|
|
Dono, G., Raffaele, C., Luca, G., & Roggero, P. P. (2014). Income Impacts of Climate Change: Irrigated Farming in the Mediterranean and Expected Changes in Probability of Favorable and Adverse Weather Conditions. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 177–186.
Abstract: EU rural development policy (RDP) regulation 1305/2013 aims to protect farmers’ incomes from ongoing change of climate variability (CCV), and the increase in frequency of adverse climatic events. An income stabilization tool (IST) is provided to compensate drastic drops in income, including those caused by climatic events. The present study examines some aspect of its application focussing on Mediterranean irrigation area where frequent water shortages may generate significant income reductions in the current climate conditions, and may be further exacerbated by climate change. This enhanced loss of income in the future would occur due to a change in climate variability. This change would appreciably reduce the probability of weather conditions that are favourable for irrigation, but would not significantly increase either the probability of unfavourable weather conditions or the magnitude of their impact. As the IST and other insurance tools that protect against adversity and catastrophic events are only activated under extreme conditions, farmers may not consider them to be suitable in dealing with the new climate regime. This would leave a portion of the financial resources allocated by the RDP unused, resulting in less support for climate change adaptation.
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.
|
|
