how would research help in food sustenance of a country

• Ways to Give
• Contact an Expert
• Explore WRI Perspectives

Filter Your Site Experience by Topic

Applying the filters below will filter all articles, data, insights and projects by the topic area you select.

• All Topics Remove filter
• Climate filter site by Climate
• Cities filter site by Cities
• Energy filter site by Energy
• Food filter site by Food
• Forests filter site by Forests
• Freshwater filter site by Freshwater
• Ocean filter site by Ocean
• Business filter site by Business
• Economics filter site by Economics
• Finance filter site by Finance
• Equity & Governance filter site by Equity & Governance

Search WRI.org

Not sure where to find something? Search all of the site's content.

Creating a Sustainable Food Future 

WRI advances research-based solutions to ensure the world can feed a growing population while protecting nature and curbing climate change.

• Is There Such a Thing as “Better” Meat? It’s Complicated
• To Make Good on Sustainable Food Commitments, Countries Must Do 4 Things
• How Cacao Can Do So Much More Than Make Chocolate

Our Challenge

The world is projected to hold nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Sustainably feeding this exploding population requires simultaneously addressing challenges facing people, nature and climate.

Around 800 million people face hunger globally, and research shows the world will have to close a gap of 56% between the amount of food available today and that required by 2050. Meanwhile, unsustainable food production systems are largely responsible for destroying the world’s ecosystems and fueling climate change. Agriculture uses almost half the world’s vegetated land, consumes 70% of freshwater withdrawals, drives deforestation in tropical nations and generates nearly one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. And shifting diets in many parts of the world are only increasing demand for resource-intensive foods.

of global greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture

of all food produced is lost or wasted, approximately 1 billion tons every year

Cows and other ruminants contribute roughly half of all emissions from agriculture and land-use change

Our Approach

WRI aims to transform the way the world produces food to create a better future for people, nature and the climate. We develop cutting-edge research and innovative partnerships to produce more food while protecting and restoring ecosystems and shifting toward lower-carbon consumption patterns.

Our research identifies a menu of solutions to the world’s food production and consumption problems. We analyze strategies to sustainably increase food production, such as by increasing pasture yields and improving land and water management. We advance methods to reduce food production’s impact on the environment, such as by protecting primary forests and restoring degraded farmland back into productivity. We develop research, tools and partnerships to help countries, cities and businesses measure and reduce their food loss and waste. And we help dining facilities and others shrink their climate footprints by shifting toward plant-rich foods.

The Food Program focuses on a number of specific initiatives, including projects on Climate-Friendly Diets  and  Food Loss and Waste . Explore all projects in depth.

Champions 12.3

Inspiring ambition and mobilizing action to reduce food loss and waste globally.

Coolfood helps people and organizations reduce the climate impact of their food through shifting toward more plant-rich diets. 

Circular Food Systems for Rwanda

The Circular Food Systems for Rwanda project aims to transform Rwanda’s food system so that it is more circular and sustainable.

Stories to Watch

Explore the major stories shaping the world.

Featured Food Resources

State of Climate Action 2022

Playbook for Guiding Diners Toward Plant-Rich Dishes in Food Service

Creating a Sustainable Food Future

It’s All in a Name: How to Boost the Sales of Plant-Based Menu Items

Featured experts.

Managing Director, Programs

Director of Food Initiatives

Senior Fellow and Director, Food Loss and Waste

Technical Director for Agriculture, Forestry & Ecosystems

Head, World Resources Institute Europe UK Office; Senior Advisor, Food and Land Use Coalition; Advisor, New Economy for the Amazon and Congo Basin

Head, the Coolfood Pledge

Director for Agriculture Initiatives, Food, Land, and Water Program

Associate II, Food Program

Behavioral Science Associate

Sign up to receive updates on the work we are doing to secure a sustainable food future.

Media contacts.

Communications Manager, Food

How You Can Help

WRI relies on the generosity of donors like you to turn research into action. You can support our work by making a gift today or exploring other ways to give.

Stay Informed

World Resources Institute 10 G Street NE Suite 800 Washington DC 20002 +1 (202) 729-7600

© 2024 World Resources Institute

Envision a world where everyone can enjoy clean air, walkable cities, vibrant landscapes, nutritious food and affordable energy.

• Open access
• Published: 20 July 2012

The role for scientists in tackling food insecurity and climate change

• John R Beddington 1 ,
• Mohammed Asaduzzaman 2 ,
• Megan E Clark 3 ,
• Adrian Fernández Bremauntz 4 ,
• Marion D Guillou 5 ,
• Molly M Jahn 6 ,
• Erda Lin 7 ,
• Tekalign Mamo 8 ,
• Christine Negra 9 ,
• Carlos A Nobre 10 ,
• Robert J Scholes 11 ,
• Rita Sharma 12 ,
• Nguyen Van Bo 13 &
• Judi Wakhungu 14  

Agriculture & Food Security volume  1 , Article number:  10 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

77k Accesses

52 Citations

32 Altmetric

Metrics details

To adapt to climate change and ensure food security, major interventions are required to transform current patterns and practices of food production, distribution and consumption. The scientific community has an essential role to play in informing concurrent, strategic investments to establish climate-resilient agricultural production systems, minimize greenhouse gas emissions, make efficient use of resources, develop low-waste supply chains, ensure adequate nutrition, encourage healthy eating choices and develop a global knowledge system for sustainability. This paper outlines scientific contributions that will be essential to the seven policy recommendations for achieving food security in the context of climate change put forward by the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. These include improved understanding of agriculture’s vulnerability to climate change, food price dynamics, food waste and consumption patterns and monitoring technologies as well as multidisciplinary investigation of regionally appropriate responses to climate change and food security challenges.

Challenges to food security

The world faces multiple challenges to food security including undernutrition and overconsumption, rising food prices, population growth, rapid diet transitions, threats to agricultural production, inefficient production practices and supply chains, and declining investment in food system research. In addition to causing widespread human suffering, food insecurity contributes to degradation and depletion of natural resources, migration to urban areas and across borders, and political and economic instability.

Food insecurity afflicts communities throughout the world, wherever poverty inhibits purchasing power and prevents assured access to food supplies. Global food prices have risen dramatically in the last few years and are forecast to rise further and become more volatile [ 1 , 2 ], disrupting assumptions that stable or declining food prices and assured supplies can be taken for granted. The estimated number of hungry people in the world rose from 800 million to over 1 billion following the 2007/08 food price spike [ 3 ] a . It is estimated that an additional 44 million people have since fallen into extreme poverty due to the rise in food prices since June 2010 [ 4 ]. Globally, diets are shifting towards higher consumption of calories, fats and animal products [ 5 ]. A growing number of low-income and middle-income countries are facing a double burden of malnutrition: a persistence of both macronutrient and micronutrient undernutrition, notably among children, along with a quick rise in the number of overweight and obese people, and diet-related chronic diseases [ 6 , 7 ].

The food system faces additional pressure as the global population grows to around 9 billion by 2050 [ 8 ]. This dramatic increase in global population will be accompanied by major shifts in the regional distribution of our planet’s inhabitants. From 2010 to 2050, the population in Asia is estimated to grow from 4.2 billion to 5.1 billion and Africa’s population to grow from 1 billion to 2.2 billion [ 8 ]. From 1950 to 2050, the population ratio for developing countries to developed countries is projected to shift from 2:1 to 6:1 [ 8 ]. As the world population has grown, the land available per capita has shrunk from 13.5 ha/person in 1950 to 3.2 ha/person in 2005, and is projected to diminish to 1.5 ha/person in 2050 [ 9 ].

Agriculture continues to be the economic mainstay of most low-income countries, employing the majority of the population in these countries. The importance of agricultural research and development for food security and poverty reduction has been recognized b , yet recent decades have seen declining investment from both donor partners and low-income country governments [ 1 , 6 ]. In low-income countries with agriculture-based economies, domestic public support to agriculture is, on average, about 4% of the gross domestic product, and official development assistance provides the balance [ 6 , 10 ]. At the beginning of the 21st century, only 6% of total spending on agriculture research and development in low-income countries came from private companies [ 1 ].

In the coming decades, climate change and extreme weather events will exacerbate the fragility of food production systems and the natural resource base, especially in places affected by soil degradation, water stress or desertification [ 11 ]. While the overall effect on agriculture will vary among geographic regions, it will be harder for farmers to plan and manage production and prevent crop losses from storms or pests wherever planting seasons and weather patterns change. Already heightened by globalization, a warming climate is likely to increase the incidence and geographic spread of human, animal and plant diseases [ 1 , 12 , 13 ].

While no legally binding agreement was reached at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 15th Conference of the Parties in 2009, the Copenhagen Accord provided a commitment to hold the increase in global temperatures below 2°C. Over 70 countries submitted emissions reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord, and more formal UNFCCC agreement on the 2°C limit was achieved at the 16th Conference of the Parties in Cancun in 2010. The 17th Conference of the Parties produced the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, which commits parties to reach a legal framework for reducing global emissions by 2015 [ 14 ]. Despite the agreed 2°C target, greenhouse gas emissions are still rising. Even a 2°C rise is predicted to be problematic owing to increased floods and storms, a shortage of water resources, impacts on food production at low latitudes, greater depth of seasonal permafrost thaw and other changes. Yet greater change in global temperature would be disastrous. A 4°C change in average global temperature (estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s A1F1 scenario for the end of this century [ 15 ]) is predicted to bring about a much greater temperature increase in the Arctic, a substantial impact on major crops in all regions, around 1 billion additional people experiencing water scarcity by 2080, extensive coastal flooding as sea levels rise and other negative impacts [ 16 ] (Figure 1 ).

Effects of the Copenhagen Accord on global average temperature through the 21 stcentury [ 25 ].

Agriculture consumes 70% of total global ‘blue water’ withdrawals from available rivers and aquifers, and will increasingly compete for water with pressures from industry, domestic use and the need to maintain environmental flows [ 12 ]. Current farming practices, including land clearing and inefficient use of fertilizers and organic residues, make agriculture a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions [ 15 , 17 ]. From the farm gate to consumers, refrigeration and other supply-chain activities are an additional major source of greenhouse gas emissions. As global demand for food, fodder and bioenergy crops grows, many agricultural systems are depleting soil fertility, biodiversity and water resources. In many regions there are large gaps between potential and actual crop yields [ 18 ]. Every year, an estimated 12 million hectares of agricultural land, which could potentially produce 20 million tonnes of grain, are lost to land degradation, adding to the billions of hectares that are already degraded [ 19 , 20 ]. Estimates indicate that one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted across the global food system [ 21 ].

This paper reviews the critical contributions required from the scientific community in order to foster integrated, decisive policy action for addressing the interconnected challenges of food insecurity and climate change.

Features of a food-secure future

As a global community, we need to make concurrent, strategic investments to establish climate-resilient agricultural production systems, make efficient use of resources, develop low-waste supply chains, ensure adequate nutrition and encourage healthy eating choices [ 22 ]. This will require significant capacity for coordinated action in policy-making, private business and civil society and will not be possible without scientific and technological innovation.

New technology and practices

Farmers will need to produce significantly more food on less land, with less water, using less energy, fertilizer and pesticide without further encroaching on sensitive ecosystems [ 23 ]. Intensification of food production must be accompanied by concerted action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture to avoid further acceleration of climate change and to avert threats to the long-term viability of global agriculture. Climate-smart agriculture must enhance and secure the livelihoods of rural farmers.

There is a large potential for reducing net food system emissions through efficiency measures in production as well as through demand management such as reduction of loss and waste in supply chains and changing food preferences [ 12 , 24 ]. For example, in Kerala, India, anaerobic digestion technology has been used to recycle domestic organic waste, including food waste, to produce biogas for cooking and electricity [ 26 ]. There is also meaningful potential for greenhouse gas sinks associated with a number of agricultural practices. Some of these practices, such as improved land management, have co-benefits for both the reliability of food production and the quality of the environment [ 27 ]. For example, intensive rice production techniques have come into use across several regions of Viet Nam and are associated with higher yields as well as reduced use of nitrogen fertilizers and lower nitrous oxide emissions [ 28 ]. Market demand for organic and eco-certified products, consumer expectations for social and environmental corporate responsibility and longer-term concerns about sources of supply have contributed to greater attention to sustainability by some agribusinesses [ 29 ].

Integrated global knowledge systems

The multiple threats to food security are interconnected, and multi-scale and robust knowledge systems are critical given our increasingly globalized food system [ 1 ]. Adaptive management and governance to improve nutritional security, economic prosperity and environmental outcomes will require a much better global system for integrating information about agriculture, ecosystem services, markets and human populations in real time. (The need for shared information in order to address global problems was recognized at the World Summit for Sustainable Development, leading to the formation of the Group on Earth Observations and the development of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems [ 30 ]).

Existing and future investments in information and knowledge must be structured to identify limits, inform tradeoffs and deliver practical guidance for a sustainable future, not simply to maximize single components of the food system. Mechanisms should include remote-sensing and ground-based monitoring systems and spatially explicit support systems that integrate biophysical and socioeconomic information. Such an information system will give us a richer understanding of the dynamic systems we depend on and will enable us to renew and broaden our efforts to secure a more sustainable and healthy food system for our own and future generations. It will also enable measurement of progress toward target indicators such as those identified in Bangladesh’s 5-year Country Investment Plan for improved tenure of land and water resources, access to financing, private-sector involvement and empowerment of women [ 31 ].

A safe operating space

As a global community, we need to navigate toward a safe operating space (see Figure 2 ) that provides adequate food and nutrition for everyone without crossing critical environmental thresholds. At present we operate outside that safe space, as witnessed by the enormous number of people who are undernourished. If current trends in population growth, diets, crop yields and climate change continue, the world will still be outside this safe operating space in 2050. The situation then will be unsustainable and there will be very little room to maneuver.

A safe operating space for interconnected food and climate systems [ 22 ]

Plotting a course towards a safe operating space will require innovative technologies, institutions and policies, and will severely test our social, technological and agricultural ingenuity. There are various changes we can make to either enlarge the safe space or move ourselves into the safe space. First, the global demand for food will increase with population growth but the amount of food per person that needs to be produced can be brought down by eliminating waste in supply chains, ensuring more equitable access to food and moving to more resource-efficient (and healthier) vegetable-rich diets. Secondly, given its large land base, global agriculture represents a major opportunity for mitigating climate change and helping to moderate its overall negative effect on agricultural productivity [ 27 ] through a wide range of regionally suitable practices that increase the efficiency of carbon and nitrogen management (for example, livestock feeding regimes that reduce methane emissions) or sequester carbon (for example, agroforestry) [ 32 ]. Finally, agricultural innovation, including better management of soil, water and other resources and careful matching of crops to environments, can help adapt food systems to climate change. For example, under China’s Plan for the Construction of Protective Cultivation Projects, 1.6 million severely degraded hectares of grassland have been rehabilitated [ 33 ] with improvements in soil structure and enhanced carbon storage [ 34 ].

Seven areas for action by the scientific community

The transition to a global food system that satisfies human needs, reduces its carbon footprint, adapts to climate change and is in balance with planetary resources requires concrete and coordinated actions, implemented at scale, simultaneously and with urgency. In February 2011 the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change was convened to identify critical leverage points and practical policy actions to be undertaken by key stakeholders and institutions in pursuit of food security in the context of climate change. Drawing on a review of recent major assessment reports, expert consultation and their own knowledge, the Commissioners proposed seven areas for policy action to achieve food security in the face of climate change [ 22 ]. For each of these seven recommended policy actions, we now identify relevant contributions needed from the scientific community.

1. Integrate food security and sustainable agriculture into global and national policies

As a first step to inclusion of agriculture in the mainstream of international climate change policy, negotiators should establish a work program on mitigation and adaptation in agriculture under the UNFCCC. Similarly, country representatives to global policy processes should integrate sustainable, climate-friendly agriculture into ‘early action’ climate finance schemes. To enable coherent dialogue and policy action related to climate change, agriculture, crisis response and food security, at global, regional and national levels, governments and global donors should develop common platforms at global, regional and national levels.

The global food system is managed through a complex mix of public and private-sector action, across local to global scales. Collectively, the policy choices within national governments, United Nations bodies, global treaties and conventions, regional economic communities, political forums (for example, G8, G20) and standard-setting bodies shape the way food is produced, distributed and consumed. The scientific evidence base is an essential foundation for public policies and programs as well as for systems of market and industry governance and of civil society influence and agenda setting.

Global climate change policy is a critical arena for solidifying international support for sustainable agriculture development programs that adapt to and mitigate against climate change. National climate change action plans can also usefully integrate the agriculture sector in country-specific ways. Without a global commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors, including agriculture, no amount of agricultural adaptation will be sufficient under the destabilized climate of the future [ 12 ].

The scientific community can support evidence-based policy-making by quantifying vulnerability of agriculture to climate change and forecasting outcomes under a broad range of potential mechanisms for agricultural adaptation and mitigation. By working across disciplinary boundaries, researchers can develop a pragmatic, multi-disciplinary understanding of what it means to reduce poverty and food insecurity within the context of the planet’s boundaries. Scientists can help to mobilize increased investment by detailing how multiple benefits can be achieved through sustainable farming practices and by clarifying geographic and sectoral potential for greenhouse gas mitigation.

