Climate Change and Food Security

Author(s): P. J. Gregory, J. S. I. Ingram and M. Brklacich

Source: Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences , Nov. 29, 2005, Vol. 360, No. 1463,
Food Crops in a Changing Climate (Nov. 29, 2005), pp. 2139-2148
Published by: Royal Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30041400

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PHILOSOPHICAL
TRANSACTIONS
oF
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005) 360, 2139-2148
THE ROYAL doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1745
SOCIETY B Published online 24 October 2005

Climate change and food security

P. J. Gregory' *, J. S. I. Ingram2 and M. Brklacich3
'Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK
2GECAFS International Project Office, NERC-CEH, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OXO10 8BB, UK
3Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ont.,
Canada K1S 5B6
Dynamic interactions between and within the biogeophysical and human environments lead to the
production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food, resulting in food systems
that underpin food security. Food systems encompass food availability (production, distribution and
exchange), food access (affordability, allocation and preference) and food utilization (nutritional and
societal values and safety), so that food security is, therefore, diminished when food systems are
stressed. Such stresses may be induced by a range offactors in addition to climate change and/or other
agents of environmental change (e.g. conflict, HIV/AIDS) and may be particularly severe when these
factors act in combination. Urbanization and globalization are causing rapid changes to food systems.
Climate change may affect food systems in several ways ranging from direct effects on crop
production (e.g. changes in rainfall leading to drought or flooding, or warmer or cooler temperatures
leading to changes in the length of growing season), to changes in markets, food prices and supply
chain infrastructure. The relative importance of climate change for food security differs between
regions. For example, in southern Africa, climate is among the most frequently cited drivers of food
insecurity because it acts both as an underlying, ongoing issue and as a short-lived shock. The low
ability to cope with shocks and to mitigate long-term stresses means that coping strategies that might
be available in other regions are unavailable or inappropriate. In other regions, though, such as parts
of the Indo-Gangetic Plain of India, other drivers, such as labour issues and the availability and quality
of ground water for irrigation, rank higher than the direct effects of climate change as factors
influencing food security.
Because of the multiple socio-economic and bio-physical factors affecting food systems and hence
food security, the capacity to adapt food systems to reduce their vulnerability to climate change is not
uniform. Improved systems of food production, food distribution and economic access may all
contribute to food systems adapted to cope with climate change, but in adopting such changes it will
be important to ensure that they contribute to sustainability. Agriculture is a major contributor of the
greenhouse gases methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20), so that regionally derived policies
promoting adapted food systems need to mitigate further climate change.

Keywords: adaptation; coping strategies; feedbacks; environmental change;

food systems; vulnerability

1. INTRODUCTION growth and yield of crop plants, concluding that the

The links between climate change and food security earlier-anticipated benefits of CO2 fertilization would
have, to date, largely been explored in relation to be largely offset by nutrient limitations, pollutants and
impacts on crop productivity and hence, food pro- further interactions with climatic factors (see also Long
duction. For instance, Gregory et al. (1999) summar- et al. 2005). Similarly, simulations of maize production
ized experimental findings on wheat and rice that in Africa and Latin America using climate data from
indicated decreased crop duration (and hence yield) of the HadCM2 model to generate characteristic daily
wheat as a consequence of warming and reductions in weather data for 2055 predicted an overall reduction of
10% (Jones & Thornton 2003). This, and other similar
yields of rice of about 5% 0C-1 rise above 32 0C. These
effects of temperature were considered sufficiently projections, uses a process-based crop production
detrimental that they would largely offset any increase model (such as the crop environment resource
in yield as a consequence of increased atmospheric synthesis family) to link climate to plant physiological
carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. Several reviews processes. Yield can then be modelled for a uniform
(e.g. Amthor 2001; Fuhrer 2003) have further assessed crop and upscaled to a larger area normally within
the potential consequences of changes in climate on the some form of geographic information system (GIS).
The aggregate result of Jones & Thornton (2003),
though, hides considerable variability within and
* Author for correspondence (peter.gregory@scri.ac.uk). between countries, and, as they point out, also ignores
One contribution of 17 to a Discussion Meeting Issue 'Food cropsthe
in fact that maize is commonly used as fodder as well
a changing climate'. as food as part of a complex production system.

2139 c 2005 The Royal Society

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2140 P. J. Gregory and others Climate change and food security

crop cropping farming food

stands systems systems systems

crop productivity

crop production

food security

key how will climate how will climate how will climate
questions change affect change affect change affect
crop yield? farm and regional food security?
production?

* relations to soil N and * linking 'sole crop' models * food systems and vulnerability
water * farm-level databases concepts
key * micronutrients including management * regional-level scenarios
* stand establishment variables * Integrated socio-economic-
research
* losses to weeds biophysical models
issues * inclusion of other crops
* mechanistic coupling of * using model outputs to * feedbacks of management
pests and diseases analyse system scenarios to socio-economic
* simulation of quality performance and environmental conditions

Figure 1. The changing nature of key research issues and frequently asked questions at a range of different scales moving from
crop production to food security.

The spatial variation in effects of climate change was destruction of native vegetation and increased intensi-
an explicit component of the study on potential yields fication of cropped areas (Tilman et al. 2001). This
of rainfed cereal crops undertaken by Fischer et al. may, in turn, further undermine the food systems upon
(2001). In this analysis, climate predictions in 2080 which food security is based.
were obtained from various global circulation models While there has been considerable progress in
(GCMs) and assessments made based on current understanding the sensitivities of crop yield to climate
populations and socio-economic conditions. The change, assessments of climate change effects on food
output demonstrated that cereal producing regions of security remain rather limited. Food security is
Canada, and northern Europe and Russia might be concerned not only with food availability but also with
expected to increase production as a consequence ofaccess to and utilization of, food so that studies, which
the climate changes predicted by GCMs, while many focus only on crop production provide only a partial
parts of the world would suffer losses including the assessment of food security-climate change relation-
western edge of the USA prairies, eastern Brazil and ships. This is of particular concern as many of the
western Australia. Overall, the results of this and policy-based issues that are relevant to the international
subsequent work that included assessments of future and sustainable development communities are posed in
populations and alternative future socio-economic the context of food security prospects. Engagement of
conditions (Fischer et al. 2002a,b, 2005), demon- these policy communities requires a much broader and
strated that climate change would benefit the comprehensive research framework.
developed countries more than the developing Recognition that food security depends on robust
countries even if cropping practices evolved to allow food systems that encompass issues of availability,
more than one rainfed crop per year. Moreover, the access and utilization (not merely production alone),
anticipated demographic growth and socio-economic and consequently that the nature of key research issues
development in these developing countries would changes as questions more related to food security are
result in substantial increases in food requirements formulated (figure 1), led the international global
thereby exacerbating the detrimental effects of climate change research community to establish the joint project
change. global environmental change and food systems
The spectre of climate change, together with other (GECAFS) in 2001. GECAFS is an interdisciplinary
global environmental changes such as changes in water research programme that aims to improve understan-
availability, and land cover, and altered nitrogen ding of the relationship between food systems and the
availability and cycling (all strongly influenced by earth system to deliver science-based tools for analysing
human activities), has increased concerns about socio-economic and environmental consequences of
achieving food security especially for poor people strategies seeking to adapt to climate and other
(Gregory & Ingram 2000; Parry et al. 2001; Rosegrantenvironmental changes. The purposes of this paper are
& Cline 2003). There is also concern that meeting the
to: (i) outline the notion offood systems, their relation to
global demand for food resulting from higher popu- food security, and links to climate change; (ii) explore
lation and changing dietary preferences will furtherthe vulnerability of food systems to environmental
degrade the environment both through additional change; (iii) examine some prospects for adaptation

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Climate change and food security P. J. Gregory and others 2141

of food systems in response to climate change and

(iv) highlight some of the environmental feedbacks
resulting from modifications to food systems. The paper food food

will draw on results of the conceptual and regional utilization access

research initiated by GECAFS (Ingram et al. 2005). * nutritional value * affordability

* social value * allocation

* food safety * preference

2. FOOD SECURITY, FOOD SYSTEMS AND
THE LINK TO CLIMATE
There are several definitions of what constitutes food food

systems each formulated in relation to a specific range availability

of issues (e.g. globalization of the agri-food system,
* production
Goodman 1997; community food systems, Gillespie & * distribution
Gillespie 2000; ecological interests, Francis et al. * exchange
2003). For GECAFSs purpose, food systems are
defined as a set of dynamic interactions between and
within the biogeophysical and human environments Figure 2. The three components of food systems with their
which result in the production, processing, distri- main elements shown in italics. (From Ingram et al. 2005.)
bution, preparation and consumption of food. They
encompass components of: (i) food availability (with
elements related to production, distribution and consumers 160000000

exchange); (ii) food access (with elements related to customers 89000000

affordability, allocation and preference) and (iii) food

utilization (with elements related to nutritional value,
outlets 170000
social value and food safety (figure 2)). Food systems,
then, involve much broader considerations than
supermarket fomats 600
productivity and production alone. They underpin power
food security, which is the state achieved when food buyi desk 110

systems operate such that 'all people, at all times, have manufartures 8600
physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food semi-manufacturers 80000

preferences for an active and healthy life' (FAO 1996). suppliers 160000
Food security is diminished when food systems are farmers/producers 3200000
stressed. This can be caused by a range of factors in
addition to climate and other environmental changes Figure 3. Components of the food chain in selected OECD
(e.g. conflict, changes in international trade agree- countries of Europe indicating the two inverted pyramid
ments and policies, HIV/AIDS) and may be particu- structure that relates farmers to consumers. (From Grievink
2003.)
larly severe when these factors act in combination.
Access to culturally acceptable food by individuals and from national legislative bodies to regional and global
communities, or means for its procurement, is organizations, and from the state to multinational
increasingly being elaborated into human rights corporations. For example, in a study of selected
legislation (McClain-Nhlapo 2004). OECD countries in Europe, Grievink (2003) deter-
Food systems may be simple, as in the case of a mined that the food chain has some 160 million
subsistence farmer who produces, processes and consumers of whom about 3.2 million are also farmers
consumes food on farm. However, there are compara-
or food producers, but the link between these groups is
tively few individuals or households in the world that
increasingly determined by the small number of food
are totally self-reliant for food throughout a year, and in
processors/manufacturers (about 90 000) and the even
almost all cases there is an element of bartering,
smaller number of buyers (about 100) for the super-
exchange, or the cash economy to bring food into the
market chains (figure 3).
household. In many places, the food system has
changed radically in the last century and continues to Food systems around the world are changing very
rapidly as urbanization and globalization proceed
become increasingly complex (Millstone & Lang 2003;
Barling 2004). The intensification of agricultural apace. The urbanization of many predominantly rural
countries in the last three decades has been
production, since the 1940s has been accompanied by
profound changes in the organization of food systemsaccompanied by the rapid growth of supermar
around the world including changes in distribution, many, often accompanied by foreign investm
marketing, affordability and preferences for particular global retail chains (Reardon et al. 2003). However,
food items. These changes are especially obvious in theeven in poor countries such as Kenya, where per capita
USA and Europe, where market globalization has gross domestic product (GDP) was less than $400 yr-1
occurred with global sourcing of products by retailers in 2002, supermarkets have grown from a tiny niche
direct from producers in the case of fresh fruit and market in 1997 to be greater than 20% of urban food
vegetables and from a few, large manufacturers for retailing today (Neven & Reardon 2004). This growth
other food products. Such changes have also shiftedhas been a consequence of three major factors. First,
economic and political power from farmers to retailers, rapid urbanization has seen the proportion of the

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2142 P. J. Gregory and others Climate change and food security

Table 1. Changes in the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables to the Uchimi supermarket chain in Kenya by supplier type for the
period 1997-2008.
(Values are the percentage contribution to the total supply (from Neven & Reardon 2004).)

vegetables fruits

type of supplier 1997 2003 2008 1997 2003 2008

small farms 13 10 15 5 10 10
medium farms 10 25 30 10 10 10
large farms and plantations 5 15 35 0 15 35
traditional brokers/wholesalers 70 45 10 70 40 10
imports 2 5 10 15 25 35

population based in urban

1975 to 0.36 in 2000
~1oek~f food price with
than 0.5 in 2013; second, trade and domestic market poverty
eduratioti increase
liberalization, since 1993 has seen the removal of
import controls and the deregulation of prices and 7 5 5
third, movement towards price-based competition
between the indigenous chains. Success within Kenya food 5
unavainabiity
is now spreading to other East African countries with security of employment
important effects on the market conditions faced by
farmers including the decline of traditional wholesalers N
12 4
(and the smallholder producers from whom they buy)
climate/ faitures in
and the increase in direct purchases from larger farms poormarket
(table 1; Neven & Reardon 2004). environment access peoperty rights
These marked changes in access and utilization of
food around the world provide a context in which to Figure 4. The seven most frequently cited drivers in 49
studies of household-level food insecurity in southern Africa.
evaluate the likely effects of climate and other
The numbers in the arrows indicate the number of citations,
environmental changes on crop production and food
as a percentage of 555 citations of 33 possible drivers. The
security. Not all food systems or parts of food systemsdrivers shaded in grey were noted as being chronic, while
are equally vulnerable to environmental changes those in white indicate drivers experienced mainly as 'shocks'.
because the capacity to cope with existing variabilityThe shaded arrows indicate drivers that acted primarily via
in bio-physical and socio-economic systems, and the reductions in food production, while the white arrows
ability of humans to perceive environmental changesindicate those which acted by restricting access to food.
and to adapt food systems, differs. Human vulnerability(From Scholes & Biggs 2004.)
includes both the likelihood of exposure to stresses as
communities many interacting factors resulted in
well as the capacity to cope with such stresses (i.e.
vulnerability to food shortages. Overall, however,
sensitivity). Vulnerability and poverty are often inter-
climate/environment was one of the seven factors
related because both the likelihood of exposure to
influencing food security that were frequently cited
stresses is greater among the poor and because a large
(figure 4; Scholes & Biggs 2004), because of its role
proportion of their resources are spent either purchas-
ing or producing food, thereby reducing their capacity
both as an ongoing issue (57% of cases, where it was
to cope with perturbations (Hume et al. 2001). mentioned) and as a 'shock' (43%). The impacts of
Moreover, pursuit of food security frequently involves sudden shocks such as drought are felt, then, on top of
trade-offs with expenditure on health and education ongoing long-term stresses, and the low ability to cope
reducing still further the ability to improve longer-termwith such shocks and to mitigate long-term stresses
living conditions or resilience to stress and shock means that the employment of coping strategies that
(Boudreau 1998). Food insecurity is experienced at a might be available to others, is at a too high cost or,
range of spatial scales from individual households to simply, unavailable. Typically, reliance on purchased
regions, as well as a range of time-scales, and food increases in drought years due to losses in food
reductions of vulnerability at one scale do not production leading to an increase in poverty due to the
automatically flow to the next scale. For example, synergistic action of other drivers such as rising food
regional policy decisions do not always convert to prices and unemployment. Scholes & Biggs (2004)
successful local implementation especially if distri-record that the food security crisis in southern Africa in
bution services are inadequate, or food preferences are 2002-2003 was not simply a result of drought alone
ignored (Ellis 2003). and, indeed, climatic stress was not as severe as in
previous crises. Maize production during the preceding
Climate variation is one of several interacting factors
that affect food security. For example, in studies of growing season was only 5.5% less than the previous
household food security in southern Africa, climate/en-five year average so food stocks at the start of the
vironment was only one of some 33 drivers mentioned climatic shock were not unusually low. It was
as important by householders (Misselhorn 2005). The concluded that the crisis was indicative of entrenched
mix of drivers varied across the region but in all vulnerability resulting from a range of regional and

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Climate change and food security P. J. Gregory and others 2143

global political and economic factors (Vogel & Smith global environmental
2002) including high food prices, legacies of structural change (GEC)
- change in type, frequency and
adjustment, government policies, conflict and war,
magnitude of environmental
policies on genetically modified foods, and poor threats

responses to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The key here v

capacity to
was that conditions, which weakened food systems in cope with
food system Exposure
the region were already in place. The moderate climatic and/or
to GEC
security/vulnerability
shock intensified food insecurity and the long-term recover

from GEC
vulnerability of the region.
societal change
change in institutions,
resource accessibility,
3. VULNERABILITY OF FOOD SYSTEMS TO economic conditions, etc.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Figure 5. Factors determining the vulnerability of food
Much climatic change-agricultural research has been
systems to GEC. (From Ingram et al. 2005.)
focused on assessing the sensitivity of various attributes
of crop systems (e.g. land suitability, crop yields, pest
regimes) to specified changes in climate. These in partial
societal aspects such as institutions and resource
assessments most often consider climate change in accessibility (Adger 1999). Finally, changes in the food
isolation, focus on bio-physical aspects of production, system aimed at reducing vulnerability feed back to
and provide little insight into the food accessibility and environmental and societal changes themselves. They
food utilization dimensions of food security. To better may, for example, reinforce agricultural practices that
address the food security concerns that are central to either reduce or exacerbate land degradation, and
economic and sustainable development agendas, it is increase or reduce farm profitability.
desirable to develop a broader research framework, Initial research in the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) has
which integrates bio-physical and socio-economic used this more integrated approach to help define the
aspects of food systems and thereby addresses key vulnerability of the region's food systems (Aggarwal
questions including: et al. 2004). It has demonstrated that the conditions
underpinning vulnerability are not uniform throughout
(i) which aspects of food systems are most vulnerablethe region. In the western IGP (a region of general
to climate change? and surplus production), food systems are most vulnerable
to issues related to the availability of water; excessive
(ii) what can be done to reduce the vulnerability of irrigation has lead to rising watertables and soil
these food systems and thereby improve food salinization in some areas while in others water
security? shortage has resulted in falling watertables, rapid
increasing costs of pumping and shortage of drink
The roots of vulnerability science can be traced
water. In the eastern IGP, resource poor farmers, w
back to famine (for example, see Watts & Bohle 1993)
have very limited options to cope with and recover fr
and natural hazards (for example, see Mustafa 1998)
external stresses, are most vulnerable to environment
but concepts developed in these areas have, to date,
changes such as rising sea-level, and climate chan
not been fully incorporated into climatic change/global
and climate variability leading to increased risk of
environmental change studies. It has become clear
flooding. Overall, this analysis suggests that food
from famine and hazards research that the key to
insecurity concerns cannot be effectively addressed by
assessing vulnerability is to develop research frame-
a single region-wide policy.
works which can explicitly consider the social,
economic and political constraints which condition
the capacity of human systems (including food
systems) to cope with external stressors such as 4. ADAPTATION: REDUCING THE
climatic change, along with the magnitude and VULNERABILITY OF FOOD SYSTEMS
frequency of environmental stresses imposed on the TO CLIMATE CHANGE
system. For GECAFS, these concepts have been Development of human societies has involved a
extended to consider environmental vulnerability (i.e. continuous process of adapting to changing stresses
stresses originating from drought, storms and lind- and opportunities. While climate change is seen as a
slides and other such phenomena) and social vulne-relatively recent phenomenon, individuals and societies
rability (i.e. the capacity of communities to cope with are used to adapting to a range of environmental and
and recover from environmental stresses). Figure 5socio-economic stresses. In many parts of the world,
(derived from Bohle 2001; Brklacich & Bohle 2005; and especially in semi-arid lands, there is an accumu-
Wisner et al. 2004) shows that the vulnerability of food lated experience with phenomenon such as drought. As
systems is not determined by the nature and magni- climate extremes are predicted to increase in frequency
tude of environmental stress per se, but by the and intensity in future, it is important to understand
combination of the societal capacity to cope with, and learn from relevant past adaptations and indigen-
and/or recover from environmental change, coupledous knowledge. However, changes in climate variability
with the degree of exposure to stress. While the coping and mean values will bring additional complications to
capacity and degree of exposure is related to environ- many, especially those dependent on food systems that
mental changes, they are both also related to changesare particularly vulnerable to these additional stresses.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2144 P.J. Gregory and others Climate change and food security

Food systems fail to deliver food security when related Porter & Semenov (2005) has described some of the
determinants, and/or the links between them, are plant traits that may permit adaptation to climate
disrupted by climate change or other stresses (figure 2). change. An area in which progress may be possible is
The food systems approach to research on food securityin improved selection of genotypes that utilize limited
allows for adaptation options aimed at reducing vulner-supplies of water stored in soils; less rainfall may be a
ability to be considered in terms of any of these consequence of climate change or increased climate
determinants and the stresses acting upon them. variability in some regions. There are many plant
Adaptations may occur in relation to, for instance, characters and elements of crop management that
agronomic or fisheries aspects regarding food production;contribute to the efficient use of water by crops (Gregory
or government-set prices and incomes concerning access 2004), but relatively little attention has been paid to root
to food; or changes in societal values concerning food characters that may allow more water to be exploited or
utilization. The key issues for adapting food systems to used more efficiently, largely because root systems are
reduce their vulnerability to climate change are to: very difficult to measure. However, genotypic differences
are known to exist in many features of root systems (e.g.
(i) identify which related determinants are particu- depth of rooting, rate of downward extension, diameter
larly sensitive to GEC; of roots, total length) which may be exploitable to
(ii) enhance effective related determinants; and improve crop yield in drier climates (O'Toole & Bland
(iii) restore disrupted related determinants. 1987). Studies with existing genotypes in dry areas may
inform the adaptation possible under conditions of
To translate these theoretical considerations into practice changed climate. For example, in the Mediterranean
requires research to: environment of northern Syria, crops are largely
dependent on the use of growing season rainfall (very
(i) identify and evaluate the possible adaptations little water is stored from season to season). Studies of
mechanisms to reduce food system vulnerability
the root growth, water use and yield of the local landrace
to climate change;
(Arabic abiad) at sites with typically less than 350 mm
(ii) identify, document and learn from past and
annual rainfall, showed that this genotype consistently
current coping mechanisms employed by vulner-
had greater root lengths per unit soil volume at depths
able groups in their day-to-day food supply
below 15 cm than other genotypes such as the variety
systems;
Beecher (figure 6), and that this was associated with
(iii) analyse and strengthen the capability of commu-
greater water uptake in the 3-4 weeks before anthesis. In
nities and countries to adapt as much as possible;
this environment, faster rates of growth before anthesis
and
were reflected in higher crop yields; senescence of the
(iv) identify the most suitable level at which each
crop before the grains could fill ('haying off') was not
adaptation strategy should be implemented (e.g. observed. The development of DNA-based molecular
regional, national or local intervention).
markers has opened up opportunities for identifying the
genetic factors (quantitative trait loci) underpinning
These points are illustrated below using an example
various root traits. Again, this science is at an early
from each of the three elements of the food system as
stage of development for root traits, but significant
depicted in figure 2.
progress has been made in studies of drought tolerance
with rice (Champoux et al. 1995; Babu et al. 2001).
(a) Reducing food system vulnerability by
increasing food production (b) Reducing food system vulnerability by
Past increases in agricultural production have occurred improving food distribution
as a result of both extensification (altering natural Infrastructural and non-infrastructural controls on food
ecosystems to generate products) and intensification distribution can be significant impediments to reducing
(producing more of the desired products per unit area of food system vulnerability in a timely manner. This
land already used for agriculture; Gregory & Ingram became strikingly apparent during the drought relief
2000). In future, intensification will be the dominant effort mounted in 1990/1991 in southern Africa in
means for increasing production although the cultivation response to the estimated 86 million people at risk in the
of new land will be important in some regions (e.g. an region (of whom some 20 millions were deemed at
estimated contribution of 47% from extensification in 'serious risk').
sub-Saharan Africa to cereal production by 2020; A massive international food aid programme was
Alexandratos 1995). Increased yields per unit area, launched with food to be delivered via a number of rail
with a smaller contribution from an increased number 'corridors' from the region's major ports to the hinterland.
of crops grown in a seasonal cycle, is expected to be the
Nearly, 8 million tonnes of food grains were imported by
main way in which crop production will rise to meet the relief programme for the 10 countries affected; this
demand (Gregory et al. 2002). In the recent past, such was almost four times the normal annual rate of imports
increases have been achieved by a 'unique conjunction offor the region (Muchero 2003). This substantial increase
three innovations', namely cheap nitrogenous fertilizersin imports resulted in pressure on the region's distribution
combined with semi-dwarf genotypes of cereals, effectivesystems, leading to a number of problems which would
weed control with herbicides, and the expansion of not have been significant in 'normal' years. These are well
irrigation (Evans 1998). For the future, continued illustrated by examples taken from the Maputo and Beira
technological developments are anticipated to facilitate corridor. Infrastructural constraints included ongoing
the adaptation of crops to changing environments. rehabilitation, physical impediments (steep gradients and

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Climate change and food security P. J. Gregory and others 2145

2.5 - and policies could be designed that serve the interest of

producers (incentive to produce more food) and
consumers (to facilitate access to food). Second, regional
specialization in food production and regional trade
would lower production costs and food prices and,
2.0
therefore, improve access. This important adaptation is
as yet hardly pursued, but should gain momentum with
trade liberalization and policy shifts towards food
security. Third, economic growth will lead to income
1.5 and employment generation, both of which will facilitate
access to food. Finally, stability and governance
supported by an effective pool of human and institutional
resources facilitate the establishment and maintenance of
food systems.
1.0 In south Asia, studies have examined how income
growth has led to changes in diets away from traditional
rotlength(cmrotcm-3soil) foods. This may have negative impacts on local farmers
who grow traditional foods and are not well integrated
0.5
into markets (Pingali & Khawaja 2004). The impact of
trade liberalization on the poor is a topic of current
study, but there is an emerging consensus that they
should be protected from negative impacts through the
implementation of safety nets (Mahendra Dev et al.
0 2004).
20 40 60 80 100 120
depth (cm)

Figure 6. The distribution5. FEEDBACKS

of root FROM length
ADAPTATION OPTIONS
with soil dep
the barley genotypes Arabic abiad
TO THE GLOBAL (white bar) and B
ENVIRONMENT
(black bar). The distributions aretothe
In attempting average
adapt food systems to for two
cope with climatesit
northern Syria with contrasting soils and rainfall (ad
and other environmental changes, it will be important to
from Gregory 1989).
ensure that the changes proposed do not exacerbate
climate changegrain
tight curves at which points or other aspects
was of environmental
stolen from
degradation (i.e.
slow-moving wagons), a shortage of bags that they contribute to sustainability).
and tarpau
Past extensification (land cover
the need to tranship Malawi-bound change, especially
cargo the
in Harare,
shortage removal of and
of rolling stock trees) has made a large contribution to CO2
locomotive power
addition, a number of emissions so that one means of mitigating further constr
non-infrastructural
further complicated emissions
the is to intensify production
situation. These on existing cleared
included ge
security problems areas and
along leave forests
the intact. Nelson & Maredia
corridor, (1999)
regulatory
straints for cargo estimated that
destined for the introduction
Zambia, of high-yielding varieties
conflict bet
humanitarian as part of the 'green
requirements and revolution' saved 170 Mha of forest
commercial conc
poor labour fromsystems
management cropping in Africa, Asia
inandports
Latin America(where
in the th
were to period
work 1970-1990.more
no Assuming an than
incentives average carbon stock of
necessary
100 Mg C ha-1, this represents a saving of 17 Gt of
transit toll fees in Mozambique.
Food availability forcarbon,
the equivalent to 2-3 years ofwas
region total global carbon (C)
severely c
emissions. Intensification
strained due not to lack of food per se (there can, then, contribute to were
reducing CO2 emissions,
queuing at anchor to unload), but although
by this lacksaving is
of partially
investm
offset by the increased C costs
in distribution systems and institutional constraint of the new production
system. Previous
brief summary highlights several intensification
ways via high-input
in technol-
which re
food insecurity could be reduced, and shows that ogies has resulted in detrimental environmental con-
adaptation options can include a range of issues sequences such as reduced biodiversity and water
including, among others, regional investment in port, pollution in some areas (Matson et al. 1997), resulting
in substantial concerns about the environmental con-
rail and grain storage infrastructure and in region-wide
political agreements to facilitate the flow of food in an sequences of meeting projected demands for food by
2050 (Tilman et al. 2001). This has led to moves in many
emergency.
parts of the world towards intensive systems that are both
high yielding and more environmentally benign (Gregory
(c) Reducing food system vulnerability et al. 2002). Such systems encourage the greater
by increasing economic access to food efficiency of use of inputs to minimize both on- and
Improved economic access to food is an important
off-site environmental consequences but are yet to be
widely adopted.
development goal, but the means of achieving it and the
consequences of strategies aimed at its achievement are Gregory et al. (2002) suggested that regional changes
in climate can be induced by both extensification
the subject of much discussion. In the case of southern
Africa, Arntzen et al. (2004) indicate that the discussion(through effects on albedo and changes in latent/sensible
heat balances) and intensification. Crop intensification
centres around varied means. First, price mechanisms

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2146 P.J. Gregory and others Climate change and food security

Table 2. Cereal yields (t ha- 1) and estimated total annual (on-site) emissions of greenhouse gases (kg C-equivalent ha- 1) from
irrigated rice-wheat systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plain in terms of carbon equivalents (from Grace et al. 2003).
(Carbon equivalent calculated based on CO2 released during all agricultural operations. A global warming potential of 21 and
310 was used for CH4 and N20, respectively. FYM, farmyard manure.)

treatments no fertilizer recommended fertilizer recommended + FYM

rice yield (t ha- 1) 3.74 5.67 6.41

wheat yield (t ha- 1) 1.71 3.97 4.60
conventional tillage and resides retained 3496 4721 7137
(kg C-equivalent ha-1)
conventional tillage and residues burnt 3953 5510 8032
(kg C-equivalent ha-1)
no tillage and residues retained 2966 4362 6724
(kg C-equivalent ha- ')

Table 3. Agriculture's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions

CO2 CH4 N20

agricultural emissions as % of total 15 49 66

anthropogenic sources
expected changes in agricultural emissions stable or declining from rice: stable or declining 35-60% increase
to 2030
from livestock: 60% increase

has biogeophysical effects through changes in physical which have increased substantially as crop intensification
and physiological properties at the surface, in landscapehas proceeded (Matson et al. 1997). Smith et al. (1997)
heterogeneity, and in the production of dust, and estimated that of the 3.5 Tg N released annually from
biogeochemical effects through production of green- cultivated land as N20, about 1.5 Tg was directly
house gases and organic aerosols. For example, in the attributable to synthetic N fertilizers, with an additional
IGP, the increased adoption of the rice-wheat system 0.5-5 Tg N emitted as NO. Reducing the quantities of
during the last three decades has resulted in the heavy use
N20 emitted from fertilizer applications may, though, be
difficult. Adoption of the best available agronomic
of irrigation, fertilizers, electricity and diesel (Aggarwal
et al. 2004). These practices have had a direct impact practices such as soil testing to match supply with demand
on the emissions of greenhouse gases (especially CO2, and optimizing tillage and drainage, can reduce emissions
CH4 and N20). Depending on the management but such practices would still be insufficient to offset the
practices used, emissions are estimated collectively increases
to expected from the increased global use of N
have a global warming potential equivalent to 3000- fertilizers (Smith et al. 1997). This poses a considerable
8000 kg C ha-1 yr-' (Grace et al. 2003; table 2). This challenge for the future sustainability of food systems.
amounts to a significant quantity of C for the wholeA further environmental feedback that is an issue in
IGP. While increasing production in the future may some regions is the changes in groundwater availability as
a consequence of water extraction for irrigation in
further increase emissions if no changes in practice are
wrought, alternative management strategies couldintensive crop production systems. For example, in the
effectively reduce emissions. For example, surface Punjab province of India, extraction has led to
seeding and/or zero-tillage, and the establishmentsignificantly
of lower watertables (table 4); these are
upland crops after rice gives similar yields to crops expected to fall even further in the future. In addition
planted under normal conventional tillage over a to changes in aquifer and surface water dynamics per se, a
diverse set of soil conditions, but reduces costs of significant consequence of this is the need to use ever
production and allows earlier planting which offers increasing amounts of power (diesel and/or electric
higher yields. The practice also results in less weed pumps) to access this dwindling resource. This, in
growth and increases the efficiency of water and turn, gives rise to increased CO2 emissions.
fertilizer use. Moreover, it reduces the use of natural The full range of environmental feedbacks that will
resources such as steel for tractor parts and fuel result from adapting food systems are presently difficult
because zero tillage saves 29.9 1 of diesel per hectare to discern because there is no consensus yet as to how
compared to conventional tillage (equivalent to climate change impacts will manifest themselves at
21.2 kg C ha-1 a-1 reduction). In addition, resource- different scales. The possible environmental impacts of
conserving technologies restrict the oxidation of soil adaptations include: (i) changes in biodiversity due to
carbon thus mitigating increases of CO2 into the extension of the agricultural frontier; (ii) water pollution
atmosphere. associated with increased use of fertilizers and pesticides;
Table 3 demonstrates the important contribution that (iii) waterlogging, salinization and water scarcity due to
agriculture makes to emissions ofN20, a greenhouse gas irrigation and (iv) land degradation due to use of less
that is about 200 times as radiatively active as CO2. Much suitable land. However, there is no reason to suppose
of this comes from applications of nitrogen (N) fertilizers that the effects should be so uniformly negative if

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Climate change and food security P. J. Gregory and others 2147

Table 4. Measured water table depths (m) in Punjab, India Alexandratos, N. 1995 World agriculture: towards 2010 an FAO
(adapted from Sidhu 2005). study. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Amthor, J. S. 2001 Effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration
measured on wheat yield. Field Crops Res. 73, 1-34. (doi:10.1016/
S0378-4290(01)00179-4.)
zones 1993 2003 Arntzen, J., Muchero, M.T., & Dube, P. 2004 Global
environmental change and food provision in southern
sub-montane zone (district average) 17.6 18.5 Africa: explorations for a possible GECAFS research project
central zone (Sangur district) 13.8 20.6 in southern Africa. GECAFS southern Africa Planning
central zone (Patiala district) 11.7 18.4 Workshop, Cape Town, 13-15 September 2004. See www.
central zone (Moga district) 9.4 18.6 gecafs.org.
southwest zone (district average) 6.8 8.9 Babu, R. C., Shashidhar, H. E., Lilley, J. M., Thanh, N. D.,
Ray, J. D., Sadasivam, S., Sarkarung, S., O'Toole, J. C. &
Nguyen, H. T. 2001 Variation in root penetration ability,
institutional support is given to more sustainable osmotic adjustment and dehydration tolerance among
practices. The increasing concerns of human societies accessions of rice adapted to rainfed lowland and upland
in Europe, North America and elsewhere to utilize land ecosystems. Plant Breeding 120, 233-238. (doi:10.1046/j.
for food and other purposes (e.g. recreation, wildlife) 1439-0523.2001.00578.x.)
suggests that greater emphasis will be placed on moreBarling, D. 2004 Food systems: food policy and governance
efficient use of inputs than hitherto with consequent perspectives. GECAFS Food Systems Workshop, 21-22
reductions in pollution and environmental degradation. October 2004. See www.gecafs.org.
Bohle, H.-G. 2001 Vulnerability and criticality: perspectives from
social geography. IHDP Update, 2/2001. Bonn: IHDP.
Boudreau, T. 1998 The Food Economy Approach: a framework for
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS understanding rural livelihoods. RRN Network Paper 26.
In 2000, the member states of the United Nations London: Overseas Development Institute.
committed themselves to eight Millennium Develop- Brklacich, M. & Bohle, H.-G. 2005 Assessing human
ment Goals, each with specific, measurable targets that vulnerability to climatic change. In Earth system science in
should be met by 2015. The first goal, that of eradicating the Anthropocene: emerging issues and problems (ed. T. Kraft &
extreme hunger and poverty calls for halving of hunger E. Ehliers). Berlin: Springer.
Bruinsma, J. 2003 World agriculture: towards 2015/2030.
and poverty by 2015 in relation to 1990. This goal London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
specifically recognizes the agriculture-hunger-poverty
Champoux, M. C., Wang, G., Sarkarung, S., Mackill, D. J.,
nexus and the limited coping capability that poverty O'Toole, J. C., Huang, N. & McCouch, S. R. 1995 Locating
induces. While increased agricultural productivity is a genes associated with root morphology and drought
key step in reducing rural poverty (Von Braun et al. avoidance in rice via linkage to molecular markers. Theor.
2004), favourable macro-economic and trade policies, Appl. Genet. 90, 969-981. (doi: 10.1007/BF00222910.)
good infrastructure, and access to credit, land and Ellis, F. 2003 Human vulnerability and food insecurity: policy
markets are also required for fast rates of growth. implications. The Forum for Food Security in Southern Afi-ica
Climate change will add a further dimension to the ODI, London. See www.odi.org.uk.
challenge of ensuring food security for all with the poor Evans, L. T. 1998 Feeding the ten billion: plants and population
most vulnerable because of their restricted options for growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
FAO. 1996 Report of the World Food Summit, FAO, Rome.
coping.
Fischer, G., Shah, M., van Velthuizen, H. & Nachtergaele,
This paper demonstrates that climate change is only
F. O. 2001 Global agro-ecological assessment for agriculture in
one of several changes affecting food systems and that its the 21st century. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute
relative importance varies both between regions and for Applied Systems Analysis.
between different societal groups within a region. Fischer, G., van Velthuizen, H., Shah, M. & Nachtergaele, F.
Adaptations of food systems via interventions in avail- O. 2002 Global agro-ecological assessment for agriculture in
ability, access and utilization are possible to cope with the 21st century: methodology and results. Research report
climate change at different scales although their feed- RR-02-02. International Institute for Applied Systems
backs to the earth system have yet to be fully assessed. Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. p. 119 + CD-ROM.
Fischer, G., Shah, M. & van Velthuizen, H. 2002b Climate
We thank the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) change and agricultural vulnerability. Special report as
for continued financial support for our work, and colleagues in contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable Develop-
the international research projects Global Change and ment, Johannesburg 2002. Austria: International Institute
Terrestrial Ecosystems Focus 3 and Global Environmental for Applied Systems Analysis p. 152
Change and Food Systems for access to ideas and data Fischer, G., Shah, M., Tubiello, F. & van Velhuizen, H. 2005
underpinning this paper. Socio-economic and climate change impacts on agriculture:
an integrated assessment, 1990-2080. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B
360, 2067-2083. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1744.)
REFERENCES Francis, C. et al. 2003 Agroecology: the ecology of food
Adger, N. 1999 Social vulnerability to climate change systems.
and J. Sustain. Agric. 22, 99-118. (doi:10.1300/
extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Dev. 27, 249-269. J064v22n03_10.)
(doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00136-3.) Fuhrer, J. 2003 Agroecosystem responses to combinations of
Aggarwal, P. K., Joshi, P. K., Ingram, J. S. I. & Gupta, R. K. elevated CO2, ozone and global climate change. Agric.
2004 Adapting food systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains to Ecosyst. Environ. 97, 1-20. (doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)
global environmental change: key information needs to 00125-7.)
improve policy formulation. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 487-498.Gillespie, H. & Gillespie G. W. Jr. 2000. Cornell Community
(doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.07.006.) Nutrition Program, Division of Nutritional Sciences,

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2148 P.J. Gregory and others Climate change and food security

Cornell University, Community Food Systems: towards a Millstone, E. & Lang, T. 2003 The Atlas of food. London:
common language for building productive partnerships. See Earthscan Publications Ltd.
www.ccc.cornell/programs/foodsystems. Misselhorn, A. 2005 What drives food insecurity in southern
Goodman, D. 1997 World-scale processes and agro-food Africa? A meta analysis of household economy
systems: critique and research needs. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. studies. Global Environ. Change 15, 33-42. (doi:10.1016/j.
4, 663-687. gloenvcha.2004.11.003.)
Grace, P. R., Jain, M. C., Harrington, L. & Robertson, G. P. Muchero, M. T. 2003 Distribution and consumption patterns.
2003 The long-term sustainability of tropical and sub- GECAFS workshop in southern Africa, 10-11 April 2003. See
tropical rice and wheat systems: an environmental perspec- www.gecafs.org.
tive. In Special issue on improving the productivity and Mustafa, D. 1998 Structural causes of vulnerability to flood
sustainability of rice-wheat systems: issues and impacts (ed. hazard in Pakistan. Econ. Geogr. 74, 289-305.
J. K. Ladha et al.), pp. 27-43. Madison, USA: American Nelson, M. & Maredia, M. 1999 Environmental Impacts of the
Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil CGIAR: an initial assessment. Report prepared for the
Science Society of America. Impact and Evaluation Group of the CGIAR. IAEG
Gregory, P. J. 1989 The role of root characteristics in Secretariat, UNOPS-FAO, Rome.
moderating the effects of drought. In Drought resistance inNeven, D. & Reardon, T. 2004 The rise of Kenyan super-
cereals (ed. F. W. G. Baker), pp. 141-150. Wallingford, UK: markets and the evolution of their horticultural product
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International. procurement systems. Dev. Policy Rev. 22, 669-699. (doi: 10.
Gregory, P. J. 2004 Agronomic approaches to increasing water
1111/j.1467-7679.2004.0027 1.x.)
use efficiency. In Water use efficiency in plant biology (ed. M. A.
O'Toole, J. C. & Bland, W L. 1987 Genotypic variation in crop
Bacon), pp. 142-170. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. plant root systems. Adv. Agron. 41, 91-145.
Gregory, P. J. & Ingram, J. S. I. 2000 Global change and food
Parry, M. et al. 2001 Millions at risk: defining critical climate
and forest production: future scientific challenges. Agric.
change threats and targets. Global Environ. Change 11,
Ecosyst. Environ. 82, 3-14. (doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(00)
181-183. (doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00011-5.)
00212-7.)
Pingali, P., & Khawaja, Y. 2004 Globalisation of Indian diets
Gregory, P. J. et al. 1999 Managed production systems. In The
and the transformation offood supply systems. ESA working
terrestrial biosphere and global change: implications for natural
paper no. 04-05. Rome: FAO Economic and Social
and managed systems (ed. B. Walker, W. Steffen, J. Canadell
Department.
& J. S. I. Ingram), pp. 229-270. Cambridge, UK:
Porter, J. R. & Semenov, M. A. 2005 Crop responses to
Cambridge University Press.
climatic variation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 2021-2035.
Gregory, P. J. et al. 2002 Environmental consequences of
(doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1752.)
alternative practices for intensifying crop production. Agric.
Reardon, T., Timmer, C. P., Barrett, C. B. & Berdegue, J. 2003
Ecosyst. Environ. 88, 279-290. (doi:10.1016/S0167-
The rise of supermarkets in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
8809(01)00263-8.)
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 85, 1140-1146. (doi:10.1111/j.0092-
Grievink, J. W 2003 The changing face of the global food
5853.2003.00520.x.)
industry. OECD conference on changing dimensions of the
food economy: exploring the policy issues, The Hague, 6 February
Rosegrant, M. W. & Cline, S. A. 2003 Global food security:
challenges and policies. Science 302, 1917-1919. (doi:10.
2003. webdomino 1. oecd.org/comnet/agr/foodeco.nsf/
1126/science. 1092958.)
viewHtml/index/$FILE/GrievinkPPT.pdf.
Hume, D., Moore, K. & Shepherd, A. 2001 Chronic poverty: Scholes, R. J. & Biggs, R. 2004 Ecosystem services in Southern
meanings and analytical frameworks. CPRC working paper 2.
Africa: a regional assessment. Pretoria, South Africa:
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre.
Ingram, J. S. I., Gregory, P. J. & Brklacich, M. (eds) 2005 Sidhu, R. S. 2005. Patterns and consequences of intensive
GECAFS science plan and implementation strategy. ESSp agricultural growth in Punjab, India. Paper presented at
report, Wallingford, vol. 2. GECAFS Indo-Gangetic Plain Workshop, Delhi 2-3 May
Jones, P. G. & Thornton, P. K. 2003 The potential impacts of 2005. See www.gecafs.org.
climate change on maize production in Africa and Latin Smith, K. A., McTaggart, I. P. & Tsuruta, H. 1997 Emissions
America in 2055. Global Environ. Change 13, 51-59. of N20 and NO associated with nitrogen fertilization in
(doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00090-0.) intensive agriculture, and the potential for mitigation. Soil
Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B. & Morgan, P. B. Use Manag. 13, 296-304.
2005 Global food insecurity. Treatment of major food crops Tilman, D. et al. 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global
with elevated carbon dioxide or ozone under large-scale fully environmental change. Science 292, 281-284. (doi:10.1126/
open-air conditions suggest recent models may have over- science. 1057544.)
estimated future yields. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, Vogel, C. & Smith, J. 2002 The politics of scarcity:
2011-2020. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1749.) conceptualising the current food security crisis in southern
Mahendra Dev, S., Ravi, C., Viswanathan, B. Gulati, A. & Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 98, 315-317.
Ramachander, S. 2004 Economic liberalisation, targeted Von Braun, J., Swaminathan, M. S. & Rosegrant, M. W. 2004
programmes and household food security: a case study of Agriculture, food security, nutrition and the millenium
India. IFPRI Markets, Trade and Institutions Division, development goals. Washington DC, USA: International
Discussion Paper No. 68, Washington DC, USA. Food Policy Research Institute.
Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. & Swift, M. J. 1997Watts, M. J. & Bohle, H.-G. 1993 The space of vulnerability:
Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. the causal structure of hunger and famine. Prog. Hum.
Science 277, 504-509. (doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.504.) Geogr. 17, 43-67.
McClain-Nhlapo, C. (2004). Implementing a Human Rights Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. & Davis, I. 2004 At risk:
Approach to Food Security. International Food Policy natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters, 2nd edn.
Research Institute, 2020 Africa Conference Brief 13. London: Routledge.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2005)

This content downloaded from

35.154.148.54 on Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:52:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms