Harvest 2050

Innovation pays off

2010-06-21T22:00:58Z

A recently released study, conducted by Stanford Earth scientists, provides further confirmation that investing in agricultural innovation produces the two-fold benefit of allowing modern agriculture to intensify crop yields while doing it in a sustainable and environmentally-friendly.

The study - conducted by Jennifer Burney, Steven Davis and David Lobell - concludes that "advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere - the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide."

Moreover, because crop yields were improved it reduced the "need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."

Remarkably, the researchers estimated that "if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850."

From an investment perspective, the researchers "calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases."

"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Burney, the lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Steven Davis, a co-author of the paper and a postdoctoral researcher at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford, echoed Burney in saying:

"When we look at the costs of the research and development that went into these improvements, we find that funding agricultural research ranks among the cheapest ways to prevent greenhouse gas emissions."

Of course, we at the Global Harvest Initiative have long understood that investing in agricultural research and innovation pays off in terms of better protecting the environment and allowing farmers to produce more with less land and water.

We also know that closing the global productivity gap to meet our growing population's food needs by 2050 requires more investment in research and innovation to produce the new technologies that will help modern agriculture continue to be good stewards of the land and environment. Think about it this way, "without the advances in high-yield agriculture, several billion additional acres of cropland would have been needed" to farm. In no way, would that have been good for the environment.

World Food Prize Laureate

2010-06-18T21:29:22Z

The World Food Prize Laureate Announcement Ceremony awarded the 2010 Laureates, David Beckmann and Jo Luck, at the U.S. State Department this Wednesday. Beckmann and Luck are both known for their outstanding work and service to Bread for the World and Heifer International, two premiere philanthropic organizations fighting world-wide poverty and hunger.

David Beckmann's dedication to Bread for the World and World Bank has changed the lives of people across the world, through grassroots efforts to support government policies and programs aiding millions of impoverished and hungry people across the world.

As CEO of Heifer, Jo Luck has created an organization that educates the world's poorest nations and communities to create opportunities for themselves, while constantly advocating on their behalf to increase policies and legislation on local and global schemes.

Each year the WFP recognizes individuals who have made exceptional contributions to any field of food supply, which improves the quality, quantity or availability of food throughout the world. The 2009 WFP Laureate award recipient was Dr. Gebisa Estos, of Ethiopia.

The Global Harvest Initiative is looking forward to going to the World Food Prize in October, where we will have the opportunity to meet with David Beckmann and Jo Luck, the 2010 WFP Laureates. While at the WFP, GHI will unveil the first ever Global Agricultural Productivity Report, GAP Report, during a featured side event. The GAP Report is being developed in partnership with the Farm Foundation and the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and it will provide global and regional measures of productivity growth, and establish a process to maintain and report the measurements on a continuing basis. GHI is committed to creating and maintaining the GAP Report by annually publishing updated measures, along with evaluations of progress and suggestions for progress and suggestions for ways globally to close the productivity gap in order to meet the challenge of doubling agriculture production in the next 40 years and do it in a sustainable way.

The role of business in development

2010-05-19T14:08:22Z

On May 3, I attended a discussion hosted by the Global Economy and Development group at Brookings and the Initiative for Global Development (IGD) Washington, D.C., entitled "The Role of Business in Development: How Private Investment Can Catalyze Economic Growth and Reduce Poverty." While the Administration prepares a new U.S. global development assistance program, the event focused on the need for greater coordination of U.S. aid, trade and investment programs, and how to effectively work across sectors. The questions that were asked included:

"How can U.S. development programs best build capacity, unlock capital, supply infrastructure and create an environment for marked-let growth;
how can companies most effectively contribute to the growth of local enterprises and local employment through their supply chains and investments; and
what are the specific opportunities and challenges of increasing investment across Africa?"

Daniel Yohannes, Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO, provided the opening remarks, followed by a discussion among three CEO's (Justin Chinyanta, Chairman & CEO, Loita Capital Partners International LTD, Tim Solso, Chairman & CEO, Cummins Inc., and Chad Holliday, Former Chairman & CEO, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company) from the United States and Africa. Kermal Dervis, Vice President and director of Global Economy and Development, moderated the discussion while Jennifer Potter, President and CEO of IGD provided introductory remarks.

