NAIROBI—The UN Environment Programme has unveiled an ambitious seven-point plan to feed the world without polluting it further by making better use of resources and cutting down on massive waste.
A survey of the current state of food production and consumption released to a forum of the Kenya-based UNEP and world environment ministers showed colossal waste but also came up with green solutions.
“Over half of the food produced today is either lost, wasted or discarded as a result of inefficiency in the human-managed food chain,” UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said of a 104-page report released on Tuesday.
“There is evidence within the report that the world could feed the entire projected population growth (of about three billion by 2050) alone by becoming more efficient while also ensuring the survival of wild animals, birds and fish on this planet,” he said.
Researchers roved from the Arctic to Australia, noting for instance that 30 million tonnes of fish were discarded at sea annually, while “almost one-third of all food purchased in the United Kingdom each year is not eaten.”
Prodigious quantities of cereals currently used worldwide as livestock fodder could feed people, the report said.
But waste of food produced is only one aspect of a wide-ranging survey that covers issues ranging from climate change, drought and land degradation to the negative impact of fertilizers and pesticides on crops and the food chain.
“We need a green revolution in a green economy but one with a capital G,” Steiner told the Nairobi conference which runs to Friday.
“We need to deal not only with the way the world produces food but the way that it is distributed, sold and consumed, and we need a revolution that can boost yields by working with, rather than against, nature.”
The focus on waste highlights a rarely surveyed field, Steiner said, and suggested, for example, that “losses and food waste in the United States could be as high as 40-50 percent.”
The seven goals “for improving food security” covered in the report ranged from short-term price issues to long-term global warming measures.
In the short term, rapporteurs considered the regulation of food prices with safety nets for the poor, along with promoting environmentally sustainable bio-fuels that do not compete for cropland.
Measures to raise public awareness of the issues and also face up to climate change are expected to have a long-term impact.
The measures recommended for a mid-term effect include steps to:
- “Reallocate cereals used in animal feed to human consumption by developing alternative feeds based on new technology, waste and discards. This could feed nearly the entire projected population growth” (to an estimated nine billion people overall by 2050).
- “Support small-scale farmers by a global fund for micro-finance in developing diversified and resilient ecoagriculture and intercropping systems.
- “Increase trade and market access by improving infrastructure, reducing trade barriers, enhancing government subsidies and safety nets, as well as reducing armed conflict and corruption.”
The document is entitled ‘The environmental food crisis: environment’s role in averting future food crises’ and can be accessed at www.unep.org or at www.grida.no.
The survey, which also considers threats to endangered species and tackling these from an environmental perspective, can be downloaded in .pdf format from http://dev.grida.no/foodcrisis/. It is widely illustrated with photographs and with graphics for free use in publications.
source: Agence France-Presse
The localization of agriculture
EPA punts on raising ethanol “blend wall”
Do diesel-based farmers dream of electric tractors?
Comments
View as Flat
vstross Posted 9:10 pm
18 Feb 2009
75% of the food grown in this country alone is fed to animals before the animals are fed to humans.
If you're interested in learning the easy way, read The World Peace Diet, by Will Tuttle.
Alternatively, there is no one right way to live - and I propose no such way - however there are ways which require less resources and less energy for all involved. I choose to avoid a path which is a "do more of the same thing we've been doing for 10,000 years, but this time we'll do it better so it will work."
Try something new: go vegan... it won't bite. ;)
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:15 am
22 Feb 2009
What's certain, however, is that more humans means more destructive consumption of everything and even less land for every other species. Limiting your family to one child is thus by far the best thing you can do for the environment as an individual. If you reduce or eliminate meat, just make sure you don't replace it with soy. You can get all the protein you need natural foods that don't cause severe harm, such as nuts, beans, legumes, whole grains.
Permalink
vstross Posted 11:17 pm
23 Feb 2009
An increasing food supply will always bring an increase in population which will bring an increase in food supply, etc.
We need to institute a child offset program. My partner and I don't feel like we can have kids at all since her two brothers have 5 between them already! So we've decided to forgo the opportunity to add our genes to the pool for now.
Has anyone seen the movie, "Idiocracy?" If not, it's an unfortunate parody on what could happen if only the unaware segment of the world population breeds.
Permalink