共检索到97条,权限内显示50条;
[行业报告 ] How the United Kingdom benefits from investments in CGIAR research 进入全文
国际食品政策研究所IFPRI
FAO’s The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report (FAO et al. 2020) emphasizes the gradually increasing trend of hunger, measured by the prevalence of undernourishment, since 2014. The global reversal in the declining trend in hunger prior to 2014 can be attributed to a number of factors—conflicts, climate-related shocks, biodiversity loss, and economic slowdowns. The scale and pace of the challenges we face in global, regional, national, and local food systems are unprecedented (Fan and Swinnen 2020). More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has likely added to and exacerbated the existing challenges to feeding the growing global population. The extent of its impact is largely unknown, however. Since this report was prepared, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the related food crisis have added to these threats to food security. These challenges are widespread and have implications for the entire planet. Thus, combating hunger calls for global collective action and it is in the United Kingdom’s (UK) national interest to continue its decades-long engagement in the global effort to reduce hunger and undernutrition.
[行业报告 ] Impact of COVID-19 on food value chains in Uganda: Results of surveys of farmers, traders, and processors 进入全文
国际食品政策研究所IFPRI
We examined the impact of COVID-19 on food value chains in Uganda, using the case of dairy and maize value chains. These two are important value chains in Uganda (in terms of contribution to food and nutrition security and export earnings), yet distinct in terms of terms of market orientation, organization, degree of vertical coordination and institutional setup. We used sample lists of farmers, traders and processors interviewed in-person by IFPRI before COVID-19 in November 2018 (dairy) and July 2019 (maize), as the basis for follow-up interviews by phone during COVID-19 in November 2020 (round 1) and May/July 2021 (round 2). The round 1 and round 2 surveys sought to: (1) determine the proportion of value chain actors that had exited operations since the start of the pandemic; and then (2) examine changes in business activity and welfare among actors that continued to operate. We compare changes between baseline (2018/2019) and round 1 (2020), and, between round 1 (2020) and round 2 (2021), to differentiate between short run effects and long run consequences of the pandemic. In the maize value chain, we find that the impact of COVID-19 and associated measures manifests itself more downstream the value chain (at the level of the traders and particularly the millers). Closures and reductions in volumes passing through the chain seemed limited but worsen as the pandemic persists. Government measures such as a reduction of interest rates seemed to have brought some relief for traders and millers. However, all value chain actors report substantial reductions in maize revenues, household income and food security, as actors in informal value chains seem to rely on various activities to make ends meet. As a result, informal value chains such as maize in Uganda may be less able to adapt to common shocks in the long run. The appropriate policy response therefore would be to supplement some of the mitigating policies targeting businesses with more long run social protection policies to also benefit value chain actors upstream. In the dairy value chain, we find that the COVID-19 crisis mainly affected actors through a reduction in demand due to restrictions that limited international trade, and a decrease in local consumption. As a result, prices drastically reduced at all nodes of the value chain, and the number of actors affected by the price decrease worsened as the pandemic persisted. In general, we see that while dairy business closures during COVID-19 are limited, the joint reduction in demand and price leads to widespread reductions in scale of operation, dairy revenues and household income, although these somewhat recover over time, especially among Milk Collection Centers. In the long-run, policy efforts to increase and stabilize local and export demand for dairy products seems most promising. For example, the government may institute policies that promote consumption of dairy products in schools and homes through information campaigns or temporary dairy vouchers. Government should also make it a priority to keep international trade flowing. Finally, the study did not confirm the hypothesis that high-value commodity markets would be more adversely affected than staple value chains. Although companion studies in Bangladesh found that fish and shrimp markets were more adversely affected than those of rice, the staple, the reverse was true in Uganda. Uganda maize farmers, traders, and processors reported worse economic and welfare outcomes due to COVID-19 than their counterparts in the dairy value chain. This may be related to the fact that dairy sup-ply chains are more structured than maize chains.
[行业报告 ] 2022 China and Global Food Policy Report: Reforming agricultural support policies to promote agrifood systems transformation 进入全文
国际食品政策研究所IFPRI
Over the past several decades, the world has made substantial progress in improving global food security. Yet due to a combination of crises and other problems, the number of hungry people in the world has been rising since 2015; currently the figure is approximately 800 million. Meanwhile, China's agrifood systems face a number of urgent challenges and must be transformed to focus on more nutritious and healthy foods, as well as green, low-carbon, efficient, resilient, and inclusive production and distribution. The newly-published 2022 China and Global Food Policy Report examines how China can achieve that transformation, focusing on the evolution and reform of agricultural support policies and analyzing their impacts on nutrition and health, resources and environment, carbon emissions, common prosperity, and international trade. The report is a joint project of the Academy of Global Food Economics and Policy (AGFEP) of China Agricultural University, the China Academy of Rural Development (CARD) of Zhejiang University, the Center for International Food and Agricultural Economics (CIFAE) of Nanjing Agricultural University, the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Development (IAED) of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), and IFPRI.
[行业报告 ] 2022 Global food policy report: Climate change and food systems 进入全文
国际食品政策研究所（IFPRI）
Climate change threatens our food systems and the multiple development goals linked to sustainable food system transformation. Action is urgently needed, both to increase adaptation and resilience and to achieve major emissions reductions. Current efforts must be stepped up and greatly expanded to ensure food security, nutrition, and well-being for all in the years to come. The 2022 Global Food Policy Report showcases opportunities for accelerating innovation, reforming policies, resetting market incentives, and increasing financing for sustainable food systems transformation, as well as promoting healthy diets and building resilience.
[行业报告 ] IFPRI key facts series: Food and nutrition security 进入全文
国际食品政策研究所 IFPRI
This is a second Food and Nutrition Key Facts sheet in a series of Key Facts sheets that IFPRI is producing based on Integrated Household Surveys (IHS). The purpose of the series is to present data relevant to key policy issues on agriculture, food systems, and development topics in Malawi. While the proportion of households with very low food security status increased between 2010/11 and 2019/20, the proportion of households with high food security status declined in the same period. The most common reason for inadequate food consumption in 2010/11 and 2019/20 was lack of farm inputs. In 2016/17 drought was the most common reason due to the drought in the preceding farming season. There was a temporary decrease in food security and dietary diversity in 2016/17, which was also likely due to the drought. The most common food insecurity coping mechanism in all survey years was reliance on less preferred or less expensive foods. Overall, households had to resort to negative coping strategies more often in 2016/17 than in 2010/11 and 2019/20. Although nearly three quarters of households (70%) had an acceptable food consumption status as measured by the Food Consumption Score, most households failed to reach the recommended intake of energy and most micronutrients in 2019/20. The prevalence of stunting among children between 6 and 59 months of age remains high in Malawi at 26.7% in 2019/20.
[行业报告 ] Climate-smart agriculture and the World Trade Organization 进入全文
国际食品政策研究所IFPRI
Climate change threatens our ability to ensure global food security, eradicate poverty, and achieve sustainable development. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activity and livestock are a significant driver of climate change, trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and triggering global warming. Climate change has both direct and indirect effects on agricultural productivity including changing rainfall patterns, drought, flooding, and the geographical redistribution of pests and diseases. Agricultural subsidies have exacerbated those effects by distorting crop and livestock production and contributing to indirect land-use change resulting in deforestation and pasture conversion.1 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that agricultural support among OECD countries and large emerging developing countries was USD 540 billion in 2020. Further, a recent study by three United Nations agencies projects that global support could exceed USD 730 billion by 2030.2 The study concludes that eliminating agricultural support could reduce GHG emissions by 80 million tons CO2eq by 2030, which represents less than 2 percent of the total emissions from agriculture. While eliminating agricultural support would likely have only modest climate change effects, many believe the agricultural sector could contribute to global climate goals by repurposing agricultural support toward adopting climate-smart agricultural (CSA) practices.3 The CSA approach has three main pillars: (1) sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, (2) adapting and building resilience to climate change, and (3) reducing or removing GHG emissions, where possible.4 In September, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced a new initiative to finance climate-smart farming and forestry practices to aid in marketing CSA commodities. Under the initiative, the USDA would support a set of pilot projects that provides incentives to implement climate-smart conservation practices on working lands and quantify and monitor the carbon and GHG benefits associated with those practices. The pilots could rely on the Commodity Credit Corporation’s specific power to aid in expanding or developing new and additional markets. In addition, the House of Representative’s Build Back Better Act, currently before the Senate, would provide additional funding on climate-related research and development and provide over $28 billion to fund climate-smart conservation practices.5 While government implementation of mitigation and adaptation policies may help address climate change, concerns arise if CSA policies run counter to international trade disciplines. In particular, CSA policies could directly conflict with World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules if those policies distort production and trade.
