|
|
Ahammad, H., Heyhoe, E., Nelson, G., Sands, R., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2015). The Role of International Trade under a Changing Climate: Insights from global economic modelling. In A. Elbehri (Ed.), (pp. 293–312). Climate Change and Food Systems. Rome.
|
|
|
|
Wang, X., Biewald, A., Dietrich, J. P., Schmitz, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Humpenöder, F., et al. (2016). Taking account of governance: Implications for land-use dynamics, food prices, and trade patterns. Ecol. Econ., 122, 12–24.
Abstract: Highlights • Governance impacts on land use dynamics are modeled at the global scale with an agro-economic dynamic optimization model. • Improved governance performance lowers deforestation, reduces cropland expansion and increases agricultural yield. • Good governance makes a decisive difference in investment for increasing yields in developing regions. • Weak governance increases food prices, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. • Improving governance performance has significant impacts on poverty reduction. Abstract Deforestation, mainly caused by unsustainable agricultural expansion, results in a loss of biodiversity and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as impinges on local livelihoods. Countries’ governance performance, particularly with respect to property rights security, exerts significant impacts on land-use patterns by affecting agricultural yield-related technological investment and cropland expansion. This study aims to incorporate governance factors into a recursive agro-economic dynamic model to simulate governance impacts on land-use patterns at the global scale. Due to the difficulties of including governance indicators directly into numerical models, we use lending interest rates as discount rates to reflect risk-accounting factors associated with different governance scenarios. In addition to a reference scenario, three scenarios with high, low and mixed divergent discount rates are formed to represent weak, strong and fragmented governance. We find that weak governance leads to slower yield growth, increased cropland expansion and associated deforestation, mainly in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. This is associated with increasing food prices, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. By contrast, strong governance performance provides a stable political and economic situation which may bring down deforestation rates, stimulate investment in agricultural technologies, and induce fairly strong decreases in food prices.
|
|
|
|
Stevanović, M., Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Dietrich, J. P., Müller, C., Bonsch, M., et al. (2016). The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare. Sci. Adv., 2(8), e1501452.
Abstract: Climate change threatens agricultural productivity worldwide, resulting in higher food prices. Associated economic gains and losses differ not only by region but also between producers and consumers and are affected by market dynamics. On the basis of an impact modeling chain, starting with 19 different climate projections that drive plant biophysical process simulations and ending with agro-economic decisions, this analysis focuses on distributional effects of high-end climate change impacts across geographic regions and across economic agents. By estimating the changes in surpluses of consumers and producers, we find that climate change can have detrimental impacts on global agricultural welfare, especially after 2050, because losses in consumer surplus generally outweigh gains in producer surplus. Damage in agriculture may reach the annual loss of 0.3% of future total gross domestic product at the end of the century globally, assuming further opening of trade in agricultural products, which typically leads to interregional production shifts to higher latitudes. Those estimated global losses could increase substantially if international trade is more restricted. If beneficial effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide fertilization can be realized in agricultural production, much of the damage could be avoided. Although trade policy reforms toward further liberalization help alleviate climate change impacts, additional compensation mechanisms for associated environmental and development concerns have to be considered.
|
|
