Abstract: Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales.

Abstract: Given the energetic, demographic and the climatic challenges faced today, we designed a combined food and energy (CFE) production system integrating food, fodder and mixed belts of Salix, Alnus and Corylus sp. as bioenergy belts. The objective was to assess the shoot dry weight-stem diameter allometric relationship based on stem diameter at 10 (SD10) and 55 cm (SD55) from the shoot base in the mixed bioenergy belts. Allometric relations based on SD10 and SD55 explained 90-96% and 90-98% of the variation in shoot dry weights respectively with no differences between the destructive and the non-destructive methods. The individual stool yields varied widely among the species and within willow species with biomass yield range of 37.60-92.00 oven dry tons (ODT) ha (1) in 4-year growth cycle. The biomass yield of the bioenergy belt, predicted by allometric relations was 48.84 ODT ha 1 in 4-year growth cycle corresponding to 12.21 ODT ha (1) year (1). The relatively high biomass yield is attributed to the border effects and the ‘fertilizing effect’ of alder due to nitrogen fixation, benefitting other SWRC components. On termination of 4-year growth cycle, the bioenergy belts were harvested and the biomass yield recorded was 12.54 ODT ha (1) year (1), in close proximity to the biomass yield predicted by the allometric equations, lending confidence and robustness of the model for biomass yield determination in such integrated agro-ecosystem. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.