From the discussion that followed, it was clear that for any significant global economic development and poverty reduction to occur, it will be essential for the private sector to lead the effort. All of the speakers expressed optimism that it could be accomplished although it will be a long and difficult journey as there are many obstacles. It was emphasized that the private sector needs to "step up to the plate," have a long term outlook, and that poor countries also must have good governance and an environment conducive for business investment. Two recent publications were made available at the event:

"A New Strategy to Leverage Business for International Development" authored by Robert Mosbacher, Jr. and published by the Global Economy and Development at Brookings (working paper #4, May 2010), and
"The Business Case for Foreign Aid Reform" by Initiative for Global Development.

Global food security report calls for actions to close the gap

2010-05-04T23:04:00Z

On April 27, 2010, in the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Center for Strategic and International Studies launched the report of its Task Force on Food Security, co-chaired by Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Robert Casey, and Representative Betty McCollum, entitled "Cultivating Global Food Security: A Strategy for U.S. Leadership on Productivity, Agricultural Research and Trade". This event marked the outcome of many discussions and meetings of the Task Force which had been charged with developing recommendations for a long-term U.S. strategic approach to global food security. The Task Force's membership included leaders from government, business, academia, and the nongovernmental and philanthropy communities.

]]> CSIS President and CEO Dr. John Hamre provided introductory remarks, and the Congressional Co-Chairs addressed the audience. Their comments were followed by an expert panel discussion and Q&A on the report's key findings and recommendations for a long-term U.S. strategic approach to global food security. Click here to watch the video of the event, or view below.

The report outlines three areas for action:

the drastic need to boost productivity;
the necessity to have greater investments in agricultural research and development (both domestically and abroad)
the total integration of U.S.trade policy and food security.

The CSIS report concludes:

"The United States has a tremendous opportunity to bring to bear its expertise, its human resource, and its commitment to feed people worldwide to set the world's food system on a path toward long-term security, As Senator Lugar said, 'The United States has always stood for big ideas--from the founding of the Republic on the basis of freedom to President Kennedy's vow to put a man on the moon. One of today's big ideas should be the eradication of hunger. We can bring America's dedication to science, innovation, technology and education together to lead an effort devoted to overcoming the obstacles to food security.' It is an opportunity to lead the way forward in a world hungry for progress. It is an opportunity to plant the seeds of global stability and prosperity and to cultivate goodwill around the world."

Earth Day a reminder of agriculture's role in conservation

2010-04-21T19:33:45Z

Today is Earth Day. The Global Harvest Initiative and its partner companies and organizations are proud to celebrate and commemorate the significance of this day to millions of people around the world.

While it may be cliché - "every day is Earth Day for farmers" - and those of us engaged in agriculture. We love the land. We dedicate ourselves daily to conserving as much of it as possible, understanding that global agriculture - farmers - must produce more with less if are to feed the 9 billion people who are expected to inhabit the Earth in the year 2050.

I think Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson understood that 40 years ago when the first Earth Day recognition was celebrated on April 22, 1970.

]]>

Nelson wanted to focus public attention on pollution and environmental concerns. Today, people the world over - adults and kids - recognize the day with many national and international organizations, schools and governmental entities holding programs and events to remind us that we must protect this precious resource called Earth.

Joyce Lobeck, a staff writer for the Yuma Sun in Arizona, recently wrote an excellent piece about agriculture and Earth Day with an assessment that put it all into perspective regarding why farmers and ranchers take seriously their stewardship of the land.

... farmers and ranchers not only make a living for their families, they feed and clothe the growing population of the world while protecting the ecosystem and providing wildlife habitat.

Here's what the Global Harvest Initiative believes about conservation:

We must minimize environmental degradation while meeting the global agricultural production needs of the future. Deforestation and use of fragile lands is simply not a viable option, so more will have to be grown on the existing land base using natural resources more efficiently. Much additional emphasis should be placed on irrigation and drought management, nutrient efficiencies and management, conservation tillage, and other actions that will improve water quality, reduce water use, and reduce greenhouse gases. These programs are important both in U.S. agriculture and throughout the rest of the world.

At the GHI, we recognize the enormity of the challenge faced by global agriculture in meeting the needs of our growing and more affluent population.　 Land, water and habitat constraints are tightening, as recognition grows of the critical need to protect these resources for future generations. Failure to meet these expectations sustainably has implications that transcend agriculture, with enormous ramifications for political stability in many parts of the world. But we believe that the challenge can be met and that much of the solution rests with agriculture's ability to produce more with the same or fewer resources. That will not happen without collective stakeholder engagement and widespread significant innovation that leads to accelerated agricultural productivity growth and improved supply chain efficiency. If we mobilize as a world community can feed the world, and protect it at the same time.

Happy Earth Day!

Freezing the footprint of food

2010-04-13T15:36:24Z

In a forward-looking dissertation titled Agriculture from 2000 to 2050 - The Business As Usual Scenario, Dr. Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund effectively argues that the "business as usual" model for food production is not sustainable as the global population explodes over the next 40 years.

Dr. Clay, who presented his paper last month at the Global Harvest Initiative 2010 Symposium, Closing the Gap: Examining an Alternative Future, proposes freezing the footprint of food by intensifying, not expanding production.

It's a compelling piece that also has been published in GHI's book Benefits of An Alternative Future. The most persuasive aspect of Dr. Clay's thesis is that it offers solutions for how we can feed the 9 billion people who will inhabit the Earth in 2050, while at the same time recognizing that we must be able to do in a way that sustains the planet. In other words, Dr. Clay urges that we need to do more with less impact on land and water resources.

]]>

Consider this excerpt from Dr. Clay's paper:

We live on a single planet with finite resources. Today, we're living at the level of 1.3 planets according to the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Index. Translated: We are "eating" the planet--we are consuming the planet's principle rather than living off its interest. And that's today; by 2050, there will be nine billion people and on average they will consume twice as much. So the question is: How do we feed a larger population globally and maintain the planet? We must freeze the footprint of food. And, at the same time we must begin to do more with less, while restoring the planet. The math is simple. On a finite planet, population times how much each of us consumes must equal the Earth's carrying capacity. Exceed that, and we degrade the planet not only for our generation, but for our children and our grandchildren.

In spelling out the consequences of continuing the business as usual scenario, Dr. Clay goes on to write:

For the past 50 years, we have expanded food production by converting natural habitat at the rate of 0.4 percent per year. In just the past decade - as developing countries such as China and India are hitting their economic strides - the rate has risen to 0.6 percent annually. This is occurring at a time when many might expect an increase in the intensity of production, rather than simple expansion.

If we assume the business as usual case for expanding into natural habitat, there will be very little natural habitat left by 2050. By that time, we will have 3 billion more people with 2.9 times as much income, consuming twice as much. In fact, the research suggests that in developing countries incomes are likely to increase more than five-fold by 2050. Moreover, by 2050, more people will live in cities (more than are alive today). If they behave like the urban residents of today, they will depend on others for virtually all their food. If we are to maintain a living planet for our grandchildren, then we will need to Freeze the Footprint of Food. We need more from less.

To freeze the footprint of food, we need smart policies, innovative ideas and new technologies. We must intensify food production rather than expand it...

Dr. Clay is right-on in his insightful assessment, particularly as it relates to intensifying agricultural production, while sustaining the planet. The Global Harvest Initiative also believes that much of the solution rests with agriculture's ability to produce more with the same or fewer resources. The ability to meet the food needs of nine billion people in the year 2050 rests largely on utilizing shared ideas and innovations that will lead to accelerated agricultural productivity growth and improved supply chain efficiency. Working together we can get there; we must get there.

Productivity vs. sustainability is a 'false choice'

2010-04-05T21:53:19Z

Few would argue that now is the time for us to start thinking about how to meet the food demands of a growing global population with fewer natural resources as we advance toward the year 2050. A recurring Global Harvest Initiative theme has been to embrace a collective thought process to closing this looming productivity gap, and eschewing the idea of a "one-size-fits-all" approach to meeting this challenge.

With this blog, GHI has endeavored to engage and enlist divergence opinions about how global agriculture can address this issue in ways that encourages enterprise while understanding that we must move forward in a sustainable and environmentally-friendly way that is paramount to achieving the end of feeding the world's population 40 years down the road.

A good example of GHI's approach is our recently released, commissioned five-chapter study Benefits of an Alternative Future. Dr. Michel Petit, in his paper, Agriculture: A Reassessment Following Recent Controversies, deftly argues for an inclusive approach to meet the future global food demand.

]]> He writes that we (agriculture) must be included in the solution to resolve "the environmental and societal controversies surrounding modern agriculture. Petit's paper concludes:

There are no easy solutions to resolving environmental and societal controversies surrounding modern agriculture. Every societal action, including those in the agricultural realm, entails risks which must be weighed against potential benefits, paying attention to the distribution of both costs and advantages. In fact, risk management is becoming a major task and challenge for public policy development everywhere in the world and requires ongoing dialogue with the society at large.

