Appendix
Alternative Proteins and Malnutrition
In their brief launched at COP28, the Innovation Commission for Climate Change, Food Security, and Agriculture shared that alternative protein innovation has the potential to contribute to climate mitigation, relieve food insecurity, and help address malnutrition.
Topline summary for alternative proteins “Alternative protein innovation has the potential to contribute to climate mitigation, relieve food insecurity, and help address malnutrition.”
Alternative proteins can relieve food insecurity: “Alternative proteins can help relieve food insecurity by reducing the risk of food price spikes from animal feed demands.” “Lobell et al (2011) found that climate trends between 1980 and 2008 led to a 3% loss in calories, which led to roughly 20% higher commodity prices relative to a counterfactual scenario without warming. Price increases would clearly be much greater under the 9 percent (by 2050) and 25 percent (by 2098) yield losses projected in a high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5). Baldi et al 2021 estimate a 4 percent shift to plant-based meats would result in crop prices being 13 to 23 percent lower on average relative to a counterfactual with no plant-based meat.”
Alternative proteins can also decrease emissions directly: “In high- and upper-middle-income countries, alternative proteins could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by substituting for conventional meat products if they can compete on taste and price.”
And they can address malnutrition directly: “Investing in alternative proteins now could help address malnutrition, a key driver of which is a lack of access to affordable, high-quality proteins.”
They are also a more climate resilient way of producing protein: “Investing in alternative proteins could help insure against worst-case scenarios by reducing emissions and by providing a climate-resilient source of proteins.”
Governments and philanthropies should fund alt proteins research: “R&D investments in alternative proteins offer option value under the worst climate change and food security scenarios… Public and philanthropic investment in basic research could accelerate innovation in alternative proteins for climate mitigation in high and upper-middle-income countries.”
Climate mitigation grounds alone justify these investments: “Greater public and philanthropic R&D funding can fill the gap left by commercial markets… A one percent reduction in annual livestock emissions would have a social value of approximately USD 6.65 billion using an assigned 2020 social cost of carbon of USD 190… Current public investments in R&D for alternative proteins fall short of their potential social value - larger investments by high-income countries in basic R&D would be justified on climate mitigation grounds alone.”
“In addition to reducing direct emissions, changing how we produce meat could free up three billion hectares of land—a land mass larger than China and India combined and then doubled.” Source: https://gfi.org/blog/agriculture-is-at-a-climate-crossroads-alternative-proteins-are-a-global-solution/#:~:text=In%20addition%20to%20reducing%20direct,India%20combined%20and%20then%20doubled
Kremer Innovation Commission’s Case for Alternative Proteins. Source: https://gfi.org/resource/kremer-innovation-commissions-case-for-alternative-proteins/
Authoritarian states exploiting poverty and conflict
During the panel discussion, Bob Geldof specifically called for establishing independent oversight commissions in authoritarian states that are exploiting poverty and conflict. He argued this is necessary to curb threats to global stability from leaders undermining anti-poverty efforts through actions like prolonging conflicts or abusing human rights. Geldof's remarks implied certain authoritarian governments find advantage in conditions of poverty, disenfranchisement and instability among populations by exploiting these situations for political gain. Independent oversight, in his view, could help monitor such abuses of power and potentially sanction officials through greater transparency and accountability that authoritarian states often lack.
Case study: Venezuela (Nicolás Maduro)
The ongoing economic/humanitarian crisis has deepened poverty and hunger while the government cracks down on political opposition. The UN has documented many cases of human rights abuses, such as an alarming rise in enforced disappearances ahead of Venezuela’s presidential poll.
Why reform agricultural subsidies conditioned on shifting away from animal feed crops toward more sustainable options, due to the inefficiencies of industrial agriculture?
Bruce Friedrich, participant in the panel, cited data showing that industrial agriculture relies on mono-cropping over 3 billion hectares of land for animal feed production, which is an incredibly inefficient use of resources. For example, it takes 40 calories of feed input to produce just 1 calorie of beef output. This diversion of crops for livestock also drives up global food prices and contributes to malnutrition. Research shows (as the one carried out by GFI) alternative protein technologies could help free up vast farmland currently used inefficiently for animal agriculture. Conditioning subsidies on transitioning to more sustainable diversified crops, as Friedrich suggested, could help address these inefficiencies and better support achieving global food security goals.
Systemic factors that contribute to poverty
Lack of strong social welfare programs in a nation, such as unemployment benefits, public healthcare, education systems, can leave people more vulnerable to falling into poverty due to lack of support and social safety nets. This was mentioned in the panel in the context of weak democratic systems.
A nation's history of colonisation can negatively impact long-term development by disrupting traditional governance structures, concentrating land/resource ownership, and imposing economic models that prioritised extraction for colonial powers over building up local industries and institutions. This makes it more difficult and time-consuming for post-colonial nations to establish effective social programs and diversify their economies. The legacy of colonialism was part of the discussion around obstacles facing developing nations.
Weak governance, corruption, and lack of political will among national leadership hampers nations' ability to effectively invest in programs and infrastructure that can reduce poverty rates over time by creating jobs, economic opportunities, and access to education/services. This was discussed in the context of failures of some governments and international institutions to prioritise poverty alleviation.
Additionally, there are other systemic factors that need to be addressed and monitored to advance in the goal of ending extreme poverty. According to EAPN, some of these include:
Unemployment or holding a poor-quality job (e.g., low-paid or precarious) limits access to a decent income and cuts people off from social networks. Low levels of education and skills restrict people’s ability to secure good jobs, develop themselves, and fully participate in society. Family size and type, such as large families and single-parent households, face a higher risk of poverty due to increased costs, lower incomes, and greater difficulty in finding well-paid employment. Gender disparities mean women are generally at a higher risk of poverty than men, as they are less likely to be in paid employment, tend to have lower pensions, are more involved in unpaid caregiving, and often receive lower pay for the same work. Disability or ill-health limits access to employment and leads to increased daily costs. Members of minority ethnic groups, such as the Roma, immigrants, and migrants, face discrimination and racism, reducing their employment opportunities and forcing them into poorer living conditions with less access to essential services.
Source: https://www.eapn.eu/what-is-poverty/causes-of-poverty-and-inequality/