Sustainable intensification of agriculture: the foundation for universal food security

Sustainable intensification of agriculture: the foundation for universal food security

Introduction

Food security is a human right, embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966). The United Nations (UN) Rome Declaration on Global Food Security (1996) provided a comprehensive and robust definition of food security that focused on access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food for all1. This definition inspired the concept of universal food security: healthy diets for all, from sustainable food systems2.

The global food system is failing to deliver universal food security. The UN reported that ~735 million (one in 11) people in 2023 were hungry—as measured by energy (calorie) availability3. Broader indicators of food deprivation, including the prevalence of moderate to severe food insecurity, access to nutritious diets, and incidence of micronutrient deficiency, suggest that around three billion people are unable to meet their nutrition needs3. COVID-19 disruptions, climate change, and conflict have adversely affected food security4. The Ukraine-Russia conflict has highlighted the vulnerability of food supply chains and the impacts of crises on the poorest and marginalized in society5.

With the current state and trajectories of hunger, malnutrition, and dietary change, coupled with land degradation, water resource depletion, biodiversity loss, and climate change, the gap between ambition and reality is steadily growing. The quest for universal food security has stalled. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 will not be achieved. And this has dire consequences for peace, prosperity, and the environment. In this paper, sustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture is presented as an essential but not sufficient foundation for achieving universal food security.

Green revolutions in Asia and Africa: genesis of SI

In response to predictions of famine in the 1950s and 1960s, governments, international development agencies, and philanthropies turned to new technology (high-yielding varieties and inorganic fertilizer), infrastructure investment (roads and irrigation), and supportive policies (input subsidies, farm credit, and market support) to boost agricultural productivity6. With a major focus on staple crops in Asia, this combination of investments became known as the Green Revolution. The Asian Green Revolution represents one of humanity’s greatest achievements and provided the foundation for reductions in poverty and hunger, as well as broad export-led economic growth across the region7. In addition, improved agricultural productivity slowed land conversion, with one study showing that 18–27 million ha of pastures and forests were saved through the Green Revolution8.

Efforts to implement the same approach to productivity improvement in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have failed for several reasons2. First, 96% of arable land in SSA is rainfed, and much of it is depleted of nutrients9. Second, unlike in Asia, where rice and wheat contributed almost all of the staple calories, agriculture in SSA was diverse and some important staple foods, including root and tuber crops, received less research. In addition, structural adjustment policies during the 1980s led to the dismantling of government support that was so critical in Asia. Poor infrastructure, urban bias, and poor governance and conflict further curtailed efforts to intensify agriculture in SSA through the Green Revolution approach2.

In 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan recognized the vulnerability of African smallholder farmers to climate shocks and declining soil fertility, while acknowledging that the scientific breakthroughs obtained in Asia could not be directly applied to Africa10. Annan drew on the work of the UN Millennium Project Hunger Task Force, and called for a different kind of Green Revolution—a more holistic approach that would include small-scale irrigation, improvements in soil health, and complementary investments in infrastructure and social safety nets11. Annan described this new approach as a “uniquely African Green Revolution,” and it led to greater visibility and investment in African agriculture by governments, donor agencies, and philanthropic agencies12.

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), drawing on decades of research by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and national partners, has championed greater investment in research and development for the major staple crops. The Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program (CAADP), established by the African Union, has encouraged African governments to invest more in agriculture-led development. The African Development Bank has prioritized agriculture through its Feed Africa initiative.

The impact of these and related investments in agricultural productivity improvement in SSA is now apparent in the case of cereal crops. A comparison of SSA and Asia reveals surprising parallels (Fig. 1). Taking a baseline of 2004—the year of Annan’s call for a “uniquely African Green Revolution”—cereal crop production in SSA had increased by 92 percent by 2022. Taking the baseline for Asia’s Green Revolution as 1966—the year the “miracle rice” variety IR8 was released in the Philippines—cereal production across Asia increased by 85 percent over the equivalent period (18 years). While Asia’s increase came almost entirely through higher yield per hectare (72% yield increase, 7% area expansion), the cereal crop production increases in SSA came in almost equal measure from yield increase (41 percent) and area expansion (37 percent).