2. Significantly raise the level of global investment in sustainable agriculture and food systems in the next decade

Donor governments should implement and strengthen the G8 L’Aquila commitments to sustainable agriculture and food security and enable UNFCCC Fast Start funding, major development banks and other global finance mechanisms to prioritize sustainable agriculture programs that improve infrastructure and rehabilitate land. To reflect the significance of sustainable agriculture in economic growth, poverty reduction and long-term environmental sustainability, governments should increase national research and development budgets, build integrated scientific capacity and support revitalized extension services, technology transfer and communities of practice to increase knowledge of best practices and access to innovation.

By demonstrating the outcomes of alternative farming practices in different regions, farming systems and landscapes and by clarifying the conditions under which local agricultural production systems integrate innovative technologies or approaches, researchers can help to effectively direct investments in agriculture [ 35 ]. For example, in the Cerrado region of Brazil, public-sector investment in agricultural research combined with producer innovation has been credited with dramatic gains in productivity and livelihoods despite low natural soil fertility [ 36 ].

3. Sustainably intensify agricultural production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other negative environmental impacts of agriculture

To enable more productive and resilient livelihoods and ecosystems, with emphasis on closing yield gaps and improving nutrition, multi-benefit farming systems should be developed and rewarded. This includes introducing strategies for minimizing ecosystem degradation and rehabilitating degraded environments, with emphasis on community-designed programs. To empower marginalized food producers and increase crop productivity, improvements are needed in land and water rights, access to markets, finance and insurance, and local capacity [ 37 ]. Subsidies that provide incentives for farmers to deplete water supplies or destroy native ecosystems should be modified [ 1 ]. To prevent further loss of forests, wetlands and grasslands, the economic incentives for sustainable intensification of agriculture should be coupled with stronger governance of land tenure and land zoning [ 38 ].

There is great variety in the pattern of agricultural productivity and land use in different regions. For example, cereal yields in Asia in 2001 were 240% higher than they were in 1961 with minimal change in land use (that is, increased production per unit land area), while in the same period in sub-Saharan Africa land use increased by 80% with only moderate increase in cereal yields [ 39 ]. Strategic investments can make an important difference. The agricultural potential in Africa is substantial and existing technologies can be used to create the necessary transformations in increasing productivity.

Through international, regional, national and local collaborations, researchers have a critical role to play in defining the practical meaning of sustainable intensification and elucidating forms of low-emissions agriculture that support long-term productivity and resilience (that is, decoupling increase in yield from emissions). There is a wide array of opportunities to investigate the suitability of sustainable agricultural practices (for example, diversified rotations, agro-ecological processes, improved nutrient and water-use efficiency, agroforestry, minimum tillage) in different regions and farming systems. To boost productivity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, greater global coordination on research and implementation is needed [ 1 ]. Some promising areas include improved breeding and input for crops, livestock and aquatic organisms, diversification of agricultural systems (for example, agroforestry), soil management to sequester carbon and resource-efficient practices for crop production. To promote public trust and inform debate on new advances, scientists must become adept at articulating the benefits and dangers of new technologies in an open and transparent way.

4. Develop specific programs and policies to assist populations and sectors that are most vulnerable to climate changes and food insecurity

To provide rapid relief when extreme weather events affect communities, funds that respond to climate shocks should be developed (for example, index-linked funds) [ 40 ]. To moderate excessive food price fluctuations by promoting open and responsive trade systems, country information on production forecasts and stocks should be shared, and early warning systems should be established [ 41 ]. Safety nets and other programs to help vulnerable populations become food secure can include cash and in-kind transfers, employment guarantee schemes and education. Humanitarian responses to vulnerable populations threatened by food crises should be rapidly delivered through robust emergency food reserves. Global donor programs, policies and activities should be harmonized, paying particular attention to systematically integrating climate change risk management, adaptation and mitigation co-benefits, and improved local nutritional outcomes [ 38 ].

Key areas for multidisciplinary research include clarifying how index-linked funds can best reduce impacts on climate-affected populations (that is, increased hunger and poverty, lost productivity), investigating the criteria and optimal design for effective food reserves and understanding the drivers of food crises to improve targeting of fiscal responses. Research initiatives may be directed toward local-level strategies for risk management, preparedness, institutional capacity-building and household and community food systems.

5. Reshape food access and consumption patterns to ensure basic nutritional needs are met and to foster healthy and sustainable eating patterns worldwide

Chronic undernutrition and hunger should be addressed by harmonizing development policy and coordinating regional programs to improve livelihoods and access to services among food-insecure rural and urban communities. Positive changes in the variety and quantity of diets should be promoted through innovative education campaigns and through economic incentives that align the marketing practices of retailers and processors with public health and environmental goals [ 12 ]. A coherent set of evidence-based sustainability metrics and standards should be developed to monitor and evaluate food security, nutrition, health, agricultural productivity and efficiency, resource use and environmental impacts, and food system costs and benefits.

The research community can deliver better knowledge about the variety of food combinations that can deliver a nutritionally appropriate and environmentally low-impact diet. To improve overall food supply, scientists should investigate opportunities to improve agricultural productivity and resilience to climate change through effective deployment of existing and new technologies for producing, processing and distributing food. Research is needed to understand the impact and cost-effectiveness of a range of interventions on dietary behavior among different socioeconomic groups [ 42 ]. The toolbox for promoting sustainable diets includes economic interventions (for example, taxation of specific food types), retailers’ purchasing guidelines (for example, to restrict consumer choices), public education campaigns (for example, advertising and programs in schools and workplaces) and labeling [ 12 ].

6. Reduce loss and waste in food systems, targeting infrastructure, farming practices, processing, distribution and household habits

In all sustainable agriculture development programs, research and investment components focusing on reducing waste, from production to consumption, by improving harvest and postharvest management and food storage and transport should be included. Integrated policies and programs should be developed to reduce waste in food supply chains (for example, economic innovation to enable low-income producers to store food during periods of excess supply). Dialog and working partnerships across food supply chains (producers, processors, retailers, consumers, regulators and researchers) can help to ensure that interventions to reduce waste are effective and efficient (for example, redirecting food waste to other purposes), and do not create perverse incentives.

Research and innovation will be needed to improve understanding of the causes of food loss and waste and support experimentation with reduction strategies [ 21 ]. This should include development of effective technological advancements in production, harvesting, and postharvest handling systems, drawing on expertise across plant biology, engineering, agricultural economics, food processing, nutrition, food safety and environmental conservation. Agencies and organizations that fund food systems research should prioritize work on optimizing yield, nutritional quality and postharvest life as well as characterizing the sociological dimensions of food consumption in different cultural and economic settings, including home food management, which is important for designing effective education campaigns [ 43 ]. There is a range of opportunities for reducing consumer and food service sector waste in middle-income and high-income countries using public campaigns, advertising, taxes, regulation, purchasing guidelines and improved labeling [ 1 , 12 ]. Raising awareness of food waste and promoting the use of efficiency strategies among food businesses, retailers and consumers will probably need to be targeted at specific economic and cultural characteristics [ 21 ].

7. Create comprehensive, shared, integrated information systems that encompass human and ecological dimensions

Increased, sustained investment in regular monitoring, on the ground and by public-domain remote-sensing networks, is essential to track changes in land use, food production, climate, the environment, human health and well-being worldwide. Spatially explicit data and decision-support systems that integrate biophysical and socioeconomic information and that enable policy-makers to navigate tradeoffs among agricultural intensification, nutritional security and environmental consequences should be developed, validated and implemented. To address food price volatility, improved transparency and access to information in global food markets as well as investment in interlinked information systems are needed [ 44 ].

The threats posed by climate change to food supplies and livelihoods are likely to be spatially variable. We will need to identify global hotspots where the threats are greatest and to develop specific, practical interventions to boost resilience in these areas. We also need a more robust understanding of our dynamic and increasingly globalized food system if we are to make headway on moderating food price volatility and increasing overall efficiency of the food system. From 1961 to 2003, world food trade increased from 1,500 Gkcal/day to >7,000 Gkcal/day [ 24 ]. There is growing integration of global supply chains and the emergence of large economies like Brazil, China and India as major sources of both demand and supply of agricultural products. In many low-income countries, rural and urban areas are ever more interconnected [ 38 ] although imperfect connectivity between global and domestic markets inhibits price transmission across global, national and local markets [ 45 ].

Scientists are integral to the development of a global system of repeated observations of ecological and human systems with key roles in advancing technical capabilities for monitoring and streamlining remote-sensing data to user communities. Working with governments, researchers should engage stakeholders to design and create novel frameworks that assimilate existing information assets (for example, farmer knowledge, spatial data) and incorporate them into decision-making pathways. Multidisciplinary research effort is needed to characterize the interactive drivers of food price spikes and the effectiveness of possible interventions.

Research activity is needed in a diverse set of areas to improve understanding of agriculture’s vulnerability to climate change, food price dynamics, food waste and consumption patterns and monitoring technologies as well as multidisciplinary investigation of regionally appropriate responses to climate change and food security challenges. Making these changes, although technically feasible, requires urgent, collective and substantially increased action internationally, nationally and locally.

Conclusions

The growing threat of global climate change greatly amplifies the urgent need for food systems to shift to better meet human needs and align with planetary resources. This will demand major interventions, at local to global scales, to transform current patterns of food production, distribution and consumption. Investment, innovation and a deliberate effort to empower the world’s most vulnerable populations will be required to construct a global food system that adapts to climate change and ensures food security while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and sustaining our natural resource base. Greatly expanded investments in sustainable agriculture, including improving the supporting infrastructure and restoring ecosystems, are an essential component of long-term economic development. The sooner these investments are made, the greater the benefits will be.

The scientific community has an essential role to play in meeting the global challenge of moving the world into a safe operating space in which agriculture can meet global food needs while reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Given the already intolerable conditions for many livelihoods and ecosystems, and the time lag between research and development and widespread application, we need to take urgent action.

a Note that future Food and Agriculture Organization estimates may be revised downward due to a review of the Organization’s estimation methodology.

b For example, the 2003 Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security by African governments committed 10% of national budgets to agriculture.

Abbreviations

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Agriculture at a Crossroads: A Synthesis of the Global and Sub-global IAASTD Reports. Edited by: McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J, Watson RT. 2009, Island Press, Washington, DC

Google Scholar  

Nelson GC, Rosegrant MW, Palazzo A, Gray I, Ingersoll C, Robertson R, Tokgoz S, Zhu T, Sulser TB, Ringler C, Msangi S, You L: Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation and Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050. 2011, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

Food and Agriculture Organization: The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets. High Food Prices and the Food Crisis – Experiences and Lessons Learned. 2009, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

Food Price Watch. 2011, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/Resources/335642-1210859591030/FPW_April2011.pdf ,

Foresight: Tackling obesities: future choices. Project Report. 2007, Government Office for Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, London

World Bank: World Development Report, 2008: Development and Agriculture. 2008, The World Bank, Washington, DC

Book   Google Scholar  

Obesity and Overweight. Fact Sheet No. 311. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ ,

United Nations Population Division: World Population Prospects: World Population Prospects: The 2011 Revision. 2011, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations Population Division, New York, http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm ,

United Nations Population Fund: State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth. 2007, United Nations Population Fund, New York

Lipper L, Mann W, Meybeck A, Sessa R: ‘Climate-smart’ Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. 2010, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Summary for policy makers. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM. 2012, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1-19.

Foresight: The future of food and farming. Final Project Report. Futures. 2011, Government Office for Science, London

Royal Society: Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. 2009, The Royal Society, London

UN Climate Change Conference, Durban, November–December 2011. [ http://unfccc.int/2860.php ]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007-

The Impact of Global Temperature Rise of 4°C. [ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/impacts/high-end/map ]

Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation of the Netherlands: Chair’s summary. Proceedings of The Hague Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change; The Hague, Netherlands, 31 October to 5 November2010. 28 pages. [ http://www.afcconference.com/the-first-conference/135-final-roadmap-for-action ]

Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks DPM: Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature. 2011, 478: 337-342. 10.1038/nature10452.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bai ZG, Dent DL, Olsson L, Schaepman ME: Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement Identification by Remote Sensing. 2008, Wageningen, International Soil Reference and Information Centre

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification: Desertification: A Visual Synthesis. 2011, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Secretariat, Bonn, [ www.unccd.int/knowledge/docs/Desertification-EN.pdf ]

Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U: Global Food Losses and Food Waste. 2011, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, [ www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/GFL_web.pdf ]

Beddington J, Asaduzzaman M, Clark M, Fernandez A, Guillou M, Jahn M, Erda L, Mamo T, Van Bo N, Nobre CA, Scholes R, Sharma R, Wakhungu J: Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change: Final Report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). 2012, Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, Copenhagen, [ www.ccafs.cgiar.org/commission ]

Tilman D, Balzerb C, Hill J, Beforta BL: Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011, 108: 20260-20264. 10.1073/pnas.1116437108.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

French National Institute for Agricultural Research/Centre de coopérationinternationale en rechercheagronomique pour le développement: Agrimonde: Scenarios and Challenges for Feeding the World in 2050. 2011, Editions Quae, Versailles

Rogelj J, Chen C, Nabel J, Macey K, Hare W, Schaeffer M, Markmann K, Höhne N, Krogh Andersen K, Meinshausen M: Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and its global climatic impacts—a snapshot of dissonant ambitions. Environ Res Lett. 2010, 4 ((3)): 1-9.

Case Study Summary: BIOTECH, India. (2007 Ashden Award)[ http://www.ashdenawards.org/files/BIOTECH%20full_0.pdf ]

Vermeulen SJ, Aggarwal PK, Ainslie A, Angelone C, Campbell BM, Challinor AJ, Hansen JW, Ingram JSI, Jarvis A, Kristjanson P, Lau C, Nelson GC, Thornton PK, Wollenberg E: Options for support to agriculture and food security under climate change. Environ Sci Policy. 2012, 15: 136-144. 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.09.003.

Article   Google Scholar  

Nguyen VT, Nguyen QT, Nguyen VA: Influence of On Farm Water Management to the Methane Emissions in the Red River Delta Area. 2007, Vietnam National Commission on Large Dams, Vietnam

Worldwatch Institute: State of the World: Innovations that Nourish the Planet. 2011, W.W. Norton & Company, New York

Groupon Earth Observations 2005. [ www.earthobservations.org ]

Bangladesh Country Investment Plan: A Road Map Towards Investment in Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition. Updated version[ www.nfpcsp.org/agridrupal/sites/default/files/Bangladesh%20Food%20security%20CIP%202011%20Final.pdf ]

Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Irotenko O: Agriculture. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA. 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 497-540.

National Development and Reform Commission: China’s Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change –The Progress Report 2009. 2009, National Development and Reform Commission, Beijing, [ www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File571.pdf ]

Yan Z, Liu Y, Ni H, Zeng Z, Men Y: Effect of Ecological Restoration Techniques on Vegetation and Soil CO2Discharge of Songnen Saline-alkali Grassland. 2011, Water Resource and Environmental Protection Symposium, New York, NY Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. China, [ http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5893712 ]

Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S: Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain. 2011, 9: 5-24. 10.3763/ijas.2010.0583.

Pereira PAA, Martha GB, Santana CAM, Alves E: The development of Brazilian agriculture: future technological challenges and opportunities. Agric Food Secur. 2012, 1: 4-10.1186/2048-7010-1-4.

Committee on World Food Security: Land Tenure and International Investments in Agriculture: Summary and Recommendations for Policymakers. Extract from the Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. 2011, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, [ www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe ]

International Fund for Agricultural Development: Rural Poverty Report: New Realities, New Challenges: New Opportunities for tomorrow’s Generation. 2011, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome

Agricultural Production and Soil Nutrient Mining in Africa. [ http://www.eurekalert.org/africasoil/report/Soil_Nutrient_Mining_in_Africa_Report_Final.pdf ]

Barrett CB, Barnett BJ, Carter MR, Chantarat S, Hansen JW, Mude AG, Osgood D, Skees JR, Turvey CG, Ward MN: Poverty Traps and Climate Risk: Limitations and Opportunities of Index-based Risk Financing. 2007, Columbia University International Research Institute for Climate and Society, New York, NY

Parry M, Evans A, Rosegrant MW, Wheeler T: Climate Change and Hunger: Responding to the Challenge. 2009, World Food Programme, Rome

Etiévant P, Bellisle F, Dallongeville J, Etilé F, Guichard E, Padilla M, Romon-Rousseaux M: Dietary Behaviours. What Factors Come into Play? What Action, for What Result? Collective Scientific Expertise. 2010, INRA, Paris, [ www.international.inra.fr/the_institute/scientific_expertise/expert_reports/dietary_behaviours ]

Guyomard H, Darcy-Vrillon B, Esnouf C, Marin M, Momot A, Russel M, Guillou M: Eating Patterns and Food Systems: Critical Knowledge Requirements for Policy Design and Implementation. 2012, INRA, Paris, [ http://ccafs.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/assets/docs/guyomard_et_al_eating_patterns_and_food_systems.pdf ]

The Cannes Summit Final Declaration: Building our Common Future: Renewed Collective Action for the Benefit of All. 2011, [ http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g20/english/for-the-press/news-releases/cannes-summit-final-declaration.1557.html ]

Food and Agriculture Organization/Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Markets: Policy Responses. Policy Report Coordinated by FAO and OECD Including Contributions by IFAD, International Monetary Fund, UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, International Food Policy Research Institute and the UN High-Level Task Force. 2011, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work of the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change was funded by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and the Global Donor Program for Rural Development (GDPRD). We express gratitude to researchers at CSIRO, INRA and the University of Minnesota whose input helped to shape the ideas presented in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Government Office of Science, London, UK

John R Beddington

Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Mohammed Asaduzzaman

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Campbell, Australia

Megan E Clark

Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico

Adrian Fernández Bremauntz

INRA, French National Institute for Agricultural Research, Paris, France

Marion D Guillou

University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

Molly M Jahn

Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China

Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Tekalign Mamo

Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, New York, NY, USA

Christine Negra

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Brasília, DF, Brazil

Carlos A Nobre

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa

Robert J Scholes

National Advisory Council, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi, India

Rita Sharma

Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Science, Thanh Tri, Ha Noi, Viet Nam

Nguyen Van Bo

African Center for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya

Judi Wakhungu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Negra .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Through their service (in their personal capacity) on the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, JB, MA, MC, AFB, MG, MJ, LE, TM, CN, RS, RS, NVB and JW developed the underlying concepts and recommendations and reviewed the manuscript. MC and CN contributed to supporting studies on food price volatility. MG contributed to supporting studies on changing diet patterns. CN reviewed background literature and drafted and edited the manuscript.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Authors’ original file for figure 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Beddington, J.R., Asaduzzaman, M., Clark, M.E. et al. The role for scientists in tackling food insecurity and climate change. Agric & Food Secur 1 , 10 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-1-10

Download citation

Received : 10 April 2012

Accepted : 25 June 2012

Published : 20 July 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-1-10

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Supply Chain
• Food Security
• Food Insecurity
• Food System

View archived comments (1)

Agriculture & Food Security

ISSN: 2048-7010

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 03 January 2024

Feeding the future global population

Nature Communications volume  15 , Article number:  222 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2353 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agroecology
• Agricultural genetics
• Sustainability

Climate change is exacerbating challenges both for global food production and from its environmental impacts. Sustainable and socially responsible solutions for future world-wide food security are urgently needed.

We continue our series of collections on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a Collection and call for papers focused on Sustainable Food Production. Food production connects several of the 17 SDGs given its fundamental—and frequently opposing—impacts on human populations and the environment. Adequate food production to ensure food and nutritional security is at the center of SDG Goal 2: Zero hunger. However, food production also underlies a significant portion of the human impact on climate and the biosphere. Furthermore, these impacts often occur in regions distant from where the food is actually consumed and thus potentially increase global inequalities. Therefore, sustainable increases to food production must accommodate protection of the environment and biodiversity (Responsible consumption and production, Climate action, Life below water and Life on land: Goals 12–15) in order to be successful in the overarching goal of reducing societal inequalities (No poverty, Good health and wellbeing, Reduced inequalities, and Peace, justice and strong institutions: Goals 1,3,10, and 16).

Achieving global food security sustainably will not be easy given that the United Nations (UN) estimates the human population will reach 8.5 billion in 2030 and 9.7 billion in 2050. While the overall population growth rate is estimated to be slowing, it is nonetheless projected to remain high in several regions of Africa and Asia, including areas already at risk of food insecurity. Meanwhile, in affluent countries, there are substantial inequalities in access to nutritious food despite high levels of food waste overall.

Historical increases in food production have been driven in large part by land use change, which is a major contributor to biodiversity loss and can play a role in climate change. However, scientific innovation can also boost productivity. The Green Revolution of the mid-20 th century was crucial in improving food security, in part through the use of high-yielding crop varieties. Since then, advances in plant breeding have also been key to strengthening the reliability of food production systems. Yet, crop varieties bred for current climate conditions may not continue to deliver high yields when confronted with a rapidly changing environment. Continued scientific innovations will therefore be necessary to enhance the resilience of food production infrastructures and management systems, and to inform strategies such as modifying sowing calendars to take climatic change into consideration 1 .

The environmental impact of food consumption can also be confronted by making diets more sustainable. For example, the EAT– Lancet Commission proposed a universal reference diet known as the ‘planetary health diet’, aiming to improve health without surpassing planetary boundaries 2 . Transition towards more sustainable diets may nonetheless prove difficult. Terrestrial animal farming emits more carbon than plant-based meat and dairy alternatives (in addition to having a large impact on land use), while the latter two entail significant water footprints and natural ecosystem loss due to crop expansion 3 . Alternative food sources such as cultured meat and insect-based products are increasingly accepted by consumers, but their impact on the environment and human health remains to be firmly established 3 . Blue foods—aquatic foods captured or cultivated in marine and freshwater systems—are also receiving increased attention given their high nutritional value, but their sustainability is contested 4 .

Economic barriers to a sustainable and healthy diet also need to be considered in solving food and nutritional insecurity within planetary boundaries. Substituting animal products with plant-based or future foods (seaweed, cultured meat, or insect foods) might reduce food prices in upper-middle-income countries but increase costs in lower-middle income regions 5 . It is also estimated that global cropland expansion and intensification could disproportionately affect biodiversity in the Global South, while the Global North would benefit from an increase in global food production and reduced market prices with limited risk to their local ecosystems 6 . Social justice principles should guide the design and implementation of food security solutions, so that deeply rooted social inequalities are alleviated rather than exacerbated by global changes in diet and increased agricultural output.

It is clear that we must not ignore the environmental and socio-economic issues associated with current food production and consumption systems, and that science must play a significant role in finding solutions. The articles in our Sustainable Food Production collection highlight some of the challenges and recent progress made in the areas of food security and sustainable agriculture that reflect Nature Communications ’ commitment to sustainability and social justice.

Minoli, S., Jägermeyr, J., Asseng, S., Urfels, A. & Müller, C. Global crop yields can be lifted by timely adaptation of growing periods to climate change. Nat. Commun. 13 , 1–10 (2022).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 , 447–492 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Parodi, A. et al. The potential of future foods for sustainable and healthy diets. Nat. Sustain. 1 , 782–789 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Belton, B. et al. Farming fish in the sea will not nourish the world. Nat. Commun. 11 , 5804 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mullen, A. Costs of healthy, sustainable diets around the world. Nat. Food 2 , 911–911 (2021).

Zabel, F. et al. Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1–10 (2019).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Feeding the future global population. Nat Commun 15 , 222 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44588-y

Download citation

Published : 03 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44588-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

The role of food industries in sustainability transition: a review

• Published: 16 February 2024

Cite this article

• S. Prasanna 1 ,
• Praveen Verma   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4965-668X 1 &
• Suman Bodh 1  

544 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The global food industry is crucial in promoting sustainability, contributing to environmental degradation but also driving positive change. This review paper explores the significance, methodologies and recent research of food industries in promoting sustainability. The food industry faces sustainability challenges due to climate change, resource depletion, food security and health concerns. Policy makers, consumers and stakeholders are pushing businesses to reduce carbon footprint, adopt ethical sourcing, minimize waste and improve nutritional quality. This paper presents a compiled information of review of literature related to sustainability transition in food industry published worldwide. Shifting consumer preferences towards sustainable and healthy diets is a crucial aspect of the food industry’s role in sustainable transition. Promoting plant based diets, reduced food waste and adopting circular economy principles can significantly contribute to sustainable consumption patterns. The food industry is making significant strides in sustainability, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving supply chain transparency and promoting responsible sourcing, but challenges persist. This review paper serves as both a clarion call and a roadmap, emphasizing the inextricable link between the food industry and sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainability in Food Science and Food Industry: Where Are We Now? – Viewpoints of the EFFoST Working Group on Sustainable Food Systems

Social sustainability in the food value chain: what is and how to adopt an integrative approach?

Food Sustainability

Data availability.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abouzeid, R. E., El-Kader, A., Salama, A. H., Fahmy, A., T. Y., & El-Sakhawy, M. (2022). Preparation and properties of novel biocompatible pectin/silica calcium phosphate hybrids. Cellulose Chemistry and Technology , 56 (3–4), 371–378.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Academy of Sciences , 120 (5), e2216891120.

Acosta-Silva, Y. D. J., Torres-Pacheco, I., Matsumoto, Y., Toledano-Ayala, M., Soto-Zarazúa, G. M., Zelaya-Ángel, O., & Méndez-López, A. (2019). Applications of solar and wind renewable energy in agriculture: A review. Science Progress , 102 (2), 127–140.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Adiguzel, F., Cetin, M., Dogan, M., Gungor, S., Kose, M., Sert, B., E., & Kaya, E. (2022). The assessment of the thermal behavior of an urban park surface in a dense urban area for planning decisions. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 194 (7), 519.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Adigüzel, A. D., & Çetin, İ. Z. (2022). Urbanization models suitable for thermal-bioclimatic comfort levels. Kastamonu University Journal of Engineering and Sciences , 8 (1), 78–89.

Google Scholar  

Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., & Lomillos, J. M. (2020). Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals , 10 (3), 385.

Alonso, A. A., Álvarez-Salgado, X. A., & Antelo, L. T. (2021). Assessing the impact of bivalve aquaculture on the carbon circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production , 279 , 123873.

Ankersmit, L. (2020). The contribution of EU public procurement law to corporate social responsibility. European Law Journal , 26 (1–2), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12353 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Annosi, M. C., Brunetta, F., Bimbo, F., & Kostoula, M. (2021). Digitalization within food supply chains to prevent food waste. Drivers, barriers and collaboration practices. Industrial Marketing Management , 93 , 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.01.005 .

Ariza-Montes, A., Hernández-Perlines, F., Han, H., & Law, R. (2019). Human dimension of the hospitality industry: Working conditions and psychological well-being among European servers. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management , 41 , 138–147.

Asiaei, K., Bontis, N., Alizadeh, R., & Yaghoubi, M. (2022). Green intellectual capital and environmental management accounting: Natural resource orchestration in favor of environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment , 31 (1), 76–93.

Asif, M. S., Lau, H., Nakandala, D., & Hurriyet, H. (2023). Paving the way to net-zero: Identifying environmental sustainability factors for business model innovation through carbon disclosure project data. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems , 7 , 1214490.

Autio, S., & Iivonen, S. (2021). Research data and solutions for the development of organic production in Finland (pp. 2021–2024). Finnish Organic Research Institute’s research strategy for.

Avraamidou, S., Baratsas, S. G., Tian, Y., & Pistikopoulos, E. N. (2020). Circular Economy-A challenge and an opportunity for process Systems Engineering. Computers & Chemical Engineering , 133 , 106629.

Baiano, A. (2021). An overview on sustainability in the wine production chain. Beverages , 7 (1), 15.

Balogh, J. M., & Jámbor, A. (2020). The environmental impacts of agricultural trade: A systematic literature review. Sustainability , 12 (3), 1152.

Bandari, V. (2021). A comprehensive review of AI applications in Automated Container Orchestration, Predictive maintenance, security and compliance, resource optimization, and continuous Deployment and Testing. International Journal of Intelligent Automation and Computing , 4 (1), 1–19. https://research.tensorgate.org/index.php/IJIAC/article/view/1 .

Barcaccia, G., D’Agostino, V., Zotti, A., & Cozzi, B. (2020). Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 on the Italian agri-food sector: An analysis of the quarter of pandemic lockdown and clues for a socio-economic and territorial restart. Sustainability , 12 (14), 5651.

Baur, P. (2022). When farmers are pulled in too many directions: comparing institutional drivers of food safety and environmental sustainability in California agriculture. In Social Innovation and Sustainability Transition (pp. 241–260).

Bazaluk, O., Yatsenko, O., Zakharchuk, O., Ovcharenko, A., Khrystenko, O., & Nitsenko, V. (2020). Dynamic development of the global organic food market and opportunities for Ukraine. Sustainability , 12 (17), 6963.

Benton, T. G., & Bailey, R. (2019). The paradox of productivity: Agricultural productivity promotes food system inefficiency. Global Sustainability , 2 , e6.

Brill, H., Kell, G., & Rasche, A. (2020). Sustainable investing: A path to a New Horizon . Routledge.

Brun, A., Karaosman, H., & Barresi, T. (2020). Supply chain collaboration for transparency. Sustainability , 12 (11), 4429.

Bruzelius, C., & Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2023). Enforcing outsiders’ rights: Seasonal agricultural workers and institutionalised exploitation in the EU. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 1–18.

Caraka, R. E., Lee, Y., Kurniawan, R., Herliansyah, R., Kaban, P. A., Nasution, B. I., & Pardamean, B. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 large scale restriction on environment and economy in Indonesia. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management , 6 , 65–84. https://doi.org/10.22034/GJESM.2019.06.SI.07 .

Caratas, M. A. (2023). Corporate social responsibility practices amid Political and Economic Transformation in Europe. Technium Soc Sci J , 43 , 302.

Ceder, A. (2021). Urban mobility and public transport: Future perspectives and review. International Journal of Urban Sciences , 25 (4), 455–479.

Cetin, M. (2019). The effect of urban planning on urban formations determining bioclimatic comfort area’s effect using satellitia imagines on air quality: A case study of Bursa city. Air Quality Atmosphere & Health , 12 (10), 1237–1249.

Chawade, A., van Ham, J., Blomquist, H., Bagge, O., Alexandersson, E., & Ortiz, R. (2019). High-throughput field-phenotyping tools for plant breeding and precision agriculture. Agronomy , 9 (5), 258.

Chen, S., Brahma, S., Mackay, J., Cao, C., & Aliakbarian, B. (2020). The role of smart packaging system in food supply chain. Journal of Food Science , 85 (3), 517–525.

Correani, A., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Natalicchio, A. (2020). Implementing a digital strategy: Learning from the experience of three digital transformation projects. California Management Review , 62 (4), 37–56.

Cottrell, R. S., Nash, K. L., Halpern, B. S., Remenyi, T. A., Corney, S. P., Fleming, A., & Blanchard, J. L. (2019). Food production shocks across land and sea. Nature Sustainability , 2 (2), 130–137.

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. J. N. F. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food , 2 (3), 198–209.

Cunningham, J., & Barclay, S. (2020). Craft beer sector collaboration in North East Scotland: The role of individual success. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation , 21 (4), 263–274.

Dolan, F., Lamontagne, J., Link, R., Hejazi, M., Reed, P., & Edmonds, J. (2021). Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world. Nature communications , 12 (1), 1915.

Dutal, H. (2023). Determining the effect of urbanization on flood hazard zones in Kahramanmaras, Turkey, using flood hazard index and multi-criteria decision analysis. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 195 (1), 92.

El Bilali, H., Callenius, C., Strassner, C., & Probst, L. (2019). Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food and Energy Security , 8(2), e00154.

Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021). The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study. International Journal of Engineering Business Management , 13 , 18479790211016273.

Fahmy, T. Y. A., Fahmy, T. Y. A., Mobarak, F., Abouzeid, R. E., Mobarak, F., El-Sakhawy, M., Kassem, M., El-Kader, A., A. H., & Fahmy, Y. (2007). Introducing molasses as a new additive in papermaking. Tappi Journal , 6(8), 23.

Fahmy, T.Y. A. (2007a). Molasses as a new Additive in papermaking: for high alpha-cellulose wood pulp. Professional Papermaking , 4(1), 42.

Fahmy, T. Y. A., & Mobarak, F. (2009). Advanced nano-based manipulations of molasses in the cellulose and Paper discipline: Introducing a master cheap environmentally safe retention aid and strength promoter In papermaking. Carbohydrate Polymers , 77(2), 316.

Fahmy, T. Y. A., Mobarak, F. (2014). Sustainability of Paper & Sugar Industries via Molasses: Novel Green Nanocomposites from Upgraded Recycled Cellulose Fibers. Journal of American Science , 10(9),1.

Fahmy, T. Y. A. (2017). Molasses as A New Additive in Papermaking: for Bagasse and Kaolin Filled Bagasse pulps. Professional Papermaking , 14(1), 26.

Fahmy T. Y. A., Abouzeid, R. E., Mobarak, F., El-Sakhawy, M., Kassem, M., El-Kader, A., A. H., Fahmy, Y. (2020). lntroducing eggshell waste for paper industry: part I Suitability for bagasse pulp. Professional Papermaking , 17(2), 60–63.

Ferns, S., Dawson, V., & Howitt, C. (2019). A collaborative framework for enhancing graduate employability. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning , 20 (2), 99–111.

Francaviglia, R., Almagro, M., & Vicente-Vicente, J. L. (2023). Conservation agriculture and soil organic carbon: Principles, processes, practices and policy options. Soil Systems , 7 (1), 17.

Giller, K. E., Hijbeek, R., Andersson, J. A., & Sumberg, J. (2021). Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook on Agriculture , 50 (1), 13–25.

Hartley, K., Roosendaal, J., & Kirchherr, J. (2022). Barriers to the circular economy: The case of the Dutch technical and interior textiles industries. Journal of Industrial Ecology , 26 (2), 477–490.

Hassen, N., Lofters, A., Michael, S., Mall, A., Pinto, A. D., & Rackal, J. (2021). Implementing anti-racism interventions in healthcare settings: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (6), 2993.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., & Mason-D’Croz, D. (2020). Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nature Food , 1 (5), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1 . ISSN 2662 – 1355.

Hrustek, L. (2020). Sustainability driven by agriculture through digital transformation. Sustainability , 12 (20), 8596.

Hua, K., Cobcroft, J. M., Cole, A., Condon, K., Jerry, D. R., Mangott, A., & Strugnell, J. M. (2019). The future of aquatic protein: Implications for protein sources in aquaculture diets. One Earth , 1 (3), 316–329.

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Huang, I. Y., Manning, L., James, K. L., Grigoriadis, V., Millington, A., Wood, V., & Ward, S. (2021). Food waste management: A review of retailers’ business practices and their implications for sustainable value. Journal of Cleaner Production , 285 , Article 125484.

Jakob, M., Afionis, S., Åhman, M., Antoci, A., Arens, M., Ascensão, F., & Willner, S. (2022). How trade policy can support the climate agenda. Science , 376 (6600), 1401–1403.

Article   CAS   ADS   Google Scholar  

Jamal, T., Zahid, M., Martins, J. M., Mata, M. N., Rahman, H. U., & Mata, P. N. (2021). Perceived green human resource management practices and corporate sustainability: Multigroup analysis and major industries perspectives. Sustainability , 13 (6), 3045.

Jamatia, P. L. (2022). The Role of Youth in Combating Social Inequality: Empowering the Next Generation. Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (JLLS) ISSN 2815 – 0961 , 2 (06), 11–20.

Jarzębowski, S., Bourlakis, M., & Bezat-Jarzębowska, A. (2020). Short food supply chains (SFSC) as local and sustainable systems. Sustainability , 12 (11), 4715.

Jung, J., Kim, S. J., & Kim, K. H. (2020). Sustainable marketing activities of traditional fashion market and brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research , 120 , 294–301.

Kartoglu, U., & Ames, H. (2022). Ensuring quality and integrity of vaccines throughout the cold chain: The role of temperature monitoring. Expert Review of Vaccines , 21 (6), 799–810.

Khan, N., Ray, R. L., Kassem, H. S., Hussain, S., Zhang, S., Khayyam, M., & Asongu, S. A. (2021). Potential role of technology innovation in transformation of sustainable food systems: A review. Agriculture , 11 (10), 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100984 .

Kouhizadeh, M., Saberi, S., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically exploring adoption barriers. International Journal of Production Economics , 231 , 107831.

Kpienbaareh, D., Bezner Kerr, R., Luginaah, I., Wang, J., Lupafya, E., Dakishoni, L., & Shumba, L. (2020). Spatial and ecological farmer knowledge and decision-making about ecosystem services and biodiversity. Land , 9 (10), 356.

Kraak, V. I., Rincón-Gallardo Patiño, S., & Sacks, G. (2019). An accountability evaluation for the International Food & Beverage Alliance’s Global Policy on Marketing communications to children to reduce obesity: A narrative review to inform policy. Obesity Reviews , 20 , 90–106.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Krmela, A., Šimberová, I., & Babiča, V. (2022). Dynamics of business models in industry-wide collaborative networks for circularity. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology Market and Complexity , 8 (1), 3.

Kumar, R., Verma, A., Shome, A., Sinha, R., Sinha, S., Jha, P. K., & Vara Prasad, P. V. (2021). Impacts of plastic pollution on ecosystem services, sustainable development goals, and need to focus on circular economy and policy interventions. Sustainability , 13 (17), 9963.

Lajoie-O’Malley, A., Bronson, K., van der Burg, S., & Klerkx, L. (2020). The future (s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents. Ecosystem Services , 45 , 101183.

Lau, J. D., Song, A. M., Morrison, T., Fabinyi, M., Brown, K., Blythe, J., Hallison, E., & Adger, W. N. (2021). Morals and climate decision-making: Insights from social and behavioural sciences. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 52 , 27–35.

Lehoux, P., Silva, H. P., Denis, J. L., Miller, F. A., Sabio, P., R., & Mendell, M. (2021). Moving toward responsible value creation: Business model challenges faced by organizations producing responsible health innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 38 (5), 548–573.

Macarthur, & Heading (2019). How the circular economy tackles climate change. Ellen MacArthur Found , 1 , 1–71.

Mohanavelu, A., Naganna, S. R., & Al-Ansari, N. (2021). Irrigation induced salinity and sodicity hazards on soil and groundwater: An overview of its causes, impacts and mitigation strategies. Agriculture , 11 (10), 983.

Monterrosa, E. C., Frongillo, E. A., Drewnowski, A., de Pee, S., & Vandevijvere, S. (2020). Sociocultural influences on food choices and implications for sustainable healthy diets. Food and Nutrition Bulletin , 41 (2_suppl), 59S–73S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572120975874 .

Morrison, I. I. I., Scully, W. R., E. D., & Campbell, J. F. (2021). Towards developing areawide semiochemical-mediated, behaviorally‐based integrated pest management programs for stored product insects. Pest Management Science , 77 (6), 2667–2682.

Mykhailichenko, M., Lozhachevska, O., Smagin, V., Krasnoshtan, O., Zos-Kior, M., & Hnatenko, I. (2021). Competitive strategies of personnel management in business processes of agricultural enterprises focused on digitalization. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development , 43 (3), 403–414.

Ncube, L. K., Ude, A. U., Ogunmuyiwa, E. N., Zulkifli, R., & Beas, I. N. (2021). An overview of plastic waste generation and management in food packaging industries. Recycling , 6 (1), 12.

Negi, A. (2021). Green buildings: Strategies for energy-efficient and eco-friendly designs. Mathematical Statistician and Engineering Applications , 70 (1), 683–689.

Oruma, S. O., Misra, S., & Fernandez-Sanz, L. (2021). Agriculture 4.0: An implementation framework for food security attainment in Nigeria’s post-covid-19 era. Ieee Access , 9 , 83592–83627.

Pacoureau, N., Carlson, J. K., Kindsvater, H. K., Rigby, C. L., Winker, H., Simpfendorfer, C. A., & Dulvy, N. K. (2023). Conservation successes and challenges for wide-ranging sharks and rays. Proceedings of the National .

Panchasara, H., Samrat, N. H., & Islam, N. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions trends and mitigation measures in Australian agriculture sector—A review. Agriculture , 11 (2), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020085 .

Pawlak, K., & Kołodziejczak, M. (2020). The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability , 12 (13), 5488.

Pereira, L. M., Drimie, S., Maciejewski, K., Tonissen, P. B., & Biggs, R. (2020). Food system transformation: Integrating a political–economy and social–ecological approach to regime shifts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (4), 1313.

Reguero, B. G., Beck, M. W., Schmid, D., Stadtmüller, D., Raepple, J., Schüssele, S., & Pfliegner, K. (2020). Financing coastal resilience by combining nature-based risk reduction with insurance. Ecological Economics , 169 , 106487.

Rejeb, A., Keogh, J. G., Zailani, S., Treiblmaier, H., & Rejeb, K. (2020). Blockchain technology in the food industry: A review of potentials, challenges and future research directions. Logistics , 4 (4), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4040027 .

Sahal, R., Alsamhi, S. H., Brown, K. N., O’shea, D., McCarthy, C., & Guizani, M. (2021). Blockchain-empowered digital twins collaboration: Smart transportation use case. Machines , 9 (9), 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines9090193 .

Santos, E. (2023). From neglect to progress: Assessing social sustainability and decent work in the tourism sector. Sustainability , 15 (13), 10329.

Sedykh, V., Pyrchenkova, G., & Radchenko, E. (2020, August). Public-private partnership as a form ensuring food security in Russia.IOP Publishing.In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 548, No. 8, p. 082031).

Shad, M. K., Lai, F. W., Fatt, C. L., Klemeš, J. J., & Bokhari, A. (2019). Integrating sustainability reporting into enterprise risk management and its relationship with business performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production , 208 , 415–425.

Shafi, U., Mumtaz, R., García-Nieto, J., Hassan, S. A., Zaidi, S. A. R., & Iqbal, N. (2019). Precision agriculture techniques and practices: From considerations to applications. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) , 19 (17), 3796.

Article   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Sigurdsson, V., Larsen, N. M., Folwarczny, M., Fagerstrøm, A., Menon, R. V., & Sigurdardottir, F. T. (2023). The importance of relative customer-based label equity when signaling sustainability and health with certifications and tags. Journal of Business Research , 154 , 113338.

Siwandeti, M., Mahuwi, L., & Israel, B. (2023). How public procurement can help societies achieve SDGs: A conceptual model. Management of Sustainable Development , 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.54989/msd-2023-0006 .

Spiegel, S. J., Thomas, S., O’neill, K., Brondgeest, C., Thomas, J., Beltran, J., & Yassi, A. (2020). Visual storytelling, intergenerational environmental justice and indigenous sovereignty: Exploring images and stories amid a contested oil pipeline project. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (7), 2362.

Thanh, N. V., & Lan, N. T. K. (2022). A new hybrid triple bottom line metrics and fuzzy MCDM model: Sustainable supplier selection in the food-processing industry. Axioms , 11 (2), 57.

Tolliver, C., Keeley, A. R., & Managi, S. (2019). Green bonds for the Paris agreement and sustainable development goals. Environmental Research Letters , 14 (6), 064009.

Tomich, T. P., Lidder, P., Coley, M., Gollin, D., Meinzen-Dick, R., Webb, P., & Carberry, P. (2019). Food and agricultural innovation pathways for prosperity. Agricultural Systems , 172 , 1–15.

Tsalis, T. A., Malamateniou, K. E., Koulouriotis, D., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2020). New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 27 (4), 1617–1629.

Vázquez, J. L., & Lanero, A. (2021). Consumer transition to a green economy: The role of third-party certified eco-labels. EDP Sciences In SHS Web of Conferences Vol. 120, p. 02002. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202112002002 .

Vuong, Q. H., La, V. P., Nguyen, H. K. T., Ho, M. T., Vuong, T. T., & Ho, M. T. (2021). Identifying the moral–practical gaps in corporate social responsibility missions of Vietnamese firms: An event-based analysis of sustainability feasibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 28 (1), 30–41.

Warhurst, C., & Knox, A. (2022). Manifesto for a new quality of Working Life. Human Relations , 75 (2), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720979348 .

Watson, R., Baste, I., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P., Pascual, U., Baptiste, B., & Mooney, H. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat: Bonn Germany , 22–47.

Yadav, S. P. S., Lahutiya, V., Ghimire, N. P., Yadav, B., & Paudel, P. (2023). Exploring innovation for sustainable agriculture: A systematic case study of permaculture in Nepal. Heliyon , 9 (5).

Yang, A. (2022). HelloFresh, GoodByeChoice: Losing our choice within the meal kit delivery platform. The iJournal: Student Journal of the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Information , 8 (1). https://doi.org/10.33137/ijournal.v8i1.39911 .

Yigitcanlar, T., Corchado, J. M., Mehmood, R., Li, R. Y. M., Mossberger, K., & Desouza, K. (2021). Responsible urban innovation with local government artificial intelligence (AI): A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology Market and Complexity , 7 (1), 71.

Zeren Cetin, I., Varol, T., Ozel, H. B., & Sevik, H. (2023). The effects of climate on land use/cover: A case study in Turkey by using remote sensing data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 30 (3), 5688–5699.

Download references

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, 144001, India

S. Prasanna, Praveen Verma & Suman Bodh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Praveen Verma .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Prasanna, S., Verma, P. & Bodh, S. The role of food industries in sustainability transition: a review. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04642-1

Download citation

Received : 16 September 2023

Accepted : 12 February 2024

Published : 16 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04642-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clean energy integration
• Climate change mitigation
• Plant-based diets
• Reduced food waste
• Sustainable food
• Sustainable packaging
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Food security management in developing countries: Influence of economic factors on their food availability and access

Norbert bozsik.

1 Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Gödöllő, Hungary

Julieth P. Cubillos T.

2 Doctoral School of Economic and Regional Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Gödöllő, Hungary

Bopushev Stalbek

László vasa.

3 Faculty of Economics, Hungary and Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary

Róbert Magda

4 Institute of Economics, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Gödöllő, Hungary

Associated Data

All data are fully available without restriction. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the food and agriculture data FAO STAT and World Bank database. Data access: https://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/QI , and https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators .

The research presents an analysis of the food security policy effectiveness on the component of food availability and access in two developing countries, Colombia and Kyrgyzstan, during the period from 2000 to 2018. Determining the state of their food balance trade and the regression analysis for the Food Production Index of the countries, considering four economic indicators. Thus the study attempts to show that policies and strategies have not reached the expected results in terms of reduction of food imports dependency and strengthening of national production and export industry. Furthermore was found that among the economic indicators considered, food inflation, food imports, food exports, and extreme monetary poverty; the last one was the indicator that presented influence on the Food Production Index of both countries, during the period analyzed, showing that access was the main component that defines the food production. The results highlighted the need of integrating food security with the monetary and trade policies of these countries.

Introduction

Food is an essential component and global concern, directly related to poverty and inequality conditions in a society. The United Nations considers this aspect in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) to be achieved by 2030, in the second one, to “end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition for all people”. To reach this, one of the strategies is to increase food production by improving soil fertility, using biological resources and advances in genetics [ 1 ]

The agricultural production level needs to rise faster than the population growth, without increasing damage to the environment. The main force of development is sustainable intensive farming, which means the more effective utilization of agricultural land and water resources [ 2 ]. Thus, emerging concepts such as closing yield gaps, described as the maximum yield potential achievement, considering its agro-ecological conditions, and incorporation of technical and technological efficient strategies [ 3 ]; and the integrated farming system, described as an approach to increase food production, reduce environmental footprint through intercropping, and field rotation [ 4 ]. Nowadays agriculture raises productivity rapidly, yet it also pays a high price for overconsumption of natural resources and energy use [ 5 ], even in some regions is claimed that agricultural food production is related to local natural resources endowment [ 6 ].

Therefore, there are concerns of the governments and societies about the food production and the guarantee of access to the population; because it does not involve exclusive the agriculture, since the food sector is influenced also for macroeconomics effects, cultural and social development.

Food security is an important matter for both, researchers and practitioners struggling to provide solutions for supplying sufficient food to the next generations. Numerous remedies and recommendations are given in the literature to bridge the gap between food supply and food demand for the next five decades years [ 7 ].

To manage the whole scenario of food, nowadays the food security approach has increased its influence on the nationals’ food policies. For instance, Russia has changed its food policy since 2015 from a food-import dependent country to a food-self-sufficient country [ 8 ], whereas China’s long-term Food Policy Plan is to increase agricultural output through improving technology, and land and water management [ 9 ]. The importance of the geographical origin of food and the preference for domestic products could also be one of the possible strategies to enhance food safety and sustainability [ 10 – 12 ]

There are policies and strategies that focus mainly on the food production component, however, that is not enough to achieve the end of hunger in developing countries, which have to solve conditions of access, stability, nutrition, distribution, demands, among others. The total amount of food produced should be enough to feed the whole population, nevertheless because of the deficient distribution systems and poverty, about 15% of the world’s population, in developing countries, is undernourished [ 13 ], beside the increase of biofuel demand and production [ 14 ]. The epidemic crisis caused major disruption to production, investment, and consumer expenditures. This problem is more pronounced in underdeveloped and developing countries [ 15 ], which are able to produce the basic food products needed and can influence food security and sustainability [ 16 ].

Regarding the analysis of economic components, the impacts of macroeconomic fluctuations on food insecurity have remained scantily explored [ 17 ]; some food security studies have analyzed the influence and consequence of economic indicators such as poverty [ 18 , 19 ], food inflation [ 20 – 22 ], and food balance [ 6 , 23 ]

Recognizing the importance of the effectiveness of food security policies, and the relevance of economic factors, this study carried out a cross-sectional time-series data (panel data) analysis, to identify, through economic indicators, the progress in the components of food availability and food access, in the food security policy of two developing countries: Kyrgyzstan and Colombia; considering a period from 2000 to 2018, defined due to the availability of indicators data, and the implementation of the food security policy in these countries. Since their policy started to be in force in the same period, Kyrgyzstan in 2007 and Colombia in 2008, both based on the components of food production and access. this lets to analyze the policies results and tendencies in each country [ 24 ].

These two countries were selected considering the similarities of their agricultural sectors, such as both concentrate their agricultural commodities in the primary sector, like milk, sugar, vegetables, and fruits products; by 2018 their agriculture share to GDP did not exceed 12% and it had a decreasing trend s an [ 24 ]; both countries have considerable challenges on the food insecurity, since the poverty line was 35.7% in Colombia and 20.1% in Kyrgyzstan by 2019 [ 25 ]. Besides, they are from regions with a prevalence of undernourished, 7.2% and 8.8%, respectively, by 2018 [ 26 ].

The aim of this study is identify the impact of indicators related to macroeconomic context with their consequence at the micro-level [ 17 ]. Taking into account that one measure can not capture all dimensions of food security [ 19 ], this paper determined the state of the food balance in each country, considering not only exports- imports values, but including the volume tendencies of those trade as well. Besides, it was analyzed the food production index in each country, considering four economic indicators, extreme monetary poverty and food inflation, connected with food access; and food exports and imports, regarding food availability, developing a multiple regression analysis to determine the effects of the four explanatory variables on the food production index of each country. This contributes to determining the most influential economic factor on the foods security management in these developing countries, and to understanding the orientation of the policy’s implementation.

The correlation and multiple regression methods have been widely used to find the relationship between economic status and the food security indicators, applied previously to factors such as food import dependency [ 27 ], food balance, dietary data of vegetables and fruits [ 28 ], self-sufficiency [ 29 ], food price [ 30 ], wealth indices and food consumption [ 31 ]. Therefore this study considered this statistical analysis (regression model) with the four economic indicators chosen, that have not been studied before in the same model, as is considered in this study.

The analysis of the food security policies’ results in these countries, with these economic indicators, contributes to identifying the most influential economic factor in the food security management of these developing countries, determining, as well, the changes and tendencies in the food balance trade and production index after the implementation of the regulations, arising the questions: Did the food imports dependency reduce after the implementation of food security policy in the countries?, and was food inflation the main influence in the countries’ food production during the period analyzed?.

To develop this, the paper is organized as follows. In the second section, a background of the food security approach was presented, with the state of the countries’ economic indicators, the description of their food security strategies, and their agriculture production. The third section tackles the methods and tools implemented, to identify the balance trade (value and production) of crops and livestock products in both countries, from 2000 to 2018; and the multiple regression analysis. Finally, section four presents the results and discussion, and section five the conclusions of the study.

Background of the food security approach

“Food security emerged during the 1974 world food crisis as a right to not be undernourished. Neoliberal policies and technocratic conceptions of economic growth and free trade influenced this concept as a development goal” [ 32 ]. Since then, there has been an evolution of the concept of food security. By the 1990s the idea of food security had expanded to include not only the access to affordable and nutritious food, but affirmed cultural food preferences as a basic human right” [ 33 ]. It enables humans to have physical, economic, and socially acceptable access to a safe and nutritious diet [ 34 ].

Food security and “food safety” are subject categories composed far the largest group of articles, whilst subject category “poverty” became considerably smaller. One reason for this may have been the fact that subject category “poverty” was not the focus of research before the world economic crisis [ 35 ].

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS), (2009) mentioned that one of the most popular definitions of food security emphasizes its multidimensionality, describing food security as the condition that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life [ 36 ]. Social capital, and the synergy from interactions of community members, enhance food security status—both directly and indirectly [ 37 ]. Thus, Food security gradually and consistently enlarged to involve not only the food availability and food production but also its expansion to ensure explicitly and accessibility of food, simultaneously [ 38 ]. The food security approach “prioritizes trade-oriented goods, imports, and intensive agriculture while promoting poverty-alleviation policies” [ 32 ].

The importance for governments to develop good management, public policies and guarantee food security in their territories is related to political stability. A food system is made up of the environment, people, institutions, policies, and processes through which food is produced, processed, and brought to the consumer [ 39 ], and those who create and enforce food safety regulations need to understand each other’s perspectives better [ 40 ]. Developing food supply chains in agriculture could be one of the keys for higher value-added activities and income of the participants along the chains [ 41 ]. Those places where hunger is concentrated are also characterized by persistent food insecurity resulting from either food emergencies or man-made crises lasting for several years, those crises may be the result of armed conflict, droughts, floods, the effects of pandemics, among others [ 42 , 43 ].

Furthermore, adequate management and response to food problems need a contextualized analysis including causal interdependencies, information on climatic aspects, but also on agricultural and socioeconomic indicators [ 44 ], which can be useful in the decision-making process of the stakeholders involved. To ensure the countries’ food security, there were strategies such as the stability of prices for necessities, increasing national food production based on smallholder agriculture, and supporting small farmers with seed assistance, labor-intensive programs [ 45 ], equipping and infrastructure in rural areas [ 46 ], predictable trading systems, by making the international food system more efficient, and trade policies on export and import restrictions [ 47 ].

The Existing food security literature includes only few publications that specifically mention co-management as a mechanism through which food security can be enhanced [ 48 ]. Food and nutritional security should be operated from intersectoral and interdisciplinary perspectives considering areas as family, local, national and international [ 33 ].

Regarding international trade, “this affects food security directly through the impact on food availability, and indirectly through the effects on food accessibility and stability” [ 49 ]. Projection of OECD-FAO, (2020) reflects that will remain essential the food security in food-importing countries, and the rural livelihoods in food-exporting countries. Consumers in low-income countries consume the bulk of their calories from vegetable sources, they cannot afford to consume high-priced calories of animal origin [ 50 ].

Literature on economic development and policy studies has focused on evaluating specific outcomes from food security policies, nevertheless, is necessary a wider perspective since macroeconomic factors, such as poverty, unemployment and balance trade, play a strong role in the improvement of food security [ 46 ].

Recent research claimed that most of the literature is currently focusing on the impact on the price level and volatility, however, it is important to analyze the impact of the trade restriction on food security as well. Trade and trade policies influence the profits of food producers and the food costs for consumers, mainly because of their effect on the world and domestic food prices [ 49 ]. The dynamics of food security were not dependent only on the food balance sheets, but on the ability of countries to maintain food consumption through domestic food production, and financing food imports [ 51 ].

From 2000 to 2018 Colombia kept a trade surplus on its food balance, except for the years 2012 and 2013 when imports were higher than exports. By 2000 Colombian food imports registered 11.9%, and at the end of the period analyzed, 2018, the food imports were 12.5% [ 52 ]. While food exports registered 24.06% in 2000 and 13.6% in 2018.

On its side Kyrgyzstan presented a more fluctuating food balance trade, with a trade deficit in 2007 and the period 2012–2014; this country registered food imports of 14.4% by 2000, moving to 11.1% in 2018. And its food exports in 2000 were around 10.3%, closing in 2018 with 10.6% [ 52 ].

However, with this overview is necessary to identify the details of their food balance performance along this time, considering not only the value trade, but the quantity of the production, and analyzing them with the level of domestic food production.

The state of the other economic indicators considered in this research as food inflation showed that starting the period analyzed (2000) was 7% in Colombia and 11% in Kyrgyzstan, finalizing in 2018 with 0.88% to Colombia, and -2.15% to Kyrgyzstan, initially observing a decreasing of food inflation in both that should be studied. Regarding monetary poverty, Colombia registered 23% of its population in 2000, and 15.1 by 2018 [ 53 ]. Concerning Kyrgyzstan, monetary poverty declined from 62.6% in 2000 to 22.4% in 2018 [ 54 ].

Considering this context and the importance of economic factors in the management of food security, the hypotheses posited to evaluate in this research paper were:

• h 1 : “With the implementation of the food security policy there was not a decrease in the food imports amount and dependency, in both countries”
• h 2 : “The food access, in terms of food inflation, had a higher effect in the food production index of each country, than the monetary poverty and food balance”

Context of Colombian food security management

“In Colombia, issues related to poverty are correlated to food security” [ 33 ]. According to reports of FAO, at the beginning of 2010, the largest number of people without adequate access to food in Colombia was around 5.7 million people where approximately 57.3% of Colombian households experienced food security, and 42.7% suffered food insecurity [ 44 ]. By 2019 the overall national poverty headcount ratio was 35.7% of the population, according to data from World Bank [ 25 ], from this 9.5% were vulnerable people in extreme monetary poverty [ 55 ].

Colombia has recognized in its constitution of 1991 the right to a balanced diet, which is interpreted by the national legal authorities as the right to food security or timely and permanent access to food to meet nutritional needs [ 56 ]. The concept has been related mainly to the agricultural policies, administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, which structures the programs in accordance with the guidelines of the food security policy to encourage food supply and food production.

Since 2008, Colombia developed programs and strategies through the Council of Economic and Social Policy (CONPES) number 113, for the management of food security. It stated that “Food and nutrition security includes sufficient and stable food availability in addition to access and timely, as well as uninterrupted use of the same adequate quantity and quality by all persons under conditions that permit adequate biological use leading to a healthy and active life” [ 57 ]. The implementation of this policy is developed by the National Plans for Food Security and Nutrition (PNSAN 2012–2019), which set objectives, strategies and actions to protect the population from hunger and poor nutrition; it seeked to ensure access to food quality in a timely, adequate manner; to ensure that the Colombian population consumes a complete, balanced, enough and adequate diet; with appropriate offer and guarantee access [ 33 ].

Furthermore, the PNSAN 2012–2019 proposed the creation of alliances with the private sector to increase competitiveness; according to Roger Merino (2020) with strategies such as financing productive projects with export potential; improving the productivity of small-medium producers, and improving food assistance programs. In practice, the food policies in the country reinforced dependence on imports that damage local economies, single-crop exports, and land-use change for agribusiness expansion over forests and indigenous territories [ 32 ].

On its side, the CONPES defined five key components of the Colombian food security and nutritional policy, one of these is availability, which refers to the quantity of food at the national and local level, considering the productive structure, trade system (imports-exports), and political situation. The Access component refers to the ability of people to retrieve adequate and sustainable food supply. The lack of access because of insufficient food amounts, poor delivery, lack of money, and high food costs, are often the causes of food insecurity.

The other three components are Consumption, which means the household food stocks that gather the nutritional needs, diversity, culture, food preferences and education. The biological use component, the way the human body processes the types and quantities of food, and become them in nutrients. The last component is the quality and food safety, refers to food characteristics that make them suitable for human consumption. This component requires the existence of an adequate food chain from production until consumption.

Regarding the economic dimension or perspective of the Colombian food security and nutritional policy, it includes two of the components, Availability (offer or supply of food) and Access (with extreme poverty as an indicator of no access to the minimum type and quantity of food required); this economic dimension will be the emphasis to analyze in this research paper.

The current Colombian Agricultural and Rural Development Policy (2018–2022), focuses on two main aims, on one hand competitiveness, with transformation and production systems, food safety, and investment. On the other hand, rural development is based on employment, infrastructure, social systems and land production [ 58 ]. Some of the programs that the Ministry of Agriculture develops in the framework of this policy are “Harvest and sell directly” as a strategy of agriculture marketing, efficient production process, encourage direct trade relationship, and legalize agricultural entrepreneurship [ 58 ].

The last “basic food familiar basket” [ 59 ] published by the national department of statistics (DANE) in 2017, established the group of basic foods to fulfill nutritional and energy needs. Colombia has 51 basic food products in the groups of cereals; roots and tubers; plantains; vegetables; fruits; meat; fish; and dairy products [ 60 ].

By 2020, after twelve years of implementation the CONPES policy and two national plans of food security, the Colombian agriculture sector presented the distribution of its production as shown in Fig 1 . The chart presents the share of each crop and livestock products, and can be observed the share of some of the basic food products.

Source: Authors edition based on the FAOSTAT [ 61 ].

The crops and livestock products presented in the chart, excluded live animals, eggs, hens, and other birds in shells, to gather specifically production in tonnes. Taking this into account by 2018 the production of 156.088.951 tonnes included 141 agricultural products. The largest production was in the sugar sector with 42.9% (sugar crops primary and sugar cane), followed by milk (9.4%), fruits, oil palm fruit, roots- tubers, and cereals.

The Colombian policy has instruments for the trade defense of agriculture production, such as an early warning system of international trade products and indicators, to provide data for decision-making in the public and private sector. The strategies on food safety focused on participation in international markets. However, in practice, the last agricultural policies, food policies, and the incorporation of 17 trade agreements [ 62 ] have reinforced the dependence on imports that affect local economies with the cheapest food, single-crop exports, and land-use change for agribusiness expansion over forests.

Between 2007 to 2018 the cereal import dependency in Colombia kept over 60% and the crops and livestock products import dependency ratio had an increasing trend since 2003, achieving 9.94% in 2018 [ 61 ]. Other indicators to identify the current situation and some results of the Colombian Plan of Food Security and Nutrition is the food price inflation, by 2008 in 12.38%, with a decreasing trend until 2016 when drastically raise (12.68%) and low in 2018 until 0.88% [ 61 ]. On the other hand, Colombian inflation in 2018 was 2%, according to DANE statistics; with this, it is possible to appreciate the contrast between food inflation and the general inflation in the country [ 55 ].

Regarding other international indicators considering in the food security approach, the FAO database [ 61 ] registers the Colombian average value of food production to identify the Colombian food availability, and the per capita food supply variability indicator (kcal/capita/day).

Context of the food security management in Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan is an agricultural country, and any changes in nature, like natural disasters or climate change, last decades’ draughts and hard winter may lead to undernourishment and food insecurity. Economic and social problems also contribute to malnutrition and food insecurity as the economic gap is essential in Kyrgyzstan, the population of rural regions are less developed than urban ones. In the past 16 years, the level of food security in Kyrgyzstan has only worsened. According to the National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic (2019), the population living in poverty is estimated as 22.4%, those who are living in a moderate and severe food insecurity state are 23.9% and the population at the risk of food insecurity condition is 5.1% [ 63 , 64 ].

The transition from a planned economy into a market economy led to a sharp reduction in subsidies in the mid-90s in the country’s overall economy, and in the agriculture sector particularly. In 1990 and 1995, the GDP crashed by 40 percent, from USD 2.67 billion in 1990 to USD 1.66 billion in 1995 [ 65 ]. This trend was followed by a further decline till 2000, such a situation had severe implications for food security in Kyrgyzstan.

This country has been a member of the World Food Program (WFP) since 2011, which has contributed to improving the food security problem, as the programs and advices of The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), who recommended implementing programs on salt iodization and flour fortification, that impacted the health of the population and increase the quality of life. The government adopted the standards of minimum necessary food and calories per person, but the implementation of these standards is low as the level of poverty is high in rural regions [ 66 ].

The government identified nine types of basic vital foods products: bread and bakery products, meat and meat products, vegetables and melons, seeds oil, potatoes, milk and dairy products, fruits and berries, sugar, eggs. Above mentioned products are the basic products for assessing the level of food security, taking into account the cultural, historical, climatic characteristics of Kyrgyzstan, and it is set on the Regulation on Monitoring and Food Security Indicators of the Kyrgyz Republic [ 67 ]. At the same time, on October 8, 2007, the Regulation on the Food Security Council of the Kyrgyz Republic was adopted.

The causes of the transformational decline in the agrarian economy and a decrease in the level of food security in Kyrgyzstan are considered and given a scientifically based explanation by scientists of the country. The major factors that led to the decline of production in Kyrgyzstan have been associate but not limited to: inflation, lack of financial and other resources, low wages, poor legislative framework, imperfect market structure and infrastructure, irresponsibility of heads of enterprises and government agencies, the prosperity of bribery, corruption, among other [ 64 ].

Oruzbaeva (2000) attributes the decline in agricultural production to the ineffective agrarian reform, all the necessary steps of the reform were managed completely by foreign specialists, and as the ineffective result of the reform was an ill-considered choice of strategic directions and methods for their implementation [ 68 ]. Contrary, Musaeva (2008) associated the situation to the lack of knowledge and skills of the market mechanism, the price and foreign trade incontinence. Moreover, the change in the material and technical basis of agriculture was affected by the destruction of state farms and collective farms, the formation of family peasant farms through the distribution of land, livestock, and agricultural equipment, that promote manual techniques instead of mechanized agricultural [ 69 ].

The ill-conceived agricultural policy leads to unstable development of the agricultural sector and decline of food security. The consequence of this is the destruction of production potential and weak controllability of the agricultural sector. In addition, the marketing and incentive systems for rural producers have developed slowly [ 70 ].

Djumabaev (2002) highlighted that one of the main tasks of the Kyrgyz agro-industrial complex is the effective industrialization of agricultural production, which is aimed at providing the population with food, and the processing industries—with raw materials in the volumes necessary for the sustainable development of the food market of the republic. It is necessary to work out a system of economic measurements and legal documents to ensure the country’s food security through domestic production, as well as to create favorable conditions for the life and economic activity of the rural population [ 71 ].

According to the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic, the food security is considered to be ensured if the level of the food reserve covers at least 90-days needs of socially vulnerable segments of the population for basic food products. The population with spending below the poverty line is considered as socially vulnerable in Kyrgyzstan (based on the data of the National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic in 2018), the population with consumer spending below the poverty line is 22.4% [ 63 ].

Despite the growth of basic food products, Kyrgyzstan cannot provide the population with basic food products by its own production (physical inaccessibility), which leads to a high level of food import dependence [ 72 ]. The cereal import dependency kept at 16.2% during three years (2016–2018), while the crops and livestock products import dependency was between 4% and 7.89% in the last 5 year [ 46 ]. The Kyrgyz production in 2018 was 16.083.438 tonnes, considering specific crops and livestock products in tonnes [ 61 ].

Fig 2 let identify the role of the basic vital food products of the countries after 13 years of the regulation on the food security council adoption. Highlighting that cereal, milk, potatoes, roots and vegetable primary (included in the basic vital food) gathered 52.6% of the total production.

Each region of the Kyrgyz republic is famous with its own product, for instance, the Talas region with beans, Chui—sugar beet, the southern region with tobacco and cotton. Moreover, the country produces dairy products (milk from cows, sheep, goats) and meat products (beef, mutton, horse meat) [ 73 ]. Out of all agricultural production livestock production in 2019 was 47.3%, crop production amounted to 50.1%, forestry and services– 2.6% [ 74 ]. Some regions have faced land problems and scarcity of water, however, the northern part of the country has better soil.

The food security of Kyrgyzstan gradually fell during the transformation of the national economy, however, there are more reasons that explain the situation and development of food security in the country:

• Unsuccessful reform of the agriculture;
• The gap in the production and technological chain between agriculture and the light and food industries;
• Lack of knowledge and skills of the market mechanism;
• Ill-conceived agricultural policy;
• Reduced government support;
• Lack of modern technology;
• Lack of competitiveness of private farmers.

Methodology

The analysis of the food security management in each country, was developed with cross-sectional time-series data analysis (panel data), from 2000 to 2018, considering economic indicators to identify characteristics and the impact of the policy and management on the two components, food availability and food access.

The first component of the analysis focuses on the food balance development in each country, to identify the changes in their agriculture production, exports, and imports performance (quantity and trade value), before and after the implementation of the food security policies. The following Table 1 described the indicators and database sources considered in this food balance development.

Source: prepared by authors

The second component is the statistical analysis with the multiple regression method, to identify the effects and model of the four explanatory variables (monetary poverty, food inflation, food imports, and food exports), in the Food Production Index of each country (response variable), presented with details in Table 2 . The period analyzed was set from 2000 to 2018, considering the implementation of the food policy in each country and the availability of information.

Definition of indicators for the second component of the methodology

Food production index (2004–2006 = 100).

FAO defines it as the sum of price-weighted quantities of different agricultural commodities produced after deductions of quantities used as seed and feed, and compares a volume of agricultural production in a given year with the base period of reference 2004–2006. Food production index covers food crops that are considered edible and that contain nutrients. Coffee and tea are excluded because, although edible, they have no nutritive value. These indices are given per capita.

To obtain the index number, the aggregate for a given year is divided by the average aggregate of a base period, in this case 2004–2006. National producer prices are expressed as "international commodity prices”, with this is assigned a single price to each commodity (one ton of wheat has the same price in whatever country it was produced).

Extreme monetary poverty

According to CEPAL (2018) the poverty line represents a monetary value in which two components are considered: the cost of acquiring a basic food basket and the cost of other goods and services, expressed on the basis of the relationship between total spending and food expenditure [ 75 ]. Therefore the calculation of the extreme poverty line corresponds mainly to the value of the basic food basket.

In the case of Colombia the national department of statistics (DANE) builds the basic food basket, selecting products of the food components, guaranteeing the caloric requirement (2100 calories per day) [ 76 ]. In case of Kyrgyzstan, like in Colombia, the national statistical committee sets the basic food basket with necessary amount and caloric requirements [ 63 ].

Food balance trade (imports-exports)

According to the definition of FAO (1996) the food trade means the contribution to food security in different ways. To eliminate the difference between production and consumption, a government imports a lack of basic needed products and exports surplus of produced products in the territory. Thus, a government tries to meet the food needs of the population [ 77 ]. However, there are some risks concerning the trade such as increasing the price for importing goods, uncertainty of stability of the world market price, and some political instability.

Food price inflation

According to FAOSTAT, Food price Inflation (also known as Consumer Price index) shows the changes of the prices for food over the time that households get for consumption. The International Labour Organization (ILO) is responsible to perform and share the information concerning food price inflation [ 78 ].

Statistical analysis

Considering the previous indicators and the hypothesis h 2 set, was developed the multiple regression analysis for both countries, with the SPSS program, to determine the influence and effects of the explanatory variables on the food production index, between 2000 to 2018.

Multiple regression analysis

This analysis is implemented to predict a dependent variable from two or more independent variables. For this study, there were used as independent variables extreme monetary poverty, food price inflation, food imports, and food exports at once to explain the effects in the dependent variable (Food production index). With multiple regression is possible to forecast the scores on cases for which measurements have not yet been obtained or might be hard to obtain. The regression equation can be used to classify, rate, or rank new cases [ 78 ].

This regression includes multiple correlation coefficients such as R and R-squared. R-squared shows what proportion of the variation in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variables. ANOVA sig., in multiple regression helps to assess the overall significance of a model, if P<0,05 the model is significant [ 79 ].

Limitations

There are some limitations to this study to highlighted, regarding the updated data of countries’ indicators in international databases; in some countries do not register the complete information of agriculture sector for all the periods, therefore FAO presented projection due to the lack of official data. On the other side recent indicators on the food security sector (as food insecurity) could not be analyzed since the data registered (from 2014) is not enough to a cross sectional time series analysis. The authors of this research had to do filters of food security indicators with complete reports, for the countries and period of time analyzed in this paper.

It was observed the lack of standard for measuring economic indicators as monetary poverty, since there are regions and countries that implemented their own methodology, the statistics required careful analysis, to compare data between countries; since the calculation of indicators may vary between countries.

Results and discussion

In this section is presented the two components of the analysis, on one side the tendencies of crops and livestock productions, with the data of exports and imports for both countries; and on the other side, it is detailed the multiple regression running for the response variable, Food Production Index.

Food balance development

To analyze the performance of exports and imports is important to consider further than the value of the respective balance trade. To analyze the product quantity the traded could give a wider perspective of the imports and exports state in a country. Following is presented the statistics of production, exports and imports of the Crops and livestock products in each country, excluding live animals and eggs, hen, other birds in shell, to enable the calculation of the production in tonnes and their respective value.

Food balance of Colombia

The Colombian food security policy sets five lines of action for the economic dimension: stability in the national supply and development of agri-food market; encourage associations and cooperation between companies to boost access to food (free competition); the government priority to design economic and social mechanisms to reduce significant distortions of markets in the food prices; and the international trade policy measures, to guarantee a minimum volume of national production to keep the local food supply.

On his side, Argüello, (2017) claimed that the Colombian export industry did not advance as much as imports, which grew and diversified suppliers, meaning that the number of countries that exported to Colombia increased [ 80 ]. In the case of imports, Colombia has both, complementary and substitution relationships with local production, with emphasis on intermediate and capital goods [ 58 ].

In the below charts can be appreciated the evolution of Colombian crops and livestock products exports and imports; reflecting on one hand that the internal production is by far higher than the quantity of products exported and imported, guaranteed that most of the national production keeps in the local markets. On the other hand, the quantity of products from imports were higher than exports during all period analyzed; by 2000 with a difference of 1.352.322 tonnes respective the exports quantities, and by 2018 that difference increased to 8.547.953 tonnes.

However, The statistics of the Colombian food trade value, presented a higher value of the food exports during all period, as is observed in Fig 3(b) , despite that the amount of exports products were less than imports, these products had a higher economic value; Colombia had a surplus balance on trade value. The values of the food exports and imports were increasing in most of the years, nevertheless is possible to see the reduction in the gap over time; in 2018 the difference value from exports to import was US$3.863.329.000.

Source : Authors edition based on the FAOSTAT [ 61 ].

After the implementation of the food security policy (2008), can be observed that there was not large changes in the exports and imports quantities, keeping the growing trend, but even a little stronger for imports. Regarding the total production of crops and livestock products there was not high increase in the period, and in two times were presented reduction, 2009–2010 and 2016–2017, connected with the world economic crisis and in 2016, when there was a national contraction in Colombian exports.

It is important to highlighted that in Latin American countries the crops and livestock production has been influenced to fulfill global food and biofuel market demands [ 81 ]. Biofuel and renewable resource policies have boosted the global trade of products as maize, sugarcane, and oil crops [ 14 ]. And in the case of Colombia this has increased the participation of the palm oil sector in the national agricultural production. Even the export volume of Colombian palm oil to Europe in 2018 was 252% higher than in 2011, growing faster, than traditional agriculture products such as bananas and coffee, and carrying to the reduction of diversification of agriculture products exported [ 82 ].

In practice, the food policies in the country reinforced dependence on imports that damage local economies, single-crop exports, and land-use change for agribusiness expansion over forests and indigenous territories [ 32 ]. Reflects that national to enhance competitiveness and productivity of export potential agricultural commodities have not reached the expected results [ 49 ].

It is confirmed that there were not a reduction on the imports of food crops and livestock products, showing the same tendencies as the indicator of cereal import dependency presented before. There was a deficit balance regarding trade quantities during all the period analyzed, since, even increasing the tonnes difference between imports and exports and a reduction of the value gap among exports and imports.

Therefore Hypothesis h 1 : “With the implementation of the food security policy there was not a decrease in the food imports amount and dependency, in both countries” is accepted in Colombian case, since there food imports increased in terms of quantity and value.

Food balance of Kyrgyzstan

Sun and Zhang have emphasized that the early stages of trade openness among Central Asian (CA) countries have a negative influence on food security; however, beyond a certain level of trade openness, food security status tends to improve; hence, involvement in global markets through international commerce can eventually increase food security in CA countries. The empirical findings further suggest that the other economic and non-economic variables can be key predictors of food security [ 83 ].

In Kyrgyzstan, with the advent of the new century, many people migrated to other countries in order to find a new source of income. This greatly affected the country’s agriculture, subsequently it brought a lack of labor force in agricultural sector. Chi et al (2020) reported that the decline of livestock production and crop production is connected with agricultural employment and climatic changes [ 84 ]. Subsequently, it brought to the food import dependency.

While in China despite enormous advances in raising food production to maintain national food security over the last decades, China’s food imports have lately increased, which means in some cases government policy is weak towards world uncertainty [ 9 ]. This food import in other of the region as Russia has the situation of expensive imported products and devaluation of the rubble have brought to the consumption of cheap substitute products with low quality and decreased purchasing power of the population; the government has achieved food self-sufficiency, but not food security [ 8 ].

Kyrgyzstan has a high level of food import dependence, since cannot supply the internal demand of basic food products [ 72 ], as can be observed in the below Fig 4 , where from 2000 to 2018 the imports were leading the Kyrgyz food balance sheet, with a small decreasing trend since 2009, and the volatile performance of the food exports. In 2018, only three types of basic food products out of nine were achieved by its production: potatoes, vegetables and melons, milk and dairy products. Besides, it is noted from the Fig 4 that there is a big difference considering the measure of food export and food import. The change in exports is not as high from imports in the mass dimension (tonnes), but in value term (US$) there is a significant difference, which can be interpreted the change of the food price over the years.

Most food products such as dairy products, vegetables and melons, fruits are exported mainly to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), mostly to the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan. At the same time, the country depends on imports of some products as wheat, flour, sub-products from meat, poultry, etc. [ 85 ].

Multiple regression for the Food production index

Food production index (fpi).

Regarding the indicator Food Production Index, in the period analyzed Colombia had a reduction on the food production, between 2008 and 2010, because of the world economic crisis. After 2010 the trend kept growing, reaching 105,1 in 2009. Coincidentally the food security policy came into force in 2008, but as is observed in the following chart, the positive results on food production started after 2011, even having a faster growth than Kyrgyzstan until 2015.

In the case of Kyrgyzstan, the regulation on food security started in 2007, quite similar to Colombia, however the negative impact of 2008 was less strong in its food production index, and from 2009, it keeps an increasing trend [ Fig 5 ].

Source : Authors edition based on the Global Economy database [ 24 ].

As an indicator of availability, the performance of the food production index for both countries reflected in the above chart lets identify the increase of crop production with nutrients, considering the growth of the population and their food needs, that could be interpreted as a positive result of the policies and food management between 2008 and 2018.

Comparing both countries with the world average index, in the period analyzed, by 2014 the world’s index was 98,2, Colombia had 96,87 and Kyrgyzstan 93.32. After 2016 the index of both countries became higher than the world average (101,2), Colombia (102.65) and Kyrgyzstan (104.58). By 2018 the world’s average was 103.3, Colombia 105.1 and Kyrgyzstan 108.05.

Multiple regression of FPI in Colombia . Before the calculation of the regression, was considering the identification of the correlation between the independent variables (extreme monetary poverty, food imports, food exports, and food price inflation).

The result of the correlation, presented in Tables ​ Tables3 3 and ​ and4, 4 , for the food imports variable, showed that it was not correlated with any other of the three variables. Food exports had correlation with monetary poverty and food inflation, nevertheless, among the correlations presented there were not higher values than 0.6. With this scenario was not affected the collinearity of the regression, since the Tolerance value of the four predictor variables are higher than 0.2 and the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) are lower than 5, as can be observed in Table 4 .

Source : Authors edition based on the SPSS programme [ 86 ].

Regarding the model summary, it presented the correlation between the dependent variable and the independent variables with R: 0.919. the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) is 0.84, therefore 84% of the dependent variable is explained by the independent ones. And the standard error of regression was 4.94; this low value indicates that the observations are closer to the fitted line.

In the previous Table 3 also can be observed the significance of the ANOVA, which is lower that 0,05 meaning that this model is significant.

The significance result of the coefficients shows that from the group of the independent variables chosen to analyze the Food Production Index of Colombia between 2000 to 2018, only the Extreme monetary poverty is the predictor variable that is significant, with a coefficient value of -2.411. While the food inflation, food exports and imports were not significant for the Colombian FPI in this scenario.

Thus, the equation of this model is defined as:

This model shows a negative relationship between extreme monetary poverty and the Colombian Food production Index, meaning that if the extreme monetary poverty increases to one unit the food production index decreases by an average 2.411 units. Therefore the hypothesis h 2 : “The food access, in terms of food inflation, had a higher effect in the food production index of each country, than the monetary poverty and food balance” is rejected for the Colombian case.

This result that highlighted extreme monetary poverty as the most important economic factor of the food production index of the Country confirm the importance of the food access, in terms of poverty, in the food security management of developing countries, identified as well in countries as Mexico [ 29 ], Kenya [ 30 ], and Uganda [ 31 ].

Regarding the results of not significance for the other independent indicators, in the case of food inflation is important to highlight the heterogeneity of the impacts of inflation on consumption and production patterns. It vary depending of the location, income level, and other household characteristics [ 21 ].

The overall impact of food inflation has have been quite different in urban and rural areas. The urban poor are likely to be vulnerable to price surges because their budgets are directly hit by inflated food purchases [ 22 ]. While may be benefit to sellers of food, some of whom are poor in rural areas. The inflation of food prices has benefited at least some of the rural farmers, whereas most of the urban poor have been adversely affected [ 21 ].

On the other side the trade and trade policies influence the profits of food producers and the food costs for consumers, mainly because of their effect on the world and domestic food prices [ 49 ]. The influence of food imports is determined by national factors such as international trade, local demand, agricultural and trade policies, among others.

Multiple regression of FPI in Kyrgyzstan . The regression analysis of the Kyrgyz food production index (Y), taking the four independent variables: extreme monetary poverty (X 1 ), food imports (% of merchandise imports) (X 2 ), food exports (% of merchandise exports) (X 3 ), food price inflation (X 4 ), presented the following result:

Firstly, the independent variables correlation between each other let identify that food inflation is not correlated with any of the other independent variables, there was found correlation among extreme monetary poverty, food exports and food imports, however this not affect the collinearity statistics. Table 5 shows the fitness of the explanatory variables, because their tolerance values are over 0,10 and VIF values are less than 10. it means there is no multicollinearity. Moreover, the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) of the model was calculate in 0.71.

The result of the multiple regression analysis, shows that extreme monetary poverty was the only independent variable that had significance and effects on the food production index of Kyrgyzstan during 2000 to 2018, when is considering in a model with food inflation, food exports and imports.

The significance (P-value) of extreme monetary poverty lower than 0.05 indicates that has influence on the result variable, with a coefficient of -1.345 as it is shown in the Table 5 .

It means that there is a negative relationship between the extreme monetary poverty and the food production index of Kyrgyzstan. Thus, the obtained equation for the regression model takes the following form:

The determination coefficient of 0.71 means that the extreme monetary poverty influence by 71% in the model. At the same time, if the extreme monetary poverty increases to one unit the food production index decreases by an average 1.372 units. According to the report of WFP (2021), where the extreme monetary poverty decreased from 9.1 in 2006 to 0.5 in 2019 [ 87 ] which emphasis the result. Chi et al (2020) study shows that starting from 1995 crop production and livestock production on Kyrgyzstan gradually increased [ 84 ]. In 2007, the government developed the regulation on monitoring food security indicators [ 67 ]. After the implementation of that regulation, a decrease was found in the poverty line in the country which means the access of population to sufficient food.

Hence, in the case of Kyrgyzstan the hypothesis h 1 is accepted, since there was not a decrease in food import amount and dependency in Kyrgyzstan. The h 2 is not accepted while monetary poverty has effect over food production index and food price inflation not.

Conclusions

The food security policies and regulations are developed in both countries. However, in practice, the policies reinforced food import dependence damaging the internal economy, and neglecting small-farm entrepreneurs, by giving priority to large single-crop producers. Based on the analysis, the effectiveness of the food security management in the countries is faced with various challenges.

In the food balance trade of both countries, was observed that despite the implementation of food security regulation there were not reduction of the food imports dependency. In the case of Colombia the quantity and value of imports grew faster than exports in the period analyzed.

The results of the food security policy, until 2018, had a constant increase in national food production. Nevertheless, did not improve the level of dependence on food imports, to supply the national demand with local production, instead, the level of food import kept a growing trend. Thus, hypothesis h 1 was confirmed, the strong influence of food imports in these developing countries, keeping the rate in the import dependency indicators, and increasing the quantity and values of the food imports.

Whereas hypothesis h 2 , was rejected since was found that extreme monetary poverty was the variable with influence and effects over the Food Production Index, instead of the food inflation. With the statistical analysis of multiple regression was identified that among the economic indicators analyzed (food inflation, extreme monetary poverty and food exports and imports) is the monetary poverty the most influential factor in the food production index of Colombia and Kyrgyzstan, confirming that food access is the key component in the food security management of developing countries.

This paper tackles two dimensions or components of the food security approach (availability and access), for further research might be suggested to analyze the other two components of food security: utilization and stability, and include social indicators in the assessment of countries.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

The U.S. Government’s Global Food Security Research Strategy

The United States has played a leading role in ending hunger and poverty. U.S. Government’s investments in global food security, and finding new and innovative ways to promote global food security does more than serve humanitarian goals; it is crucial to America’s continued security and prosperity.

Evidence indicates that research investments enable the productivity gains that drive global improvements in food security and protect against tomorrow’s food security risks—at home and abroad.

In response to this imperative, U.S. government agencies that are part of Feed the Future developed a new U.S. Government’s Global Food Security Research Strategy to help reduce hunger, poverty and malnutrition through science, technology and innovation.

The Research Strategy seeks to bring U.S. ingenuity to bear on the greatest challenges in achieving sustainable, global reductions of poverty, hunger and malnutrition.

Check out the full Research Strategy (pdf, 2.83 mb) below and related content on how we are helping end hunger through science, innovation and technology.

GFSS_ResearchStrategy

Read The Latest

A women farmers’ cooperative on a mission to decrease hunger.

In Nigeria, one woman is leading her community to use sustainable farming methods, as well as technology, to thrive. A group of women farmers in Nigeria play a pivotal role…

Food Security and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: How USAID is Supporting Farmers

Photo Credit: West Africa Trade and Investment Hub February 24 marks the grim second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The invasion not only brought suffering to millions of Ukrainians,…

Women Scientists Advancing Agriculture Research Across Africa

Source: USAID On this year’s International Day of Women and Girls in Science, learn about the contributions and challenges these researchers face Every year, International Day of Women and Girls…

Taking Action for Women in Agrifood Systems

Women have always worked in agrifood systems, but these systems have not always worked for women. That’s because barriers have stood in their way, preventing them from making their fullest contributions. Last year, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) “Status of Women in Agrifood Systems” report showed us just how slow progress has been in closing the gender gap in agriculture over the past decade. Their access to irrigation, livestock, land ownership and extension services has barely budged over the past decade. Also, they are facing these challenges at a time of immense global shocks.

See All Stories

Keep Up With Feed The Future

Stay connected and in the know with inspirational stories and the latest information on the global effort to #endhunger, delivered regularly to your inbox.

Browse through the Interactive 2024 Report of the UN Sustainable Development Group

UN in Action

• Global Level
• Regional Level
• Countries and Territories

Regional Teams

Rcp: africa, rcp: arab states, rcp: asia and the pacific, rcp: europe and central asia, rcp: latin america and the caribbean, featured content.

• Resources Library
• Executive Board Session Documents
• UNCT Key Documents Library
• Annual UNCT Results Reports
• UNSDG Chair Report on DCO
• System-Wide Contribution to the SDGs
• UNSDG Data Portal
• How We Work (Our Common Premises)
• Resident Coordinator Statistics

2030 Agenda

• 2030 Agenda and the SDGs
• RCs and the Decade of Action
• About the Goals
• SDG Action Campaign
• Joint SDG Fund

Quick links

Read more about the UNSDG members

How We Work

Read more about how the UNSDG works

• The UN Reform
• UN Development Coordination Office

Towards Sustainable Food Systems: How to feed, not deplete the world

'Game-Changers’ is a new editorial series from the UN Development Coordination Office (DCO) on key transitions that the UN Secretary-General has called for, to advance progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs), catalyzing a more sustainable and equitable future. This series explores the progress achieved since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015 in key areas and how the UN is supporting this progress. The world needs renewed ambition and action to deliver these Goals at scale.   

Today, with one-third of all food produced globally ending up lost or wasted and more than three billion people unable to afford healthy diets, the question of how we produce, trade and consume food in a sustainable manner has come to the fore. As the global population continues to rise, this cycle, which is known as a ‘food system’, is failing in its primary purpose to end hunger and deliver food security and nutrition for all. 

As the UN  Secretary-General has said, “In a world of plenty, it is outrageous that people continue to suffer and die from hunger.”

We must transition towards a system that balances the need for food production with the urgent demand for climate action, sustainable agriculture and healthy, affordable, diets for all. 

Where was the world in 2015?

When the SDGs were adopted in 2015: 

• More than 795 million people (or  11 per cent of the global population) were facing hunger.  Hunger rates in countries enduring protracted crises were more than three times higher than elsewhere. 
• The growth and development of 159 million children , (24.6 per cent) under 5 years old  was impaired or ‘stunted’ due to poor nutrition. 

Where are we in 2023 at half-time?

• The prevalence of hunger has dropped only marginally since 2015, to 9.2 per cent of the global population. Progress has been frustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in climate shocks and conflict, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has driven up the costs of food, fuel and fertilizers.
• Last year, approximately 735 million people faced hunger, which is still well above the pre-pandemic level, and 148 million children still faced stunting from poor nutrition; just over 2 per cent decrease since 2015. 
• At the same time, not enough is being done to support developing economies adapt their food production to the impacts of climate change. Small-scale farmers from developing countries produce one third of the world’s food, yet they receive only 1.7 per cent of climate finance.  

How can a food systems transition make a difference? 

With most of the world’s extremely poor living in rural areas and relying on agriculture to survive, efforts to transform global food production go hand in hand with increasing the productivity and incomes of farmers.  Doing so would lead to the restoration of degraded land and will prevent further deforestation for food production, helping mitigate the effects of climate change.  

What is the UN doing about this? 

Under the convening of the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, the UN system, world leaders, civil society and private sectors partners gathered at the UN Food Systems Summit in Rome in 2021 and a subsequent ‘stocktaking moment’ in 2023 to transform these failing food systems. The Summit has provided a platform for countries to share their food systems journeys and led to the launch of the Secretary-General's Call to Action for accelerated Food Systems Transformation.

At the national level, this shift is being supported by UN country teams on the ground, and backed by the knowledge, expertise and convening power of the Resident Coordinator system. 

Spotlight: Kick-starting transformation in the Gran Chaco Americano 

The Gran Chaco region of Latin America, which extends through areas of Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay, has the largest dry forest in the world, and is home to more than 9 million people. Yet high temperatures and prolonged droughts, make this region and its inhabitants particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and in desperate need of more resilient food systems. 

Recognizing these pressures, the UN Resident Coordinators in Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay have joined forces, along with their UN country teams to help create joint pathways for sustainable food systems to be adopted at scale. 

Earlier this year, the three Resident Coordinators set off on a joint mission through the region to engage with key members of the indigenous community, smallholder farmers, civil society and local government to design shared proposals that not only accelerate systemic climate action and boost the resilience of food production methods, but also tackle the region’s growing economic and social divides. 

Understanding that too many of today’s challenges, including those which are climate-related, know no country borders, the Resident Coordinators are helping their host governments articulate a common vision for food systems transformation and advancing shared data systems and policy pathways, to make this systemic shift a long-term reality. 

Learn more about other examples on what the UN is doing to support this transition:

Jordan’s farmers respond to water scarcity woes with innovation | United Nations DCO (un-dco.org)

Latest news and updates

Countries Catalyze New Preparedness Plans to More Effectively Respond to Future Food and Nutrition Security Crises

Salahaldeen Nadir / World Bank

In 2022, conflict, economic shocks, natural disasters, soaring fertilizer and food prices combined to create a global food and nutrition security crisis of unprecedented proportions, with the poorest bearing the greatest costs. In 2023, all signs point to even further deteriorations in both acute and chronic levels. According to the  Global Report on Food Crises 2022 Mid-Year Update , the number of people in crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) or equivalent – that is the number of people requiring urgent humanitarian assistance – is forecast to reach up to 205 million in 45 countries/territories included in the report. Urgent action is necessary to safeguard lives and livelihoods and prevent the reversal of hard-earned development gains. When such crises occur, time is of the essence. The longer it takes to mobilize a response, the more severe a crisis becomes. Vulnerabilities heighten and become protracted, eroding resilience to weather future shocks. Crisis preparedness – the knowledge and capacities to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from the impacts of major shocks – is therefore critical.

To promote greater preparedness to major food and nutrition security crises, the World Bank as part of the  Global Alliance for Food Security  (GAFS) – in close collaboration with the Global Network Against Food Crises (GNAFC), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN), the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Food Program (WFP), and the UN Famine Prevention and Response Coordinator – is supporting countries as they develop and operationalize Food Security Crisis Preparedness Plans (FSCPPs) .   The FSCPP is a national operational plan that defines what constitutes a major food and nutrition security crisis for a country. The plan explains how crisis risks are actively monitored and identified and details step-by-step protocols, roles, and timelines for mobilizing additional funding and scaled up early action.

What is the Food Security Crisis Preparedness Plan?

Each national FSCPP brings together fragmented crisis preparedness elements into a cohesive operational framework to support the systematic recognition of an emerging crisis. Once a crisis is recognized, FSCPPs will prompt timely, joined-up early action across government, humanitarian, and development partners to prevent and mitigate the impacts of the crisis. Actions build on the strengths of the 60+ multilateral and bilateral humanitarian and development partners of GAFS and the  Global Food and Nutrition Security Dashboard , as well as the GNAFC. The FSCPP is guided by seven key principles.

1. Government owned and led Where possible, the government will be at the center of developing and managing the FSCPP across all relevant national and local institutions and agencies. In contexts in which a government may have limited operational capacity, these functions will be supported by the international community – with responsibilities shared across humanitarian and development partners – until the government’s capacity is built.

2. Focused on major food and nutrition security crises In any given year, a country may face numerous shocks affecting food and nutrition security, some of which may have localized and limited impacts while others can lead to widespread and severe consequences across the country. The FSCPP is focused on these latter shocks which extend beyond and exacerbate existing chronic issues and threaten to lead to major food and nutrition security crises. In the event of such major shocks, it is critical for responses to be mobilized across all support channels, including government, humanitarian, and development partners.

3. Evidence-based The FSCPP will be anchored by rigorous, well vetted, and timely food and nutrition security information and data from a wide variety of sources to provide a comprehensive view of emerging and major risks.

4. Pre-arranged, operations, and timely The FSCPP moves beyond just risk monitoring activities and requires that three interlinked operational elements be in place. This includes operational arrangements and protocols for:

• quickly identifying and continuously monitoring major food and nutrition security crises;
• convening programmatic leads across government, humanitarian, and development partners in one space to assess emerging risks and scale up early action as needed; and
• convening senior officials to collectively recognize a major crisis, bridge operational and funding gaps, and promote well-coordinated and holistic responses across government and its food and nutrition security partners.

5. Holistic If a major crisis is identified, activities should be scaled up quickly and coordinated across the fullness of government, humanitarian, and development partners, utilizing the comparative advantages of all partners to save lives, protect livelihoods, and build resilience to future shocks.

6. Do no harm The FCSPP should carefully take into consideration country and local contexts and account for how responses may interact with and affect existing economic, political, and social dynamics, especially for the most vulnerable.

7. A living document Crisis preparedness is a continuous activity requiring steadfast maintenance and investment so that operational arrangements are up to date and can be activated quickly. The FSCPP, therefore, serves as a living document that should be revisited and updated regularly to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

Expert Video Series

• Lavinia Antonaci , Technical Coordinator of the Global Network Against Food Crises
• Tsedeye Girma , Chief Risk Analysis and Preparedness | UNICEF
• Alexandra Horst , World Bank Senior Economist and GAFS Secretariat
• Ronald Jackson , Head of the Disaster Risk Reduction, Recovery for Building Resilience | UNDP
• Kyriacos Koupparis , Head of the Hunger Monitoring Unit | UNWFP
• Julian Lampietti , World Bank Manager, Global Agriculture Practice  
• Hugh MacLeman , Head of Country Engagement for the Global Network Against Food Crises | United Nations World Food Programme
• Sara McHattie , Global Coordinator of the Food Security Information Network
• Dr. David Nabarro , Strategic Director of 4SD Foundation and Co-lead of the United Nations Global Crisis Response Group
• Luca Russo , Team Leader in Office of Emergency and Resilience | Food and Agriculture Organization

Developing & Operationalizing the FSCPP

The specific development processes will be different in each country based on their respective capacities, needs, and priorities. In contexts with well-established food and nutrition security crisis response systems, FSCPPs provide an opportunity to review these systems and further strengthen their crisis preparedness elements. In contexts where existing systems may only partially cover crisis preparedness elements, the FSCPP provides an important means for identifying critical gaps and setting the stage for filling these gaps over time, including by building government capacity and ownership over time. Government preparations are underway and technical workshops will be organized in 26 countries with the aim of a majority of plans being initially drafted by the end of 2023.

Many countries across the globe will continue facing the threat of food crises. While this latest global crisis is exceptional in terms of scale, it is only the latest tipping point for a food system already on the edge. Against this backdrop, crisis preparedness has never been more important. The FSCPP is a key tool to help countries recognize the signs of an emerging food and nutrition security crisis and effectively leverage the contributions of all partners to respond. These efforts will also complement much needed and scaled-up longer-term investments to address their root causes and help break the vulnerability cycle of repeat crises.

For more information on the FSCPP, including contact information for the World Bank’s country-level focal points supporting these efforts, please consult the brochure .

Food Security Crisis Preparedness Plans brochures:

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

Feeding the world sustainably

A burst of technology in the 1960s— the Green Revolution—raised agricultural output significantly across developing economies. Since then, rising incomes have boosted protein consumption worldwide, and elevated new challenges: greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture are increasing (more than a fifth of all emissions worldwide), while a host of practices, from waste to overfishing, threaten the sustainability of food supplies. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought these concerns to the fore: the disease has disrupted supply chains and demand, perversely increasing the amount of food waste in farms and fields while threatening food security for many.

As agriculture gradually regains its footing, participants and stakeholders should be casting an eye ahead, to safeguarding food supplies against the potentially greater and more disruptive effects of climate change. Once again, innovation and advanced technologies could make a powerful contribution to secure and sustainable food production. For example, digital and biotechnologies could improve the health of ruminant livestock, requiring fewer methane-producing animals to meet the world’s protein needs. Genetic technologies could play a supporting role by enabling the breeding of animals that produce less methane. Meanwhile, AI and sensors could help food processors sort better and slash waste, and other smart technologies could identify inedible by-products for reprocessing. Data and advanced analytics also could help authorities better monitor and manage the seas to limit overfishing—while enabling boat crews to target and find fish with less effort and waste. Agriculture is a traditional industry, but its quest for tech-enabled sustainability offers valuable lessons.

JUMP TO A SECTION

Agriculture takes center stage in the drive to reduce emissions, using artificial intelligence in the fight against food waste, making fisheries sustainable—and profitable—with advanced analytics, the quest for sustainable proteins.

Cross-sector investment opportunities will lead the way.

More than one-fifth of the world’s greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions stem from agriculture—over half from animal farming. 1 Does not include land use, land-use change, and forestry. Non-CO 2 emissions converted using 20-year global-warming-potential (GWP) values based on the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Unless these emissions are actively addressed, they will probably increase by 15 to 20 percent by 2050 as the Earth’s population rises and the need for food continues to grow. Limiting the impact of climate change will require shifts in what we eat, how much we waste, and how we farm and use our land.

There is no clear path to fully eliminating agricultural emissions. Nonetheless, a wave of transformation is within reach of the food industry and the broader agricultural market. Historically, agricultural innovation has arisen at points of intersection with other industries as creative firms borrowed and built on advances in areas such as human health, chemicals, advanced engineering, software, and advanced analytics. Cross-cutting opportunities portend the next wave of innovation to reduce agricultural emissions by capturing food-process efficiencies (exhibit).

While the abatement costs vary and the market opportunities continue to evolve, mitigation measures could reduce emissions  by about 20 to 25 percent by 2050. In this article, we highlight the top three cost-negative or cost-neutral measures in which business actors will play a critical role. Scaling up these solutions will require investment, technological innovation, and behavioral change—particularly among farmers around the world.

Zero-emissions farm equipment

The largest amount of emissions abatement from a single measure can be achieved by shifting from traditional fossil-fuel equipment—such as tractors, harvesters, and dryers—to their zero-emission counterparts. This transition alone would realize cost savings of $229 per ton of carbon-dioxide equivalent (tCO 2 e) 2 Used to compare emissions of greenhouse gases. and transform the $139 billion global agricultural-equipment industry.

Unfortunately, the current market penetration of zero-emission equipment is lower in farming than it is in consumer vehicles: market leaders are only at the stage of piloting proofs of concept. The right investments by machinery manufacturers  would make it possible to achieve total-cost-of-ownership parity between, for example, tractors powered by internal-combustion engines and tractors powered by zero-emissions sources (such as battery electric power) by around 2030. Like early investors in passenger electric vehicles (EVs), investors in agricultural EV technology are now poised to benefit from first-mover advantage. AGCO’s Fendt, Rigitrac, and Escorts’ Farmtrac each showcase electric-tractor models, and John Deere has battery-run and corded electric-tractor prototypes. If electric farm equipment captured just 10 percent of the 2030 market, this would represent an opportunity of $13 billion.

Battery capacity and charging speeds have been the main obstacles to the adoption of electric farm equipment. However, battery weight is less problematic for farm equipment than for passenger vehicles. A rapid reduction in prices for batteries, which alone account for up to 40 percent of tractor-component costs, will help further overcome adoption barriers. 3 See Markus Forsgren, Erik Östgren, and Andreas Tschiesner, “Harnessing momentum for electrification in heavy machinery and equipment,” April 2019. 

Animal health monitoring

As our colleagues have noted, achieving a 1.5-degree warming pathway 4 A 1.5-degree pathway is an estimate of the extent of change required by each sector of the global economy to curb increases in greenhouse-gas emissions sufficiently and limit temperature increases in the years ahead to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—a level of increase that, scientists estimate, would reduce the odds of initiating the most dangerous and irreversible effects of climate change. would require a significant reduction in human consumption of animal protein (for more, see “ Climate math: What a 1.5-degree pathway would take .”) The agricultural sector has a major role to play by meeting the world’s animal-protein needs with fewer, healthier animals that generate lower emissions from enteric fermentation and by improving manure management. These steps could reduce emissions by more than 400 million tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e) by 2050 (realizing savings of $5 per tCO 2 e) and generate productivity benefits that would improve agricultural economics.

