How will we feed 10 billion people in 2050?

Demographers estimate that there will be 9.5 billion people on the planet by 2050(see here). While some 800 million people worldwide still suffer from hunger ¹ it is questionable whether global agriculture will be able to feed an additional two billion people in 30 years’ time. Most researchers believe that this objective is achievable on two conditions: reducing food loss and waste, and increasing global agricultural production. While there is a relative consensus on the first objective, achieving the second reflects opposing development choices.

The first is based on a rational intensification of the current agricultural model. The second is based on the development of agro-ecology (i.e., agriculture that consumes fewer inputs, respects different agronomic systems and encourages the intensification of employment per hectare rather than capital), as well as a change in diet towards a more plant-based approach.

One thing is certain: these two models will have to take drastic account of environmental protection. The artificialization of land, deforestation and over-exploitation of the oceans all need to come to a rapid halt. Further environmental degradation of the planet is no longer an option. Halting the erosion of biodiversity, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, and maintaining soil fertility are objectives as essential as producing more food.

Is it possible to pursue such opposing goals?

Fighting food loss and waste in the first place

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated average global food availability at 2,950 kilocalories per person per day for the 2018-2020 period. ² which would be more than enough to feed the entire world’s population ³ . The persistence of undernourishment is therefore not linked to a question of availability, but to political and economic issues. ⁴ .

A study by the High-Level Panel on Food Security and Nutrition ⁵ in 2014 on food loss and waste worldwide shows that around a third of agricultural production intended for human consumption is lost or wasted (between the production and consumption stages).

Losses do not occur at the same stages in southern and northern countries. In the South, losses tend to occur during harvesting and storage, while in the North they are more likely to occur at the distribution and consumption stages.

According to this study, losses and wastage worldwide amount to approximately 1.3 billion tonnes a year.

Losses are higher in northern countries: 280 to 300 kg of food lost or wasted per year and per person in Europe and North America; 120 to 170 kg per year and per person in sub-Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia).

In France, every year, nearly 10 million tonnes ⁶ of food is wasted, equivalent to 150 kg/capita/year. The final consumer plays a significant role, since around a third of losses occur in the home.

It’s clear that a real effort to limit food waste would have a significant impact, and would make it possible to feed part of the growing population.

Produce more, but how?

Over the last few decades, the intensification of agriculture has enabled yields to rise and food production to increase faster than population growth. According to the FAO, to meet the demand of nearly 10 billion people, “agriculture will need to produce nearly 50% more food, feed and biofuels in 2050 than in 2012”. ⁷ (we’ll see why later).

On the face of it, the continuation of the current model based on inputs (fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, water, etc.) and varietal improvement could respond to this increase in production. However, it is unlikely that these trends will continue. The decreasing availability of water and fossil fuels (oil or coal) will not allow the yield increases we have seen. The current model, which consumes space, non-renewable energy and chemicals, is out of breath. It has numerous impacts on the environment and human health: loss of biodiversity, degradation of soil quality, depletion and pollution of water reserves, increase in diseases linked to the growing use of chemicals in agriculture and food.

We could then imagine finding more land. However, it is difficult to envisage further deforestation worldwide, which would lead to additional CO2 emissions and increased loss of biodiversity. On the contrary, to increase natural carbon sinks, in order to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement (i.e. global carbon neutrality in the second half of this century), deforestation must be halted. Of course, it is possible to find arable land that has not yet been used or that is not very productive. But the increase in available land is unlikely to exceed 5 to 10%.

Today, there are two opposing models of agriculture:

• The first, mainly driven by the industrial world (agri-supplies and agri-food), proposes an intensive form of agriculture known as “reasoned agriculture” that takes the environment into account.
• The other, driven by the world of ecology and nurtured by agronomists in the field, aims to develop more energy-efficient farming systems adapted to local soil conditions, climate and farming practices. This second approach is known as agroecology.

The model of reasoned intensification of agriculture aims to combine increased yields with respect for the environment.

In addition to population growth, the agricultural model of the future will have to take account of climate change, which poses a number of risks to agricultural production: increased aridity, more frequent natural disasters, the spread of disease to areas not yet affected, etc. ⁸ …

For many, including France’s leading farmers’ union, the answer to climate challenges and population growth lies in increasing crop yields and technical innovation.

To achieve these objectives, proponents of rational intensification emphasize genetic improvement of varieties (including GMOs), fertilization at the right dose and continued crop protection with fungicides, insecticides and herbicides, as well as biocontrol techniques.

A model based on technical innovation

• Genetic improvement. This can be done conventionally by multiplication, natural recombination or by the use of GMOs. In the latter case, the genetic material has been modified by man. According to the proponents of this model, genetic improvement would make it possible to greatly increase yields and obtain plants that are more resistant to drought or certain predators. In their view, this would increase yields in developing countries while limiting the need for fertilizers and pesticides. However, we must bear in mind the many disadvantages of GMOs ⁹ and the consequences for human and animal health, which are not yet fully understood. More seriously, Nicolas Bouleau has shown that there are incalculable risks involved in using biosynthesis techniques. ¹⁰ . Last but not least, there is the dependence of farmers on biotech firms.
• Fertilization at the right dose. This practice is developing rapidly in northern countries, and is becoming increasingly popular with farmers. Agricultural alerts” tell farmers when it’s the right time to apply fertilizers or pesticides. For their part, on-board agricultural equipment applies the right doses in the right places. These techniques make it possible to avoid overdosing and the resulting losses to water and soil. They do, however, require substantial investment in expensive, state-of-the-art equipment.
• Crop protection. The proposed system is still based on a degree of crop specialization. This means protecting plants in an “unnatural” environment. Here again, development is based on the right doses, respect for spreading instructions… Biocontrol techniques involving predatory insects and other insects harmful to crops are also being developed.

For the advocates of this intensive, reasoned agriculture, digital technology will transform agriculture and help farmers to combine yields with environmental protection. Genetic innovation, meanwhile, will make it possible to offer plants adapted to new environments and climatic conditions.

Is this “technical” agriculture applicable to the South as well as the North?

Shouldn’t we be considering different solutions for Northern countries, where yields are high, farm labor is scarce and agriculture is highly capital-intensive, as opposed to Southern countries?

As far as the countries of the South are concerned, the widespread use of digital technologies would only support industrial agriculture or latifundia. Countries where family farming remains the norm (Africa, India) would de facto be excluded, as the cost of equipment would be unthinkable for poor farmers.

What’s more, GM crops have not produced the expected results in countries such as India, and have bankrupted a large number of farmers (see box).

Finally, increasing the use of fertilizers and pesticides in African countries or South-East Asia runs the risk of destabilizing a fragile environment where predators are also regulated naturally. For some agronomists ¹¹ the answer is negative. As the current average level of fertilizer use is much lower than in northern countries, a reasoned increase in fertilizer use in these countries can be achieved without negative environmental consequences.

An agricultural model that continues to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases

While intensive agriculture can provide technical solutions and increase yields without additional pressure on the environment, its main drawback is that it is still based on an economy dependent on oil and chemicals. The production and spreading of fertilizers is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, and digital technologies also increase the consumption of fossil fuels. Finally, the production of pesticides also consumes energy and has a major impact on biodiversity. So, even if this type of agriculture reduces its carbon footprint, it still emits large quantities of greenhouse gases, just as it keeps farmers highly dependent, both upstream (supply of inputs manufactured by a few international firms) and downstream (e.g., demands for homogeneous production by agri-food firms) of the production chain.

A model that aims to increase yields in response to the world’s increasingly meat-based eating habits

The increase in yields brought about by rational intensive agriculture is based on the realization that there are limits to the increase in arable land and on the foreseeable evolution of eating habits. The FAO estimates that we need to increase production by around 50% by 2050 for a population increase of 25%, to take account of the influence of eating habits. Indeed, rising living standards in many southern countries and increased urbanization are driving up meat consumption. According to an FAO report, average consumption worldwide rose from 30 to 41 kg per person/year between 1980 and 2005. ¹² . The increase is concentrated in China, but also in many Latin American countries. According to the same report, land used for animal feed accounts for 33% of cultivated land.

