IRRI Rice Seminar Series

Erik Mathijs
Current position Professor of Agricultural and Food Economics, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Leuven, Belgium Education and training M.Sc. Bioscience Engineering (agricultural economics & sociology/soil science), University of Leuven (1991) Ph.D. Agricultural Economics, University of Leuven (1998)

Work experience Research Associate, Policy Research Group, Division of Agricultural and Food Economics, 1991-1998 Assistant/Associate Professor, 1998-2004; Vice-coordinator Policy Research Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (Flanders, Belgium), 2002-2006 Professor, 2004Research highlights Role of social capital in influencing farmers behavior towards sustainability Sustainability impact assessment at farm level Factors influencing the adoption of sustainable farm practices (soil conservation, deficit irrigation, Jatropha)

Making the global agrifood system more sustainable: using systems thinking to identify key intervention points
Erik Mathijs KULeuven

Overview
Background: transition project agriculture and food, Flanders (Belgium) Rationale: How to intervene in the agrifood system to sustainably feed 9 bio people? System thinking basics A systemigram of the current thinking about the agrifood system 12 intervention points assessed

Background
Multi-stakeholder transition project, started up in 2011, aiming at accelerating change towards sustainability

Transitions
A transition is a social transformation process with the following characteristics: structural change in society (or complex subsystem of society) a long-term process that covers at least one generation large-scale technological, economic, ecological, sociocultural and institutional developments that influence and strengthen each other interactions between developments at different scale levels (Jan Rotmans)

Transitions
Fundamental system changes towards sustainability Long run Integrated approach Multiple actors from multiple domains Multi-level

From transition theory

Source: Geels, F.W. and Schot, J.W., 2007, 'Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways', Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417

 to transition practice

Source: Loorbach, D. 2007. Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development. International Books, Utrecht.

Combining building blocks into a transition

Source: VITO

Rationale
How to intervene in the agrifood system to sustainably feed 9 bio people?
To what extent do mainstream solutions take into account systemic effects? What are the most effective interventions from a systems perspective? (How to implement these interventions?)

Godfray et al., Science, 2010

Closing the yield gap Increasing production limits Reducing waste Changing diets Expanding aquaculture

Foley et al., Nature, 2011

Stop expanding agriculture Close yield gaps Increase agricultural resource efficiency Increase food delivery by shifting diets and reducing waste

System thinking basics

Policy resistance, the law of unintended consequences and the counterintuitive behavior of social systems Example: stimulating birth rate in Ceuasescu Romania, 1960s
Intention: import ban contraception and ban on abortion more births Result: initial increase followed by steep decrease What happened: smuggling of contraceptives, illegal abortions, orphans

System thinking basics

Variables (stocks, flows, constants) Relationship (physical, information,)
Reinforcing loop (exponential growth) Balancing loop (goal seeking)

Other element (delays)

Reinforcing loop and exponential growth

Balancing loop and goal seeking

System archetypes
Limits to growth Shifting the burden

System archetypes
Eroding goals Escalation

System archetypes
Success to the successful Tragedy of the commons

Modelling the food system

How do mainstream actors see the food system? How do they see interventions? Are the effective interventions? What are more effective interventions?

No constraints

demand + relative value price of subsitutes -

+ price +

supply + profits costs of production

Limits to growth, Malthus and innovation

demand for land + demand + relative value price of subsitutes + price + -

carrying capacity

available land + +

population +

supply + profits costs of production

productivity + innovation

Unintended consequences: oil demand, obesity, climate change

oil scarcity population + demand for bioenergy + + obesitas price of subsitutes + relative value price + + profits + demand + demand for land + -

carrying capacity available land + + climate change

supply

productivity +

costs of production

innovation

12 intervention points
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Transcending paradigms Paradigms Goals Self-organization Rules Information flows Reinforcing feedback loops Balancing feedback loops Delays Stock-and-flow structures Buffers Numbers

12 intervention points
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Transcending paradigms Paradigms Goals Self-organization Rules Information flows Reinforcing feedback loops Balancing feedback loops Delays Stock-and-flow structures Buffers Numbers
Purpose based interventions Structure based interventions

Elements based interventions

Elements based
Close the yield gap Increase production limits Increase agricultural resource efficiency Reduce waste Change diets Stop expanding agriculture
oil scarcity population + demand for bioenergy + + obesitas price of subsitutes + relative value price + + profits costs of production + demand + supply + demand for land available land + -

carrying capacity climate change

productivity + innovation

Structure based
internalize environmental externalities population + demand for bioenergy ban first generation biofuels + human health price of subsitutes + demand + relative value + price + demand for land + supply + profits costs of production + available land + carrying capacity climate change

oil scarcity

productivity + innovation

internalize human health externalities

Purpose based
environmental + goal carrying
capacity oil scarcity population + demand for bioenergy + + human health + relative value + demand + price + demand for land + supply + profits costs of production + available land + climate change

productivity + innovation

health goal

price of subsitutes

[profit maximization]

Conclusions
Systems thinking helps in identifying effective leverage points Most actors propose elements-based interventions that leave existing structures largely untouched, and that do not question system purposes A more integrated approach is needed to produce healthy systems that deliver the results we want

References
J.A. Foley, et al., Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 2011, 478:337-342. H.C.J. Godfray et al., Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 2010, 327:812-818. D.H. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Earthscan, 2008. J. Rotmans et al., More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight, 2001, 3:15-31. J.D. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill, 2000. D. Tilman et al., Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. PNAS, 2011, 108:20260-20264. The Government Office for Science, Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming. The Government Office for Science, London, 2011.