Fig. 1: Increase in cereal crop production in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia during the first 18 years of the green revolutions in each region, (2004–2022) and (1966–1984), respectively.
Sustainable intensification of agriculture: the foundation for universal food security

Each data point on the figure reflects the three-year moving average ending in the designated year. Figure 1 was prepared using Microsoft Excel. Source: FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.

Full size image

In SSA, root and tuber crops, such as cassava, yams, and sweet potatoes, are important staples. Between 2004 and 2022, production of root and tuber crops in SSA increased by 94%, but entirely through crop area expansion (Fig. 2). In Asia, as in the case of cereals, production gains came mainly through yield increases on existing agricultural land. Thus, the Green Revolution in Asia enabled the intensification of cereals and root and tuber crops, while the African Green Revolution led to both intensification and extensification for cereals but principally extensification for root and tuber crops.

Fig. 2: Increase in root and tuber crop production in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia during the first 18 years of the green revolutions in each region, (2004–2022) and (1966–1984), respectively.
figure 2

Each data point on the figure reflects the three-year moving average ending in the designated year. Figure 2 was prepared using Microsoft Excel. Source: FAOSTAT. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.

Full size image

Conversion of land to agriculture has been an essential component of human civilization and development for millennia. Land use change, however, has caused land degradation, biodiversity loss, and GHG emissions13. In Asia, agricultural intensification is now the norm, and the scope for conversion of forest land has slowed, though it continues in some pockets, notably in Indonesia associated with palm oil production14. There have been claims of substantial progress toward SI over the past two decades, including in Africa15. However, there is a less optimistic view that SI remains more of a vision than a short-term solution16.

Green Revolution approaches will likely remain the best strategy for improving crop productivity, though with increased emphasis on traditional crops such as millets, sorghum, and cassava17. The challenge is how to intensify crop production more sustainably. Increased use of inorganic fertilizer, incorporating improved agronomic efficiency and integrated soil fertility management principles will be needed to boost the productivity of major staples and non-traditional cereal crops18. Incorporation of trees will likely play an important role in contributing to soil and land rehabilitation, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity19. Further intensification of cropland will also require investments that build resilience to climate change, including investments in irrigation infrastructure, drought-tolerant varieties, locally appropriate information services, and crop insurance17.

The case for SI

SI aims to increase agricultural production while minimizing collateral environmental damage. The concept was initially characterized and interpreted as “regenerative, low‐input agriculture, founded on full farmer participation in all stages of development and extension” supported by “local processes of innovation and adaptation” to reduce dependency on external inputs20. However, emphasizing “low-input agriculture” ignores two fundamentals of the global food system: global food demand is increasing21, and farming is not a closed system22. As food exits the farm environment, increasingly to meet the demand of urban consumers, the nutrients for maintaining productivity must be replenished.

Most academics and development agencies now accept an alternative definition of SI as a strategy for increasing production with more efficient resource use and reduced environmental damage23,24. SI aims to avoid the cultivation of additional land and halt the loss of natural ecosystems and associated environmental services. That does not mean that every field and farm should intensify. Instead, we should see SI as a transformation process in the aggregate, comprising five complementary interventions undertaken in context25:

  1. 1.

    Increasing farm output through increased input use and improved input use efficiency26.

  2. 2.

    Maintaining farm output with a reduced environmental impact, through improved input use efficiency27.

  3. 3.

    Restoring abandoned or neglected arable land, through the strategic use of critical mixed cropping approaches such as agroforestry and strategic use of inorganic fertilizers28.

  4. 4.

    Reducing farm output or exiting crop production altogether by shifting to agricultural systems with less environmental impact or returning land to natural ecosystems, including greater use of indigenous tree systems29.

  5. 5.

    Protecting and valuing natural ecosystems for their environmental services, including carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, and watershed management30.

The net result of applying this portfolio of interventions at global, regional, and national levels is increased food availability with a reduced environmental footprint. It is necessary to build on relevant Green Revolution investments, while drawing on knowledge and experience from mixed farming systems, agroecology, as well as organic and conservation agriculture systems31. Local context and access to markets should drive the extent of external input use15.

Building on the successes and recognizing the limitations of the green revolutions in Asia and SSA, this pragmatic approach to SI implies that additional external inputs—applied strategically through the first three interventions above—will be required to meet anticipated consumer demand. However, this more holistic approach to SI calls for concurrent deintensification of agriculture in settings where resources and inputs are currently being used inefficiently. As a result, by applying this nuanced, contextual approach to SI, we can reduce and even eliminate the need to expand the agricultural frontier through deforestation.

Beyond SI

Producing enough food to meet the nutritional needs of 10 billion consumers by 2050 is the cornerstone of universal food security. But investing in SI is just one component of a broader set of investments needed to transform the food system and align with the SDGs (Fig. 3). Complementing SI are four other investment areas2:

Fig. 3: Key investment areas and related Sustainable Development Goals for transforming the global food system.
figure 3

Figure 3 was prepared using Adobe Illustrator. (Denning, 2023, reproduced with permission of Columbia University Press).

Full size image

Market Infrastructure: Food availability must be coupled with food access. Physical infrastructure investment— in roads (and other transport conduits), electrification, and information technology—is necessary for connecting producers and consumers32. Supportive policy environments that enable movement of commodities within and between countries are necessary complementary investments.

Postharvest Stewardship: One-third of all food produced is not consumed33. Postharvest losses and waste represent missed opportunities to improve profits for farmers and reduce the cost of food to consumers. In addition, food losses and waste embody the resources (land, water, fertilizer, energy, and labor) used and the environmental costs of producing this unconsumed food. Establishing SDG 12.3 was a significant step toward improving postharvest stewardship34.

Healthy Diets: Evidence-based policies and interventions are shown to cut undernutrition and show promise in reversing overweight, obesity, and diet-related diseases35. For the undernourished, this means filling in the nutritional gaps without overshooting the requirements with unhealthy outcomes. Turning science into practice for better human nutrition is difficult and requires investment at multiple levels by multiple actors36.

Social Protection: When people are unable to provide for themselves, society can step in to protect and support the most vulnerable through systems, policies, and programs that are collectively described as social protection37. In a food and nutrition context, social protection helps meet the needs of people who face various forms of malnutrition as a result of conflict, natural disasters, poor health, or extreme poverty38.

There are additional cross-sector investments that are not unique to the food system but contribute to better food security outcomes. These include interventions to improve water and sanitation, improved governance, women’s empowerment, and broader improvements in education and health2.

Conclusion

The green revolutions in Asia and SSA have made major contributions to staple food supply and food security in both regions. In Asia, this increase came primarily through intensification, while, more recently, in SSA, increased crop production has come from intensification and extensification. In both settings, there are significant environmental costs. The current state and trends in hunger, malnutrition, and dietary change clearly show that we will not meet SDG 2 by 2030.

A more nuanced and rights-based approach to food security is proposed. The concept of universal food security describes a world where every person enjoys a healthy diet derived from sustainable food systems. Building on the progress and lessons from the green revolutions in Asia and SSA, SI is proposed as an alternative pathway for improving food supply and meeting consumer demands in an environmentally sustainable way. Globally, we should implement SI as a portfolio of investments that, in the aggregate and in the local context, results in more nutritious food and less environmental damage.

SI is necessary but not sufficient for achieving universal food security. The complexity of the food system and the need for complementary and often synergistic investments across multiple sectors present implementation challenges. At the national level, where most policies are designed, and finances are allocated, a whole-of-government, multi-sector approach is needed. Complementing the public sector, businesses bring critical knowledge, skills, and resources to ensure the continued benefits that emerge from innovation and competition. Informed, responsive, and courageous leadership is essential.

Related Articles

Spatial evolution of traditional waterside settlements south of the Yangtze River and the distribution of settlement heritage: evidence from the Nanxi River Basin

The study of ancient settlements in the traditional waterside towns of Jiangnan is an important part of scientific research on architectural heritage. This study examines ancient settlements in the Nanxi River Basin during various historical periods, such as the Neolithic Age, Eastern Han Dynasty, Tang-Five Dynasty, Song-Yuan Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, and Qing Dynasty. It investigates their temporal and spatial evolution and the factors that influence their distribution, with a particular focus on the role of intangible cultural heritage. This study focuses on the relationship between the spatial evolution of traditional waterside settlements in the Nanxi River Basin and the distribution of intangible heritage and analyzes the driving factors of their development. How settlements changed over time and space was examined with geographic information systems (GIS) software and by using kernel density, elliptical variance, and spatial autocorrelation methods on 204 ancient settlement points. This study also employs buffer and data overlay methods to analyze the factors that affect settlement distribution by elevation, slope, water system distance, and distance to intangible cultural heritage points. The study reveals the following. (1) During the Ming and Qing Dynasties, clans, culture, and the economy drove the expansion of early settlements, which relied on water systems and flat terrain, to form a multicenter distribution. (2) The settlement distribution in the Nanxi River Basin has undergone a transformation from single-point distribution to multipoint aggregation and divergence during the evolution from the Neolithic Age to the Qing Dynasty. The overall center of gravity of the settlements shifts from south to north and east, and the overall distribution of the settlements is in a state of aggregation. (3) The spatial and temporal evolution of settlements is jointly influenced by the natural environment and cultural factors. The natural environment determines the spatial distribution of early settlements, while cultural factors promote the evolution and development of the settlement space. This study further clarifies the key role of intangible cultural heritage in the formation and development of settlements and provides a reference framework for future heritage protection policies.

The multidimensional relationship between renewable energy deployment and carbon dioxide emissions in high-income nations

Cross-national research has found that the decarbonization effect of renewable energy development is relatively weak in high-income nations. It is crucial to identify effective points of intervention to enhance renewables’ decarbonization effect. Using a multidimensional analytical framework, this study examines whether certain structural components of high-income nations’ CO2 emissions are particularly susceptible to barriers to decarbonization and therefore are less effectively mitigated by renewable energy development. Analyzing a panel dataset covering 33 high-income nations from 1996 to 2019, I identify a pattern of uneven decarbonization. Renewable energy development has mitigated production-based emissions with increasing effectiveness over time; however, the mitigation effect has been largely confined to emissions from domestic-oriented supply chain activities. Meanwhile, renewables’ inability to mitigate emissions embodied in exports and direct end-user emissions has largely persisted over time. Additionally, developing renewable energy has not spurred growth in emissions in imports, indicating that it has not intensified carbon leakage.

Accounting for existing tenure and rights over marine and freshwater systems

Global commitments to conservation and sustainable development increasingly demand sensitivity to the rights and territories of Indigenous peoples and local communities. However, existing tenure systems are often overlooked by global actors and their initiatives. Using key informant surveys, literature, and established databases, we describe 62 distinct tenure systems (or place-based, governance relationships between people and coasts) across 24 countries. In all systems, people held rights to access and use aquatic resources to support healthy diets, livelihoods, and culture. The three collective-choice rights (i.e., management, exclusion, transferability) were present in 29% of systems – suggesting conditions sufficient for “self-governance”. People gained or held rights due to their residency (in 63% of systems); through historical use (52%), permits (35%), and/or kinship (29%). Our synthesis provides an opportunity for policy and action to recognize these systems of tenure, and to stimulate further actions that illuminate and recognize the rights of communities toward their sovereignty.