Emerging biological technologies and computational capabilities, such as gene sequencing and artificial intelligence, enable farmers to detect disease early—and even prevent it—by applying predictive algorithms to existing and new sources of data. For example, Moocall, an Irish company collaborating with Vodafone, aims to reduce cow mortality rates from birth-related complications by up to 80 percent by placing (on the animal’s tail) a palm-sized sensor alerting farmers to how long a cow has been calving. In North America, which has the third-largest cow inventory (after Brazil and China), overall cattle-herd productivity improvements could reach 8 percent. 5 “Study to model the impact of controlling endemic cattle diseases and conditions on national cattle productivity, agricultural performance and greenhouse gas emissions,” ADAS, February 2015, randd.defra.goc.uk.

However, implementing these technologies has proved to be expensive, and they are not yet well understood or embraced by farmers. Moreover, health challenges vary greatly by region and species, so a silver bullet is unlikely. Innovative business models and commercial investment will be required to overcome these barriers: for example, the global technology company Fujitsu has developed an algorithm-based “connected cow” service to make milk production more profitable. 6 “Akisai Food and Agriculture Cloud GYUHO SaaS (cattle breeding support service),” Fujitsu, fujitsu.com. We expect more commercial investment in coming years, given the continued decline in the cost of such technologies and their multiple applications, including new vaccinations and advanced diagnostics.

Achieving a 1.5-degree-warming pathway would require a significant reduction in human consumption of animal protein.

GHG-focused breeding

New breeding programs using sophisticated genetic-selection capabilities can help curb enteric fermentation, potentially reducing overall emissions by 500 MtCO 2 e at virtually no cost by 2050. Today, breeding for methane efficiency has achieved a 20 percent variation in methane production. More GHG-focused programs will be possible as increasing demand for animal protein continues to drive growth in the animal genetic-products market (worth $4.2 billion in 2018).

While genetic-breeding programs are still in their infancy, government and industry are leading the effort to drive adoption. In November 2019, a consortium funded by the New Zealand agricultural sector and the country’s government launched a “global first” genetics program to breed sheep that produce less methane per mouthful of grass. 7 “Sheep farmers now able to breed ‘low-methane’ sheep,” Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, pggrc.co.nz. Even with such programs, large-scale adoption throughout the industry will require economic incentives: market payments or credits for methane reductions.

To implement solutions at scale, additional investments will be needed in genetic-selection capabilities to address the immaturity and lack of breed-specificity of most genetic programs. New breeding techniques, such as those using CRISPR-Cas9, 8 A new technology that allows editing of DNA sequences. could lower barriers to entry for innovators and allow for more specificity.

A new agricultural ecosystem will be needed to mitigate the increase in agricultural GHG emissions while meeting the world’s food needs. In the near term, the reduction of emissions will depend largely on today’s technologies and opportunities. But next-horizon technologies (such as gene editing, novel feed additives, and aerobic rice) are also needed. Players in industries ranging from automotive and energy to pharmaceuticals have important roles to play. It will take a village to feed our global village.

For the full report on which this article is based, see “ Reducing agriculture emissions through improved farming practices .”

About the authors

Daniel Aminetzah is a senior partner in McKinsey’s New York office, Joshua Katz is a partner in the Stamford office, and Peter Mannion is a consultant in the Dublin office.

AI can help accelerate the move toward a circular economy in the agricultural sector.

Roughly one-third of all food is wasted before it is consumed by people. The methane emissions that result are 86 times more potent in driving temperature increases than CO 2 emissions are, when looking over a 20-year time frame. 9 Francois-Marie Breon et al., “Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing,” AR5 climate change 2013: The physical science basis, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013, fifth assessment report, Chapter 8, ipcc.ch. Emerging applications for artificial intelligence (AI) are helping to create opportunities for “designing out” food waste in the value chain: from farming, processing, and logistics to consumption. In effect, AI can accelerate the transition to an agricultural circular economy, in which growth is decoupled from the consumption of finite resources. Circular-economy principles, which historically have taken root slowly and gradually, rest on designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. Here are three areas where AI has the potential to jump-start a circular economy in agriculture, while potentially unlocking more than $100 billion in value for players globally. 10 For more, see Sustainability blog, “How AI can unlock a $127B opportunity by reducing food waste,” blog entry by Clarisse Magnin, March 27, 2019.

Efficient farming practices

AI can help farmers avoid expensive and time-consuming field trials by identifying the best-performing regenerative agriculture practices. For example, CiBO Technologies uses data analytics, statistical modeling, and AI to simulate field trials and agricultural ecosystems under different conditions. Global stakeholders could learn to improve profitability and sustainability by exploring possible outcomes virtually without the risk of damaging the environment or sacrificing yield. Combining AI algorithms with robotic technologies can further automate and increase control in the farming process. For instance, AI can be used to interpret images of crops, such as strawberries, to help determine when food should be harvested; the harvesting, in addition, can be done with autonomous robots. This might reduce food waste in the field, and it could enable more accurate yield forecasting by improving information along the supply chain and by maximizing storage and cooling facilities.

Reducing food waste

AI algorithms can help with food sorting during processing by analyzing images and data from cameras, X-rays, lasers, and near-infrared spectroscopy. The ability to automatically sort nonuniform produce, such as carrots and potatoes, can reduce waste by sorting for best use, size, shape, and quality, removing a manual process that can be time consuming, expensive, and inaccurate. Some companies, such as Wasteless, are helping supermarkets and other retailers sell food before the expiration date by using AI-enabled tracking and dynamic pricing. In institutional and restaurant settings, new tools are now being used to capture, track, and categorize data on food waste. What’s more, algorithms can forecast and predict sales, enabling restaurants, retailers, and other hospitality institutions to connect supply to demand more effectively.

Repurposing inedible nutrients

Even if all surplus food were redistributed, a large volume of inedible by-products, along with food waste, would continue to be generated. Could these organic materials contain value that could be repurposed? The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Senseable City Lab and the Alm Lab, for instance, are offering a glimpse of the potential with their Underworlds prototype smart-sewage platform. The platform combines physical infrastructure and bio-chemical measurement technologies with artificial intelligence to interpret and act on findings about the pathogens in human sewage; eventually this knowledge could repurpose sewage for use in regenerative food systems.

AI is poised to play an important role for agriculture in the transition to a circular food system. It could revolutionize the way food is grown, harvested, distributed, and enjoyed. As more data sources become available and as computational capabilities grow, AI could help match food supply and demand more effectively, improve supply-chain efficiency, and curb overproduction, overstocking, and waste.

This article is based on the report Artificial intelligence and the circular economy: AI as a tool to accelerate the transition , written in collaboration with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Google, with research and analytical support provided by McKinsey & Company.

Anna Granskog is a partner in McKinsey’s Helsinki office, Eric Hannon is a partner in the Frankfurt office, and Chirag Pandya is an associate partner in the London office.

Data and digital technologies could transform a traditional industry while helping stem the damage to ocean ecosystems.

Gathering data and applying the power of advanced analytics can help tackle problems in surprising ways. The distressed state of the oceans is a case in point. Decades of overfishing is depleting the oceans at an alarming rate, at a time when the emerging world increasingly depends on seafood for protein. Finding a more sustainable means of fishing while preserving ocean ecosystems is a sprawling problem. The fishing industry is feeling the effects: today, it takes five times the effort to haul in a catch as it did in 1950. 11 Measured in kilowatt-hours expended. We looked at how fisheries, government authorities, and food companies could deploy advanced analytics to improve monitoring and raise the efficiency of their operations. In addition to giving the fishing industry new tools for more profitable, sustainable operations, there’s also a climate bonus: reeling in a ton of fish protein has less than a tenth of the greenhouse-gas intensity of equivalent protein harvested from ruminant livestock.

Oceans in danger

Recognizing the threats, national governments have moved to strengthen and improve management and regulation. Yet regional gains often are negated by overfishing or illegal catches in adjacent zones. Many of today’s efforts, including reporting of catches, industry information sharing, and regulatory enforcement, could be bolstered by tighter collaboration.

A bounty of data

Much like agriculture onshore, the fishing industry is geographically dispersed with operators large and small. Farmers plow their fields guided by data on weather and soil conditions. While most fisheries still operate in a traditional way, something similar is starting to take shape in fishing. Radar and optical sensors on satellites can pick up patterns in the ocean environment such as temperature and signals of fish movements. While that information is valuable for fisheries, it also helps authorities track boat locations and movement. Camera-equipped drones, meantime, operating not only in the air but undersea, give some boats today a more comprehensive view of nearby fishing conditions. Looking forward, advanced sensors and monitors could automatically collect data on the gear used, species caught or discarded, volume of hauls, and more that’s often done by fishermen. Governments, meanwhile, have pushed for better data to help keep watch on illegal fishing, mandating that larger vessels be equipped with monitoring systems that transmit location, speed, and direction.

Over time, much more information could be integrated with Internet of Things technologies that link sensors to satellite- and land-based communications networks. Crunching the data by using advanced analytics and machine learning would ultimately help balance competing interests—helping fisheries manage a risky, volatile business while providing authorities with better information for policing and shaping sustainability policies.

Turning the tide with analytics

Let’s look on deck. Boat captains with larger commercial fisheries have used technologies such as sonar, though many still rely on intuition, experience, and basic observations to navigate and detect fish. Contrast that with what’s potentially ahead: fish detection supported by targeted analytic models that could provide daily forecasts for entire fishing territories, helping to track species that are in high demand. And Internet of Things sensors that monitor ocean conditions could help boats define optimal, energy-efficient routes.

Then there’s the catch itself. Fishermen often have low visibility into what’s in their nets until it’s pulled onboard—leading to waste. Intelligent sensors of the future will allow crews to automatically and continually monitor parameters such as species and fish size. One analytics tool that larger companies already are using factors in sea temperatures and plankton clusters to model where fish will be, lowering costs for targeting desired species and reducing waste. Poorer regions stand to benefit as well. Fishermen in emerging markets are already gaining greater access to market information by using their cell phones.

On shore, fisheries managers often plan operations hobbled by data scarcity—using landed catches that furnish little forward visibility. Analytics tools promise to offer a more dynamic view of fleets, allowing managers to guide boats and continually monitor stocks. Automatic scanning and intelligent systems that monitor product quality could replace manual sorting of catches. Quality and traceability loom large, as sustainability-conscious consumers demand greater transparency into how and where fish are caught. What’s ahead? Researchers are investigating tagging fish using radio frequency identification (RFID) and certifying catches with distributed ledger technologies (blockchain).

For authorities, analytics can help bridge a different gap. Information on fishing activity is partial at best, and coordination among multiple stakeholders—governments, industry, and NGOs—is challenging. That said, sharing the flow of information from advanced monitoring technologies would give authorities a real-time vision of global fishing activities. It would also help them design more efficient surveillance plans across territorial waters. Decentralized, reliable information-management systems requiring little human intervention could ease adoption. One example: analytics-software tools can flag when a boat slows down in a no-take zone, alerting authorities to the suspicious behavior. NGOs are helping to change mind-sets. To promote sustainability research, Global Fishing Watch distributes information gleaned from government and satellite data on more than 65,000 fishing vessels. Over time, shared, detailed catch data from cameras and image-recognition software powered by artificial intelligence will help governments fine-tune regulations and fishing quotas more dynamically to manage ocean resources.

Looking ahead

Our modeling research suggests that for fisheries, there are financial incentives for analytics-guided strategies. We found that optimizing fishing activity over an entire season, monitoring of equipment to minimize downtime, identifying fuel economies from analyzing navigation data, and implementing information-based labor efficiencies could reduce industry costs by $11 billion, or just under 15 percent of today’s spending.

For governments, one obstacle will be confronting geopolitical challenges. Some bad actors will continue efforts to game a system where the regulatory map has gaps and where some nations benefit by turning a blind eye to wayward fisheries. Better data and analytics capabilities should move the enforcement needle, helping pinpoint hot spots where illegal fishing continues and identifying chronic offenders for enforcement action. The benefits of data sharing and better analytics tools, meanwhile, will continue to align the interests of fisheries and governments for better resource management. An era of precision fisheries will be key to sustaining the oceans’ riches.

For more, see “ Precision fisheries: Navigating a sea of troubles with advanced analytics .”

Julien Claes is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Brussels office, where Antoine Stevens is a specialist; Elin Sandnes is a partner in the Oslo office.

The authors wish to thank Anupama Agarwal, Philip Christiani, Michael Chui, and Bryce Hall for their contributions to this article.

Concerns about health, animal welfare, and climate are bolstering interest in a range of alternative proteins.

Meat has always been a protein mainstay for human beings—the main source in developed markets and a rising one in developing markets as they get richer. In recent years, meanwhile, consumer awareness and interest in alternative-protein sources has grown steadily. That’s particularly true in wealthier countries, where a desire for better health and animal welfare, along with environmental concerns, are shaping preferences. On the last point, our colleagues have shown that proteins produced from ruminant livestock (cows and sheep) are 30 times more greenhouse-gas intensive than those from vegetable proteins. In fact, if cows were classified as their own country, they would emit more greenhouse gases than any country except China .

Sources of alternative proteins include a mix of plant-based proteins (soy, pea), new animal sources (insects), biotechnological innovations (lab-cultured meat), and mycoproteins (derived from fungi). Several entrants in the alternative-protein industry are rolling out new technologies and ingredients, looking to lock in leading positions in a growing market. (For interviews with executives and entrepreneurs at companies breaking ground in alternative-proteins, see “ The future of food: Meatless? ”) Consumers tend to find the recent protein innovations appetizing, and companies are fueling awareness with aggressive marketing efforts.

If cows were classified as their own country, they would emit more greenhouse gases than any country except China.

While aggregate consumption of meat-based proteins worldwide continues to grow, a shift in preferences may be one reason (among several) why meat’s overall growth rate is expected to decline by half over the next decade . Sales of plant-based food (the largest source of alternative protein) rose 17 percent in the United States in 2018, 12 Caroline Bushnell, “Newly released market data shows soaring demand for plant-based food,” the Good Food Institute, September 12, 2018, gfi.org. and the use of alternative protein as a food ingredient is predicted to continue growing. Alternative proteins, of course, are still a small slice of the market for meat ($2.2 billion compared with approximately $1.7 trillion, respectively 13 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, June 3, 2019, fao.org. ). But innovation is rife. The share of new products released with an alternative-protein claim grew from 2 percent to more than 5 percent of the market from 2007 to 2016, according to market researcher Mintel, while consumer interest in alternative-protein products and diets, as measured by online-search results, has increased markedly in many cases.

A look at four types of alternative proteins highlights trends in demand and innovation and suggests where meat protein trends might be heading.

Pea protein

Pea protein is expected to lead the alternative-protein market in the short and medium term, though the product faces certain challenges. The past few years witnessed a limited supply of pea protein caused by a shortage in processing capacity. Producers of mainstream products such as veggie burgers will likely use soybean protein, where input costs are lower and supplies are more stable. However, high-end products will likely use pea protein to cater to consumer expectations of a niche ingredient, which is a product that touts health claims and is for sale at a premium price.

Cultured meat

Lab-grown cultured meat seeks to mimic the muscle tissue found in animals and has the same protein profile (and taste). The industry has received funding from a variety of sources including industry players. The cultured-meat industry is well positioned for the future, even with major technical challenges to overcome, including the difficulties in the development of an immortal cell line and recycling of blood ingredients, both of which help keep costs down. Scientists have been working on this protein since 2013, when the first lab-grown burger made its public debut. The price of cultured meat has already decreased significantly in the past nine years (the first lab-grown hamburger cost $325,200 in 2013 and then decreased to around $11 in 2015, with estimates from some cultured-meat companies indicating that costs will drop to less than $10 per pound by 2022 ).

Insect and mold protein

Crickets are the most common source of edible insects and a good source of protein. They have long been a dietary staple in many areas of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Some producers are milling crickets for flour. However, it is currently cost prohibitive to isolate protein from the flour as the cost of the crickets is high, making the process difficult to scale. Some food producers are exploring grasshoppers as an edible protein , and a range of insect proteins are likely to be suitable for use in animal feed. Mold protein, meanwhile—or mycoprotein—is typically composed of whole, unprocessed, filamentous fungal biomass, commonly known as mold. It is mixed with eggs to create a meat-like texture for commercial products. It has been around since the 1980s and is produced through fermentation of biological feedstock. Mycoproteins are sold as a meat substitute primarily in Europe, and interest is growing in the US market as well, though consumer interest is still dampened by negative perceptions.

Animal protein will likely continue to dominate the market, driven by key advantages such as customer familiarity. However, there is room at the table for plant-based products, as evidenced by growing shifting customer concerns around traditional meat protein.

For more, see “ Alternative proteins: The race for market share is on .”

Jordan Bar Am is an associate partner in McKinsey’s New Jersey office, Zafer Dallal Bashi is a specialist in the Denver office, and Liane Ong is an associate partner in the Chicago office.

Related Articles

Reducing agriculture emissions through improved farming practices

Climate math: What a 1.5-degree pathway would take

Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts