How to Feed the World in 2050

The challenge of feeding the world in the year 2050 is fourfold:

1. already in the year 2018, the global food system does not feed its 7.5 billion people properly. 11% are hungry and every fourth child below the age of five years experiences stunting. At the same time, 39% of the global adult population is overweight and 13% is obese
2. the global population is expected to rise to around 10 billion people in the year 2050, an increase of 33% over today
3. the global population is expected to become more economically successful, which in the past has resulted in demand for more resource-intensive foods, in particular meat, dairy and eggs
4. The global food production system may be at, or already beyond, the limits of sustainability with its current level of resource utilization in terms of land and water

Totalling these effects, prominent researchers at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) calculated that about 60% more food needs to be produced in the year 2050 versus the base year of 2007. With only minor variations, this number is mostly agreed to by the scientific community.

The challenge can, in principle, be met in three different ways:

1. increase the utilization of natural resources, particularly land and water, ignoring potential sustainability limits
2. increase productivity in food production and thus make better use of the resources
3. change the composition of diets in such a way as to need less of the natural resources, in particular this means reducing the consumption of meat, which is resourceintensive

The analysis in this report captures those three options by describing four different scenarios. By numerically defining the dimension of resource utilization with the proxy of amount of global agricultural land, and the dimension of innovativeness with the proxy of yield growth, the four resulting scenarios are 1. History Continues; 2. Deliberate Impoverishment; 3. Radical Technology Deployment; 4. Zoological Gardening.

The second scenario of Deliberate Impoverishment aims to reduce the need for natural resources by radically curtailing the availability of red meat to the global consumer. On a global scale this would be possible. If the global average citizen can be convinced to drastically reduce consumption of red meat, then everybody would have enough to eat, with no expansion of utilization of natural resources necessary. Versus today's lifestyle standards this would be a deliberate impoverishment. However, the world does not consist of average citizens. 80% of the additional food required by 2050 will be needed in Africa and South Asia, which are today already net importers of food. In this scenario, by 2050, even more of the agricultural production would be occurring in South and North America, while it is needed in Africa and South Asia. It is difficult to conceive how Africa can afford the financial means to import food on such a large scale. Even for South Asia it would be a burden and brake on its economic development. The three population groups which are most at risk are children, the elderly and the poor. Slowing down economic growth in Africa and South Asia will keep these three groups longer in poverty, and therefore at risk. Furthermore, food import dependency will make food relatively more expensive in the terms of trade for such countries, thereby exacerbating food affordability problems and making the three risk groups even more vulnerable. In sum, this scenario does not reflect the rules of economic reality. If the affluent part of the world agrees to eat less meat, this will reduce the agricultural footprint in the Americas and Europe, but it will not contribute to putting more and better food in front of undernourished children in Africa and South Asia.

The third scenario banks on Radical Technology Deployment. If all known yield and technology gaps would be closed, especially in Africa, then the world would easily produce enough food to feed 10 billion people and more. Agricultural land could be retired and returned to nature. However, there are highly complex socio-economic hurdles to overcome for the yield gaps to be closed. The aspiration is that new technologies in communication, data science and robotization can help in closing the yield gaps better than efforts in the past could achieve.

The fourth scenario of Zoological Gardening is at best reserved for the 10% most affluent population in the world, mostly residing in North America and Europe. Thanks to its already high levels of agricultural productivity and almost no expansion of food demand until 2050, these regions can afford to deliberately reduce agricultural productivity and pursue quasi-zoological practices such as organic farming methods or staging cattle on Swiss mountains for attracting tourists. Such methods can be an affordable luxury for the affluent with aesthetic effects, but it does not contribute a solution to feeding the world at large.

The overall conclusion is that there are no easy choices. There are many serious challenges to be overcome to deploy technology on a sufficiently radical scale, to accelerate harvest yields fast enough, to be able to feed the world in the year 2050. But it is the only viable option that does not lead to tragic other circumstances. The scenario incorporating deliberate and severe reduction of global red meat consumption is not economically viable, despite first appearances. New economics and new people fitting such economics would first need to be created. The 20th century has shown several times, that attempts of large scale socio-economic engineering to change societies, people and economics, leads to tragic outcomes. On the other hand, the scenario of business as usual will destroy the last great pristine biodiversity habitats of Earth. Historically, the most successful method to solve a resource crisis has been deployment of technology. Such technologies exist, and get better by the day. What is missing is the social, political and ethical mandate to make full use of these technologies. That will be subject and consideration of Part 2 of this report.