The spatial coupling and its influencing mechanism between rural human-habitat heritage and key rural tourism villages in China

Exploring the influencing factors and its influencing mechanism of the spatial coupling between rural human-habitat heritage (RHH) and key rural tourism villages (RTV) at county scale from the perspective of space can expand the theoretical research on the spatial coupling mechanism between RHH and RTV, and further provide theoretical reference and data support for the coordinated development and high-quality development of RHH and RTV in China. At the same time, previous studies have failed to systematically analyze the influencing factors and influencing mechanisms of the spatial coupling between RHH and RTV at the county scale, which restricted decision makers from formulating coordinated development measures between RHH and RTV at the macro level. In this study, bivariate spatial autocorrelation model and spatial coupling coordination model were used to quantitatively analyze the spatial coupling level between RHH and RTV at the county scale in China. Then, the linear regression (OLS) model, geographically weighted regression (GWR) model, and optimal parameter GeoDetector (OPGD) model were integrated to systematically analyze the linear influencing, spatial heterogeneity effect and interactive effect of natural environment and socioeconomic factors on the spatial coupling level between RHH and RTV in China, and explore the interactive influencing mechanism. The results show that the spatial coupling level of RHH and RTV in China show a significant east-west differentiation. There were 2024, 473, 293, 55 and 6 areas of severe, moderate, mild, basic and moderate coordination between RHH and RTV, respectively. Among them, severe and moderate discoordination areas are mainly distributed in Northeast China, arid and semi-arid areas in Western China, plateau areas in Southwest China, densely populated urban agglomerations and plains agricultural areas in the Middle East China. Mild discoordination areas and basic and moderate coordination areas are mainly located in transition zones in mountainous and plain areas, economically developed mountainous and hilly counties along the southeastern coast, and coastal tourist cities. Economic and population factors are the fundamental factors that affect the spatial coupling between RHH and RTV. Rural tourism facilities and rural public service facilities are important external driving forces for the coupling development of RHH and RTV, and Sociocultural environment factors are the important internal driving forces. Different surface forms, different climate conditions and different ecological environment conditions can form different natural textures and spatial organizations. Suitable climate conditions, sufficient water sources and ecological environment conditions can form more suitable rural settlement construction conditions and production and living conditions, and ultimately affect the protection and activation of rural human settlement heritage and the development and layout of key tourist villages. The spatial coupling relationship between RHH and RTV is the result of the complex interaction between the natural directivity law caused by natural environmental factors and the humanistic directivity law caused by human social and economic activities.

Spatiotemporal evolution and human-environment relationships of early cultural sites from the Longshan to Xia-Shang periods in Henan Province, China

Henan Province, a pivotal region for the origin and development of early Chinese civilization, is home to numerous early cultural sites that serve as vital material carriers documenting early human society. A systematic study of the evolution of these cultural sites in Henan and their relationships with the environment can elucidate the developmental patterns of early state civilizations in the region, reveal the cultural significance of these sites, and provide scientific evidence for their protection and utilization. This study employs GIS spatial analysis techniques to unveil the spatial evolution of cultural site distribution in Henan Province from the Longshan period to the Xia and Shang periods, including characteristics of spatial clustering, distribution density, and directional trends. Furthermore, it examines the relationship between the spatial distribution of cultural sites and environmental factors across different periods. The results indicate: (1) early cultural sites in Henan Province exhibit spatial clustering patterns. During the Longshan period, these sites had the widest distribution and the highest number. By the Xia Dynasty, the number of sites significantly decreased, concentrating in the middle reaches of the Yellow River. By the Shang Dynasty, the distribution expanded northward and southward within Henan Province. (2) Early cultural sites in Henan Province are primarily located in plains, basins, and low mountain and hill areas with elevations below 400 m and gentle slopes. Site selection favored sun-facing slopes with ample sunlight and areas that were convenient for water access and less prone to flooding. (3) Early settlers preferred establishing their communities in areas with relatively complex geographical diversity, offering more possibilities for production and daily life. However, excessive geographical diversity increased the difficulty for early humans to adapt and modify the environment, thus limiting their activities and reducing the number of sites. (4) The results of the geographically weighted regression analysis indicate that there are significant spatial differences and heterogeneity in the influencing factors during the Longshan period and Shang Dynasty, while the factors during the Xia Dynasty did not exhibit statistically significant spatial heterogeneity.

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *