News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Population boom to double food prices 

Population boom to double food prices

30 Sep, 2009 02:07 PM
Food has fallen off the news since last year's global price spikes, but new reports say that feeding the world's burgeoning population is going to be one of the greatest challenges of coming decades.

By 2050, according to new modelling work by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), climate change could help push wheat prices up by 170-194 percent, rice prices up by 113-121 percent, and maize prices up by 148-153 percent.

That may appear to be good news for Australian farmers, but IFPRI's concern is the devastating effect on the world's poor.

The agency says that if the scenario is realised, an extra 25 million children may be malnourished in 2050 compared to a world with no climate change.

Such price rises, if they eventuate, will not be welcomed by Australian consumers, either.

IFPRI's conclusions, which like all such exercises don't take into account agricultural adaptation efforts in response to climate change, stem from modelling that predicts climate change will lead to yield losses in some regions.

The Washington-based agency took the unusual step of combining a global crop simulation model and an international food supply-and-demand model with two global climate models (GCMs).

Mark Rosegrant, director of IFPRI's Environment and Production Technology Division, told Rural Press that the study used two GCMs - one developed by CSIRO and the other by the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - because of the inherent uncertainty in the models.

The CSIRO model predicts more modest temperature rises out to 2050 compared to the NCAR model - which forecast temperature increases of 3-4°C across most of the Northern Hemisphere - but the CSIRO model predicts steeper declines in rainfall across the Southern Hemisphere.

On average, the modelling forecasts that without new technology and adjustments by farmers, water deficits caused by climate change could by 2050 reduce irrigated wheat yields by around 30 percent in developing countries compared to a no-climate change scenario. Irrigated rice yields could fall by 15 percent.

Developed nations suffer considerably less under these scenarios, losing about five per cent yield in irrigated wheat and rice but, counter-intuitively, getting yield increases in dryland wheat and rice

Factor in carbon dioxide fertilisation - the extra growth expected with higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere - and the models forecast that across developed countries dryland wheat yields will increase about nine per cent.

Australia may be the exception. Here, climate change is expected to decrease rainfall. Across much of the wheat-growing regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the models point to both increased rainfall and warmer temperatures.

Dr Rosegrant's concern is for the developing world, and IFPRI is calling for US$7 billion to be invested in agricultural adapatation and technology to avert food shortages and prices rises in these countries.

Dr Rosegrant said there appears to be some willingness in the developed world to make a significant investment in this area.

"If we make the right investments on a long-term basis, there is less risk of needing emergency funding to avert famine or reduce civil unrest," he said.

"I'm less optimistic that there is going to be broad international agreement on reducing carbon emissions."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
As the world edges toward 8.75 billion with 20 million every 3 months to our north who will be more affluent, better educated and better informed, they will not tolerate a life of stoop labour in the paddy. Changing lifestyle has increased meat consumption by more than 5 million extra tons over the past 2 years. The tortuous reasoning of theorists fail to understand that we must increase the production 2-3 times from land already farmed without cutting into the forest habitat. Subject to vagaries of the weather, and availability of water, biotechnology including GM, is part of the ongoing science of food. Land care, production, harvesting, storage and distribution and variety improvement is the other part.
Posted by Robert Stewart, 30/09/2009 5:08:53 PM
I'll bet they didn't do ANY calculations factoring OUT man-made climate change. No government gravy train money in that.
Posted by Brindi, 30/09/2009 5:39:46 PM
A minority group, elite businesses and land developers, are having the major say over our population growth rate. Immigrants are still coming here in their hoards as fillers for the building industry. If we are going to suffer for population growth outstripping resources, why is Australia so hell-bent on fostering it? The average voter has NO SAY in this important policy that will shape our future and our survival.
Posted by ecoengine, 30/09/2009 7:50:47 PM
Where clear cutting of forests is now indefensible to create farms for food, we do need to reach out to the gains in yield from biotechnology including genetic engineering, emerging as the most important piece of unexploited knowledge that promises further increased yields from the same hectare of farmland.
Posted by Robert Stewart, 1/10/2009 3:00:58 AM
If food production is going to be so important, why is our governemnt making such an effort to stifle the very industry that could help prevent the problems of hunger etc?

I think they are buying up water for the Murray and land for national parkes so they can re sell it in the future when the need for good farmland and water becomes dire. Maybe I am giving them too much credit but hopefulley it will be 2050 before we see another Labor government

Posted by Sam, 1/10/2009 4:06:18 AM
The "report" also didnt say that it will only be retail/wholesale prices wich will rise, not farm gate prices. The "report", is also another computer model, about as much use as a fashion model.
Posted by bill, 1/10/2009 5:11:53 AM
Food shortage? I doubt it. Not while we are turning food into fuel (ethanol). Fix the fuel shortage and there is food aplenty!
Posted by Harvey Wallace, 1/10/2009 6:49:46 AM
Does anyone fail to consider that the major oversight is shouldn't we be doing something about curbing our population explosion? China is the country to tackel this problem head on. Our population growth is completely unsustainable.

Rather than considering how the hell we feed everyone why not say what is sustainable, what should we begin doing to curb that growth.

For one, Australia should put a cap on benefits once families have had two kids. That would be a start or is this just to common sense in looking at the cause rather than the symptom?

Posted by Major oversight!!!, 1/10/2009 6:58:47 AM
Food has been far to cheap for too long. Farmers are expected to work for little return on their assets and little cash income.

We adapt, and adopt technologies and create efficiences in our businesses, but the benefits are generally siphoned off and never get back to the farm. We have to get more efficient just to hold our position.

If this doesn't change, many more farmers will be jumping off the merry-go-round and in the future Australians will be eating the stale crumbs thrown to us by those countries that have fostered their agricultural industries.

Posted by Jenny, 1/10/2009 7:19:37 AM
That's all well and good, but Australian producers will be replaced by imported product, so good old Australia with its plethora of free trade agreements will be paying for it witout benefiting from it.

Our pollies need to pull their heads out of their collective buttocks and start taking the issue of food security for this country seriously.

Posted by Sam J, 1/10/2009 8:09:52 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
2050 CSIRO noCF and the 2050 NCAR no CF indicate food prices modelled using the CSIRO and NCAR global climate models, with no carbon dioxide fertilisation assumed. Click on the graph for an enlarged view. Image source: IFPRI
"2050 CSIRO noCF" and the "2050 NCAR no CF" indicate food prices modelled using the CSIRO and NCAR global climate models, with no carbon dioxide fertilisation assumed. Click on the graph for an enlarged view. Image source: IFPRI
Click on the graph for an enlarged view. Image source: IFPRI
Click on the graph for an enlarged view. Image source: IFPRI
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
30 September, 2009
29 September, 2009
POLL
Q: Should politicians who retire mid-term be fined to help recover the costs of holding a by-election?

Yes
(73.4%)

No
(22%)

Undecided
(4.7%)

Total Votes: 473
Poll Date: 27 September, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...