ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Despite a significant growth in food production over the past half-century, one of the most important challenges facing society today is how to feed an expected population of some nine billion by the middle of the 20th century. To meet the expected demand for food without significant increases in prices, it has been estimated that we need to produce 70-100 per cent more food, in light of the growing impacts of climate change, concerns over energy security, regional dietary shifts and the Millennium Development target of halving world poverty and hunger by 2015. The goal for the agricultural sector is no longer simply to maximize productivity, but to optimize across a far more complex landscape of production, rural development, environmental, social justice and food consumption outcomes. However, there remain significant challenges to developing national and international policies that support the wide emergence of more sustainable forms of land use and efficient agricultural production. The lack of information flow between scientists, practitioners and policy makers is known to exacerbate the difficulties, despite increased emphasis upon evidence-based policy. In this paper, we seek to improve dialogue and understanding between agricultural research and policy by identifying the 100 most important questions for global agriculture. These have been compiled using a horizon-scanning approach with leading experts and representatives of major agricultural organizations worldwide. The aim is to use sound scientific evidence to inform decision making and guide policy makers in the future direction of agricultural research priorities and policy support. If addressed, we anticipate that these questions will have a significant impact on global agricultural practices worldwide, while improving the synergy between agricultural policy, practice and research. This research forms part of the UK Government's Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures project.
The top 100 questions of importance to
the future of global agriculture
Jules Pretty1*, William J. Sutherland2, Jacqueline Ashby3, Jill Auburn4, David Baulcombe5, Michael
Bell6, Jeffrey Bentley7,8, Sam Bickersteth9, Katrina Brown10, Jacob Burke11, Hugh Campbell12, Kevin
Chen13, Eve Crowley14, Ian Crute15, Dirk Dobbelaere16, Gareth Edwards-Jones17, Fernando Funes-
Monzote18, H. Charles J. Godfray19, Michel Griffon20, Phrek Gypmantisiri21, Lawrence Haddad22, Siosiua
Halavatau23, Hans Herren24, Mark Holderness25, Anne-Marie Izac26, Monty Jones27, Parviz Koohafkan28,
Rattan Lal29, Timothy Lang30, Jeffrey McNeely31, Alexander Mueller11, Nicholas Nisbett32, Andrew
Noble33, Prabhu Pingali34, Yvonne Pinto35,36, Rudy Rabbinge37, N. H. Ravindranath38, Agnes Rola39, Niels
Roling37, Colin Sage40, William Settle11, J. M. Sha41, Luo Shiming42, Tony Simons43, Pete Smith44,
Kenneth Strzepeck45, Harry Swaine46, Eugene Terry47, Thomas P. Tomich48, Camilla Toulmin49, Eduardo
Trigo50, Stephen Twomlow51, Jan Kees Vis52, Jeremy Wilson53 and Sarah Pilgrim1
1
University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK
2
Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
3
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Apartado Ae
´reo, 6713 Cali, Colombia
4
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics, US Department of Agriculture, 338A Whitten Building,
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, USA
5
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EA, UK
6
College of Agricultural and Life Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 340C Agricultural Hall, 1450 Linden Drive,
Madison, WI 53706, USA
7
Agricultural Anthropologist, Casilla 2695, Cochabamba, Bolivia
8
CABI Associate, CABI, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, UK
9
Department for International Development (DFID), 1 Palace St, London SW1E 5HE, UK
10
School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
11
UN FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Roma 00153, Italy
12
Centre for the Study of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
13
IFPRI-Beijing, Institute of Agricultural Economics, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Zhongguancun
Nandajie, Beijing, China
14
Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division, UN FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Roma 00153, Italy
15
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Stoneleigh Park, Kenilworth, Warwickshire CV8 2TL, UK
16
University of Bern, Vetsuisse Faculty, Molecular Pathobiology, Laenggassstrasse 122, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
17
School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, Wales
LL57 2UW, UK
18
Estacio
´n Experimental Indio Hatuey, Universidad de Matanzas, Central Espan
˜a Republicana, Perico, Matanzas, Cuba
19
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK
20
National Research Agency, 212, rue de Bercy, 75012 Paris, France
21
Multiple Cropping Centre, Faculty of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
22
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
23
Secretariat of the Pacific Community, South Pacific Campus, Nabua, Fiji
24
Millennium Institute, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22201, USA
25
Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) Secretariat, UN FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Roma 00153, Italy
26
Consortium Office, Consortium of the CGIAR Centres, c/o UN FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Roma 00153, Italy
27
FARA Secretariat, PMB CT 173 Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
28
UN-FAO Land and Water Division, Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, Viale delle Terme di
Caracalla, Roma 00153, Italy
29
School of Environment and Natural Resources, Ohio State University, 422B Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH
43210, USA
30
City University London, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK
31
International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland 1196, Switzerland
32
UK Government Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET, UK
*Corresponding author. Email: jpretty@essex.ac.uk
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 8(4) 2010
PAGES 219–236, doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0534 #2010 Earthscan. ISSN: 1473-5903 (print), 1747-762X (online). www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/ijas
33
International Water Management Institute SE and Central Asia, National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute,
Vientiane, Lao PDR
34
Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA 98102, USA
35
Agricultural Learning and Impacts Network (ALINe), Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1
9RE, UK
36
Acting Deputy Investigator, Africa and Europe: Partnerships for Food and Farming, Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial
College, 15 Princes Gardens, London SW7 1NA UK
37
Wageningen University, 6700 HB Wageningen, The Netherlands
38
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
39
College of Public Affairs, University of the Philippines, Los Ban
˜os, Laguna 4031, Philippines
40
Department of Geography, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Republic of Ireland
41
Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China
42
South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
43
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), CGIAR Consortium, UN Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya
44
Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar
Drive, Aberdeen, Scotland AB24 3UU, UK
45
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0260, USA
46
Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 2Y2
47
Agricultural Technology Clearing House and Consulting (ATECHO), 4109 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20011, USA
48
Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis 95616-8523, USA
49
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 4 Endsleigh Street, London WC1H 0DD, UK
50
Grupo CEO, Hipolito Yrigoyen 785, Piso 5M, Buenos Aires, Argentina
51
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), PO Box 30552 (00100), Nairobi, Kenya
52
Unilever, Olivier van Noortlaan 120, 3133 AT Vlaardingen, The Netherlands
53
RSPB Scotland, Dunedin House, 25 Ravelston Terrace, Edinburgh EH4 3TP, UK
Despite a significant growth in food production over the past half-century, one of the most important challenges facing
society today is how to feed an expected population of some nine billion by the middle of the 20th century. To meet the
expected demand for food without significant increases in prices, it has been estimated that we need to produce
70100 per cent more food, in light of the growing impacts of climate change, concerns over energy security,
regional dietary shifts and the Millennium Development target of halving world poverty and hunger by 2015. The
goal for the agricultural sector is no longer simply to maximize productivity, but to optimize across a far more
complex landscape of production, rural development, environmental, social justice and food consumption
outcomes. However, there remain significant challenges to developing national and international policies that
support the wide emergence of more sustainable forms of land use and efficient agricultural production. The lack of
information flow between scientists, practitioners and policy makers is known to exacerbate the difficulties, despite
increased emphasis upon evidence-based policy. In this paper, we seek to improve dialogue and understanding
between agricultural research and policy by identifying the 100 most important questions for global agriculture.
These have been compiled using a horizon-scanning approach with leading experts and representatives of major
agricultural organizations worldwide. The aim is to use sound scientific evidence to inform decision making and
guide policy makers in the future direction of agricultural research priorities and policy support. If addressed, we
anticipate that these questions will have a significant impact on global agricultural practices worldwide, while
improving the synergy between agricultural policy, practice and research. This research forms part of the UK
Government’s Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures project.
Keywords: Farming; food security; global agriculture; horizon scanning; policy; research questions
Introduction
Despite a significant growth in food production over
the past half-century, one of the most important chal-
lenges facing society today is how to feed an expected
population of some nine billion by the middle of the
20th century. To meet the expected demand for food
without significant increases in prices, it has been esti-
mated that we need to produce 70 100 per cent more
food, in light of the growing impacts of climate
change and concerns over energy security (FAO,
2009a; Godfray et al., 2010). It will also require
finding new ways to remedy inequalities in access to
food. Today the world produces sufficient food to
feed its population, but there remain more than one
billion people who suffer from food insecurity and
malnutrition (IAASTD, 2009). This challenge is
amplified further by increased purchasing power and
dietary shifts in many parts of the globe, barriers to
food access and distribution, particularly in the
poorest regions, and pressure to meet the Millennium
Development Goal of halving world poverty and
Pretty et al.220
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
hunger by 2015 (World Bank, 2007; Pretty, 2008;
IAASTD, 2009; Royal Society, 2009). Despite the
emergence of many innovations and technological
advances in recent decades, this combination of
drivers poses novel and complex challenges for
global agriculture, which is under pressure to ensure
food and energy security in ways that are environmen-
tally and socially sustainable (National Research
Council, 2010a). Complicating matters further, the
past half-decade has seen a growing volatility of
food prices with severe impacts for the world’s poor,
most notably during the food price peaks of 2007
2008 (von Braun, 2010), and political and scientific
controversy over the role that biofuels play (FAO,
2008; Fargione et al., 2008; Searchinger et al.,
2008) in affecting carbon sinks and emissions.
Indeed, land-use change (for any purpose) is already
implicated as a major driver of global change
(Tilman et al., 2001; InterAcademy Council, 2004;
Rockstrom et al., 2009; Harvey and Pilgrim, 2010).
Agricultural and food systems are estimated to
account for one-third of global greenhouse gas emis-
sions, more than twice that of the transport sector
(IPCC, 2007; Harvey and Pilgrim, 2010). Thus the
goal of the agricultural sector is no longer simply to
maximize productivity, but to optimize it across a
far more complex landscape of production, rural
development, environmental and social justice out-
comes (IAASTD, 2009; Godfray et al., 2010; Sachs
et al., 2010).
The complexity of drivers facing global agriculture
has recently received growing recognition (World
Bank, 2007; Royal Society, 2009; National Research
Council, 2010a). However, there remain significant
challenges to developing national and international
policies that support the wider emergence of
more sustainable forms of land use and efficient
agricultural production across both industrialized
and developing countries (Pretty, 2008). The com-
plexity, and often lack, of information flow between
scientists, practitioners and policy makers is
known to exacerbate the difficulties, despite
increased emphasis upon evidence-based policy
(Defra, 2003; Sutherland et al., 2004, 2010b;
Haddad et al., 2009). In this paper, we seek to
improve dialogue and understanding between agricul-
tural research and policy by identifying 100 of the
most important questions for global agriculture.
These have been compiled by leading experts and
representatives of major agricultural organizations
across the world, and the aim is to use sound scientific
evidence to inform decision making and guide policy
makers in the future direction of agricultural research
priorities and policy support. Just as it is imperative to
ensure that policy decisions are informed by scientific
knowledge and priorities, it is also vital that research
should be directed at issues that influence current
and future policy frameworks and be relevant to the
needs and issues of farmers and agriculturalists in
different parts of the world, enabling public science
and policy institutions to become proactive rather
than reactive (Pretty, 2009). It is also important to
note that the solutions to agricultural problems are
likely to be context and culture specific while the fol-
lowing 100 questions are generic and context neutral.
The horizon-scanning approach used here has been
employed previously to identify questions of greatest
relevance to policy makers, practitioners and aca-
demic researchers in the fields of ecology and conser-
vation (Sutherland et al., 2006, 2009). The latter was
based on consultations with representatives from the
world’s major conservation organizations, pro-
fessional scientific societies and universities. It tar-
geted researchers who wanted to make their work
more applicable to the practices of conservation and
organizations wishing to review and direct their
research and funding programmes. The former was
based on consultations with representatives
from 37 UK organizations, including government,
non-government organizations (NGOs) and acade-
mia. In this case, the questions were selected by
policy makers and practitioners and the target audi-
ence was the academic community. Since 2006, a
number of similar collaborative exercises have been
conducted in the UK, the USA and Canada to identify
priority research questions, opportunities for develop-
ing new policies and emerging issues in conservation
(Sutherland et al., 2008, 2009, 2010a).
Our objective was to compile a list of the top 100
questions that, if addressed, would have a significant
impact on global agricultural practices worldwide,
while improving the synergy between agricultural
policy, practice and research. In order to meet this
objective, we employed a collaborative and inclusive
horizon-scanning approach designed to maximize
openness to different perspectives, democracy in con-
solidating these perspectives, and scientific rigour
(Sutherland et al., 2010b). We gathered a team of
senior representatives and experts from the world’s
major agricultural organizations, professional scienti-
fic societies, non-government and academic insti-
tutions, which are linked in various ways to the
potential beneficiaries of this research, including
farmers and policy makers. The intention is that the
Top 100 agricultural questions 221
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
list of questions thus devised will guide policy support
and priorities for agricultural research programmes in
the coming years. Therefore, our intended audiences
include policy makers involved in directing future
agricultural policy and research, and researchers
looking to direct and prioritize their own efforts and
programmes of work. The questions fell into a
number of areas or themes that were identified as a pri-
ority for future agricultural research. This paper
reports on the final list of questions that emerged
and discusses each group of questions by placing
them within the context of current agricultural
issues. This research forms part of the UK Govern-
ment’s Foresight project on Global Food and
Farming Futures.
Methods
A multi-disciplinary team of senior representatives
and experts from the world’s major agricultural organ-
izations, professional scientific societies and aca-
demic institutions was selected to form a Core
Group of experts to identify the top 100 questions
for global agriculture and food. This resulted in 45
institutions being contacted from countries across
the world. Although the headquarters of many inter-
national institutions were based in Western Europe
or North America, most of the representatives have
extensive agricultural experience outside those
regions since these entities have international or
global mandates. Invitations were sent that outlined
the procedure and responsibilities of Core Group
members. The final Core Group comprised 55
senior representatives based in 21 countries. The list
of authors in the author group provides details of indi-
viduals and their participating institutions.
The list of 100 questions was arrived at through
a three-stage process. Initially, all Core Group
members were asked to canvas their professional net-
works and consult widely among their colleagues in
order to submit a list of priority questions. Core
Group members were encouraged to think widely
and consult with those outside of their particular
expertise (Sutherland et al., 2010b). A number of
approaches were employed to solicit questions,
including convening workshops, seminars, discus-
sions groups and circulating e-mails, in which other
members of the institution could nominate questions
answerable by research, but for which substantial
knowledge does not already exist. Questions had to
fill a number of criteria: (i) they had to be answerable
and capable of a realistic research design; (ii) they had
to be capable of a factual answer and not dependent on
value judgements; (iii) they had to be questions that
have not already been answered; (iv) questions on
impact and interventions should have a subject, an
intervention and a measurable outcome; (v) questions
for which yes or no are likely answers were unsuita-
ble; and (vi) questions should be of the scale that in
theory a team might have a reasonable attempt at
answering. An ideal question suggests the design of
research that is required to answer it or can be envi-
sioned as translating the question into discrete and
more directly testable research hypotheses
(Pullin et al., 2009). A total of 618 formalized ques-
tions (along with the name and organization of the
person who suggested the question) were submitted
for consideration.
The submitted questions were sorted into 14 themes
relating to agricultural priorities: (a) climate, water-
sheds, water resources and aquatic ecosystems;
(b) soil nutrition, erosion and use of fertilizer; (c) bio-
diversity, ecosystem services and conservation;
(d) energy, climate change and resilience; (e) crop pro-
duction systems and technologies; (f) crop genetic
improvement; (g) pest and disease management;
(h) livestock; (i) social capital, gender and extension;
(j) development and livelihoods; (k) governance,
economic investment, power and policy making;
(l) food supply chains; (m) prices, markets and
trade; (n) consumption patterns and health. The
Core Group was then divided into 14 Expert Groups
(comprising 3 5 experts), each led by one coordina-
tor, responsible for introducing and developing a
designated theme. Core Group members were
invited to join as many Expert Groups as they
wished; no limits were put on group size. The task
of the Expert Groups was to review the unabridged
questions (authors’ names and affiliations were
removed at this point to reduce potential bias) in
their allocated theme, revise, recombine or reword
them where relevant to ensure clarity and lack of rep-
etition, add new questions where there are gaps, and
then sort them into five ‘Essential’ questions, and
around 10 ‘Possible’ questions (the latter was flexible
and left to the discretion of each group). Essential
questions were defined as those questions that, if
answered, would have the greatest impact on global
agriculture and food systems worldwide. The remain-
ing questions were rejected. Ranking of questions was
avoided as this was perceived to increase the pressure
to create broad questions (Sutherland et al., 2010b).
To enhance participation and transparency, all 14
Pretty et al.222
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
groups of questions were circulated to Core Group
members electronically. This gave each participant
the opportunity to refine and develop questions in
any theme as they saw fit. This culminated in a list
of 70 Essential and 146 Possible questions spread
across the 14 themes.
In the final stage, the 70 Essential questions ident-
ified by the Expert Groups automatically qualified
for inclusion in the final 100. The other 30 questions
were selected from the 146 Possible questions
through an electronic voting process mediated by a
secretariat. Each Core Group member was given a
maximum of 30 votes; these could be allocated to
the Possible questions of their choice. Core Group
members were asked to review and vote on the full
list of Possible questions, not just the questions rel-
evant to their theme. In total, 1385 votes were cast.
At all stages, Core Group members were invited to
revise and rephrase questions where they felt it rel-
evant. The data were then compiled, the total scores
for each question were calculated, and the 30 ques-
tions with the most votes were selected for inclusion
in the final 100. The final list of 100 questions was
then circulated to all Core Group members for a
final round of editing.
Results
We have organized the 100 questions into four over-
arching sections that reflect stages of the agricultural
production system: (i) natural resource inputs;
(ii) agronomic practice; (iii) agricultural development;
and (iv) markets and consumption. There is some
overlap between different themes, for instance con-
cerns about crop genetic improvement often relate to
biodiversity conservation, or questions about live-
stock refer to climate change, but we have ensured
that there is no repetition in the final list. The final
100 questions are not ranked in order of priority.
Section 1: Natural resource inputs
Climate, watersheds, water resources and
aquatic ecosystems
Climate change predictions point to a warmer world
within the next 50 years, yet the impact of rising
temperatures on rainfall distribution patterns in
much of the world remains far less certain (IPCC,
2007). The situation for oceans is equally serious,
with coastal ocean temperatures documented to be
warming 3 5 times more rapidly than the projections
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
and the capacity of marine ecosystems to sequester
one-half of global carbon becoming impaired
(Henson, 2008). From a global food security perspec-
tive, many commercial fish species are becoming
economically extinct, with recent surveys showing
63 per cent of fish stocks globally needing intensive
management towards rebuilding biomass and diver-
sity due to exploitation (FAO, 2005).
Interventions are required across scales, from small
fields to communities, watersheds, catchments and
ultimately whole river basins, with a focus on increas-
ing the productivity of both ‘green’ and ‘blue’ water
use (Humphreys et al., 2008). In some countries,
85 per cent of diverted water resources are now
directed into agriculture with increasing competition
for urban and industrial usage. For this reason, the
need for improved crop, soil and water management
practices, particularly in light of climate change, is
growing.
1. What are the predicted critical impacts of climate
change (e.g. changes in temperature, wind speed,
humidity and water availability, storm intensity,
crop water requirements, snowmelt and seasonal
runoff, pests, waterlogging, agroecosystem shifts,
human migration) on agricultural yields, cropping
practices, crop disease spread, disease resistance
and irrigation development?
2. What would be the global cost of capping agricul-
tural water withdrawals if environmental reserves
were to be maintained?
3. What is the effect of increased rainwater harvesting
on local hydrological fluxes, and how do local
changes combine and alter water resource avail-
ability at larger geographic scales?
4. How can aquaculture and open water farming be
developed so that impacts on wild fish stocks and
coastal and aquatic habitats are minimized?
5. What approaches (operational, agronomic,
genetic, supplemental irrigation schemes, fertility
management, winter rainfall storage) can be devel-
oped to increase water use efficiency in agriculture
and what is the cost-effectiveness of these
approaches?
6. What combinations of forestry, agroforestry, grass
cover, water-collecting systems and storage facili-
ties, drought-resistant crops and water-saving tech-
nology are needed in arid and semi-arid areas to
increase food production, and to what extent can
they become cost-effective?
Top 100 agricultural questions 223
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
7. How can the allocation of water be optimized
between irrigated agriculture and environmental
functions, and what innovative policies and tech-
nologies can minimize trade-offs between irriga-
tion and healthy functions of natural ecosystems?
Soil nutrition, erosion and use of fertilizer
The management of soil fertility is essential to enhan-
cing and sustaining agronomic and biomass pro-
ductivity. Nutrients harvested in crops (i.e. grains,
roots and tubers, stover, fruits, timber) need to be
replaced in order to ensure that the innate nutrient
capital of the soil is not eroded. Intensively managed
agroecosystems are only sustainable in the long term
if the outputs of all components produced are balanced
by appropriate inputs. Whether the required amount of
plant nutrients to obtain the desired yield is supplied
through organic (biofertilizers) or inorganic (synthetic
chemicals) means is a matter of logistics, availability,
prices, environmental impacts and the scale at which
nutrient sources and sinks are assessed. Plants do not
differentiate the nutrients supplied through organic or
inorganic sources. An important issue is that of nutrient
availability, in sufficient quantity, in appropriate forms,
and at the phenological stage when nutrient availability
is critical for optimum growth and yields. For an
equivalent amount of nutrients required, supplying
through manure, compost and other biofertilizers
has positive impacts on soil physical, chemical and
biological quality. However, the bulk amount
(510Mg/ha/year) required for 1.5 billion hectares of
cropland poses logistical questions of availability,
transport and application.
Excessive removal of fertile surface soil by water
and wind erosion is an important form of soil degra-
dation and leads to desertification. As soil organic
matter and plant nutrients are concentrated in
surface soils, these materials along with the clay frac-
tion are removed preferentially. In addition to the loss
of nutrient reserves and the decrease in effective
rooting depth, loss of water as runoff and long-term
reduction in available water capacity also adversely
impact crop growth and yield. Soil degradation by
the depletion of nutrients and soil organic carbon
pools, exacerbated by a perpetual use of extractive
farming practices, is a major issue in developing
countries of sub-Saharan Africa, south and South
East Asia and the Caribbean.
8. What benefits can sustainable soil management
deliver for both agricultural production and deliv-
ery of other ecosystem services?
9. What are the best uses of organic amendments by
subsistence farmers in cropping systems to
improve soil nutrients and water-holding
capacities and thereby assist in restoring
agroecosystems?
10. What are the most practical and economic
methods for managing soil fertility in paddy
soils and upland production systems in the
tropics?
11. What guidelines can be established for poor
small-scale farmers to ensure that nitrogen fertili-
zation is managed in a way that results in net
accretion of soil organic carbon rather than net
mineralization?
12. How can salinization be prevented and remedied?
13. How can native soil organisms be exploited to
maximize food productivity and minimize
environmental impacts?
14. What are the world’s mobilizable stocks and
reserves of phosphate, and are they sufficient to
support adequate levels of food production glob-
ally for the next century?
Biodiversity, ecosystem services and
conservation
Agriculture has been a leading cause of loss of global
biodiversity due to conversion of natural habitats,
such as forests and wetlands, into farmland (Green
et al., 2005). Furthermore, the increased efficiency
of agriculture has resulted in dramatic declines of
many species using farmland habitat. Key drivers
include the increased use of synthetic pesticides, her-
bicides and fertilizers, increased landscape homogen-
eity due to regional and farm-level specialization,
drainage of water logged fields, loss of marginal and
uncropped habitat patches, and reduction of fallow
periods within arable rotations (Robinson and Suther-
land, 2002; Benton et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2009).
Moreover, the intensification of agriculture has been
central to the degradation of ecosystem services, and
has both increased the production of greenhouse
gases and the reduced levels of carbon sequestration
(UNEP, 2010).
The major challenge is to understand the best com-
promises between increasing food production while
minimizing the negative impacts on biodiversity, eco-
system services and society. Increased global food
production must come from some combination of
increased production on land already farmed or an
increase in farm area. Furthermore, new technologies
will provide a means of increasing both the intensity
of agriculture and the areas suitable for agriculture,
Pretty et al.224
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
for example through drought-resistant crops. Deter-
mining the best compromise requires an improved
understanding of how to use new technologies,
agri-environment schemes and the balance of intensi-
fication and extensification to ensure sustainable food
production, ecosystems services, biodiversity and
socioeconomic impacts.
15. What is the relationship between productivity and
biodiversity (and/or other ecosystem services)
and how does this vary between agricultural
systems and as a function of the spatial scale at
which land is devoted mostly to food production?
16. How should the options of intensification, exten-
sification, habitat restoration or the status quo be
chosen and how can we best combine measures
of economic, environmental and social benefit
to make the choice?
17. What are the environmental consequences of
drought-resistant crops in different locations?
18. What are the consequences for biodiversity con-
servation and delivery of other ecosystem ser-
vices if crop and livestock management is
driven by the objectives of greenhouse gas emis-
sion reduction?
19. In intensive production systems, are agri-
environment measures best deployed to buffer
protected areas and areas of pristine or semi-
natural habitat, or to ‘soften the matrix’ between
patches of these habitats?
20. Where would natural habitat restoration provide
the greatest food and environmental benefits to
society?
21. What type and specific combinations of improved
technologies, farming practices, institutions and
policies will result in the maintenance of ecosys-
tem services, including soil fertility, in agricul-
tural systems undergoing intensification in
developing countries, in particular in sub-
Saharan Africa?
22. Can payments for ecosystem services
(e.g. carbon sequestration, green water credits,
biodiversity enrichment) lead to adoption of rec-
ommended land-use and management practices
by resource-poor farmers in developing
countries?
Energy, climate change and resilience
As demand for energy grows in the coming decades,
alternative energy sources will need to be identified
to sustain the growing global population. Agriculture
uses a considerable amount of energy, both directly in
machinery, and embedded within products used in
agriculture (Schneider and Smith, 2009). The effects
of high oil prices on low-income rural households,
and globally on agricultural inputs (pesticides and
nitrogen fertilizers), transport, tillage and irrigation
systems, could produce declines in agricultural pro-
ductivity, thus exacerbating the pressures to expand
the area of cultivated land at lower levels of pro-
ductivity (Harvey and Pilgrim, 2010).
Climate change is now one of the greatest chal-
lenges facing humanity, and it will impact agriculture
in many ways, some positive and some negative. The
already significant challenge of producing more food
using fewer inputs is exacerbated by the need for agri-
culture to adapt to climate change, while also reducing
greenhouse gas emissions arising from agriculture in
order to mitigate climate change (Smith and Olesen,
2010). Resilience to climate change will need to be
a key property of sustainable agricultural systems in
the coming decades, particularly in those regions pro-
jected to experience severe ecological shifts due to a
changing climate.
23. What are the best options for agriculture increas-
ing food production while simultaneously redu-
cing its contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions?
24. What will be the risk of mass migration arising
from adverse climate change, and how will this
impact on agricultural systems?
25. Given the high current direct and indirect energy
inputs into agriculture, how can food production
be made carbon neutral to allow emission targets
to be met over the next 40 years?
26. How would different market mechanisms of
payment for greenhouse gas reduction and
carbon storage in agriculture affect farming and
how could these best be implemented?
27. How can competing demands on land for pro-
duction of food and energy best be balanced to
ensure the provision of ecosystem services
while maintaining adequate yields and prices?
28. How can the resilience of agricultural systems be
improved to both gradual climate change and
increased climatic variability and extremes?
29. What is the appropriate mix of intensification and
extensification required to deliver increased pro-
duction, greenhouse gas reduction and increased
ecosystem services?
30. How can crop breeding, new technologies, the
use of traditional crops and improved agronomic
Top 100 agricultural questions 225
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
practice be balanced to increase food production
and enhance resilience to future climate change?
31. How can the transition from a hydrocarbon-based
economy to a carbohydrate-based economy best
be made using biorefineries to process agricul-
tural products to provide high-value products,
biomaterials, energy and soil improvers, in
addition to the food products currently produced?
32. How can long-term carbon sinks best be created
on farms (e.g. by soil management practices,
perennial crops, trees, ponds, biochar)?
33. How can the inclusion of agriculture in carbon
markets provide significant benefits for farmers?
Section 2: Agronomic practice
Crop production systems and technologies
Crop production will have to increase by 70 100
per cent to meet growing food and feed demand
driven by human population growth and likely
increases in income generation during the 21st
century (FAO, 2009a; Godfray et al., 2010). More-
over, because of limits on land and water resources,
a significant increase in production must come
through acceleration of the rate of technological
change to propel the sustainable intensification of
crop and livestock production systems (World Bank,
2007; FAO, 2009b; Royal Society, 2009; Godfray
et al., 2010; National Research Council, 2010a).
The contending paradigms that have tended to
divide strategies based on agricultural biotechnology
and organic systems have only begun to receive the
scientific attention they deserve (Royal Society,
2009; National Research Council, 2010b). There is,
for example, often a lack of consensus on the coexis-
tence of organic agriculture and genetically modified
(GM) technologies. An emerging discourse suggests
that what is needed is not a single path but many
paths of sustainable intensification based on a wide
variety of systems (from fallow rotation, agroforestry,
mixed crop-livestock and crop aquaculture systems to
minimum tillage and precision agriculture) that are
appropriate to a large number of specific agroecologi-
cal and socioeconomic contexts. It will be increas-
ingly important to understand how science-based
efforts can respond to real challenges and produce
results useful to sustainable intensification that fit a
diversity of circumstances.
34. What are the benefits and risks of embracing the
different types of agricultural biotechnology
(environmental impacts; sensitivity/resistance to
environmental stressors such as heat, drought,
salinity; dependence on/independence from
inputs; risks of accelerated resistance; food
safety, human health and nutrition; economic,
social and cultural impacts)?
35. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
organic production systems in terms of biodiver-
sity, ecosystem services, yield and human
health, particularly in resource-poor developing
countries?
36. What practical measures are needed to lower the
ideological barriers between organic and GM,
and thus fully exploit the combined potential of
both GM crops and organic modes of production
in order to achieve agroecological management
practices compatible with the sustainable intensi-
fication of food production?
37. What is the long-term capacity of fossil fuels and
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer
stocks to support intensive production systems
globally?
38. How can food production systems that reduce
dependence on externally derived nitrogen, phos-
phorus and potassium resources be designed?
39. How can we develop agreed metrics to monitor
progress towards sustainability in different agri-
cultural systems that are appropriate for, and
acceptable to, different agroecological, social,
economic and political contexts?
40. What part can reclamation, restoration and reha-
bilitation of degraded land play in increasing
global food production?
41. What are the best integrated cropping and mixed
system options (including fallow rotations and
other indigenous cropping systems for cereals,
tubers and other staples, agroforestry, crop-
livestock and crop-aquaculture systems) for
different agroecological and socioeconomic
situations, taking account of climate and market
risk, farm household assets and farmers’
circumstances?
Crop genetic improvement
Since the earliest domestication of crops for food,
fibre and fodder some 10,000 years ago, humans
have been beneficially exploiting through selection
the wide genetic diversity that is readily encountered
in most crop species and their close relatives
(Hancock, 2005). However, it was only at the turn
of the 20th century that scientifically based crop
breeding commenced (Biffin, 1905). Over the past
Pretty et al.226
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
century, improvements in the yield and quality of the
limited number of crop species on which humans now
depend have been remarkable. For example, yields of
maize, rice and wheat in China are 36, 25 and 60 per
cent higher, respectively, now than they were 20 years
ago (FAO, 2009c). For the first five decades after the
turn of the last century, advances were made almost
exclusively by hybridization (including inter-specific
hybridization) followed by selection. Subsequently, a
range of technologies, including tissue culture, muta-
genesis, genetic transformation and a range of marker-
aided selection methodologies, have enabled greater
genetic diversity to be explored, created and exploited
with increased efficiency (Allard, 1999). The green
revolution of the 1960s was founded on the selection
of wheat and rice types with a semi-dwarf habit that
enabled yields to double (Ruttan, 1977; Khush,
1999). In other crops such as maize and many veg-
etables, the advent of genetic technology enabled
hybrid vigour and crop uniformity to be exploited
with a huge impact on productivity (Allard, 1999;
George, 2009).
However, despite the enormous contribution that
plant breeding has made to the elevation of crop
yield and quality in agriculture, there are some
crops and geographical regions or cropping environ-
ments where less effort has been expended. There
are also biophysical limits to yield potential
(Gressel, 2010). At the same time, increased empha-
sis on the need for improved resource use efficiency
(water, energy, nutrients) in crop production systems
coupled with reduced greenhouse gas emissions has
begun to alter the priorities for the traits to be tar-
geted in genetic improvement programmes (Khush,
1999; Tilman et al., 2002). Nutritional crop quality
for livestock and humans is also assuming a higher
priority (Bouis, 1996). Moreover, public, private
and philanthropic investment in crop genetic
improvement has, over the last two decades, been
both stimulated and constrained by issues related
to the protection of intellectual property (Blakeney,
2009) and regulation of technology (Gressel,
2008). This particularly relates to the patenting and
restricted licensing of genes and advanced technol-
ogies that facilitate gene identification, gene transfer
or targeted mutagenesis, as well as the regulatory
frameworks that have been developed to assess
and respond to perceived risks.
42. What are the gains in resource use efficiency that
could be achieved by crop genetic improvement
for resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses?
43. What improvements to crop varieties can be
made to ensure that emissions of greenhouse
gases from agriculture and horticulture are sig-
nificantly reduced?
44. What is the comparative effectiveness of different
genetic approaches to the development of crops
with tolerance of abiotic stresses such as frost,
heat, drought, waterlogging, acid infertility and
salinity?
45. What is the efficiency of different ways to geneti-
cally improve the nutrient-use efficiency of crops
and simultaneously increase yield?
46. What impact can crop genetic improvement have
on levels of micronutrients available to humans,
livestock and fish?
Pest and disease management
New pests and diseases continue to damage crop
yields and catch farmers and agriculturalists
unaware. The history of pest research is dominated
by these catastrophes, demanding emergency
research. New problems will emerge in the future,
and perhaps even more urgently, as climate change
alters pest crop relations in unforeseeable ways.
Substantial progress has been made over the
decades since the 1960s in developing Integrated
Pest Management (IPM). From its beginnings with
classical biological control and host-plant resistance,
to more recent efforts at targeted plant species diversi-
fication methods, such as ‘push pull’ techniques
(Hassanali et al., 2008) and other landscape manage-
ment methods for enhanced biological control, IPM
has been fundamentally an agroecological approach
to pest and disease management. Nevertheless,
despite its successes and multiple benefits to farmers
and to society, research and application of IPM
methods is lagging (National Research Council,
2010a).
However, pest research has tended to be dominated
by an insect bias, with diseases in second place and
weeds third. Research needs to broaden to study
causal organisms in proportion to the damage they
cause. Recent donor-driven and academic pest man-
agement research has focused on IPM techniques,
with a bias towards alternatives to chemical control.
Meanwhile industry has contributed to research on
new technologies, for example, pest-resistant geneti-
cally modified organisms, and pesticides that are
lethal to insects but less toxic to vertebrates
(e.g. chitin growth inhibitors). Meaningful engage-
ment is needed between these sectors in the future.
Pest and disease management can contribute to
Top 100 agricultural questions 227
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
increased food production, but only by developing a
new generation of technology that controls the
heavy crop and post-harvest losses caused by bugs,
birds, weeds and microorganisms. In this way, effec-
tive pest and disease management can help reduce
poverty and hunger. The added threat of global
climate change clearly makes even more imperative
the need for both adaptive management and rapid
innovation to address future threats to agricultural
development.
47. What evidence exists to indicate that climate
change will change pest and disease incidence?
48. How can insecticide application in agriculture be
modified to lessen the evolution of pesticide
resistance in mosquitoes and other major
vectors of human disease?
49. How can landscape-level interventions help pest
management and which approaches are the
most economically and socially sustainable?
50. How can perennial-based farming systems
include cover crops as a pest management
method and what are the economic and non-
economic costs and benefits?
51. How can intensive livestock systems be designed
to minimize the spread of infectious diseases
among animals and the risk of the emergence of
new diseases infecting humans?
52. How can increasing both crop and non-crop bio-
diversity help in pest and disease management?
Livestock
Livestock provide a valuable source of food (CAST,
2001) and play important agricultural and cultural
roles in societies worldwide (Sansoucy, 1995;
Schiere et al., 2002; FAO, 2009d). The livestock
sector supports almost one billion of the world’s
poorest people, often in combination with cropping.
With livestock constituting the world’s largest user
of land resources (80 per cent of all agricultural land
is under grazing or feed crops) and 8 per cent of
global water use, the sustainability of livestock pro-
duction systems is increasingly being addressed
(Steinfeld et al., 2006).
The livestock sector faces many challenges, such as
the need to adapt to changing climates, which will
provide more favourable or hostile environments for
particular species and breeds. Furthermore, the live-
stock sector generates 37 per cent of anthropogenic
methane, in addition to carbon dioxide (9 per cent)
and nitrous oxide (65 per cent) (Steinfeld et al.,
2006). Given the great diversity between regions and
species, the options for specific livestock production
systems will need to be defined, and the trade-offs
assessed. Tailored approaches are needed to avoid sim-
plistic solutions to diverse and complex livelihood
systems, so that they can meet the demand for livestock
products in an environmentally sound and economi-
cally sustainable way.
53. How can middle and small-scale animal pro-
duction be made suitable for developing
countries in terms of environmental impact, econ-
omic return and human food supply and what
should be the key government policies to ensure
that a balance between the two is implemented?
54. What are the priority efficiency targets for live-
stock production systems (e.g. the appropriate
mix of activities in different systems, the
optimal numbers and types of animals) that
would enable these systems to meet the demand
for livestock products in an environmentally
sound, economically sustainable and socially
responsible way?
55. What are the effective and efficient policies and
other interventions to reduce the demand for
animal products in societies with high consump-
tion levels and how will they affect global trade in
livestock products and the competitiveness of
smallholder livestock production systems in
poor countries?
56. In addition to livestock production, how can
inland and coastal fish farming contribute to a
more sustainable mode of animal protein pro-
duction in developing countries?
57. What are the best means to encourage the econ-
omic growth of regional livestock markets,
while limiting the effects of global climate
change, and what can industrialized countries
do to improve the carbon footprint of its livestock
sector?
58. What are the environmental impacts of different
kinds of livestock-rearing and aquaculture
systems?
Section 3: Agricultural development
Social capital, gender and extension
Social capital describes the importance of social
relationships in cultural and economic life and
includes such concepts as the trust and solidarity
that exists between people who work in groups and
networks, and the use of reciprocity and exchange to
Pretty et al.228
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
build relationships in order to achieve collective and
mutually beneficial outcomes. Norms of behaviour,
coupled with sanctions, help to shape the behaviour
of individuals, thereby encouraging collective action
and cooperation for the common good. Social
capital is thus seen as an important pre-requisite to
the adoption of sustainable behaviours and technol-
ogies over large areas, as well as a precondition for
the sustainable management of certain resources and
technologies. Farmer participation in technology
development and participatory extension approaches
have emerged as a response to such new thinking
and farmer involvement enables novel technologies
and practices to be learned directly and then adapted
to particular agroecological, social and economic cir-
cumstances (Godfray et al., 2010). Farmer participa-
tory research, on-farm testing and farmer selection
of plant materials will need increasingly to be
embedded in research, extension and development
institutions. Agricultural advisory and extension ser-
vices are a vital element in the whole research for
development process and a range of market and non-
market entities and agents provide critical services in
support of improving farmers’ and other rural
people’s welfare (World Bank, 2007; Anderson,
2008).
Changing agricultural research and development
from current biases towards male farmers to gender-
equitable is not merely an issue of political correctness
or ideology; it is a matter of development effective-
ness that can benefit all of society. Creating a gender-
equitable agricultural research and development
system is a transformative intervention, leading to
opportunities, commodities, relationships and ser-
vices that ultimately change the way people do
things. By understanding both the constraints and
opportunities for women in agriculture, it will be poss-
ible to develop new ways to address their needs and
enhance their contributions in order to improve agri-
cultural productivity, food security and poverty
reduction (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2010). What will
also be required will be new metrics of social
change and institutional learning.
59. As agriculture is highly knowledge intensive and
institutionally determined, what is the effective-
ness of different novel extension strategies and
how best can they be set up to facilitate insti-
tutional change and technical innovation with
the aim of ensuring that the widest number of
farmers are reached and engaged?
60. How much can agricultural education, extension,
farmer mobilization and empowerment be
achieved by the new opportunities afforded by
mobile phone and web-based technologies?
61. Which models and mechanisms for private sector
funding or co-financing of extension advisory
systems have most successfully reached farmers
otherwise excluded from public sector extension
services?
62. What are the most effective approaches for retain-
ing women in research and extension systems and
ensuring that they are fully involved in the design
of research and extension systems to meet both
gender-specific and wider needs?
63. What are the best social learning and multi-
stakeholder models (e.g. farmers field schools)
to bring together farmers, researchers, advisors,
commercial enterprises, policy makers and
other key actors to develop better technologies
and institutions, for a more equitable, sustainable
and innovative agriculture?
Development and livelihoods
Securing livelihoods, in particular rural livelihoods,
rather than raising income, is an organizing principle
for much development assistance, with a major focus
on livelihoods diversification as a means of lifting
people out of poverty (Ellis, 2000; InterAcademy
Council, 2004; Barrett and Swallow, 2006) and on the
role of agricultural intensification, farm and off-farm
income, and agricultural inputs. De-agrarianization,
especially in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia,
India, China), but also in sub-Saharan Africa, is a
noted phenomenon (Bryceson, 2002). Increasing food
insecurity has also been related to the declining invest-
ments in agriculture worldwide, and has prompted
renewed interest in agriculture, evidenced by the
recent launch of a Global Agriculture and Food Security
Program by the World Bank and other donors in April
2010, and calls for a ‘new green revolution’ to drive
development in Africa (e.g. UNCTAD, 2010).
The impacts of environmental change and climate
change are critical to how agriculture, poverty, devel-
opment and livelihoods are understood and to what
extent interventions can be effective. There has been
a strong focus on the food security implications of
climate change, including a new initiative within the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR) (see www.ccafs.cgiar.org/). The
emphasis on ecosystem services is reflected in
several key reports by the World Resources Institute
and FAO, both of which promote Payments for
Top 100 agricultural questions 229
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
Ecosystem Services as a potential means of lifting
poor rural households out of poverty (FAO, 2007;
World Resources Institute, 2008). But for each of
these technical and market-based interventions, a set
of critical questions remain about their impacts on
inequality, environment and longer term resilience
of households, communities and livelihoods.
64. What is the impact of agricultural subsidies in
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development countries on the welfare of
farmers in developing countries?
65. What systematic approaches can be used to ident-
ify and adapt technical options for increasing land
and water productivity of rainfed crop and live-
stock systems so that they contribute to poverty
reduction in different agroecological and socio-
economic situations?
66. What are the society-wide trade-offs among effi-
ciency, social equity and environmental out-
comes for agricultural development in societies
with large rural and smallholder populations?
67. What are the best options to improve the sustain-
able intensification of agriculture?
68. How can the transition from today’s smallholder-
based agriculture to sustainable agricultural
intensification occur in ways that maintain liveli-
hoods for smallholder farmers?
69. What are the long-term impacts of international
donors and aid enterprises on target benefici-
aries in terms of food security, environmental
sustainability, local economies and social
inclusion?
70. How can interdisciplinary frameworks integrat-
ing scientific innovation and multi-stakeholder
perspectives be designed and effectively applied
to farming systems within developing countries?
71. Under what environmental and institutional con-
ditions will increasing agrobiodiversity at farm
and landscape scales result in increased liveli-
hood opportunities and income?
72. Who will be farming in 2050, and what will be
their land relationships (farm ownership, rental
or management)?
Governance, economic investment, power
and policy making
Promoting agriculture for development presents a
serious challenge of managing multiple agendas and
collective interests of formal and informal institutions
(the state, the private sector and civil society), and
their inter relationships, their obligations, processes,
mechanisms and differences. It is precisely at this
interface that governance, economic investment,
power and policy making converge and play their
respective critical roles.
On governance, it is important to establish safe-
guards against risks and assurances for the wellbeing
and social and economic benefits to smallholders,
where the state has an important role in influencing
technology and policy options. Thus external aid
and delivery models, and the state’s policy guidelines,
are important issues (World Bank, 2007; Royal
Society, 2009). To achieve rapid agricultural and
rural growth requires a range of complementary
investments across the broad spectrum of agricultural
production systems, from the large mechanized more
intensive systems to smallholder units. Thus ques-
tions as to the best mix of public and private sector
investments in irrigation and water management,
rural roads, agricultural finance and extension ser-
vices, among others, for the more intensive systems
assume great importance (Lele et al., 2010). Given
the severe adverse effects of climate change on agri-
cultural productivity in various agroecosystems, it is
imperative that in addition to infrastructure invest-
ments, serious consideration be given to questions
of adaptation through resilience of crops and cropping
systems (Pretty, 2003).
73. What will be the consequences to low-income
countries of the increased political roles of
countries with growing economic and purchasing
power (e.g. Brazil, China, India, Indonesia) in
global food systems?
74. What is the effectiveness of various aid delivery
models for multi- and bilateral donors for increas-
ing the well-being and productivity of small-
holder farmers in poorer developing countries?
75. Under what circumstances do investments in
smallholder agriculture compared with larger
and more mechanized farms achieve the greatest
societal and environmental good?
76. What are the consequences of different mixes of
public to private investment in irrigation
infrastructure?
77. What are the consequences of different choices of
investments in the resilience of agricultural
systems to address the multifaceted adverse
effects of climate change?
78. What steps need to be taken to encourage young
people to study agricultural science?
Pretty et al.230
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
Section 4: Markets and
consumption
Food supply chains
The food supply chain (FSC) encompasses all those
activities that lie between on-farm production and
the point of consumption. FSCs have experienced
fundamental change since 1950, becoming increas-
ingly global in extent and marked by upward trends
in scale of production, number of lines of manufac-
tured products and levels of economic concentration
by sector. The governance of FSCs has consequently
become more complex and multi-scalar, involving
many public, private and civil society actors (Lang
et al., 2009).
During the last two decades, it has become increas-
ingly apparent that the primary locus of power within
the FSC has moved steadily downstream towards the
buying desks of the major corporate food retailers
(UK Food Group, 2003). Three-quarters of food
sales in most industrialized countries now pass
through supermarket checkouts. This has drawn
critics to highlight the environmental implications of
extended supply chains designed to achieve year-
round provision at the lowest cost. Yet, this retail
format is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide
with rapid growth rates in many developing countries
(Reardon and Gulati, 2008), and concerns raised
about the dietary implications (Hawkes, 2008).
Vital work needs to be done to establish more pre-
cisely what ‘sustainable food’ represents, and to ident-
ify best practice standards across a wide range of
activities throughout the FSC. While life cycle assess-
ment and other technical measures will be needed to
evaluate energy, carbon and water footprints and
other environmental impacts, social, economic and
ethical criteria will also be required in calculating
appropriate trade-offs (van Hauwermeiren et al.,
2007; Edwards-Jones et al., 2008). Ultimately, the
purpose is to better demonstrate the link between
diet and environmental impact (Frey and Barrett,
2007) and social impact, thereby encouraging
greater personal responsibility and behavioural
change (Jackson et al., 2008) in the development of
more sustainable FSCs.
79. How might a unified sustainable food standard be
developed and implemented across trading blocs,
such as European Union or North American Free
Trade Agreement, to serve environmental, health
(nutrition), food quality and social values, and
how could this be effectively communicated to
shape food purchasing behaviour?
80. Where is food waste greatest in food chains in
industrialized and developing countries and
what measures can be taken significantly to
reduce these levels of food waste?
81. What is the best way to make food chains more
resilient to exogenous trends (e.g. the upward
price of hydrocarbons) and shocks (e.g. disrup-
tion to air freight)?
82. What is the potential contribution of localized
food production to the overall sustainability of
food systems?
83. How might appropriate limits be established on
national per capita levels of meat consumption,
while recognizing projected demographic and
economic growth, given the aggregate impact of
global livestock numbers particularly in relation
to feed requirements and waste streams?
84. What are the best indicators that could be used to
define agricultural sustainability thresholds (e.g.
soil condition, biodiversity, nutrient cycling,
energy use, key biological processes such as pol-
lination) and how might these be communicated
through the food chain?
85. What are the best institutional mechanisms to
manage food stocks, storage, distribution and
entitlement systems to ensure continued and sus-
tainable supplies of food?
86. How can we expand the range and commercial
development of food plants (given calorie depen-
dence on the seven key crops of wheat, rice,
maize, potatoes, soya, sugar cane and sugar
beet) in order to enhance resilience in food
chains while retaining genetic diversity in crops
and their wild relatives?
87. How much land in agricultural regions should be
left as natural habitats to provide ecosystem ser-
vices and mitigate climate change threats?
Prices, markets and trade
In recent decades, domestic patterns of food pro-
duction and consumption have become intercon-
nected by global markets, and today we rely on both
international and national markets to allocate food to
consumers and distribute inputs used in food pro-
duction. In 2008, the cost of global food imports
exceeded one trillion US dollars, having grown sub-
stantially in the two preceding years (Popp, 2009).
The new economics of food mean that small
changes in production can lead to large fluctuations
in price. Most countries now rely on buying their
Top 100 agricultural questions 231
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
food on open global food markets; however, when
national governments seek to protect their own
supplies, market chains can break down (Royal
Society, 2009).
In 2007/2008, the world food markets witnessed
extreme food price spikes in a number of key agricul-
tural commodities, including wheat, maize and rice.
Causal factors are now understood to include regional
declines in agricultural productivity, falling global
stocks in grains, speculative trading and erection of
trade barriers (Defra, 2008, 2009; Wiggins, 2008).
The price spikes led to riots in Morocco, Mexico,
Indonesia and elsewhere. This political instability
was a result of a number of short-term pressures, but
it highlighted a long-term problem of food security
and its impact on human well-being (Royal Society,
2009), particularly for low-income households that
spend anything up to 75 per cent of their income on
food (Naylor et al., 2007). Policy research over the
coming years will therefore have a key role to play
in the design of mechanisms and instruments that
minimize or alleviate the effects of such market
failures.
88. What priority investments are needed to develop
effective input and output markets in the poorest
developing countries (especially sub-Saharan
Africa)?
89. As energy prices rise, how can agriculture
increase its efficiency and use fewer inputs and
fertilizers to become economically sustainable
and environmentally sensitive, yet still feed a
growing population?
90. What mechanisms can be devised to buffer
against growing market volatility and subsequent
risk for farmers and under which conditions do
different mechanisms work best?
91. How can market-based food supply systems be
developed that offer economically sustainable
levels of financial reward to all participants
in the food chain (i.e. farmers, processors and
retailers) while simultaneously providing safe,
nutritious, natural resource-stewarding and
affordable food to consumers?
92. What mechanisms will provide incentives for
further investment in sustainable, high-yielding
agriculture that also maintains ecosystem
services?
93. What mechanisms for institutional capacity can
be used to create an efficient and equitable
global marketing system so that food is produced
in an economic and ecologically efficient manner
and traded appropriately to achieve food
security?
94. How can national food security policies be
designed to be more compatible with worldwide
open market food policies while securing the
interests of local farmers and equitable access to
food?
Consumption patterns and health
Increased purchasing power, shifting food prefer-
ences, access to global markets and growing popu-
lations have led to significant shifts in consumption
patterns in recent years that are anticipated to continue
into forthcoming decades. Daily per capita calorie
consumption has increased from 2280kcal in the
1960s to 2800kcal shortly after the turn of the
century. Furthermore, annual per capita meat con-
sumption has increased from 11kg in 1967 to 24kg
three decades later (Lobley and Winter, 2010). As
income levels rise in developing countries, so it is
expected that demand for meat will tend towards the
per capita consumption rates of 115kg per year in
the USA and 80kg per year in the UK (Royal
Society, 2009). In China alone, meat consumption
has more than doubled in the past 20 years, and is pro-
jected to double again by 2030 (Scherr and Sthapit,
2009). As a consequence of increasing demand,
meat production is expected to grow from 229m
tonnes in 1990 to 465m tonnes by 2050, and milk is
expected to grow from 580 to 1043m tonnes (Stein-
feld et al., 2006). Shifting consumption patterns com-
bined with population growth have led to estimates
that food production will be required to dramatically
increase to meet growing consumption needs in the
future (Lobley and Winter, 2010).
The emergent pattern of dietary shifts is unlikely to
provide the same health benefits as well-balanced
diets rich in grains and other vegetable products.
Increased meat and dairy consumption (particularly
red meat), combined with increased intake of high
sugar and high fat foods characteristic of modern,
highly processed food products, are likely to lead to
nutritional deficiencies as well as a growing number
of cases of obesity and its associated illnesses, such
as Type II diabetes and chronic heart conditions.
This will increase the demand for healthcare and
lead to increased spending in this sector (Royal
Society, 2009).
95. How will predicted changes in meat consump-
tion across different countries affect demand
for the range of agricultural produce?
Pretty et al.232
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
96. What information is most useful to consumers
wishing to make informed decisions about the
environmental and social impacts of their food
choices and can intervention methods be devel-
oped that encourage and provide incentives to
all consumers to eat healthy diets?
97. Under which conditions can governmental
health policy successfully affect consumers’
diets by promoting good food as preventative
medicine?
98. What programmes (or combinations) are most
effective in promoting broad-based access to
healthy food across different socioeconomic
groups?
99. How effective are experiential learning pro-
grammes (e.g. garden-based learning, wilder-
ness therapy, forest schools, outdoor learning)
in promoting child nutrition, healthy child
development, and prevention of obesity and
diabetes?
100. What is the effectiveness of different systems
aimed at enabling informed consumer choice to
directly reward farmers and thereby encouraging
the spread of positive environmental attributes in
food production (e.g. direct distribution networks
organized by farmers, labelling schemes on food,
information on farm websites)?
Discussion
The horizon-scanning approach described here has
generated 100 questions considered to be of primary
importance to global agriculture and food security.
If answered, it is anticipated that these questions
will have a significant impact on global agricultural
practices worldwide, while improving the synergy
between agricultural policy, practice and research.
The questions are wide-ranging, are designed to be
answerable and capable of realistic research design,
and cover 14 themes identified as priority to global
agriculture. Compiled through consultation with
senior representatives and experts from the world’s
major agricultural organizations, professional scienti-
fic societies and academic institutions, we hope the
questions will guide policy makers involved in
directing future agricultural policy and research, and
researchers looking to direct and prioritize their own
efforts and programmes of work, in addition to build-
ing a structured dialogue between these groups. There
are, however, limitations to this approach. Firstly, the
final list of questions was inevitably a product of the
initial 618 questions submitted, the Core Group
members and the processes of sorting, rewording
and voting that followed. By consultation with a
large group of experts from a wide range of organiz-
ations with diverse expertise, we hope to have mini-
mized the effect of individual preferences and
directed choices.
One of the biggest challenges of this process was to
formulate questions that are answerable through
research design, and yet suitably generic to encom-
pass the broad issues that relate to global agricultural
systems at a variety of scales (Sutherland et al., 2006,
2009). In rewording the questions to ensure brevity
and clarity, the final list of questions undoubtedly
masks the complexity of some of the issues involved.
We believe, however, that in developing a research
strategy to address the questions, or elements of
them, most of the questions can be broken down
into component parts, or projects, that can be tailored
to specific social, ecological and economic
settings. What is now needed are processes to priori-
tize these actions in different regions of the world
and effective mechanisms and metrics to assess their
impact.
In generating this list of questions, we hope to con-
tribute to the many dialogues between scientists, prac-
titioners and policy makers driving agricultural
research and discourse in future years. As well as
guiding (teams of) researchers looking to prioritize
their own research efforts and draw up directed pro-
grammes of research, we hope that the questions will
guide policy makers looking to support and direct the
agricultural research needs of coming years, and
funding bodies and organizations looking to target
their investment and support of agricultural science.
Improved dialogue and information flow between
policy makers and scientists is vital if agriculture is to
overcome the challenge of dealing with multiple
drivers of population growth, dietary shifts, energy
insecurity and climate change. The agricultural sector
is now at the heart of this unprecedented combination
of drivers, and evidence-based policy will be essential
to overcoming the lack of understanding between agri-
cultural research and policy direction and improving
collaboration in the sector as a whole.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the UK Government’s Foresight
Global Food and Farming Futures project for
funding this research. The Foresight Programme is
Top 100 agricultural questions 233
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
part of the UK’s Government Office for Science. It
helps the government think systematically about the
future and uses the latest scientific and other evidence
to provide signposts for policy makers in tackling
future challenges. The views expressed here remain
those of the authors and do not represent those of
GO Science or HM Government. We are also grateful
to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization for their
input and assistance, particularly in the organization
of a workshop in Rome during the early stages of
this research. W. A. Sutherland was funded for this
work by Arcadia.
References
Allard, R. W., 1999, Principles of Plant Breeding (2nd edn),
Wiley, New York.
Anderson, J. R., 2008, Aligning Global Agricultural Research
Investments with National Development Activities: The
CGIAR Experience, CGIAR Secretariat, Washington, DC.
Barrett, C. B., Swallow, B. M., 2006, ‘Fractal poverty traps’,
World Development 34.1, 1– 15.
Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A., Wilson, J. D., 2003, ‘Farmland
biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key?’, Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 18, 182188.
Biffin, R. H., 1905, ‘Mendel’s laws of inheritance and wheat
breeding’, Journal of Agricultural Science 1, 448.
Blakeney, M., 2009, Intellectual Property Rights and Food
Security, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Bouis, H., 1996, ‘Enrichment of food staples through plant
breeding: a new strategy for fighting micronutrient
malnutrition’, Nutrition Reviews 54, 131– 137.
Bryceson, D. F., 2002, ‘The scramble in Africa: reorienting rural
livelihoods’, World Development 30.5, 725– 739.
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology),
2001, Role of Animal Agriculture in the Human Food
Supply. Ames, IA.
Defra, 2003, Delivering the Evidence: Defra’s Science and
Innovation Strategy, 2003– 2006, Department for the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Defra, 2008, The Impact of Biofuels on Commodity Prices,
HMSO, London.
Defra, 2009, The 2007/08 Agricultural Price Spikes: Causes
and Policy Implications, HMSO, London.
Edwards-Jones, G., Plassmann, K., York, E. H., Hounsome, B.,
Jones, D. L., Mila
´I Canals, L., 2008, ‘Vulnerability of
exporting nations to the development of a carbon label
in the United Kingdom’, Environmental Science & Policy 12,
479490.
Ellis, F., 2000, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing
Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations),
2005, Review of the State of World Marine Fisheries
Resources, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 457, FAO,
Rome.
FAO, 2007, The State of Food and Agriculture: Paying Farmers
for Environmental Services, FAO, Rome.
FAO, 2008, High-Level Conference on World Food Security:
the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy.
FAO, Rome [available at www.fao.org/foodclimate/
hlc-home/en/].
FAO, 2009a, World Summit on Food Security, FAO, Rome
[available at www.fao.org/wsfs/world-summit/en/].
FAO, 2009b, The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO,
Rome.
FAO, 2009c, FAOStat. FAO, Rome [available at http:/faostat.
fao.org].
FAO, 2009d, The State of Food and Agriculture: Livestock in
Balance, FAO, Rome [available at www.fao.org/docrep/012/
i0680e/i0680e00.htm].
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., Hawthorne, P.,
2008, ‘Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt’, Science
319, 1235–1238.
Frey, S., Barrett, J., 2007, ‘Our health, our environment: the
ecological footprint of what we eat’, paper prepared for the
International Ecological Footprint Conference, Cardiff, 8– 10
May [available at www.brass.cf.ac.uk/uploads/Frey_A33.
pdf], accessed 16 July 2010.
George, R. A. T., 2009, Vegetable Seed Production (3rd edn),
CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Godfray, C., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L.,
Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas,
S. M., Toulmin, C., 2010, ‘Food security: the challenge of
feeding 9 billion people’, Science 327, 812–818.
Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Balmford,
A., 2005, ‘Farming and the fate of wild nature’, Science 307,
550–555.
Gressel, J., 2008, Genetic Glass Ceilings: Transgenics for Crop
Biodiversity, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Haddad, L., Lindstrom, L., Pinto, Y., 2009, ‘The sorry state of
M&E in agriculture: can people-centred approaches help?’,
paper prepared for Bill Gates, World Food Prize speech,
October [available at www.gatesfoundation.org/
speeches-commentary/Pages/ bill-gates-2009-world-food-
prize-speech.aspx].
Hancock, J. F., 2005, Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop
Species (2nd edn), CABI publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Harvey, M., Pilgrim, S., 2010, ‘Competition for land: food and
energy’, paper prepared for UK Government Foresight
Project on Global Food and Farming Futures,UK
Government, London.
Hassanali, A., Herren, H., Khan, Z. R., Pickett, J. A., Woodcock,
C. M., 2008, ‘Integrated pest management: the pushpull
approach for controlling insect pests and weeds of cereals,
and its potential for other agricultural systems including
animal husbandry’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society London B 363, 611621.
Hawkes, C., 2008, ‘Dietary implications of supermarket
development: a global perspective’, Development Policy
Review 26 (6), 657–692.
Henson, R., 2008, A Rough Guide to Climate Change (2nd edn),
Rough Guides Ltd, London.
Humphreys, E., Peden, D., Twomlow, S., Rockstro
¨m, J.,
Oweis, T., Huber-Lee, A., Harrington, L., 2008, Improving
Rainwater Productivity: Topic 1 Synthesis Paper, CGIAR
Challenge Program on Water and Food, Colombo.
IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science and Technology for Development), 2009,
‘Agriculture at a crossroads’, in International Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
Development: Global Report, Island Press, Washington, DC.
InterAcademy Council, 2004, Realizing the Promise and
Potential of African Agriculture, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007, in:
S. Solomon, D. Quin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B.
Averyt, M. Tignor, H. L. Miller (eds), Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group 1
Pretty et al.234
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Chapter 11, Regional Climate
Projections, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Jackson, P., Ward, N., Russell, P., 2008, ‘Moral economies of
food and geographies of responsibility’, Transactions of
Institute of British Geographers 34 (1), 1224.
Khush, G. S., 1999, ‘Green revolution: preparing for the 21
st
century’, Genome 42, 646–655.
Lang, T., Barling, D., Caraher, M., 2009, Food Policy:
Integrating Health, Environment and Society, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Lele, U., Pretty, J., Terry, E., Trigo, E., 2010, ‘Transforming
agricultural research for development’, Global Conference
on Agricultural Research for Development, Montpellier,
France, March 2010.
Lobley, M., Winter, M. (eds), 2010, What is Land for? The Food,
Fuel and Climate Change Debate, Earthscan, London.
Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Behrman, J.,
Biermayr-Jenzano, P., Wilde, V., Noordeloos, M., Ragasa,
C., Beintema, N., 2010, ‘Engendering agricultural research’,
Paper prepared for Global Conference on Agriculture and
Rural Development (GCARD), Montpellier, France, 28– 31
March.
National Research Council, 2010a, Toward Sustainable
Agricultural Systems in the 21
st
Century, National Research
Council Report. The National Academies Press, Washington,
DC.
National Research Council, 2010b, Impact of Genetically
Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United
States, National Research Council Report, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Naylor, R. L., Liska, A. J., Burke, M. B., Falcon, W. P., Gaskell,
J. C., Rozelle, S. D., Cassman, K. G., 2007, ‘The ripple effect:
biofuels, food security, and the environment’, Environment
Magazine, November.
Popp, J., 2009, ‘Economic balance on competition for arable
land between food and bioindustry’, paper for OECD
Conference on Challenges for Agricultural Research, Prague,
Czech Republic, 6–8 April.
Pretty, J., 2003, ‘Social capital and the collective management
of resources’, Science 302, 1912– 1915.
Pretty, J., 2008, ‘Agricultural sustainability: concepts,
principles and evidence’, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society 363, 447465.
Pretty, J., 2009, ‘Speaking truth to power: foot and mouth and
the future of agriculture and its communities’, in: M. Do
¨ring,
B. Nerlich (eds), The Social and Cultural Impact of
Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the UK in 2001, Manchester
University Press, Manchester, UK.
Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Watkinson, A. R., 2009, ‘Linking
reductionist science and holistic policy using systematic
reviews: unpacking environmental policy questions to
construct an evidence-based framework’, Journal of Applied
Ecology 46, 970975.
Reardon, T., Gulati, A., 2008, ‘The supermarket revolution in
developing countries: policies for ‘competitiveness and
inclusiveness’, IFPRI Policy Brief 2, June, International Food
Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Robinson, R. A., Sutherland, W. J., 2002, ‘Changes in arable
farming and biodiversity in Great Britain’, Journal of Applied
Ecology 39, 157176.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin,
F. S. III, Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C.,
Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T.,
van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., So
¨rlin, S., Snyder, P. K.,
Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L.,
Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman,
D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J. A., 2009, ‘A safe
operating space for humanity’, Nature 461 (24), 472475.
Royal Society, 2009, Reaping the Benefits: Science and the
Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture, RS Policy
Document 11/09, The Royal Society, London.
Ruttan, V., 1977, ‘The green revolution: seven generalisations’,
International Development Review 19, 16– 23.
Sachs, J. D., Remans, R., Smukler, S., Winowiecki, L.,
Andelman, S. J., Cassman, K. G., Castle, D., DeFries, R.,
Denning, G., Fanzo, J., Jackson, L. E., Leemans, R.,
Lehmann, J., Milder, J. C., Naeem, S., Nziguheba, G.,
Palm, C. A., Pingali, P. L., Reganold, J. P., Richter,
D. D., Scherr, S. J., Sircely, J., Sullivan, C., Tomich,
T. P., Sanchez, P. A., 2010, ‘Monitoring the World’s
agriculture’, Nature 466, 558– 560.
Sansoucy, R., 1995, ‘Livestock a driving force for food
security and sustainable development’, World Animal
Review 84/85 [available at www.fao.org/docrep/V8180T/
v8180T07.htm#livestock%20%20%20a%20driving%
20force%20for%20food%20security%20and%
20sustainable%20development].
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F.,
Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., Yu, T., 2008,
‘Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse
gases through emissions from land-use change’, Science
319, 1238–1240.
Scherr, S. J., Sthapit, S., 2009, ‘Farming and land use to
cool the planet’, in: Wordwatch Institute. State of the
World 2009: Into a Warming World. Worldwatch Institute,
MA, USA.
Schiere, J. B., Ibrahim, M. N. M., van Keulen, H., 2002, ‘The role
of livestock for sustainability in mixed farming: criteria and
scenario studies under varying resource allocation’,
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90, 139153.
Schneider, U., Smith, P., 2009, ‘Energy intensities and
greenhouse gas emission mitigation in global agriculture’,
Energy Efficiency 2, 195206.
Smith, P., Olesen, J. E., 2010, ‘Synergies between mitigation
of, and adaptation to, climate change in agriculture’, Journal
of Agricultural Science 148(5). Special issues on ‘Climate
change in agriculture’ [available at http://journals.cambridge.
org/action/displaySpecialArticle?jid=AGS#], accessed 18
August 2010.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales,
M., de Haan, C., 2006, Livestock’s Long Shadow:
Environmental Issues and Options, FAO, Rome.
Sutherland, W. J., Adams, W. M., Aronson, R. B., Aveling, R.,
Blackburn, T. M., Broad, S., Ceballos, G., Co
ˆte
´, M., Cowling,
R. M., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., Dinerstein, E., Ferraro, P. J.,
Fleishman, E., Gascon, C., Hunter, M., Hutton, J., Kareiva,
P., Kuria, A., Macdonald, D. W., Mackinnon, K., Madgwick,
F. J., Mascia, M. B., McNeely, J., Milner-Gulland, E. J.,
Moon, S., Morley, C. G., Nelson, S., Osborn, D., Pai, M.,
Parsons, E. C. M., Peck, L. S., Possingham, H., Prior, S. V.,
Pullin, A. S., Rands, M. R. W., Ranganathan, J., Redford,
K. H., Rodriguez, J. P., Seymour, F., Sobel, J., Sodhi, N. S.,
Stott, S., Vance-Borland, K., Watkinson, A. R., 2009, ‘An
assessment of the 100 questions of greatest importance to
the conservation of global biological diversity’, Conservation
Biology 23, 557–567.
Sutherland, W. J., Armstrong-Brown, S., Armsworth, P. R.,
Brereton, T., Brickland, J., Campbell, C. D., Chamberlain,
D. E., Cooke, A. I., Dulvy, N. K., Dusic, N. R., Fitton, M.,
Freckleton, R. P., Godfray, C. J., Grout, N., Harvey, J.,
Hedley, C., Hopkins, J. J., Kift, N. B., Kirby, J., Kunin, W. E.,
Macdonald, D. W., Marker, B., Naura, M., Neale, A. R.,
Oliver, T., Osborn, D., Pullin, A. S., Shardlow, M. E. A.,
Showler, D. A., Smith, P. L., Smithers, R. J., Solandt, J. L.,
Spencer, J., Spray, C. J., Thomas, C. D., Thompson, J.,
Webb, S. E., Yalden, D. W., Watkinson, A. R., 2006, ‘The
identification of one hundred ecological questions of high
Top 100 agricultural questions 235
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
policy relevance in the UK’, Journal of Applied Ecology 43,
617627.
Sutherland, W. J., Bailey, M. J., Bainbridge, I. P., Brereton, T.,
Dick, J. T. A., Drewitt, J., Dulvy, N. K., Dusic, N. R.,
Freckleton, R. P., Gaston, K. J., Gilder, P. M., Green, R. E.,
Heathwaite, L., Johnson, S. M., Macdonald, D. W., Mitchell,
R., Osborn, D., Owen, R. P., Pretty, J., Prior, S. V., Prosser,
H., Pullin, A. S., Rose, P., Stott, A., Tew, T., Thomas, C. D.,
Thompson, D. B. A., Vickery, J. A., Walker, M., Walmsley, C.,
Warrington, S., Watkinson, A. R., Williams, R. J., Woodroffe,
R., Woodroof, H. J., 2008, ‘Future novel threats and
opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by horizon
scanning’, Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 821833.
Sutherland, W. J., Clout, M., Co
ˆte
´, I. M., Daszak, P., Depledge,
M. H., Fellman, L., Fleishman, E., Garthwaite, R., Gibbons,
D. W., De Lurio, J., Impey, A. J., Lickorish, F., Lindenmayer,
D., Madgwick, J., Margerison, C., Maynard, T., Peck, L. S.,
Pretty, J., Prior, S., Redford, K. H., Scharlemann, J. P.,
Spalding, M., Watkinson, A. R., 2010a, ‘A horizon scan of
global conservation issues for 2010’, Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 25, 1– 7.
Sutherland, W. J., Fleishman, E., Mascia, M. B., Pretty, J.,
Rudd, M. A., 2010b, ‘Methods for collaboratively identifying
research priorities and emerging issues in science and
policy’, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, in press.
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M., Knight, T. M.,
2004, ‘Mismatches between conservation science
and practice’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19,
565566.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., Polasky,
S., 2002, ‘Agricultural sustainability and intensive production
practices’, Nature 418, 671– 677.
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A.,
Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W. H., Simberloff,
D., Swackhamer, D., 2001, ‘Forecasting agriculturally driven
global environmental change’, Science 292 (5515), 281.
UK Food Group, 2003, Food, Inc. Corporate Concentration
from Farm to Consumer, International Institute for
Environment and Development, London.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development), 2010, Technology and Innovation Report
2010: Enhancing Food Security in Africa through Science,
Technology and Innovation, UNCTAD, New York.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2010, in:
E. Hertwich, E. van der Voet, S. Suh, A. Tukker, M.
Huijbregts, P. Kazmierczyk, M. Lenzen, J. McNeely, Y.
Moriguchi, Assessing the Environmental Impacts of
Consumption and Production: Priority Products and
Materials, a report of the Working Group on the
Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the
International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management,
UNEP, Paris.
van Hauwermeiren, A., Coene, H., Engelen, G., Mathijs, E.,
2007, ‘Energy lifecycle inputs in food systems: a comparison
of local versus mainstream cases’, Journal of Environmental
Policy and Planning 9 (1), 31– 51.
von Braun, J., 2010, ‘Time to regulate volatile food markets’,
The Financial Times, 9 August.
Wiggins, S., 2008, Is the Food System Broken? Opinion 113,
Overseas Development Institute, London [available at www.
odi.org.uk/resources/download/2460.pdf].
Wilson, J. D., Evans, A. D., Grice, P. V., 2009, Bird
Conservation and Agriculture, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
World Bank, 2007, World Development Report 2008:
Agriculture for Development, World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Resources Institute, 2008, Roots of Resilience, World
Resources Institute, New York, NY.
Pretty et al.236
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
... While many nations continue to grapple with hunger, others are facing the challenge of combating high rates of obesity and malnutrition within their populations (Byerlee and Fanzo, 2019). As a result, investment and research in sustainable food production systems that produce nutritious food while preserving natural resources must be undertaken (Pretty et al. 2010;Ickowitz et al. 2019;Boyd et al. 2020). Modern aquaculture systems, in particular, can contribute to offer fish for a healthy human diet in ways that are more sustainable (Thilsted et al. 2016;FAO, 2020). ...
Chapter
Addressing hunger and malnutrition while promoting sustainable food production with minimal natural resource usage is crucial. Aquaculture, particularly modern systems, has emerged as a key player in providing fish sustainably for a nutritious diet. Aquaculture has become the fastest-growing food industry in recent decades, significantly contributing to global fish production. There is a growing emphasis on sustainable aquaculture systems that optimize water usage and minimize environmental impact. FLOCponics, a fusion of aquaponics and biofloc technology (BFT), stands as an environmentally friendly food production alternative. It leverages aquaponics and BFT strengths, promoting nutrient efficiency and waste reduction. By utilizing nutrient-rich BFT effluent, FLOCponics efficiently cultivates plants in a soilless environment. Future research should assess the social, economic, educational, and environmental impacts of FLOCponics in urban settings to propel its commercial adoption and further sustainable aquaculture and plant production. Overall, FLOCponics holds promise in addressing the nutritional needs of the growing global population while addressing environmental concerns.
... Winter wheat provides a crucial share of calories for human nutrition, with global demand steadily increasing [1]. However, crop production faces challenges due to limited resources like water, agrochemicals, and land [2]. Climate change further threatens crop yields, necessitating responsible and efficient resource use [3]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Background Understanding genotype-environment interactions of plants is crucial for crop improvement, yet limited by the scarcity of quality phenotyping data. This data note presents the Field Phenotyping Platform 1.0 data set, a comprehensive resource for winter wheat research that combines imaging, trait, environmental, and genetic data. Findings We provide time series data for more than 4,000 wheat plots, including aligned high-resolution image sequences totaling more than 148,000 aligned images across six years. Measurement data for eight key wheat traits is included, namely canopy cover values, plant heights, wheat head counts, senescence ratings, heading date, final plant height, grain yield, and protein content. Genetic marker information and environmental data complement the time series. Data quality is demonstrated through heritability analyses and genomic prediction models, achieving accuracies aligned with previous research. Conclusions This extensive data set offers opportunities for advancing crop modeling and phenotyping techniques, enabling researchers to develop novel approaches for understanding genotype-environment interactions, analyzing growth dynamics, and predicting crop performance. By making this resource publicly available, we aim to accelerate research in climate-adaptive agriculture and foster collaboration between plant science and computer vision communities.
... Zahm and al., 2023); "The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture" (J. Pretty and al., 2010); "Cadre d'évaluation de la durabilité adapté à la réalité des secteurs/filières bioalimentaires québécois" (L. Tamini and al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Like other cities in West Africa, Accra's market garden sector faces a number of sustainability challenges. However, the sector's sustainability projects focus less on the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) of the stakeholders in this food system, and more on the other factors that can enhance its socio-economic, health and ecological sustainability. Thus, the research aims to assess the level of health, socio-economic and environmental sustainability of market garden vegetable production, trade and processing in the Accra metropolitan district, based on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of stakeholders. A quantitative multi-criteria evaluation approach was adopted, using a questionnaire survey targeting 156 respondents (50 producers, 63 traders and 43 processors) selected by purposive sampling. The data collected by Kobocollect were processed using Excel, Arcgis and Google Earth. Average scores and good KAP rates were calculated for all players taken together, and particularly in consideration of the key dimensions of sustainable development. The results reveal low rates for ecological (28.24%), health (20.15%), socio-economic (36.15%), technological and innovative (14.25%) knowledge, attitudes and practices, evaluated overall at 26.87%. These results are unfavorable to the achievement of the SDGs, and do not meet either standard 13 of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 2023, or the principles of nutritional ecology. Hence the importance of an integrated, long-term eco-nutritional education program for all stakeholders.
... This is an approach used to anticipate emerging opportunities and risks, identify knowledge gaps at the frontiers of rapidly evolving phenomena, and set strategic priorities for policymakers or researchers (Foulds et al. 2019;). This has been used mainly as an anticipatory exercise for setting emerging research agendas in line with policy requirements (Rudd 2011; in different areas, including the UK food system (Ingram et al. 2013; and agriculture (Pretty et al. 2010). It is also a unique deliberative methodology that is well established in policy circles as a way of anticipating problems and designing new solutions. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper deals with the foundations of current and past mobility cultures, identifies emerging trends and main drivers that contribute to the shaping of the future European mobility cultures, and focuses on the role of communication. The methodology adopted to better understand this complex concept involved 3 major steps: first a literature exploration, then a foresight involving strategic application of forward-looking approaches in shaping and informing public policy decisions which needed, and finally backcasting exercise to mainly build future scenarios. During these steps, we aimed to identify, involve and create a community of high level experts and thinkers in various fields: philosophy, psychology, sociology, geography, urbanism, architecture, economics, poetry, art. This involvement led to 29 scientific discussions of 3 types: 15 Talks with 16 experts, 5 Explorative Conversations with 11 experts and 9 Generative Dialogues with 11 experts. We have also organized 3 focus groups and 5 workshops to deepen our thinking on specific topics and involve a larger group of experts: Mobility values, Imagining future scenarios on mobility cultures, Public interest definition, Design a roadmap and outline feasible strategies. A survey of European citizens was carried out to involve them in an open consultation of the vision. Experts and thinkers were interviewed to stimulate discussion on how they understand mobility cultures and what drives it, to identify trends in mobility cultures and how they perceive mobility’s future. The idea was also to confront different or conflicting ideas and to identify the nuances and uncertainties, particularly with regard to the trends and future mobility cultures. As a result, we developed a vision not only of current and past mobility cultures, but especially of the expected and likely mobility future. We created 4 (extreme) political and societal scenarios for the mobility future and named them according to Greek divinities: Hercules, Themis, Hermes, and Gaia. The final results are a combination of several elements from different scenarios. The most desired future mobility clearly tends towards the Themis and Gaia cultural values of equity and well-being, while the Hermes cultural value of efficiency is perceived as driving the most likely future. This mismatch between expected and desired futures clearly expresses tensions between elements of mobility cultures. This gap points to a direction for future European mobility policy, away from efficiency and towards alternative values of sufficiency, care, and justice. Although we intended to cover the whole of Europe, Western Europe has remained relatively over-represented.
Chapter
The conservation consciousness in Asian socio-ecological landscape is age-old. Being one of the most vulnerable agro-climatic zones and susceptible to socio-economic changes as well, Asian communities have meticulously thought of conservation and adaptive practices, especially in the primary productivity sector. This is evidenced in this chapter through exemplary case studies and research reports. The transformation of such indigenous practices owing to population pressure and its rapid replacement by an intensive agriculture system in the twenty first century has now made it more susceptible to climate impacts. This is furthered by the predominance of political ecological barriers in food production in Asia, which has been driven by inequitable policy decisions and sheer ignorance about the delicate balances in natural sustainability. This section rationally interprets this hegemony of politics and practice.
Chapter
Full-text available
This anthology brings together a diversity of key texts in the emerging field of Existential Risk Studies. It serves to complement the previous volume The Era of Global Risk: An Introduction to Existential Risk Studies by providing open access to original research and insights in this rapidly evolving field. At its heart, this book highlights the ongoing development of new academic paradigms and theories of change that have emerged from a community of researchers in and around the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. The chapters in this book challenge received notions of human extinction and civilization collapse and seek to chart new paths towards existential security and hope. The volume curates a series of research articles, including previously published and unpublished work, exploring the nature and ethics of catastrophic global risk, the tools and methodologies being developed to study it, the diverse drivers that are currently pushing it to unprecedented levels of danger, and the pathways and opportunities for reducing this. In each case, they go beyond simplistic and reductionist accounts of risk to understand how a diverse range of factors interact to shape both catastrophic threats and our vulnerability and exposure to them and reflect on different stakeholder communities, policy mechanisms, and theories of change that can help to mitigate and manage this risk. Bringing together experts from across diverse disciplines, the anthology provides an accessible survey of the current state of the art in this emerging field. The interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary nature of the cutting-edge research presented here makes this volume a key resource for researchers and academics. However, the editors have also prepared introductions and research highlights that will make it accessible to an interested general audience as well. Whatever their level of experience, the volume aims to challenge readers to take on board the extent of the multiple dangers currently faced by humanity, and to think critically and proactively about reducing global risk.
Article
Full-text available
We report the results of a survey of farmers and landowners to identify the most likely potential food system disruption scenarios for the UK and compare these with a previous expert elicitation with a much wider set of food system stakeholders. We found that 60% of farmers think a Societal Event in which 1 in 2000 people are injured in the UK is at least 20% likely to occur over the coming decade. Over a timeframe of 50 years, this increased to almost 90% of farmers. These results show that farmers and landowners are considerably more concerned about the vulnerability of the food system in the UK than the wider group of food system experts are. Farmers agreed with experts on the majority of potential causes of such vulnerability, which are climate change, trade policies (import and export), competition for land and ecological collapse (over 50 years). However, they also highlighted the importance of the power structure within the food system, with large corporations supplying to, or buying from, farmers creating lower revenue, making farming an unsustainable business. We conclude that an urgent systematic review of potential interventions that would improve resilience be conducted by the UK Government, in partnership with farmers.
Book
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.
Technical Report
Full-text available
This report aims to build a contemporary and rigorous picture of the links – theoretical and practical – between corporate concentration and the livelihoods of agricultural producers and workers in both ‘developing’ and industrialised nations. It also points to policies which can ensure more equitable trading relationships. It uses a commodity chain approach – a focus on production and marketing networks across national boundaries, and their governance by key economic agents.
Article
In the 1960s there were large-scale concerns about the world's ability to feed itself. However, widespread adoption of "green revolution" technology led to major increases in food-grain production. Between 1966 and 1990, the population of the densely populated low-income countries grew by 80%, but food production more than doubled. The technological advance that led to the dramatic achievements in world food production over the last 30 years was the development of high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice. These varieties are responsive to fertilizer inputs, are lodging resistant, and their yield potential is 2-3 times that of varieties available prior to the green revolution. In addition, these varieties have multiple resistance to diseases and insects and thus have yield stability. The development of irrigation facilities, the availability of inorganic fertilizers, and benign government policies have all facilitated the adoption of green-revolution technology. In the 1990s, the rate of growth in food-grain production has been lower than the rate of growth in population. If this trend is not reversed, serious food shortages will occur in the next century. To meet the challenge of feeding 8 billion people by 2020, we have to prepare now and develop the technology for raising farm productivity. We have to develop cereal cultivars with higher yield potential and greater yield stability. We must also develop strategies for integrated nutrient management, integrated pest management, and efficient utilization of water and soil resources.
Chapter
Over 1.02 billion people in the world suffer from hunger today. Securing world food security in light of the impact of climate change may be one of the biggest challenges we face in this century. Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change. Rising temperatures, more intense droughts, floods, and greater weather variability all mean productivity losses to crops and livestock. Greater numbers of crop failures, livestock deaths, forest fires, damage to fishery infrastructure are already imposing economic losses and undermining food security. The overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security.
Article
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) play an important role in the struggle for food security and encouraging agricultural research and development. This book examines these roles as well as the international relationship between IPRs, agricultural biotechnology, access to biological resources, food security and globalisation, paying particular attention to proposals for the protection of Farmers' Rights, traditional knowledge, GM crops and the impact of competition laws. It proposes a number of recommendations for action in deploying IPRs in order to reach greater food security globally.
Article
The contribution of the new seed fertilizer technology to food grain production has weakened the potential for revolutionary change in political and economic institutions of many a developing country. -after Author
Article
With the current extreme price increases for wheat, we are observing potentially the early stages of another global food-price crisis. Even if this does not evolve into something as dramatic as the crisis of 2007-08, when prices of major agricultural commodities from corn to rice shot up to record levels, triggering food riots from Bangladesh to Haiti, it is a stark indication of the perilous state of the world food market. Some lessons have been learned from 2008, but too little has been done to prevent future crises. In particular the malfunctioning of world grain markets has not been addressed – a failure now haunting world markets. The fixing of international food prices today is the result of three forces: expectations on future supply and demand; the growing role of speculators in commodity markets, and the importance of food prices for political stability in countries such as Egypt. Today, low-income countries and the poor are actually more vulnerable than before the last food crisis. The rapid recent increase in the international wheat price underlines the stakes. Last week, September wheat futures showed the steepest increase since 2008. Current futures prices are above $7 a bushel for the first time since September 2008. The reduced expectations for harvests in Russia, Ukraine and a few areas in western Europe are the trigger. Russia's wheat export ban accelerates the risk of a price spike and again undermines the trust in food trade. Even a small decline in the world's expected wheat harvest by about 3 to 4 percent induces large price swings. So what lessons were taught by the 2008 crisis? It was in part the consequence of long-term neglect of investment in agriculture in developing countries and poorly thought-out agriculture subsidising policies in industrialised countries. It was then set off by adverse weather and exacerbated by inappropriate policies, such as export bans, hoarding by importing nations and lack of appropriate regulation of trade in commodities.