If the “meat” diet expands, there are only two solutions: deforest to open up new land for livestock farming (which Brazil has been doing increasingly since Jair Bolsonaro came to power), with very negative consequences for biodiversity and climate change, or significantly increase agricultural yields.

Another path is possible, requiring a change in the current diet in the North and a limitation in the growth of meat consumption in the South.

Agroecological agriculture and a change in diet: another answer to feeding 10 billion people

What would be the impact of widespread organic farming worldwide?

European researchers have published a study in Nature Communication ¹³ showing that organic food could feed the planet and 9 billion human beings on two conditions: reduce food waste (as seen above) and reduce the share of animal proteins.

How to produce as much, but differently? Using data from the FAO, the researchers, funded by the UN agency, modeled the agricultural areas that would be needed to obtain the same number of calories (2,700 per day per person) in 2050, with different proportions of organic farming (0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% or 100%), and taking into account several levels of impact of climate change on yields (zero, medium, high).

First conclusion: converting all agriculture to organic farming would require cultivating 16% to 33% more land worldwide in 2050 than the 2005-2009 average – compared with 6% more in the FAO’s reference scenario, based essentially on conventional farming. This is because organic yields are lower. This would lead to increased deforestation (+8% to 15%), which would be harmful to the climate. But at the same time, the 100% organic option would lead to a reduction in environmental impact: less pollution from pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, and a lower demand for fossil fuels. All in all, greenhouse gas emissions from organic farming would be 3% to 7% lower than in the reference scenario, “a small gain”, note the authors.

To counterbalance the additional farmland requirements of all-organic farming, the researchers propose introducing two changes to the food system:

• reduce wastage, which today accounts for the loss of 30% of all food (see point 1);
• limit competition between food production for humans and livestock.

A third of the planet’s arable land is used to feed livestock with soya, corn, wheat, etc., whereas these cereals could be used for human consumption. Such a change would mean a reduction in the number of livestock, and therefore in the consumption of animal products (meat, fish, eggs, dairy products), which could be divided by three.

Afterres 2050 scenarios

A similar foresight exercise had already been carried out on a French scale: the Afterres 2050 scenario. ¹⁴ published in 2016 by the Solagro association, which focuses on the transition to energy, agriculture and food. It concluded that 50% organic farming could feed 72 million French people in 2050 without increasing the amount of arable land, while halving greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and summer water consumption, and tripling the use of pesticides. But only on two conditions: once again, a reduction in over-consumption and waste, and a change in diet. We consume two-thirds animal proteins and one-third vegetable proteins. We need to do the opposite and halve our consumption of animal products.

These studies indicate that a return to agriculture that takes greater account of the diversity of ecosystems is desirable. An agriculture that observes and integrates the qualities of the soil and the specific local climate to produce more economically, notably by limiting the use of fossil fuels. Authors such as Marc Dufumier ¹⁵ or Nicolas Bricas ¹⁶ demonstrate the benefits of agroecology.

This type of agriculture, which can be developed in the countries of the North, also offers numerous advantages in the countries of the South, where family farming is very much in evidence. According to the Knowledge Platform on Family Farming, family farms feed and employ two-thirds of the African population, and work 62% of the land.

Farmers’ good knowledge of the environment and the abundance of manpower are assets. Intensifying employment per hectare costs nothing in these countries and, on the contrary, helps to keep people on the land who would otherwise migrate to the cities, where unemployment is on the rise. However, this agricultural work needs to be better recognized and valued to encourage young people to stay on.

Conclusion

Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 is technically possible. The decisions are political. The choice of system will be made by governments. Globally, in the North, it’s not a question of producing more, but better. In the South, yields can be increased by mastering agroecology.

The fight against crop losses and food waste is essential, but it’s a battle that can be won fairly easily. What seems more complicated is changing the diet in Northern countries. It has to be said, however, that this diet has already evolved considerably between the post-war years and the present day. What will be the trend in the countries of the South? Once again, the answer lies in the hands of political decision-makers.

One thing’s for sure: while both models – intensive farming and agroecology/organic farming – can respond to population growth, they won’t have the same impact on greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity.