Impoverished areas of Africa and Asia face severe crop losses from climate change in 20 years

Jan 31, 2008

Many of the world’s poorest regions could face severe crop losses in the next two decades because of climate change, according to a new study by researchers at Stanford University’s Program on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). Their findings will be published in the Feb. 1 issue of the journal Science.

“The majority of the world’s 1 billion poor depend on agriculture for their livelihoods,” said lead author David Lobell, a senior research scholar at FSE, which focuses on environmentally sustainable solutions to global hunger.

“Unfortunately, agriculture is also the human enterprise most vulnerable to changes in climate,” Lobell added. “Understanding where these climate threats will be greatest, for what crops and on what time scales, will be central to our efforts at fighting hunger and poverty over the coming decades.”

Climate change and hunger hotspots

In the study, the researchers focused on 12 regions where a large share of the world’s malnourished populations reside, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, including much of Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Central and South America.

Temperature and rainfall are key factors affecting crop yield. To determine the impact of global warming on agriculture in these regions, the authors analyzed 20 climate change models and concluded that by 2030, the average temperature in most areas could rise 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius), while seasonal precipitation in some places—including South Asia, South Africa, Central America and Brazil—could decrease.

“To identify which crops in which regions are most under threat by 2030, we combined projections of climate change with data on what poor people eat, as well as past relationships between crop harvests and climate variability,” Lobell explained.

Their analysis revealed two hunger hotspots where climate impacts on agriculture look particularly dire: Southern Africa and South Asia. “We were surprised by how much and how soon these regions could suffer if we don’t adapt,” said study co-author Marshall Burke, a researcher at FSE. “For example, our study suggests that Southern Africa could lose more than 30 percent of its main crop, maize, in the next two decades, with possibly devastating implications for hunger in the region.”

Potential losses in South Asia are also significant, he added, with projected losses of 10 percent or more for many regional staples, including millet, maize and rice. “For poor farmers on the margin of survival, these losses could really be crushing,” Burke said.

Prioritizing investments

With such large projected losses in many poor regions, adapting agriculture to a changing climate will be a crucial global task, the authors said.

“By looking systematically across regions and at a wide range of crops of importance to the poor, we hope to provide a way to prioritize investments in adaptation,” Lobell said. “Say you’re an organization with finite resources that’s interested in alleviating hunger and concerned about the effects of climate change. Our study asks, given the data we have, where would you spend your money first" And while the data are not perfect, we have to make decisions based on available data.”

Although relatively inexpensive adaptations, such as planting earlier or later in the season or switching crop varieties, could moderate the effects of climate change, “the biggest benefits will likely result from more costly measures, including the development of new crop varieties and expansion of irrigation,” the authors write. “These adaptations will require substantial investments by farmers, governments, scientists and development organizations, all of whom face many other demands on their resources.”

In addition to specific areas, such as Southern Africa and South Asia, where urgent investment in agricultural adaptation is needed, the authors pointed to other regions where uncertainties about climate change are higher and, therefore, investment priorities might differ among institutions.

“Areas of West Africa and the Sahel stand out as regions with very high rates of food insecurity and with a very high dependence on agriculture, but also with a fair amount of uncertainty regarding climate change impacts,” Burke said. “For these regions, you get half of the climate models telling you it’s going to get wetter and the other half giving you the opposite. As a result, our study raises the potential for very bad impacts in these regions but with much less certainty than in other regions.”

The study also pointed to a few developing regions, such as the temperate wheat-growing areas of China, that could benefit in the short run from climate change, he added.

Investing for change

In the face of these uncertainties, where should organizations be investing money, and what kind of adaptation investments make the most sense"

“There are the sure bets, such as maize in Southern Africa and rice in Southeast Asia, where all models agree that impacts will be negative,” Lobell said. “Then there are those cases where things could get really bad, such as for sorghum in the Sahel or millets in Central Africa, but where we are less certain. In the end, if a choice has to be made, individual institutions will have to decide for themselves whether to pursue the sure bets or the riskier but potentially high-payoff investments.”

The study arrived at a particularly useful time, said co-author Rosamond Naylor, director of FSE and senior fellow at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment. “The international donor community is starting to invest once again in agricultural productivity in the developing world, and our study will help show where these investments might be the most worthwhile,” she said. “We know we can’t do everything right away, but this helps us know where to start.”

Naylor and her colleagues at FSE have begun looking at other aspects of climate and agriculture, including two multi-year studies on the impact of biofuels expansion on climate change and the world’s poor.

Source: Stanford University

Explore further: Nation's 'personality' influences its environmental stewardship, shows new study

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New policymaking tool for shift to renewable energy

16 hours ago

Multiple pathways exist to a low greenhouse gas future, all involving increased efficiency and a dramatic shift in energy supply away from fossil fuels. A new tool 'SWITCH' enables policymakers and planners to assess the ...

World population likely to peak by 2070

8 hours ago

World population will likely peak at around 9.4 billion around 2070 and then decline to around 9 billion by 2100, according to new population projections from IIASA researchers, published in a new book, World Population and ...

Alpine lifelines on the brink

Oct 21, 2014

Only one in ten Alpine rivers are healthy enough to maintain water supply and to cope with climate impacts according to a report by WWF. The publication is the first-ever comprehensive study on the condition ...

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

6 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BigTone
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2008
An American comedian once made an insensitive observation: (the late Sam Kinison)

there wouldn't BE world hunger, if you people would LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A F*CKING DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING'S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT'S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT'S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A F*CKING DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR SHIT, WE'LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE'LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA -- WE JUST DON'T LIVE IN THEM

Although the observation is way over the the top and on many levels completely impractical, it does bring out the point that people that live along coast lines or other areas at high risk for change based on climate shifts should start some long term planning....
mikiwud
not rated yet Feb 01, 2008
Policies pushed by thr IPCC and Kyoto have already cut back crops grown for food and increased the cost of food to ALL people with the poorest being hit the hardest,even in rich nations.
Drop the eco crap,its killing people already!
flubber
4 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2008
They picked the info from 20 'studies'. How accurate was it to begin with? It doesn't take much to figure out that growing the wrong crops will affect harvest. Both these areas are politically unstable and are for the most part self serving.