Agenda for
and income growth drive the demand Sustainable Development, will require
for food and bring about changes in additional efforts to address growing
people’s dietary preferences. Persistent inequalities and gender imbalances,
poverty, inequality and unemployment sustain peace, reduce GHG emissions,
constrain access to food and hamper avoid resource depleting farming
the achievement of food security and systems, manage the demand for
nutrition goals. Agricultural production resource-intensive animal food
is limited by the increasing scarcity and products, and reduce food loss and
diminishing quality of land and water waste, among other challenges.
resources, as well as by insufficient
investment in sustainable agriculture. A more sustainable future is attainable,
Climate change is increasingly affecting but getting there will not be easy.
yields and rural livelihoods, while To move away from “business as
agriculture continues to emit large usual”, all societies will be required
amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs). to renew the assets used to produce
goods and services, or capital stock,
Changing course is critical – “business develop new solutions, and implement
as usual” is no longer an option. innovative technologies. In the spirit
If food and agricultural systems of solidarity enshrined in the SDGs,
remain on their current path, countries and social groups that can
the evidence points to a future reasonably shoulder the costs involved
characterized by persistent food in the necessary transformations have
insecurity and unsustainable to provide support to those already
economic growth. Many countries affected by the negative effects of
and regions are already committed unsustainable development, and help
to increasing the sustainability of them prepare a better future for the
their food and agriculture systems. next generations.
| 13 |
The future of food and agriculture:
the overarching concern and key messages
All countries must commit to … but producing more will be

responsibility-sharing in implementing unavoidable, and the way forward is
fundamental changes. doing so with less.
The global transformative process Those working in food and agriculture
required to improve the sustainability must learn how to satisfy a growing
of food and agriculture transcends demand under more significant
the divide between “developed” and resource constraints by improving
“developing” countries. All countries land and water use, reducing GHG
will be affected in this process, emissions, increasing efficiency in
as “fundamental changes in the way energy production and consumption,
societies consume and produce are and restoring soils and forests.
indispensable for achieving global These are just some of the variety of
sustainable development” (Rio+20. strategic options to consider in search
The future we want). of sustainability.
Raising consumer awareness will help While moving towards sustainability,

contain the need to unnecessarily food prices might increase
expand food production and reduce the significantly …
“triple burden” of malnutrition … If the entire range of production
Agricultural production is expected and consumption costs is taken into
to rise worldwide in response to account, including resource
population growth, dietary changes and degradation and GHG emissions,
increased incomes. Raising consumer evidence indicates that food prices
awareness about environmentally are likely to increase significantly.
sustainable and healthier diets, Such increases could lead to a more
reducing food waste, pricing food to careful use of both natural resources
reflect the negative externalities of and of food itself.
its production, and limiting the use
of grains for biofuel production will … yet environmental sustainability and
all be critical to curb the demand for food security can still go hand in hand.
agricultural products. These actions While moving food and agricultural
will also be critical to reduce the systems towards sustainability may
“triple burden” of malnutrition that drive up food prices and restrain global
is, undernourishment, micronutrient agricultural output, the per capita
deficiencies, and overweight and food availability and access to food
obesity, that often exist within a single in low- and middle-income countries
country or even community. can improve substantially if a more
| 14 |
equitable distribution of income within Food and agricultural sectors are key,
and across countries is pursued. but are no longer enough on their own
to ensure equitable access to food.
A more equitable income distribution Crops, livestock, fisheries and
is a must … forestry continue to be important for
Ensuring a more equitable distribution employment and income generation
of income within and across countries in low- and middle-income countries.
is indispensable in the quest for food However, these sectors alone no
security, better nutrition and the longer provide enough jobs or
environmental sustainability of food income-earning opportunities.
systems. Among the strategic options On the one hand, agriculture and
to achieve this goal are: promoting family farming in particular, must
sustainable technologies; facilitating the be more firmly linked to the broader
access to markets for family farmers; rural and urban economy. This can be
building stronger institutions to ensure done by developing agro-industries
competitive, transparent and fair and setting up infrastructure to
markets for agricultural inputs and connect rural areas, small cities
outputs; implementing effective social and towns. On the other hand,
protection schemes and equitable strong institutions supported by
fiscal systems; and reducing illicit efficient fiscal systems, are needed
financial flows that drain resources to ensure economy-wide income-
from low-income countries. earning opportunities, effective social
protection, and competitive and
… and requires strengthening access to equitable domestic and international
assets for vulnerable groups. markets for inputs and outputs.
Secure and equitable access to assets All these aspects are critical to
such as land, water, capital and improve the efficiency and equity
credit will, together with improved of economic systems and facilitate
information and enhanced skills and their structural transformation.
know-how, significantly improve In addition, interventions to reduce
the earning potential of the poorer GHG emissions in agriculture will
segments of society. This is true for not pay off significantly if efforts to
both people who will remain engaged boost energy-use efficiency are not
in agricultural activities and for those simultaneously undertaken on an
who will move out of agriculture to economy-wide basis.
engage in other productive sectors.
| 15 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
1. OVERVIEW the share of cereals has diminished.

This has prompted concerns about
the sustainability of diets, as well
The future of food and agriculture – as about their health implications,
Alternative pathways to 2050 provides particularly – but not exclusively –
a forward-looking perspective on the in high-income countries (HIC) where
development of global and regional both adult and child obesity show a
food and agricultural systems. dramatic increasing trend (Figure 1.6).2
This development, and its related At the same time, the incidence of
challenges, will depend on underlying diet-related non-communicable
long-run trends in supply and demand, diseases is on the rise (GBD 2015 Risk
which will continue to shape global Factors Collaborators, 2016; GBD 2016
food and agriculture. DALYs and HALE Collaborators, 2017).3
The overarching concern regarding Persistent poverty, inequality and

the future of food and agriculture unemployment constrain the access to
is whether global systems will be food and hamper the achievement of
able to sustainably feed humanity food security and nutrition goals.
up to 2050 and beyond, while at The unequal distribution of income
the same time accommodating the and access to assets, persistent
demand for non-food agricultural extreme poverty and the lack of
commodities. This concern arises earning opportunities for hundreds
because current trends are calling of millions of people cause food
into question the economic, social insecurity to persist. While much
and environmental sustainability of progress was made over the past
food and agricultural systems. years to reduce hunger, more than
821 million people are still chronically
Increased population, income and hungry, and the evidence points to
urbanization, all drive up the persistent undernourishment in the
demand for food and change people’s future (Figure 1.7). More than two
dietary preferences towards more billion people suffer from various
resource-intensive animal products forms of micronutrient deficiencies.
and processed food. For example, more than 600 million
The global demand for food and non- women of reproductive age still suffer
food agricultural products continues from anaemia, which is often caused
to grow, reflecting dietary changes, by iron deficiency, while several
driven by population growth, a rise in
income and increased urbanization.
2
The numbering of the figures in this summary version
retains that of the main publication, although it is not
For example, the share of meat and consecutive since not all the figures are used here.
dairy products in people’s diets has Please refer to the report – of which this is the
3
increased with economic growth, while summary – for reference entries.
| 16 |
FIGURE 1.6 PREVALENCE OF OBESITY AMONG CHILDREN AND ADULTS BY REGION
Children and adolescents Adults
12
20
Percent
Percent
8
10
4
0 0
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
World High-income countries Upper-middle countries Lower-middle countries Low-income countries
Note: Regions are arranged into income groups as defined in WHO Global Health Observatory data (WHO, 2018). Children and adolescents are those
between 5 and 18 years of age, adults are those aged 18 and above.
Source: WHO. 2018. Overweight and obesity. In: WHO Global Health Observatory data, overweight and obesity [online]. Geneva, Switzerland.
www.who.int/gho/ncd/risk_factors/overweight
FIGURE 1.7 UNDERNOURISHMENT UNDER A BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO, 2005–2030
1 000
800
600
Million people
Sub-Saharan Africa
South Asia
400
Latin America and Caribbean
Near East and North Africa
200
East Asia and Pacific
High-income countries
0
2005–2007 2014–2016 2030
Source: FAO. 2017a. The future of food and agriculture - Trends and challenges. Rome. For the periods 2005–2007 and 2014–16 data are based on
FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2015a. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress.
Rome, FAO; for year 2030 data are based on FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2015b. Achieving Zero Hunger. The critical role of investment in social protection and
agriculture. Rome.
| 17 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
hundred thousands of children go blind induced negative impacts on human

every year due to vitamin A deficiency. welfare are no longer limited to
specific regions.4
Persisting inequalities other than
those relating to income – including Agricultural production is constrained
access to resources such as land by the increased scarcity and diminished
and water, or to the benefits that quality of land and water resources.
high-value resources such as oil and What can be produced and whether
minerals generate – not only force growing and changing food
people to live in an unfair world,
but also trigger conflicts that in turn 4
Rather, such impacts have become a global issue with
can exacerbate extreme poverty and the displacement of people and migration, such as in the
food insecurity. Indeed, the marked case of the ongoing civil war in the Syrian Arab Republic.
Conflicts, violence and natural disasters are among
surge in the number of global conflicts the root causes of migration and forced displacement.
observed during the last decade is a However, many migrants are forced to move because of
major driver of food insecurity and socio-economic factors including poverty, food insecurity,
a lack of employment opportunities, limited access to social
malnutrition (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, protection, natural resource depletion, and the adverse
WFP and WHO, 2017) and conflict- impacts of environmental degradation and climate change.
FIGURE 1.11 FRESHWATER WITHDRAWALS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RENEWABLE

WATER RESOURCES
Water Stress Index
Low Low to moderate Medium to high High Extremely high

(< 10%) (10-20%) (20-40%) (60-80%) (> 80%)
Note: Countries are considered water-stressed if they withdraw more than 25 percent of their renewable freshwater resources. The countries
approach physical water scarcity when more than 60 percent of their water is withdrawn, and face severe physical water scarcity when more than
75 percent is withdrawn.
Source: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on FAO AQUASTAT (various years).
| 18 |
requirements can be met will Unaddressed climate change is

depend on the availability and increasingly affecting yields and rural
productivity of resources, and livelihoods, while food and agricultural
notably of land and water. These systems, as well as the economy at large,
resources are already under pressure continues to emit GHGs.
(Figure 1.11), and although technical Climate change manifesting itself in
progress has raised productivity, the form of extreme weather events
evidence suggests that productivity already negatively affects yields in
growth, or at least growth in crop crop production, livestock rearing
yields, is slowing. Moreover, food and fisheries, particularly in low- and
loss and waste put unnecessary middle-income countries (LMIC).
pressure on land, water and energy This adds pressure on natural resources
resources along the food value and shifts the distribution of what can
chain; addressing this will improve be produced and where. The fact that
environmental sustainability GHGs from human activities are the
throughout the food system. most significant driver of climate change
observed since the mid-20th century
Unless supported by adequate is problematic. Food and agricultural
investments, technical changes in systems are among the major
food and agricultural systems will contributors to GHG emissions, and are
not lead to sustainable productivity therefore crucial to efforts towards the
improvements. mitigation of climate change. Changes
Questions arise as to whether the future in agricultural production systems
demand for agricultural products will aimed at climate change mitigation
be compatible with the urgent need and adaptation would be expected to
for greater sustainability in resource reverberate positively throughout food
use. To meet the increasing demand systems. So far, GHG emissions within
for agricultural products in a more the economy at large have not been
sustainable way, food and agricultural reduced (Figure 1.15). This implies that
systems need more investment, the agriculture sector needs to adapt to
including in research and development, climate change, while climate change
to promote technical change. This is needs to be mitigated.
especially true for regions that currently
lag behind in productivity and are also Understanding the possible pathways
among the most food-insecure, such as towards sustainability in the face
sub-Saharan Africa. However, of these challenges necessitates a
financing for investment is limited long-term foresight exercise with
and priorities need to be identified to alternative scenarios.
achieve productivity improvements that No doubt, the challenges for global
are sustainable in social, environmental food and agricultural systems
and economic terms. discussed above provide grounds
| 19 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 1.15 ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 1990–2014
50
Energy
Fugitive emissions
Other fuel combustion
40
Transportation
Manufacturing/construction
30 Electricity/heat
GtCO2eq
Industrial processes
20
Waste
Bunker fuels
10
Land use and forestry
Agriculture
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Note: “Bunker fuels” refers to emissions from international aviation and maritime transport. “Other fuel combustion” includes biomass combustion, and
stationary and mobile sources. “Fugitive emissions” refers to flaring of gas and emissions from coal mining. “Waste” includes emissions from landfills,
wastewater treatment, human sewage and other waste.
Source: WRI. 2014. Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT): WRI’s Climate Data Explorer. Washington, DC.
for concern and raise questions incremental and multiplicative effects

about how to face them if we want in the medium- to long-run. Together,
to move towards sustainability, or these challenges create an uncertain
what is at stake if we move in the future for food and agriculture.
opposite direction. The challenges
are complex and diverse. While some A long-term foresight analysis is
of them are inherent to food and needed to understand the evolution
agricultural systems and depend of global food and agricultural systems
on the way in which these systems against a background of multiple
are − and will be − organized uncertainties, depending on our ability
(e.g. increasing pressure on land, (or lack thereof) to face the various
water and energy use), others are challenges. The core of this foresight
essentially systemic, impacting exercise is to compare alternative
food and agricultural systems from scenarios in which these challenges
elsewhere (e.g. economy-wide are tackled to different degrees.
unemployment, conflicts, climate This comparison helps understand
change, urbanization and migration). the potential implications of the
Additional complexities arise because strategic options and interventions
inherent and systemic challenges underlying each scenario for food and
may be intertwined, displaying agricultural systems.
| 20 |
In a study such as this one, the a host of contingent, short-term

scenarios are not forecasts or events, such as temporary economic
predictions, or even stand-alone downturns, climate extremes, price
projections, but rather possible, spikes or reductions, international
plausible and consistent pathways trade crises, local surges of pests
of what the future might look like and diseases, or temporary social
at some, usually distant, point in unrest and conflicts, among others.
time. Pathways differ depending Naturally, a long-term foresight
on the evolution and interaction of analysis is unable to predict the
the many factors that determine future occurrence of such contingent,
the dynamics and performance of short-term events. Nonetheless,
socio-economic and environmental the holistic analysis does help
systems, such as income growth and identify “weak signals” of changes
distribution, population trends and that are already present in the
demographic changes, technology, current situation. Such changes may
agroecological conditions and natural progressively increase in magnitude
resources, GHG emissions and or frequency in the future, and may
climate change. These factors may potentially lead to significant shifts,
evolve depending on different policies for example in consumer preferences,
and interventions. The objective of technological changes or natural
the foresight exercise is therefore resource use.
not necessarily to obtain the most
precise future estimates of food and This report presents a foresight
agriculture variables, but rather to exercise that builds on the
depict comprehensive and consistent expertise, skills and data of FAO
frameworks that highlight how and its partners, to help inform
certain decisions can influence the decision-making processes.
unfolding of development pathways. The methodology of this report is
different from that of previous FAO
In many instances, a foresight exercises, which provided agricultural
analysis provides a scenario that projections based on a single scenario.
essentially builds on past long-term Building upon the FAO report
trends of the factors that determine The future of food and agriculture –
the dynamics and performance of Trends and challenges (FAO, 2017a),
socio-economic and environmental which highlighted how recent trends
systems. Such a scenario is typically in key variables present challenges
regarded as a “business as usual” for food security and nutrition, the
and often considered as a “baseline” present report explores three different
against which alternative scenarios scenarios based on alternative trends
are compared. Past trends already for key drivers of the future of food
capture the observed impacts of and agriculture, including income
| 21 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
increase and distribution, population This report is the result of a

growth, technical progress in corporate process led by FAO’s
agriculture and climate change. Global Perspectives Studies team that
relied heavily on in-house expertise,
The report provides quantitative and skills and data, but also involved
qualitative analyses of challenges partnerships with external institutions.
facing food and agricultural sectors. It builds upon the experience gained
The quantitative analysis relies on in foresight exercises by colleagues
both economy-wide and sector-specific from FAO and from other international
simulation models. For each scenario institutions including the International
at the regional and global levels, the Fund for Agricultural Development
results of the model-based exercise (IFAD), the Organisation for Economic
provide separate and comparative Co-operation and Development
(across scenarios) analyses of key (OECD), the International Food Policy
variables and indicators, including Research Institute (IFPRI) and the
the share of agriculture in total value European Union, and upon knowledge
added, the supply and demand for and practices developed by the
a set of food and agricultural products, international community to support
long-term price trends, performance the work of the Intergovernmental
in the field of food security and Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to
nutrition, natural resource use, name but a few.6 The report forms part
the net trade positions of various of FAO’s efforts to provide evidence-
regions for selected groups of products, based support to decision-making
and GHG emissions.5 processes. Therefore, it should be
seen as a comprehensive assessment
The analysis of the scenarios of alternative prospects of food and
led to quantitative findings that agricultural sectors that without any
were scrutinized also in light of pretense to be exhaustive, goes well
complementary qualitative analyses. beyond mere model-based projections
The latter were developed on the basis and aims to contribute to the foresight
of existing background studies and work of the international community
other literature in specific domains at the science-policy interface.
including food demand, natural resource
use and GHG emissions, as well as on This report was much needed to
reports by FAO and other organizations bridge a knowledge gap regarding
investigating challenges to food security the long-term future of food and
and nutrition in all its dimensions. agriculture. For the first time, a report
Supplementary material including detailed commodity

5 6
Annex I of the report provides a comparative
balances and other statistical tables is available online at: review of the key foresight exercises that inspired
www.fao.org/3/CA1564EN/CA1564EN.pdf this publication.
| 22 |
provides a globally consistent foresight towards “a world in which food is

exercise based on scenarios designed nutritious and accessible for everyone
specifically to investigate challenges for and natural resources are managed
food security and nutrition, while taking in a way that maintain ecosystem
into account the future economy-wide functions to support current as well
context and possible climate change as future human needs” (FAO, 2014).
pathways. In accurate but accessible Hopefully, this publication will be of
language, the report provides solid use to everyone interested in long-term
evidence regarding possible strategic foresight assessments of global food and
options and directions to achieve agricultural systems, including decision-
the SDGs of eradicating hunger, makers and analysts in governments,
improving nutrition and ensuring the international organizations, civil society
sustainability of agriculture. Therefore, organizations, the private sector, and
it helps understand how to move academic and research institutions
| 23 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
2. ALTERNATIVE alternative future from 2012, the base

year, to 2050.7
SCENARIOS
FOR POSSIBLE The first is a “business as usual” (BAU)
scenario mostly characterized by a
FUTURES continuation of past trends and policy
directions. This scenario is designed to
As the future is uncertain, foresight help understand what the world would
exercises usually consist of the look like should outstanding challenges
analysis of selected alternative for food and agricultural systems
scenarios that represent different remain unaddressed. Under the BAU
futures against a range of scenario, the global economy grows
uncertainties. These scenarios are at moderate rates, with significant
generated in various ways, for disparities across regions (represented
example by giving prominence to by the yellow lines in Figure 3.3).
historical trends; by assuming that Moreover, significant inequalities
existing challenges are tackled to persist within societies in terms of
different degrees, while adding income, earning opportunities and
expert judgement to form plausible access to basic goods and services.
narratives; or by emphasizing and Consumers in HIC maintain their
magnifying one or more “weak preferences for resource-intensive
signals” of change that are already food, including animal products.
detected in the current situation. In LMIC, the relatively limited income
expansion does not favour a transition
While consensus about plausibility towards healthier diets, despite some
may be an important element convergence towards the caloric
to take into consideration when consumption levels of HIC.
designing scenarios, a much more
important feature to consider is Limited investments are undertaken
their internal consistency. Indeed, to increase the sustainability of food
cause−effect nexuses must be and agricultural systems, as well as
carefully designed based on existent
evidence-based knowledge, and 7
The scenarios were developed using a modelling
due consideration must be given framework. Two economic models provided the relevant
to the interdependence among the projections for the scenarios: the FAO Global Agriculture
different elements of a scenario. Perspectives System (GAPS), a partial equilibrium model,
and the Environmental Impact and Sustainability Applied
General Equilibrium (ENVISAGE) model. These two models
Based on those principles, three were used because each of them produces complementary
scenarios were designed for the information. Together, the models provide a consistent
framework for the construction of scenario simulations by
foresight exercise at the centre of this ensuring that certain physical and economic balances are
report. Each scenario delineates an maintained, and theoretical requirements are met.
| 24 |
of other sectors of the economy, such climate change mitigation than under
as the energy sector. GHG emissions the BAU scenario.
therefore keep rising, and climate
change is only partially mitigated. The third scenario is called the
“stratified societies” scenario (SSS).
The second scenario is called “towards It describes a future of exacerbated
sustainability” (TSS). It is designed inequalities in terms of income,
to help understand which proactive earning opportunities and access to
changes are needed to build more essential goods and services across
sustainable food and agricultural countries and layers of societies.
systems. Under this scenario, the global Under this bleaker scenario, the
economy grows at moderate rates, global economy grows at faster rates
as under the BAU scenario. However, than under the other two scenarios.
income, earning opportunities and However, selected regions – and
access to basic goods and services particularly sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
are more equitably distributed across – do not benefit significantly from this
countries and layers of societies faster growth (red lines in Figure 3.3).
thanks to proactive policies that are Income, earning opportunities and
implemented as soon as possible, access to goods and services are
with improved governance and increasingly skewed to the advantage
stronger national and international of elites, leaving large pockets of
institutions (green lines in Figure 3.3). marginalized people. Consumption
Diets in HIC shift towards a higher preferences tilt towards more animal
intake of fruits and vegetables and products everywhere, while food
a lower intake of animal products waste increases, particularly in HIC.
due to a rising consumer awareness Limited or no investments are made to
regarding sustainability issues, increase the sustainability of food and
while income growth in LMIC favours agricultural systems or of other sectors
more balanced diets than in BAU. of the economy, particularly in low-
Not only do consumers adopt more income countries. As a consequence,
sustainable diets; they also take the depletion and inefficient use of
action to reduce waste. Significant natural resources increases, as does
investments are undertaken to increase food loss at all levels of the food
the environmental sustainability of value chain. GHG emissions also
food and agricultural systems, as well rise, leading to exacerbated climate
as of other sectors of the economy. change with severe impacts on human
This leads to an increased efficiency activities and the environment.
in the use of natural resources and
reductions in post-harvest losses. Demographic trends have a great
GHG emissions are progressively impact upon the results of
reduced to help realize stronger scenario-based foresight analysis.
| 25 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 3.3 PER CAPITA GROSS DOMESTIC AND WORLD PRODUCT: HISTORICAL TRENDS AND
PROJECTIONS (2012 EXCHANGE RATES)
Low- and middle-income

World High-income countries countries (excluding China)
80
60
Thousand USD
40
20
0
1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050
East Asia and the Pacific

China East Asia and the Pacific (excluding China)
40
30
Thousand USD
20
10
0
1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050
Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia Latin America and the Caribbean

25
20
Thousand USD
15
10
0
1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050
Near East and North Africa Europe and Central Asia

30
Historical
Business as usual
Thousand USD
20
10 Towards sustainability
Stratified societies
0
1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050
Notes: Country grouping is based on the World Bank Country Groups of July 2016, downloaded on 2 August 2016 from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/
site-content/CLASS.xls as specified in Annex III, Table A 3.4 of the report. High-income countries (HIC) are classified in a single group, regardless of their geographical
location. All other countries, qualified as low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), are classified by geographical region, notably Europe and Central Asia (ECA),
East Asia and the Pacific (EAP), South Asia (SAS), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), Near East and North Africa (NNA) and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). If not otherwise
specified, LMIC and EAP include China (mainland only). Country groups and China are hereafter generally referred to as “regions”.
Sources: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on data from the United Nations System of National Accounts (UN, 2016) for the 1990–2012 period; and the Shared
Socio-economic Pathways (SSP) database version 1.1, OECD projections of gross domestic product (SSP database, 2016) for the 2013–2050 period.
| 26 |
FIGURE 1.2 GLOBAL POPULATION BY REGION: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED, 1950–2100
World High-income countries Europe and Central Asia

16 2 1
12 1.5 0.75
Billion people
Billion people
Billion people
8 1 0.5
4 0.5 0.25
0 0 0
1950 2015 2050 2100 1950 2015 2050 2100 1950 2015 2050 2100
China East Asia and Pacific (excluding China) South Asia

2 2 4
1.5 1.5 3
Billion people
Billion people
Billion people
1 1 2
0.5 0.5 1
0 0 0
1950 2015 2050 2100 1950 2015 2050 2100 1950 2015 2050 2100
Latin America and Caribbean Near East and North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa
1 1 6
0.75 0.75 4.5

Billion people
Billion people
Billion people
0.5 0.5 3
0.25 0.25 1.5
0 0 0
1950 2015 2050 2100 1950 2015 2050 2100 1950 2015 2050 2100
Historical
High variant
Medium variant
Low variant
Note: This report uses the 2015

revision instead of the more recent
2017 one, which was not yet available
at the time of the running of the scenario
simulations. No significant differences in
the results of the scenario analysis are to
be expected.
Source: United Nations. 2015. World Population
Prospects: The 2015 Revision. Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
New York, USA.
| 27 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
The demographic projections used in the international community, civil

this report place the world population society organizations, associations,
at almost 10 billion people in 2050, consumers and producers take
with significant regional disparities in strategic decisions and adopt policies
growth patterns (Figure 1.2). These and/or behaviours that amplify − or
projections also indicate increasing mitigate − these challenges. Under the
proportions of the population residing TSS scenario, for example, challenges
in urban areas (Figure 1.3). to food security, nutrition and the
sustainability of agricultural systems
The different food requirements of at large are less severe than under the
young and old people, as well as the other two scenarios because specific
different consumption patterns of urban strategic directions are followed, and
and rural populations, are going to affect policy measures are undertaken to
the demand for and quality of various address them (Figure 2.3).
food items and minimum dietary energy
requirements, which are linked to job The three scenarios thus help
type and living environment. Therefore, address the overarching concern
population dynamics will critically regarding the future of food and
determine food demand as well as agricultural systems: will these
labour supply in the future. systems be able, by 2050, to provide
nutritious diets in a sustainable
All three scenarios share the same manner to almost 10 billion people
population projections to facilitate who increasingly require resource-
cross-scenario comparisons and intensive food, while at the same
emphasize the interplay between time accommodating the demand for
economic growth, equality and the non-food agricultural commodities?
availability of natural resources.
Nonetheless, given all the other key This overarching concern raises
differences that defined each scenario, some further questions, namely:
including trends and strategic what can be done to manage food
socio-economic and environmental demand and change people’s dietary
directions, as explained the three preferences? How can society
scenarios display different degrees sustainably address the reduced
of challenges for food availability, availability and quality of land and
access, stability and utilization, as water resources, particularly in
well as for achieving nutrition targets regions where those resources are
and the overall sustainability of food increasingly stressed? Will poverty,
and agricultural systems. Indeed, the inequality and unemployment
magnitude of the challenges for food continue to constrain food access
security and nutrition is different for and hamper the achievement of food
each scenario because governments, security and nutrition goals?
| 28 |
How will climate change affect The analysis of the findings from the
agricultural sectors and rural foresight exercise sheds some light on
livelihoods, and can the agricultural these questions and provides strategic
sectors reduce the GHGs they emit? options for decision-making by
relevant actors and institutions.
FIGURE 1.3 GLOBAL URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED
10
6
Billion people
2 Rural
Urban
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Note: Projected figures from 2015 onward refer to the medium variant scenario.
Source: United Nations. 2015. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. New York, USA.
FIGURE 2.3 CHALLENGES TO FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS AND KEY SCENARIO DRIVERS
Income – food distribution, poverty, opportunities, …
Challenges for food access and utilization
SSS
BAU
Business as usual
Climate change, technical progress, trade …

TSS
Towards sustainability ... strategies and policies
Challenges for food availability and stability

Source: FAO Global Perspectives Studies.
| 29 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
3. MANAGING FOOD DEMAND AND

CHANGING PEOPLE’S DIETARY PREFERENCES
What can be done to manage food demand and change
people’s dietary preferences?
KEY MESSAGES
1. Managing consumer demand through awareness raising and proper
regulations can help contain the expansion of agricultural sectors. Food and
non-food agricultural production is expected to rise because of population and income growth.
However, the expansion of agricultural sectors can be significantly contained by, for instance,
rasing consumer awareness on environmentally sustainable diets, regulating and discouraging
food waste, enforcing more efficient food pricing and limiting the use of biofuels.
2. Demand management through consumer awareness and education is also

essential to reduce the “triple burden” of malnutrition. Consumer awareness and
education regarding the nutritional content of food and diet-related diseases are also critical to
reduce the “triple burden” of malnutrition that is, undernourishment, micronutrient deficiencies,
and overweight and obesity, that often exist within a single country or even community, and to
achieve a shift towards generally healthier diets.
3. Food prices should be “right”. Food prices should reflect the inherent nutritional value of
food as well as the full range of costs associated with their production and consumption along
the entire food value chain. This includes environmental costs such as biodiversity loss, land
degradation, water depletion, GHG emissions, which are often not accounted for. This can help
limit the growth of food demand and reduce food losses and waste, while contributing to the
preservation of natural resources and the improvement of nutrition.8 However, as higher food
prices may hamper poor people’s ability to buy food, targeted and efficient strategies are needed to
raise their purchasing power.9
4. Dietary patterns of high-income countries need balancing. While moving towards

sustainable food systems, neither restrained expansion of production nor increased food prices
would substantially impinge on global food availability – including in low- and middle-income
countries – if high-income countries were to consume less animal products, and food waste and
loss were considerably reduced. Raising consumer awareness on this issue could be key. Balanced
diets are critical for reducing all types of malnutrition, including undernourishment but also
overweight and obesity, often causing non-communicable diseases.
8
Economists have traditionally regarded unpaid environmental costs as “environmental externalities”, which lead to a
suboptimal economy-wide outcome. Achieving optimal results in the presence of externalities implies making sure that
economic agents pay the correct price for their actions (Varian, 1992).
9
Legitimate concerns regarding the purchasing power of poor people, as well as possible strategies to increase it,
are addressed in the following section..
| 30 |
5. International trade may help exploit production potential and fill food deficits.
Sustainably expanding the supply of food in countries whose population is expected to increase
significantly is essential to ensure adequate food availability. Trade has an important role to play
here, and imports may well be needed to fill domestic deficits in case natural resource constraints
are an issue. However, strong global and national institutions are needed to coordinate efforts
across countries and prevent unfair competition against those countries that adopt more stringent
environmental and social regulations.
Despite the fact that each scenario respectively, from the base year to
analysed in this report assumes 2050, under the TSS scenario the
the same demographic patterns, expected increase is only 40 percent
agricultural demand and the (Figure 4.2).
corresponding expansion of
agricultural output required to satisfy Food demand is highest under the
that demand exhibit significantly SSS scenario, which largely explains
different dynamics. While under the the higher increase in agricultural
BAU and SSS scenarios global gross output. It is boosted by a significantly
agricultural output from the base larger increase in per capita income
year to 2050 is expected to increase compared with the other scenarios
by about 50 percent and 54 percent – in almost all regions except SSA –
FIGURE 4.2 GROSS AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT AT BASE-YEAR PRICES
150
130
Index, 2012 = 100
110
90
70
2000 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050
Historical Business as usual Towards sustainability Stratified societies
Note: Gross agricultural output is measured as the sum of all primary agricultural commodities as defined in Annex III, Table A 3.3 of the report, multiplied
by their corresponding base-year prices. Note that this excludes natural rubber but includes both feed and animal products. On the other hand, fish is
excluded to maintain comparability of this indicator with previous FAO studies. Details for specific regions are given in Annex III, Table A 3.4 of the report.
Source: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on simulations with the FAO GAPS model.
| 31 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 4.3 PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER PRICE INDEX

140
130
Index, 2012 = 100
120
110
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Business as usual Towards sustainability Stratified societies
Note: This index is calculated by dividing the value of a set of agricultural commodities at current-year prices by the value of the same set at base year
(2012) prices (Paasche agricultural producer price index).
as well as by persistent consumer • reduced food loss and waste at all

preferences for resource-intensive levels of the food chain;
food items and unabated food loss and • reduced pressure from the demand
waste, particularly in HIC. for non-food agricultural products,
including animal feed.
The TSS scenario is more sustainable,
as a set of concurrent changes in food It is worth emphasizing that despite
systems helps reduce pressure on reduced agricultural output, satisfactory
agricultural sectors. These include: food availability is ensured in TSS,
particularly in LMIC, where each person
• early and significant agricultural enjoys more food on average than in
price increases (Figure 4.3) due the other scenarios (Figure 4.5). This
to more limited supply related to occurs as per capita income grows in
environmental constraints that many countries, some of which also
help lower the demand for opt for more balanced diets consisting
agricultural goods; of less animal products and more
• changing consumer preferences, nutritious food such as fruits and
particularly in HIC, leading to vegetables – which on a path towards
a reduction in the per capita sustainability are likely to result in,
consumption of animal products inter alia, a reduction in the prevalence
(Figure 4.5); of obesity, overweight and associated
| 32 |
non-communicable diseases. Although instances the self-sufficiency ratio of

relatively more limited, compared with certain LMIC regions falls below that
the other two scenarios, the expansion of the BAU and SSS scenarios and the
of gross agricultural output under the food and agriculture domestic deficit
more sustainable TSS scenario still is compensated by international trade.
almost satisfies domestic demand, This is the case for cereals in the Near
so that agricultural trade represents East and North Africa (NNA) and South
only a limited fraction of production Asia (SAS), fruits and vegetables in
and consumption. However, in some SAS and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA),
FIGURE 4.5 DAILY ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SOURCE AND SCENARIO
3 000
Kcal/person/day
2 000
1 000
Low- and middle-income countries

3 000
Kcal/person/day
2 000
1 000
0
1990 2012 2030 2050 1990 2012 2030 2050 1990 2012 2030 2050
FOOD GROUPS Cereals Fruit and vegetables Animal products
Vegetable oil Other food
Notes: Data before 2012 refer to daily energy supply; after 2012, data refer to daily energy consumption. The food groups are detailed in Annex III,
Table A 3.5 of the report.
| 33 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
and oilseeds in NNA and East Asia and • raising consumer awareness
the Pacific (EAP) (excluding China). regarding healthy diets and food
Meanwhile, self-sufficiency ratios in waste, particularly in HIC;
other regions move in the opposite • making prices “right” by ensuring
direction. The possibility for selected that they reflect all the costs
countries to balance out food deficits associated with the production
with imports promotes a more balanced and consumption of agricultural
use of natural resources, while helping products, including environmental
to meet the demand for food. costs, so that those costs are
charged to resource users;
These findings from the TSS • reducing feed requirements, for
scenario indicate that containing example, through improved livestock
agricultural expansion to move management and avoiding excessive
agricultural sectors towards meat consumption;
sustainability, while also increasing • reducing the pressure from biofuels
food availability, is possible, by implementing other forms of
particularly in the case of LMIC. renewable energy;
However, achieving such results • safeguarding the development
rests on the assumption that a set potential of the agricultural
of synergic strategic orientations sectors, particularly in LMIC, while
will be undertaken, including: facilitating the international trade in
selected food items to compensate
for domestic food deficits.
GUATEMALA
Fruit and vegetables market
in Chichicastenango.
©FAO/Daniela Verona
| 34 |
4. SUSTAINABLY ADDRESSING THE

SCARCITY AND REDUCED QUALITY
OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES
How to address the scarcity and reduced quality of land
and water resources in a sustainable manner?
KEY MESSAGES10
1. Sustainable agricultural intensification is key to saving land. Due to increasing
agricultural production and unsustainable practices, the demand for land might exceed the
available reserves of very suitable and unprotected land for rainfed crops, as is already the case in
specific regions such as the Near East and North Africa, or in selected countries in East Asia and the
Pacific. This could entail environmental problems or additional production costs from using
lower-quality land and/or building additional infrastructures. As shown by the findings of this
report, the sustainable intensification of agricultural sectors can potentially lower the expansion
of demand for land while maintaining soil quality.
2. Avoiding further land degradation and encouraging land rehabilitation helps
tackle land constraints. Although limited, available information on land degradation suggests
that current agricultural practices lead to productivity losses that require an increase in the input
intensity. Efforts to rehabilitate degraded land and practices that limit degradation are required to
maintain the resource base and reduce the use of inputs.
3. Using water more efficiently is increasingly becoming a must. Many countries
already exploit their water resources at unsustainable rates, thereby jeopardizing the potential for
future production. Climate change and population growth may exacerbate water scarcity.
Under these conditions, increasing the efficiency of water use is becoming increasingly crucial.
4. Trading off agricultural yields and sustainability. The adoption of sustainable
agricultural practices might require forgoing certain yield increases, particularly when such
increases lead to the overuse of water resources, a reduction in soil fertility, the loss of biodiversity
and higher GHG emissions. However, some recovery in yield growth could materialize in the long run,
due to a restored natural resource base, or as the result of an improvement in farmers’ expertise.
5. All the above does not come for free: significant investments are needed.
To ensure that sufficient land and water resources are available to meet total demand from
agriculture, significant investments are required in the research and development of sustainable
technologies and practices, infrastructure and human capital.
10
This section draws heavily on work carried out by FAO and its partners to investigate and promote sustainable agricultural
practices, as documented in: Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture. Principles and approaches (FAO, 2014);
Voluntary guidelines for sustainable soil management (FAO, 2017e); Save and Grow – A policy maker’s guide to the sustainable
intensification of smallholder crop production (FAO, 2011c) and related follow-up publications; Voluntary guidelines on the
responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forestry in the context of national food security (FAO, 2012);
Strategic work of FAO for sustainable food and agriculture (FAO, 2017f).
| 35 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
A second question regarding the above-mentioned expansion of

future of food and agricultural systems agricultural production, and the
is whether the increase in gross limited or lacking crop intensification,
agricultural output required to ensure which is the average number of crop
adequate food availability can occur harvests obtainable in a given period
within the boundaries of available on the very same plot. This applies
natural resources, and specifically particularly in SSA and NNA
land and water. Limited information (Figure 4.16). These both imply
exists regarding the economic costs minimal or utterly ineffective efforts
of expanding arable land in different to increase land productivity in
countries and contexts. However, a given period. Regarding SSA in
it is generally recognized that the particular, all three scenarios suggest
expansion of arable land, particularly that productivity remains well below
in regions where very suitable land that of other regions under all three
for agriculture is scarce, may have scenarios. This is because, due to the
environmental implications that substantially lower historical levels,
jeopardize ecosystems, protected any projected growth rates of crop
areas, forests and biodiversity. yields are not sufficient to lift, for
In addition, expanding agriculture into example, cereal or fruit and vegetable
less suitable land may be technically productivity into ranges seen for other
possible in many instances, but regions. Indeed, under the BAU and
would likely imply lower yields, SSS scenarios, crop intensification
require the use of additional inputs accounts for only 16 and 10 percent
or necessitate additional investments of additional agricultural production,
in infrastructure that would increase respectively, while the bulk of the
production costs. increase in production is attributable
to increases in yields and the amount
The three scenarios analysed in this of arable land, particularly in SSS.
report portray significantly different In regions where the availability
pictures regarding additional land of land is more limited, and
requirements. Under the BAU and SSS intensification is not restrained by the
scenarios, land requirements increase length of the growing period (such as
from an initial 1 567 million hectares parts of the Mediterranean region and
in 2012 to 1 732 million hectares (BAU) EAP), yield growth and intensification
and 1 892 million hectares (SSS) by play a greater role in expanding
2050, representing increases of 11 and agricultural production than increases
21 percent, respectively (Figure 4.13). in arable land.
Under both the BAU and the SSS The opposite occurs under the TSS
scenario, the increase in land scenario, where almost no additional
requirements is attributed to the arable land is required as compared
| 36 |
with 2012, while agricultural growth Long-term strategies, policies and

results mainly from crop intensification programmes are required to promote,
and moderate yield increases. for example:
It is important to note that achieving • improved resource linkages

sustainable agricultural intensification and enhanced nutrient flows in
requires a substantial paradigm integrated farming systems, such
shift to reconcile growing human as rice–fish farming and other
needs with the need to strengthen crop–livestock systems;
the resilience and sustainability • higher-quality feed and balanced
of landscapes and the biosphere animal diets;
(Rockström et al., 2017). This calls • low-input and precision agriculture;
for bold changes in the technological • innovative land and water
aspects of production systems to conservation techniques,
improve their ecological efficiency. improved biodiversity preservation
FIGURE 4.13 GLOBAL ARABLE LAND REQUIREMENTS BY SCENARIO AND ESTIMATED LOSS OF
AGRICULTURAL AREAS TO URBANIZATION, DEGRADATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE
2000
1900 Estimated area lost due to:

Urbanization
MIN
1800 Additional very suitable
unprotected land Degradation
available for rainfed
Million hectares
1700 crop systems Climate change

MAX
1600
1500 Historical
1400
Business as usual
Towards sustainability
1970 1980 1990 2000 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050

Note: “Additional very suitable and unprotected land” represents the base-year amount of land available and not currently in use in the highest suitability
class for rainfed crops, as in FAO-IIASA GAEZ v4 (see Box 7 and Section 3.10 of the report). Adding this land to the arable land in use in 2012 (irrigated
and rainfed) provides an estimate of the maximum potentially available very suitable unprotected agricultural land (dashed line), given 2012 irrigation
conditions. Expanding cropland beyond that limit requires progressively increasing investments. The faded wedge indicates the range of potential
land loss (dark brown: minimum, light brown: maximum). Land loss due to urbanization (in the range of 1.6 million–3.3 million hectares per year) and
degradation (in the range of 1.0 million–2.9 million hectares per year) are taken from Lambin and Meyfroidt (2011). Loss due to climate change (in the range
of 0.5 million–1.4 million hectares per year) refer to the RCP scenarios – 4.5 (min) and 8.5 (max) – and are based on the FAO-IIASA GAEZ v4.
Sources: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on simulations with the FAO GAPS model and FAOSTAT (various years).
| 37 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 4.16 SOURCES OF GROWTH IN CROP PRODUCTION IN 2050, BY REGION AND SCENARIO
Low- and middle- East Asia

High-income income countries and Pacific
World countries (excluding China) China (excluding China)
100 10 8 3
14
34 14
28 37 37
24 49 35 36
45 29
66 29
7 1
Percent
43
74 26
15 83
62 68 62
59 57 51 58 58
36 45 37 34 35
13
0
–4 –13 –20 –22 –13
–6
BAU TSS SSS BAU TSS SSS BAU TSS SSS BAU TSS SSS BAU TSS SSS
Europe Latin America Near East Sub-Saharan

South Asia and Central Asia and Caribbean and North Africa Africa
100 8 2 4 3
15 11 18
9 32
30 16
41 40
36 27 64
Percent
28 72 84
21 60
83 92
68 84
49 52 73 56 53
40 42 33
19 22 15
0 –9 –4
–15 –1 –20 –1
–7 –4
–37
BAU TSS SSS BAU TSS SSS BAU TSS SSS BAU TSS SSS BAU TSS SSS
SCENARIOS BAU – Business as usual Intensification

TSS – Towards sustainability Area
SSS – Stratified societies Yield
Note: The contributions of changes in yield, arable area and intensification to changes in crop production were calculated by relating the change in
one component to the total change in crop production, while keeping the other two components constant. As the three relative contributions together
do not account for the full change in crop production, the residual change was attributed proportionally to each of the components, to obtain a fully
consistent breakdown.
| 38 |
technologies, enhanced production be recovered through general taxes.

technologies (such as agroforestry, However, private investments would
organic agriculture, agroecology) also be required to replace obsolete
and integrated pest management; capital while transitioning towards
• the use of information and sustainable agriculture and food
communication technologies to systems. The additional investment
accelerate the spread and adoption will need to be recovered, thus
of innovations. possibly placing upward pressure
on food and agricultural prices at least
Shifting the currently prevailing in the initial phases of this transition,
production paradigm carries some as highlighted above under the
costs, with two particularly important TSS scenario.
implications.
Underpricing food may continue to
First, some productivity gains would encourage the overuse of natural
have to be given up, particularly in the resources, overconsumption and food
short to medium term (Figure 4.11), waste, particularly by affluent people,
as a consequence of the adoption with detrimental effects on the pace
of more environmentally-friendly of progress towards sustainability.
techniques. Second, such a paradigm However, concerns that higher
shift requires massively investing prices may hamper the capacity of
in several domains, including poorer segments of the population
in research and development to and particularly of those who
produce effective and robust results already suffer from hunger or severe
for sustainable agriculture and food malnutrition to procure sufficient
production, infrastructure-building, food of satisfactory quality, are
natural resources rehabilitation, legitimate and need to be considered
human capital and expertise. and the carefully. Poverty is among the
dissemination thereof. All agents in main causes of environmental
food and agricultural systems would degradation in low-income countries,
thus need to acquire the necessary and sustainability cannot exist
know-how, while institutions will without equitability. While adequate
need to set up and enforce rules social protection mechanisms can
and regulations. certainly provide immediate help
for the extreme poor to overcome
The importance of these actions is liquidity constraints and procuring
widely documented in all FAO work food, programmes such as the UN
aimed at investigating and promoting Poverty−Environment Initiative11 and
sustainable agricultural practices. projects that promote innovation
These investments require additional
public funds, which would have to See: www.unpei.org
11
| 39 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 4.11 YIELDS AND HARVESTED AREAS FOR THE FIVE MAJOR CROPS, BY REGION:
CHANGES 2012–2050
Yield index, 2012 = 100
140
World
120
100
140
High-income
countries
120
100
Low- and middle-

income countries
(excluding China)
140
120
100
140
China
index, 2012 = 100
120
100 Sub-Saharan Africa

140
Fruits
120
100
Area index, 2012 = 100 Area index, 2012 = 100 Area index, 2012 = 100
100 150 200 250 100 150 200 250 100 150 200 250
CROPS Cassava Maize Rice Soybeans Wheat

Yams Vegetables Fruit (except citrus and bananas)
Note: The figures show changes in harvested area (x-axis) and yield (y-axis) for the five most important crops in each region in 2050 relative to the base
year. Crops are ranked on the basis of their production value, calculated as the physical output at the base year multiplied by base-year prices in USD.
Circle sizes are proportional to the share of production value in the base year.
| 40 |
in family farming need to be

strengthened, as they not only
help reduce poverty but also An example is the FAO project “Farmer Innovation and
12
contribute to preserving ecosystems New Technology Options for Food Production, Income
Generation and Combating Desertification in Kenya”
and promoting environmentally (see www.fao.org/in-action/promoting-farmer-
sustainable economic growth.12 innovation-and-ffs-in-kenya/en).
YEMEN
Water use for rural
livelihoods.
©FAO/Soliman Ahmed
| 41 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
5. ADDRESSING POVERTY AND

INEQUALITY TO ACHIEVE FOOD SECURITY
AND NUTRITION GOALS
Will poverty, inequality and unemployment continue
to constrain food access and hamper the achievement
of food security and nutrition goals?
KEY MESSAGES
1. Defeating undernourishment requires reducing poverty and inequalities.
The findings of this report show that much more than “business as usual” will be required to defeat
undernourishment. A bold move towards a more equitable income distribution – to be achieved
through diverse strategic options, including by ensuring a more equitable access to assets for the
poor people, with a focus on family farmers – is the most effective way to ensure that the reduction
in undernourishment seen in the past years continues uninterrupted in the future.
2. Environmental sustainability and food security can go hand in hand.

While moving food and agricultural systems towards sustainability drives food prices up and
restrains global agricultural output, the per capita food availability in low- and middle-income
countries can substantially expand if a more equitable distribution of income within and across
countries is pursued.
3. A more equitable income distribution allows for improved and healthier diets.
The consumption of healthy items, such as fruits and vegetables is likely to increase if income is
more equally distributed within and across countries, and particularly low- and middle-income
countries. Overall, cereals would remain the most important source of calories.
4. Moving towards sustainability may help increase farm profitability

and/or agricultural employment. Sustainable agricultural practices can raise farm
profitability and/or labour opportunities in agricultural sectors. This would contribute to a more
equitable distribution of income, which may in turn be critical to improve food security and nutrition.
5. Food and agricultural sectors are key, but no longer enough on their own
to ensure equitable access to food. Agricultural sectors continue to be important for
employment and income generation in low- and middle-income countries. However, they alone
no longer provide enough jobs or income-earning opportunities. On the one hand agriculture and
family farming in particular, must be more firmly linked to the broader rural and urban economy.
This can be done by developing agro-industries and setting up infrastructure to connect rural areas,
small cities and towns. On the other hand, strong institutions supported by efficient fiscal systems,
are needed to ensure economy-wide income-earning opportunities, effective social protection,
competitive and equitable domestic and international markets for inputs and outputs.
| 42 |
A third question regarding the future opportunities to increase know-how,

of food and agricultural systems job creation, decent wages and
is whether they will become more diversified earning opportunities for
equitable, with access to sufficient and rural people.
nutritious food for all is increasingly
ensured, orif they will move in the Under the BAU scenario, almost
opposite direction. This question 7 percent of the world’s population
becomes even more compelling in is still undernourished in 2030,
light of prospective agricultural prices compared with 11 percent in 2012
increase particularly under the TSS (Figure 4.8). This result confirms the
scenario, which, other things being trends already identified in the report
equal, would make access to food Achieving zero hunger (FAO, IFAD and
more onerous. The ensuing question WFP, 2015b). Under the BAU scenario,
is whether trade-offs would emerge the picture looks even worse in 2050,
between economic, environmental with undernourishment jumping to
and social sustainability − that is, almost 8 percent. The limited drop
whether attempting to improve in the percentage of undernourished
the ecological performance of food people in 2050 compared with 2012
systems would imply giving up other leaves the number of undernourished
desirable objectives, such as universal almost unchanged up to 2050
and permanent food security and (Figure 4.9). An even worse situation
improved nutrition. unfolds under the SSS scenario, where
the PoU climbs to more than 12
It is generally recognized that without percent by 2050, leaving almost one
reducing inequalities in income, billion people undernourished.
access to resources and earning
opportunities, it will not be possible to The TSS scenario portrays a completely
eliminate hunger and extreme poverty different picture: the percentage
(World Bank, 2016). The scenario of undernourished people drops to
analysis presented in this report well below 4 percent of the world
provides insights on the conditions population, and their absolute number
necessary for undernourishment to decreases to fewer than 400 million.
drop significantly and nutrition to Following this path towards
improve, and those which would lead sustainability, the average apparent
to a deterioration on both fronts. per capita dietary composition also
Reading across the scenarios also moves towards less meat consumption,
highlights the importance for food specifically in HIC (compared with the
and agricultural sectors to contribute other scenarios) which is associated
to increasing access to food through with relatively higher consumption of
equitable access to land and water, fruits and vegetables in LMIC compared
credit facilities, improved information, with HIC (see Figure 4.6).
| 43 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 4.8 PREVALENCE OF UNDERNOURISHMENT: GLOBAL, HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED
20
15
Percent
10
0
2000 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050
FIGURE 4.9 NUMBER OF UNDERNOURISHED PEOPLE: GLOBAL, HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED
1 250
1 000
Million people
750
500
250
2000 2012 2020 2030 2040 2050
Sources: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on simulations with the FAO GAPS model. Historical data based on: FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO.
2017. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017: Building resilience for peace and food security. Rome, FAO; and United Nations.
2015. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. New York, USA.
| 44 |
FIGURE 4.6 PER CAPITA KILOCALORIE CONSUMPTION FROM FRUIT AND VEGETABLES IN
LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES (EXCLUDING CHINA) AS A SHARE OF THAT
IN HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES
Fruit and vegetables

1
0.8
Ratio
0.6
0.4
1970 1990 2012 2030 2050
Notes: The grey, vertical line represents the base year 2012. A ratio higher/lower than 1 suggests that the per capita kilocalorie intake from fruits and
vegetables in LMIC is higher/lower than in HIC, whereas a ratio closer to 1 suggests that the dietary patterns of LMIC and HIC converge. The data before
2012 refer to per capita kilocalorie supply. The data for 2012 and thereafter refer to per capita kilocalorie consumption. Food groups are detailed in
Annex III, Table A 3.5 of the report.
Sources: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on simulations with the FAO GAPS model and FAOSTAT (various years).
It follows that a more sustainable that shows a positive trend towards

pathway, characterized by reduced per capita income convergence
food availability and agricultural between LMIC and HIC,13 allowing
price increases, would not have a consumers in LMIC to buy more
negative effect upon the performance food. As a result, people in LMIC
of food systems in terms of food take in more per capita kilocalories
security and nutrition. In other than under the BAU scenario, and
words, there are no apparent almost the same amount as under
trade-offs between environmental the SSS scenario. The effect is
and social sustainability. There are two particularly strong in SSA, where
complementary reasons why the TSS the per capita income is markedly
scenario outperforms the other two in higher under the TSS scenario than
terms of food security and nutrition: under the other two scenarios.
• One reason is the increased 13

Under BAU and SSS, LMIC and SSA in particular, are far
purchasing power in LMIC, from catching up with HIC in terms of per capita income,
resulting from a more equitable as the share of their per capita income in 2050 is still about
10 percent of HIC. China is an exception as in all scenarios it
income distribution across countries shows a positive trend towards convergence with HIC,
(Figure 3.6). TSS is the only scenario as has been observed since 1980.
| 45 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 3.6 PER CAPITA GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IN LOW- AND MIDDLE-INCOME
COUNTRIES AND CHINA, AS PERCENTAGE OF THAT IN HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES

countries (excluding China) China Sub-Saharan Africa
60
40
Percent
20
0
1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050 1970 1990 2012 2030 2050
Sources: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on data from the United Nations System of National Accounts (UN, 2016), for the 1990–2012 period; and the
Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP) database version 1.1, OECD projections of gross domestic product (SSP database, 2016) for the 2013–2050 period.
• The other reason is the more “pro-poor” growth. This implies that
equitable food distribution within earning opportunities are available
countries, achieved by means of across all layers of society, basic
a more equitable distribution of services are universally accessible,
income across the different layers of and effective income redistribution
societies, particularly in LMIC. mechanisms are at work. Under
the TSS scenario, unskilled labour
Income is more equitably distributed wages in LMIC are projected to
in TSS as compared with the BAU be comparatively higher than in
scenario, under the assumption that under the BAU scenario including in
investments are oriented towards agriculture; in many instances,
| 46 |
they are also higher than under the IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2018)
SSS scenario (Figure 4.4, green lines). are a clear indication that the poor
may be becoming poorer. In this
Moving food and agricultural systems context, LMIC look highly unlikely to
towards sustainability may result in catch up with HIC for several decades
higher wages in agriculture or in the (FAO, 2017a). However, agricultural
creation of additional employment − sectors and food systems in general
or both, depending on the system. have a fundamental role to play
For example, “conservation in addressing this challenge, and
agriculture” could increase labour some strategic options are available
productivity, particularly where the to promote equitable and pro-poor
supply of rural labour is relatively growth, including, for example:
scarce, although in many instances,
this would entail a more intensified use • stepping up public spending on
of herbicides and fungicides (Derpsch research and development and
et al., 2010; Kassam et al., 2009; enabling a better environment
FAO, 2001); this type of agriculture for private research into
must be adapted to local conditions innovative sustainable agricultural
(Pannel, Llewellyn and Corbeels, 2014). technologies, particularly those
Meanwhile, “organic agriculture” suitable to family farmers;
practices can help to absorb labour, • ensuring family farmers’ access to
particularly where rural labour supply innovative technologies through
is abundant (Nemes, 2009; Herren measures such as specific credit
et al., 2012; Muller et al., 2017). lines, which may help shoulder the
initial adoption costs, incentives and
Improving the income distribution advisory services to motivate and
within and across countries is support the learning phases, and
imperative if food security and nutrition other institutional arrangements,
objectives are to be achieved while such as the creation of communities
also ensuring the environmental of practice to share information,
sustainability of food systems. exploit economies of scale, procure
This is challenging in a world where equipment in bulk at fair prices, or
inequalities remain pervasive, between participate in dedicated insurance
rural and urban areas, regions, schemes for risk management;
ethnic groups, and men and women. • improving coordination along value
Moreover, the evidence indicates chains and ensuring that the weaker
that “the rich are getting richer” segments in the chain reap the
(World Bank, 2016), while the rising benefits of integrating agricultural
trends in undernourishment highlighted sectors into wider markets;
in The State of Food Security and • protecting asset ownership and
Nutrition in the World 2018 (FAO, control, including through effective
| 47 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 4.4 AVERAGE WAGES FOR UNSKILLED LABOUR IN AGRICULTURAL AND

NON-AGRICULTURAL SECTORS

countries (excluding China) South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa
AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURE
250
200
Index, 2012 = 100
150
100
50
NON-AGRICULTURE NON-AGRICULTURE NON-AGRICULTURE

250
200
Index, 2012 = 100
150
100
50
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
ECONOMY-WIDE
300
250
Index, 2012 = 100
200
Business as usual
150
100
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Note: No distinction is made between agricultural and non-agricultural wages in the case of HIC; in these countries, the market for unskilled labour is
assumed to exhibit very limited segmentation between agriculture and non-agriculture sectors.
Source: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on ENVISAGE model results.
| 48 |
institutional arrangements migration, particularly if decently

and transparent land markets, remunerated jobs and alternative
particularly for those segments earning opportunities are not generated
of the population driven out in rural areas, off-farm and outside
of agriculture by economic of agriculture. Permanently reducing
transformations and urbanization, poverty requires actions that cut across
with a view to preventing the rural and urban areas, and, by and
dispossession of essential capital; large, across countries and regions.
• building and/or reinforcing This would require, for example:
institutions that ensure the
competitiveness of markets for • providing broad and gender-
agricultural inputs and outputs, balanced access to good quality
prevent undue concentration, health services, sanitation and
regulate oligopolies and education, as well as to professional
oligopsonies, and prevent rent training and retraining, especially
seeking behaviour that diverts for marginal farmers prone to
income away from farmers; leaving agriculture, to allow people
• promoting investment in agricultural to benefit from technical progress
sectors only if it is compliant with the and economic transformations,
principles for responsible investment while reducing poverty;
in agriculture and food systems, • promoting economic diversification
to ensure that it contributes to into rural non-farm income-
sustainable and inclusive economic generating activities by developing
development, the eradication of industrial (sector-specific) policies,
hunger and poverty, access to safe protecting infant industries and
and nutritious food, equality and implementing measures to favour
empowerment at all levels, resilience private businesses, particularly
and the reduction of disaster risks small- and medium-sized
(CFS, 2014). enterprises and create jobs
(FAO, 2017g);
Despite its key role, it is increasingly • promoting the development of
clear that agriculture alone is no agro-industries and setting up the
longer enough to significantly territorial infrastructure needed to
improve equity and support pro-poor interconnect rural areas, small cities
growth. The ongoing wider process and towns, so that rural populations
of economic transformation has led can benefit from structural
in many instances to fewer people transformation and urbanization;
being engaged in agriculture, and • supporting economy-wide job
available analysis signals that this creation through the promotion of
trend may continue. This may lead to equitable innovative processes, and
further urbanization and international ensuring decent job remuneration
| 49 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
and working conditions through • setting up more equitable and

the use of enforceable laws and effective fiscal systems to exploit
regulations; the “fiscal space” that many
• implementing adequate social countries, including some in the
protection mechanisms to provide LMIC group, possess to fund public
immediate relief for undernourished, policies and orient development
food-insecure and extremely processes towards equitability and
poor people and help overcome sustainability;
households’ liquidity constraints, • significantly reducing illicit financial
thus enabling individuals and outflows,14 which probably exceed
communities to engage in more ODA and FDI and strip resources
profitable but riskier income- and from LMIC that could otherwise be
employment-generating activities used to finance much-needed public
(FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2015b); services and development policies
• increasing the savings and (OECD, 2014). As illicit financial
investment potential of those without flows largely affect SSA (AfDB, 2013)
it, especially the poor through, (the region most prone to hunger)
for example, inclusive financing; and such flows affect food and
• facilitating the access to production agricultural sectors as well (UNECA,
factors such as land, water, 2014), tackling them may not only
credit, technical assistance and benefit public funds and citizens’
infrastructure, among others, with a incomes, but also have immediate
focus on the poorest people. and direct impacts on agricultural
development and food security.
All these measures require
appropriate funding from both Given these considerations, it appears
public and private sources. Official that achieving an equitable income
development assistance (ODA) and distribution across and within
foreign direct investment (FDI), countries – which would contribute
as well as other forms of funding that considerably towards SDG2 (ending
are increasingly available through hunger, achieving food security and
various partnerships, may be required improved nutrition and promoting
to support transformative processes sustainable agriculture) – requires
that lead economic systems towards full political commitment, innovative
more sustainability, particularly in thinking and drastic changes to the
low-income countries (FAO, 2017a).
However, significant additional funding 14
See the SDG target 16.4: “By 2030, significantly reduce
may be generated by improving illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the
international and national governance recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms
of organized crime” and indicator 16.4.1: “Total value of
and reinforcing institutions at all inward and outward illicit financial flows (in current
levels, including: United States dollars).”
| 50 |
structure and relationship between a combination of factors including

labour and capital, agriculture and population growth, price increases
non-agricultural sectors, and LMIC and climate change – albeit moderate
and HIC. – result in a rebound in the number
of undernourished people after
A final remark regarding 2030. This suggests that progressive
undernourishment: even under the commitments may be required to
TSS scenario, which is based on a not only achieve, but also maintain
decisively more equitable income food security achievements in the
distribution than the other scenarios, long run.
TEXAS, USA
Homeless feeding.
©FlickrCC/Louis Tanner
| 51 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
6. TACKLING THE NEXUS BETWEEN

CLIMATE CHANGE, AGRICULTURAL
SECTORS AND LIVELIHOODS
How will climate change affect agriculture and
rural livelihoods, and can agriculture help reduce
GHG emissions?
KEY MESSAGES
1. Climate change will incrementally affect all of the agricultural sectors.
Climate change already has negative effects on crop yields, livestock production and fisheries,
particularly in low- and middle- income countries. Such impacts are likely to become even stronger
later in this century.
2. If left unaddressed, climate change will exacerbate poverty and inequalities.

Unaddressed climate change, which is associated, inter alia, with unsustainable agricultural
practices, is likely to lead to more land and water use, disproportionately affecting poor people and
exacerbating inequalities within and between countries. This carries negative implications for both
food availability and food access.
3. Climate change impacts go well beyond crop yields. Climate change also affects
soil quality, fish habitats and stocks, the biodiversity of landscapes, and the epidemiology and
antimicrobial resistance of pests and diseases. There are great uncertainties about the combined
effects of these impacts.
4. Agricultural sectors can only reduce their GHG emissions through more
investment. Agricultural sectors can adapt to climate change and lower their GHG emissions
while producing enough food for all. However, for this to be possible, substantial investments must
be made to develop and implement more resource-saving and climate-friendly technologies.
5. Efforts in agricultural sectors are not enough – drastic economy-wide GHG

reductions are needed. Although agricultural sectors have a significant potential for climate
change mitigation through the adoption of better practices such as land conservation, increasing
livestock efficiency, afforestation and reforestation, efforts in agriculture alone are not enough.
Boosting energy-use efficiency and reducing GHG emissions per unit of energy must happen on an
economy-wide basis.
| 52 |
A fourth concern regarding the future consumption patterns and ensure that
of food and agricultural systems the impact of climate change on crop
is whether the sector – which will yields is less severe than under the
be increasingly affected by climate other scenarios (Figure 3.9).
change – can substantially contribute
to reducing global GHG emissions It is well recognized that agricultural
while producing enough food for all. sectors are not only affected by climate
change, to which they need to adapt;
Agricultural sectors will be affected they also contribute substantially to
by climate change to varying degrees it. Under the BAU and SSS scenarios,
depending on the economy-wide for example, GHG emissions from
amount of GHGs emitted in the agricultural sectors increase by 24 and
coming decades. Existing knowledge 54 percent, respectively, while the TSS
of the relationships between scenario sees a substantial reduction of
climate change and agricultural 39 percent in emissions (Figure 4.17).
performance is relatively limited.
However, it is well known that The notable reduction in GHG
climate change will affect crop emissions by agricultural sectors
yields as well as other ecological under the TSS scenario is the joint
and social aspects, including result of three concurring factors:
biodiversity, soil quality, animal and
plant resilience to diseases, and • a reduced expansion in gross
poverty and inequalities across and agricultural output compared with
within countries. These factors could the other scenarios;
trigger migration flows and conflicts, • a different composition of
with negative consequences of an agricultural output, with a more
unforeseeable magnitude for the limited expansion in livestock,
well-being of billions of people and particularly of large and small
(IPCC, 2014a). ruminants, which significantly
contribute to GHG emissions;
Under the BAU scenario, climate • efficiency gains in both crop and
change will negatively affect crop animal production processes as a
yields worldwide due to growing result of reducing land and input use
GHG emissions. The same holds per unit of output.
true for the SSS scenario, where
GHG emissions expand as economic The first two aspects pertain to
systems grow. Meanwhile, GHG changes in consumer habits and
emissions decrease under the TSS preferences, as discussed above.
scenario as a result of substantial The third aspect relates to the way
investments that bring about production processes are organized
more sustainable production and and managed.
| 53 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 3.9 YIELD CHANGES FROM 2012 TO 2050 DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND TECHNICAL PROGRESS
A) IRRIGATED SYSTEMS
175
150
Index, 2012 = 100
125
100
75
All Rice Vegetables Fruit Maize All Vegetables Rice Maize Fruit All Rice Vegetables Wheat Sugar
cane

China East Asia and Pacific (excluding China)
175
150
Index, 2012 = 100
125
100
75
All Vegetables Rice Maize Fruit All Rice Vegetables Maize Fruit All Rice Natural Sugar Vegetables
rubber cane
South Asia Europe and Central Asia Latin America and Caribbean
175
150
Index, 2012 = 100
125
100
75
All Rice Wheat Fruit Vegetables All Vegetables Wheat Cotton Potatoes All Sugar Vegetables Fruit Rice
cane
Near East and North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa

175
Technical change
150 Climate change
Index, 2012 = 100
125 Combined effects by scenario

Business as usual
100
75 Stratified societies
All Vegetables Wheat Fruit Potatoes All Sugar Rice Vegetables Maize
cane
Note: Coloured bars indicate price-independent changes in yields attributed to both technical progress and climate change. The white circles indicate
changes in yields arising from climate change, while the black barred dots indicate changes arising from technical progress. Climate change impacts are
computed from FAO-IIASA GAEZ v4 (scenario without CO2 fertilization, median value for five climate models). Changes in yields are shown for the four top
commodities, as classified in the FAO GAPS model, in each region, and production system, ranked by their value of production in 2012. In this figure, “Citrus”
| 54 |
B) RAINFED SYSTEMS
175
150
Index, 2012 = 100
125
100
75
All Vegetables Fruit Maize Soybeans All Fruit Maize Vegetables Wheat All Fruit Vegetables Cassava Maize

China East Asia and Pacific (excluding China)
175
150
Index, 2012 = 100
125
100
75
All Vegetables Fruit Maize Potatoes All Vegetables Fruit Rice Oilpalm All Rice Oilpalm Vegetables Fruit
South Asia Europe and Central Asia Latin America and Caribbean
175
150
Index, 2012 = 100
125
100
75
All Rice Fruit Vegetables Cassava All Wheat Vegetables Fruit Potatoes All Soybeans Maize Fruit Coffee
Near East and North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa

175
Technical change
150 Climate change
Index, 2012 = 100
125 Combined effects by scenario

Business as usual
100
75 Stratified societies
All Fruit Other Wheat Vegetables All Cassava Yams Vegetables Maize
crops
and “Other fruit” are aggregated into “Fruit”. “All” refers to the aggregated change in production over the total harvested areas for all crops. Note that the
results of research into the impacts of climate change on fruit trees are not conclusive (Ramírez and Kallarackal, 2015).
Sources: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on FAOSTAT (various years) for historical crop yields and value of production; FAO-IIASA GAEZ v4 for
climate change shifters; FAO expert judgement for technological shifters.
| 55 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
FIGURE 4.17 PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
4
GtCO2eq
0
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
CATEGORIES Enteric fermentation Rice Fertilizer Manure Crop residue
Notes: Emissions are expressed in gigatonnes (billion metric tonnes) of carbon-dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq). The graph includes GHG emissions from
livestock and crop production but excludes emissions from burning of savannah and crop residues and conversion of peatlands.
Sources: FAO Global Perspectives Studies, based on simulations with the FAO GAPS model, and emission factors from FAO GLEAM (2017) and FAOSTAT
(various years) .
The wide range across countries and Agriculture, land use, land-use
regions of emission intensities, which changes and forests are among the
are the amount of GHG emissions per most referenced sectors in intended
unit of output, suggests that there is nationally determined contributions
a potential to lower GHG emissions (INDCs) as domains for GHG emission
from food and agricultural sectors. reductions that countries submitted
This implies examining the overall ahead of the 2015 United Nations
impacts of the food and agricultural Climate Change Conference (COP21)
systems at large, which include food (FAO, 2017h). Options for significantly
and feed demand, food loss and waste, reducing GHG emissions exist also for
other uses of agricultural outputs fisheries, for instance in capture, by
(fibres, biofuels, etc.), water usage, using more efficient engines, improving
as well as the system’s effects on soil vessel shapes or simply by reducing
health, ecosystem services, biodiversity the mean speed of vessels, as well as in
and agriculture−forest trade-offs aquaculture, by using renewable energy
and/or synergies, including soil carbon sources, and improving feed conversion
storage, afforestation and reforestation. rates (Barange et al., 2018). However,
| 56 |
all these aspects need to be further overall GHG emission reductions, the
mainstreamed to allow for the effective burden of this challenge must be borne
implementation of INDCs and to achieve by the economy at large. This implies,
further results in GHG reduction. for example, achieving economy-wide
improvements in the efficiency of
Furthermore, it is apparent that, energy use – that is, the energy use
although the agricultural sectors have per unit of output, as well as the GHG
significant potential to contribute to emissions efficiency per unit of energy.
HAITI
Hurricane impact and
humanitarian assitance.
©UN Photo/Marco Dormino
| 57 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
7. CONCLUDING However, this scenario is far from
REMARKS
being an easy path without hurdles:
there are no “silver bullets” and
society must be prepared to address
“Business as usual” is no longer an certain trade-offs. The conclusions
option if the targets set by the 2030 of this report provide solid evidence
Agenda for Sustainable Development to corroborate the assertion that
– and specifically those directly “fundamental changes in the way
concerning food and agriculture – societies consume and produce are
are to be met. The high-input, indispensable for achieving global
resource-intensive farming sustainable development” (UN, 2012).
systems that have caused massive
deforestation, water scarcity, soil To permanently and universally achieve
depletion, the loss of biodiversity, the SDGs and thereby guide food
antimicrobial resistance of pests systems and socio-economic systems in
and diseases and high levels of general along an economically, socially
GHG emissions cannot guarantee and environmentally sustainable
the sustainability of food and path, a global transformative process
agricultural systems. Moreover, that goes well beyond the divide
a future of increasing inequalities, between “developed” and “developing”
exacerbated climate change effects, countries is required. Where the
uncontrolled migration, increasing conventional “development” wisdom
conflicts, extreme poverty and once focused mainly on addressing
undernourishment, as outlined in the needs of low-income countries,
one of the scenarios of this study, sustainable development looks at the
is highly undesirable. universal challenge – and collective
responsibility – of addressing the needs
Innovative systems are needed of all countries. All socio-economic
to increase productivity without and environmental systems require
compromising the natural resource substantial investments along the path
base. Technological improvements towards sustainability to overhaul
resulting in a drastic reduction in obsolete capital stock, research and
agricultural GHG emissions would develop new solutions, and implement
help to address climate change and innovative technologies adapted to
counteract the intensification of natural different contexts and actors. These
hazards, which affect all ecosystems aspects are all at the heart of the SDGs.
and every aspect of human life (FAO,
2017a). These are the salient features The investments required to move
of the “towards sustainability” scenario food and agricultural systems towards
developed and analysed in this report to sustainability are by nature riskier
reflect a future with desirable outcomes. than in other sectors, and require a
| 58 |
better ex ante risk assessment and interaction between various production,

guarantees to ensure that projects consumption and biophysical processes
are sustainable. Moreover, these occurring across different sectors and
investments will only materialize regions. Moreover, as data on many
if both private and public funding aspects are insufficient or inconsistent,
becomes available to: it was necessary to identify, merge and
harmonize a myriad of datasets from
• research and develop innovative different domains.
sustainable technologies for primary
production and processing; To avoid looking into the future with the
• replace obsolete capital to improve same lenses used to observe the past,
efficiency in land and water use; and to overcome data gaps, this report
• reduce GHG emissions along was based on the ideas, positions and
the entire food and agriculture contributions of a broad array of actors
value chains; and constituencies, including other
• build market and logistical international organizations, national
infrastructure to reduce food losses governments, non-governmental
and improve value chain efficiency; and civil society organizations, and
• support the implementation of academia. It builds heavily upon the
social protection programmes and multidisciplinary knowledge of FAO
increase their coverage, especially and its development partners, which
in rural areas; in many instances represent the best
• reinforce institutions, including and most up-to-date information
those promoting responsible available worldwide in fields such as
investments in agriculture and animal production technologies and
food systems. related GHG emissions, climate change
scenarios, agricultural commodity
Making this funding available requires production and use, and global
sacrificing certain present – not economic data, to mention but a few.
necessarily essential – needs in order
to reap future benefits. Such sacrifices Despite its difficulties and limitations,
should be borne by richer countries and this report contributes to the debate
by the better-off segments of society, on the future of food and agriculture
which can reasonably afford them. As and its sustainable development
such, a brighter future is prepared for patterns. Much more remains to
the next generations and for those who be done to better understand how
already suffer from the negative effects socio-economic and environmental
of unsustainable development. systems may evolve in the future,
and comprehend the possible future
The findings of this report are pathways of food and agricultural
subject to uncertainties regarding the systems. Nonetheless, this report
| 59 |
Alternative
pathways to 2050
constitutes a significant step forward Hopefully, the findings of this report

in this direction. For the first time will be of use to everyone interested
does a report not only provide in long-term foresight assessments of
a globally comprehensive and global food and agricultural systems,
consistent foresight exercise on food including decision-makers and
and agricultural systems based on analysts in governments, international
three alternative scenarios – which organizations, civil society organizations,
catalyses such a large amount of the private sector, and academic and
multidisciplinary expertise – but it research institutions. Decision makers,
does so by examining the challenges to the international community, academia
food security and nutrition in all their and civil society are invited to consider
complexity and within the context this report not as the end point of an
of the wider economy, taking into analytical endeavor, but rather as the
account future climate change. starting point for a dialogue on strategic
policy choices and processes aimed
This report advocates for more at shaping sustainable development
sustainable food and agricultural patterns at country, regional and
systems based on sound quantitative global levels. It is in this perspective
evidence. The absence of such that this report should be regarded
evidence would make any calls for as a contribution towards achieving
increased sustainability much less both the United Nations’ Sustainable
convincing and, ultimately, largely Development Goals and FAO’s vision
ineffective. of a world with sustainably produced,
nutritious and accessible food for all.
ITALY
Food for the future.
©FlickCC/Maja Dumat
| 60 |
THE FUTURE This report explores three
OF FOOD AND different scenarios for the
future of food and agriculture,
AGRICULTURE based on alternative trends for
ALTERNATIVE key drivers, including income
PATHWAYS growth and distribution,
TO 2050 population growth, technical
progress and climate change.
Building on the report The future of food and
agriculture – Trends and challenges, this publication
forms part of FAO’s efforts to support evidence-based
decision-making processes. It provides solid
qualitative and quantitative analysis and sheds
light on possible strategic options to achieve the
Sustainable Development Goal of eradicating
hunger, improving nutrition and ensuring economic,
social and environmental sustainability of food and
agricultural systems.
The publication The future of food and agriculture

– Alternative pathways to 2050 is available at:
www.fao.org/3/I8429EN/i8429en.pdf
www.fao.org/publications/fofa
ISBN 978-92-5-130989-6
9 7 8 9 2 5 1 3 0 9 8 9 6
CA1553EN/1/09.18

FAO - Food 2050

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO - Food 2050

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO - Food 2050

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

THE FUTURE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE:

2 Alternative scenarios for possible futures 24

3 Managing food demand and changing people’s dietary preferences 30

4 Sustainably addressing the scarcity and reduced quality of land and

6 Tackling the nexus between climate change, agricultural sectors

FAO gratefully acknowledges Raffaella Rucci, Outreach Specialist,

Jim Curtiss, Editorial Advisor,

OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

Progress towards eliminating hunger Much of humanity’s progress has

The future of food

The future of food and agriculture1 sustainability of food and agricultural

In this report, “agriculture” comprises all agricultural

sectors, including crops, livestock, fisheries and forestry.

WILL GLOBAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS BE ABLE TO

All countries must commit to … but producing more will be

Raising consumer awareness will help While moving towards sustainability,

1. OVERVIEW the share of cereals has diminished.

The overarching concern regarding Persistent poverty, inequality and

increased with economic growth, while summary – for reference entries.

FIGURE 1.6 PREVALENCE OF OBESITY AMONG CHILDREN AND ADULTS BY REGION

Children and adolescents Adults

World High-income countries Upper-middle countries Lower-middle countries Low-income countries

FIGURE 1.7 UNDERNOURISHMENT UNDER A BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO, 2005–2030

hundred thousands of children go blind induced negative impacts on human

FIGURE 1.11 FRESHWATER WITHDRAWALS AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RENEWABLE

Water Stress Index

Low Low to moderate Medium to high High Extremely high

requirements can be met will Unaddressed climate change is

FIGURE 1.15 ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 1990–2014

for concern and raise questions incremental and multiplicative effects

In a study such as this one, the a host of contingent, short-term

increase and distribution, population This report is the result of a

Supplementary material including detailed commodity

provides a globally consistent foresight towards “a world in which food is

2. ALTERNATIVE alternative future from 2012, the base

Low- and middle-income

East Asia and the Pacific

Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia Latin America and the Caribbean

Near East and North Africa Europe and Central Asia

FIGURE 1.2 GLOBAL POPULATION BY REGION: HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED, 1950–2100

World High-income countries Europe and Central Asia

China East Asia and Pacific (excluding China) South Asia

0.75 0.75 4.5

0.25 0.25 1.5

Note: This report uses the 2015

The demographic projections used in the international community, civil

Climate change, technical progress, trade …

Challenges for food availability and stability

3. MANAGING FOOD DEMAND AND

2. Demand management through consumer awareness and education is also

4. Dietary patterns of high-income countries need balancing. While moving towards

FIGURE 4.2 GROSS AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT AT BASE-YEAR PRICES

Historical Business as usual Towards sustainability Stratified societies

FIGURE 4.3 PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCER PRICE INDEX

Business as usual Towards sustainability Stratified societies

as well as by persistent consumer • reduced food loss and waste at all

non-communicable diseases. Although instances the self-sufficiency ratio of

FIGURE 4.5 DAILY ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SOURCE AND SCENARIO