Modern agriculture must be enlisted if we are to overcome this false choice between productivity and sustainability. Modern agriculture - like all technological and scientific applications - is not static. It has and must continue to adapt to changing demands and challenges. Failure to continue advancements on the farm and across the food system will only exacerbate many of the problems that the critics highlight. These advancements will not occur automatically, however. They require the steady pursuit of a clearly articulated goal, namely one of feeding a growing population while holding steady, or even better, minimizing, the environmental footprint.

Here is Petit's entire chapter: GHIBooklet.pdf. It is an insightful read.

We're helping to answer the question

2010-03-29T15:28:28Z

Recently, when agricultural leaders and stakeholders gathered in Paris for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Ministerial Meeting - the first such assembly since 1998 - a critical question was posed to a roundtable of agriculture ministers, organizations and corporate leaders: "What actions are you prioritizing to prepare the food and agriculture system for the needs of a rapidly changing world?"

Of course, that is the question that all of us, inside and outside of agriculture, must answer sooner rather than later as "the global food and agriculture system will have to provide sustainably for billions more people and meet greater demands on quality, affordability and availability. Farming will be competing with other sectors for land, water and investment, while climate change adds new pressures," an OECD paper stated in outlining the challenges.

]]> The question posed to ministers from Austria, New Zealand, Canada, Germany and Chile as well as leading representatives such as Samuel R. Allen, Chairman and CEO, Deere & Company (and a founding GHI member), Concern Worldwide and the World Trade Organization, received some insightful responses that asserted there is much being done to address the issue of feeding more people in the future, but also emphasized that there is much more to be done.

Here's a portion of Allen's response:

A crucial element in meeting the future needs of a growing, more affluent global population is accelerated innovation across the entire food system-from farm production through distribution, right to the final consumer. This entails closing the critical gap between the historical trend rate of agricultural productivity growth and the far faster pace required to meet future needs. Closing this gap will enable sustainably feeding a growing world while meeting the environmental, resource and other goals of our global society. Achieving such a monumental task involves embracing all types of modern production practices, including conventional and organic agriculture, and producers of all sizes and types, from subsistence to commercial...

You can read the rest of the responses here: OECD-Ministerial-Agriculture (2).pdf.

Many of the same ideas advanced at OECD were reiterated recently at our 2010 Symposium, Closing the Gap: Examining an Alternative Future. As such, we are reminded that our scope is a global one, when it comes to advocating for policies and solutions that will help to sustainably close the productivity gap in agriculture. The Global Harvest Initiative, like the OECD, is but a piece of this worldwide effort to get this very critical discussion on the radar of policymakers everywhere.

We 'ignore agriculture at our peril'

2010-03-25T22:56:36Z

The importance of agriculture in the scheme of government stability was underscored this week in a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Pakistani Foreign Minister Mahmoud Qureshi. During a joint press conference on CSPAN Secretary Clinton noted that "60

to 70 percent of the people of Pakistan rely on agriculture and therefore "we ignore agriculture at our peril". While Secretary Clinton's words that "we ignore agriculture at our peril" may ring a bit ominous and alarmist, she is absolutely right in her assessment.

]]> Indeed, Sen. Richard Lugar and Dr. Norman Borlaug in their paper Solutions to Close the Gap, they make the case for agriculture being the foundation for peace in writing:

World peace will not be built on empty stomachs or human misery. A world in which 40 percent of the total population is marginalized in the global economy is not one where peace or environmental stewardship will prosper. Modern agriculture is not the nemesis of the environment or socio-economic development. Rather it is one of their greatest allies. Famine and chronic food shortages can lead to mass migrations that can destabilize countries and entire regions. Governments that cannot feed their people invite their own downfall.

Secretary Clinton is right. In order for democracy and economies to flourish and prosper, there must be stability. Agriculture is a key to that stability. However, as Lugar and Borlaug wrote:

The need is evident. But achieving food security is complex and challenging. It will involve the insights and contributions of many different disciplines, significant and sustained investments, changes in behavior and in centuries-old agricultural practices, the waging and winning of difficult policy fights, and overcoming powerful political interests, in rich and poor countries alike. Another challenge will be apathy. Until rich-country voters and politicians are motivated, and poor-country leaders really begin to lead in this area, very little can be accomplished.

Read more about Sen. Lugar and Dr. Borlaug's solutions to closing the gap here: GHIBooklet

Agriculture as a foundation for democracy and stability is not something that many global leaders discuss as a priortiy topic. So, it is refreshing to hear a leader like Secretary Clinton discuss agriculture in the same breath as democracy and economic prosperity. Agriculture is a difference-maker, and all leaders would do well to make it a top priority.

Symposium continues GHI's quest for solutions, cooperation

2010-03-09T13:51:21Z

Eight days and counting to our 2010 Symposium, Closing the Gap: Examining an Alternative Future. The symposium, which will be held on March 17 in Washington, D.C., continues the Global Harvest Initiative's quest to explore and develop specific policies with a global perspective, while having the power to change the way agricultural products are produced and secured.

We expect it to be an exciting day of engaging discussions around the topics of agriculture, hunger, conservation and food security.We've assembled a wonderful group of presenters who will offer their ideas - both from a policy and philosophical perspective - regarding how we address the challenge of feeding the 9 billion people who are expected to populate the planet in 2050. Here's an updated program agenda:

GHI 2010 Symposium Agenda.

A highlight of this year's Symposium will be the unveiling of a five-part study, which was commissioned by GHI to provide a fact-based blueprint for developing the policies and systems necessary to sustainably meet growing demand. This diverse group of experts provide additional perspective on the difficulty of the challenges ahead, as well as the global consequences of not closing the productivity gap.

]]> One chapter of the study entitled - The Business As Usual Scenario - was authored by Dr. Jason Clay, SVP of Markets for the World Wildlife Fund. Clay poignantly concludes that if we are to maintain a living planet for our grandchildren, then we will need to "freeze the footprint of food." In other words, we need to do more with less impact on land and water resources.

There is still time to register. However, the event will be by invitation only and seating is expected to be limited. To request more information about the Symposium, please contact Christina Altenau at christina.altenau@globalharvestinitiative.org.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Feeding 9 billion people a shared goal

2010-02-23T20:10:05Z

The path forward in meeting the challenge of feeding 9 billion people in 2050 is not an issue that the Global Harvest Initiative thankfully is not contemplating in a vacuum. There are some really innovative thinkers who are considering how we meet this challenge through innovation, cooperation and utilizing new technologies. An article, Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People, published last month in Science magazine, presents an in-depth and well-documented case of the difficult road that lies ahead.

Here's the premise of the article:

Continuing population and consumption growth will mean that the global demand for food will increase for at least another 40 years. Growing competition for land, water and energy, in addition to the overexploitation of fisheries, will affect our ability to produce food as will the urgent requirement to reduce the impact of the food system on the environment. The effects of climate change are a further threat. But the world can produce more food and can ensure that it is used more efficiently and equitably. A multifaceted and linked global strategy is needed to ensure sustainable and equitable food security, different components of which are explored here.

]]>

In discussing closing the yield gap and increasing production limits, the authors do an excellent job in laying out important factors that can both serve and expedite those efforts. Consider this excerpt explaining the "yield gap":

The yield gap is not static. Maintaining, let alone increasing, productivity depends on continued innovation to control weeds, diseases, insects, and other pests as they evolve resistance to different control measures, or as new species emerge or are dispersed to new regions. Innovation involves both traditional and advanced crop and livestock breeding, as well as the continuing development of better chemical, agronomic, and agro-ecological control measures.

On the topic of increasing production limits, the authors weigh in on the touchy subject of biotechnology, urging reasonably that "genetic modification should neither be privileged nor automatically dismissed" as a useful tool to increase crop production. Consider this passage:

The issue of trust and public acceptance of biotechnology has been highlighted by the debate over the acceptance of GM technologies. Because genetic modification involves germline modification of an organism and its introduction to the environment and food chain, a number of particular environmental and food safety issues need to be assessed. Despite the introduction of rigorous science-based risk assessment, this discussion has become highly politicized and polarized in some countries, particularly Europe. Our view is that genetic modification is a potentially valuable technology whose advantages and disadvantages need to be considered rigorously on an evidential, inclusive, case-by-case basis...

The article concludes:

There is no simple solution to sustainably feeding 9 billion people, especially as many become increasingly better off and converge on rich-country consumption patterns. A broad range of options, including those we have discussed here, needs to be pursued simultaneously. We are hopeful about scientific and technological innovation in the food system, but not as an excuse to delay difficult decisions today.

Any optimism must be tempered by the enormous challenges of making food production sustainable while controlling greenhouse gas emission and conserving dwindling water supplies, as well as meeting the Millennium Development Goal of ending hunger. Moreover, we must avoid the temptation to further sacrifice Earth's already hugely depleted biodiversity for easy gains in food production, not only because biodiversity provides many of the public goods on which mankind relies but also because we do not have the right to deprive future generations of its economic and cultural benefits. Together, these challenges amount to a perfect storm.

Navigating the storm will require a revolution in the social and natural sciences concerned with food production, as well as a breaking down of barriers between fields. The goal is no longer simply to maximize productivity, but to optimize across a far more complex landscape of production, environmental, and social justice outcomes.

In other words, there are no easy answers to how we feed the world. However, the one thing that we can all agree on is that a one-size-fits-all solution will not work. That's why cooperation is a must as we work towards our goal for feeding a global population.

America we have an 'innovation deficit'

2010-02-15T15:46:44Z

The United States has an "innovation deficit". Of course, for those of us in agriculture, this is not exactly a startling revelation. But it bears repeating that we can't shortchange funding for agricultural research, which already is woefully behind funding in other areas, if the United States is going to lead in closing the productivity gap - the difference between the historic rate of productivity growth and the pace required to meet needs in 2050 when the global population is expected to exceed 9 billion.

But I digress to make the point that our "innovation deficit" is not lost on others. Eric Schmidt, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Google, writing in a Washington Post op-ed last week mused that:

We have been world leaders in innovation for generations. It has driven our economy, employment growth and our rising prosperity. But much of the cutting-edge research and development in key areas such as renewable energy now takes place outside the United States. There's a real chance that the "green Silicon Valley" will take root in Germany or China. We can't afford to let that happen.

]]>

Schmidt's real concern about the United States losing ground to other countries was echoed in a speech given last month by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke to President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Among other salient points, Locke noted that:

In the past, America has depended, above all, on one thing to keep growing: a continuous flow of new technologies and new ideas entering the marketplace that sweeps away old ways of doing business and replaces them with new ones. But today, America has a broken innovation ecosystem that does not efficiently:

create the right incentives or allocate enough resources to generate new ideas;
develop those ideas with focused research; and,
turn them into businesses that can create good jobs.

The evidence is everywhere you look. You see it the industries that used to be dominated by American companies but are now led by companies in Europe and Asia. Locke added that we know how to fix our "broken innovation system": We've got to devote more resources to research and development -- especially at the federal level.

The Commerce Secretary is not going to get any argument or disagreement from this corner. The $429 million in President Obama's FY 2011 budget is a good start as it is an increase of $166.4 million over last year's budget, and the highest funding level ever - for competitive grants through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.

Yes, while better, it's a drop in the bucket when compared to research dollars allocated in other areas. It's this kind of shortchanging of agriculture research that last year caused a coalition consisting of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and 70 university presidents, deans of agriculture and veterinary medicine and others, to write letters pointing out that "...for every $120 appropriated for the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. invests only $1 for food and agriculture competitive research."

Moreover, the group also noted that the "Agriculture and Food Research Initiative was one of the few federal science programs to receive no investment in the American Recovery Act of 2009... and that agriculture and food sciences receives only about 1 percent of total federal investment in research and development."

As one of the group leaders urged:

Enhanced investment in agricultural research is critical not only to American famers, but global economic and environmental sustainability relies upon better knowledge and innovative answers.

Eric Schmidt is absolutely on mark in saying we "can't afford" to cede our innovation edge to other countries. I would echo that, and add that we can't lose our innovation edge in any sector, particularly the agriculture community where we continue to lead in innovation, despite an all too obvious "funding deficit".

Changing 'business as usual' mindset

2010-02-08T21:37:49Z

Part of the challenge of trying to work collaboratively with others to close the global productivity gap and the meet future food needs of growing populations, is breaking away from conventional wisdom that says "it's this way, or the highway". In other words, in order to make progress, we must change a "business as usual" mindset. A mindset takes us down the road of least resistance, but a road that surely will end as land and water resources to grow crops began to diminish.

In a speech not long ago, David Everitt, John Deere's President, Agriculture and Turf Division - North America, Asia, Australia, and Sub-Saharan and South Africa, and Global Tractor and Turf Products, made a compelling case for why we must change our mindset if we are too hasten agriculture's productivity growth rates, and laid out the critical factors for doing so. Everitt outlined a blueprint for the way forward, highlighting the following initiatives as critical elements of focus for getting there:

Increased Productivity through Technology/Innovation
Climate Change
Trade
Rural Development- Ensuring Rural Communities' Prosperity

]]> He underlined the consequences of a "business as usual" mindset in saying:

Ignoring this looming productivity challenge or not acting quickly enough has perilous risks that should not be underestimated. At its most basic, it means additional human suffering through hunger and malnutrition. Beyond that, it means widespread social turmoil and unrest that undermine the political stability of large parts of the world -- not to mention eroding our own national security.

I don't believe any who are close to this issue would disagree with David's assessment, particularly when he frames the discussion around "the looming productivity challenge". Yes, we know it's hard to consider 2050 when we're just entered 2010. But consider David's concluding words:

Just as some of your great grandfathers made the giant leap from horses to tractors - just as John　Deere abandoned the trusty 2-cylinder Johnny Popper after 40 years, in favor of the "New Generation of Power" four- and six-cylinder tractors, we must all embrace change in nearly everything we do, in order to ensure a sustainable future for production agriculture.

Much can, and will change in 40 years. We only hope the "business as usual" mindset changes quicker. The consequences of inertia are too costly.

Agriculture "a game-changer" in global issues

2010-02-01T19:08:12Z

When thinkers from all over the world gathered last week for the 40th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland to mull over the global state of the economy, the role of agriculture was not an afterthought.

During a compelling panel discussion Rethinking How to Feed the World, DuPont's Chair and CEO Ellen Kullman put agriculture in the center of the global economic discussion in stating that:

Agriculture is a game-changer that can mitigate multiple global issues - hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, poor nutrition and subsequent effects such as civil unrest.

]]>

Ellen is absolutely on mark in her assessment of the role agriculture plays not only in global economics, but in a humanitarian aspect. The World Economic Forum also understands our importance, and made agriculture a priority subject in 2008 when it formed the Global Agenda Council on Food Security. The goal of this initiative is to engage "global leaders in business, government, international organizations, civil society and academia" to:

• Define and leverage support for priority actions to improve global food security
• Serve as a "network of networks" of major global institutions and initiatives on hunger to expand partnerships and deepen synergies

Towards those ends, Ellen helped frame the discussion at this year's forum in saying:

Delivering on the potential for agriculture to address critical, global issues may be the greatest opportunity of our generation. It is possible, but it will take a radical new approach to collaboration.

Moreover, panelists were asked to consider what it would take to achieve food security, environmental sustainability and economic growth through agriculture, to which Kullman responded:

Global food security challenges are becoming more complex and interconnected. Collaborations among organizations will need to follow suit - becoming more interconnected to leverage the strengths of organizations across the public and private sectors.

Indeed, that is our goal; that is our mission. Thanks Ellen for your participation in the Davos discussion, and continuing to sound the drum of collaboration.

Can't close gap minus food security

2010-01-31T23:14:47Z

Recently, I participated in a meeting to invigorate and encourage brainstorm around the issue of food security. The meeting was co-hosted by Meridian Institute, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, The World Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The objectives for the gathering were to:

1. Share information about key institutional food security priorities and activities and identify an efficient mechanism(s) for sustained, on-going information sharing.

2. Identify how the respective strengths of the participating institutions can be leveraged to take innovative concepts to scale in support of food security.

3. Explore how participating institutions could support the development of food security indicators for monitoring and evaluation purposes.

4. Explore how participating institutions could support efforts that better enable tracking of pledges vis-à-vis actual food security investments.

]]>

I was so pleased that the Global Harvest Initiative was included in this meeting. I was impressed by the very honest and sincere dialogue with government officials and private foundations about how all could coordinate and work better together to address the daunting tasks that lie ahead. I look forward to the continued dialogue to address the challenges in meeting the needs of our expanding population over the next several decades.

In meeting the challenge of closing a global productivity gap by 2050, a critical element to achieving that goal is food security. When it comes to food security, we have two choices: We can continue with the "business as usual" approach, largely ignoring the causes of widespread food insecurity and the growing disparity among developed and developing nations; or, we can embrace and invest in new opportunities, new technologies and new policies to support food security.

The Global Harvest Initiative chooses the latter course, and partners with groups and organizations moving in the same direction.