earthquake and tsunami in Japan; the severe floods or storms in Brazil, Pakistan, the Philippines, Tai- land, and the United States; and the drought in the Horn of Africa imposed large economic losses during the year. According to the International Disaster Database, more than 200 natural disas- ters, affecting nearly 100 million people around the world, occurred during the year.2 Munich Re, a reinsurance company in Germany, estimated that 2011 natural disasters imposed economic losses of a record US$380 billion—more than double those of 2010 and far above the record losses of 2005.3 Poor and hungry people are particularly suscep- tible to these natural shocks. In the Horn of Africa, severe drought due to
consecutive poor rainy seasons was the worst experienced in 60 years. Extreme drought condi- tions triggered a widespread crisis in the region that was especially catastrophic in Somalia. Many parts of the Horn, especially the lowland areas, saw large crop losses, significant depletion of graz- ing resources, skyrocketing food prices, and sub- stantial livestock and human mortality. Te dire situation atracted belated policy and media aten- tion as more than 13 million people, principally pastoralists and farmers, were affected and their food and nutrition security was severely under- mined. Vulnerable groups such as women and children experienced acute food insecurity and undernutrition. Te United Nations Children’s Fund reported that more than 320,000 children suffered from severe malnutrition at the height of the crisis. Droughts in the Horn of Africa are not new,
but the scale of the 2010–11 crisis has been unusual. Although exposure to natural shocks is inevitable, human vulnerability to these shocks is not. Reducing vulnerability means improving society’s ability to cope and build resiliency in the face of future shocks. Given the severity of the drought in the Horn of Africa and the frequency of humanitarian emergencies in the region, a con- certed effort is needed to catalyze a transforma- tion, combining innovation, experimentation, and political commitment to enhance resiliency and mitigate the chronic stresses that also impede progress in the region.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Te record-breaking extreme weather events of 2011 suggested that climate change will put addi- tional pressure on world agriculture in the com- ing decades. Te year provided more evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are rising and that climate change is already affecting agricul- tural productivity. Te encouraging progress made at the annual
climate conventions in 2010 in Cancun and in 2011 in Durban helped address the disap- pointment created by the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen negotiations to result in binding commitments and gave a greater place to agricul- ture in global climate change negotiations. A key result was the creation of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. Tis platform, which includes all the Kyoto Protocol signatories plus the United States, is a mechanism for forging a treaty by 2015, whose goal is to bring both developed and developing countries together under a legally binding agreement by 2020. Outside of formal negotiations, countries and
regions are proceeding with their own efforts to adapt to and mitigate climate change, even in the face of a difficult macroeconomic climate. China, India, and Kenya, for instance, have all undertaken significant agricultural adaptation and mitiga- tion activities. Te progress made at the national and subnational levels should not overshadow the principle of common but different responsibili- ties, enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change text. Rather, these national and subnational activities could be the basis of a binding multilateral agreement to pursue low-emission development strategies.
BIOFUELS
Biofuel policy changes in 2011 were dominated by the European Union, the United States, and Brazil. In the United States, the Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011 came into law, and debate centered on whether the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit—a tax credit for blending etha- nol into gasoline—should be repealed. Research suggests that this tax credit, combined with the
OVERVIEW 3
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126