| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 >> |
|
Biewald, A., Sinabell, F., Lotze-Campen, H., Zimmermann, A., & Lehtonen, H. (2017). Global Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Agricultural elements have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) incompletely and pathways have not been specified for the future development of the European Union. We will therefore devise a general framework on European Representative Agricultural Pathways (EU-RAPs), where we cover different aspects of agricultural development, as for example European and domestic agricultural and environmental policies, or different livestock and crop management systems, and describe future developments of the confederation of the countries of the European Union. For the agricultural elements we distinguish between elements that can be derived from the definitions in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development, and elements that have to be newly devised such as the development of the Common Agricultural Policy. For the future of the European Union we develop five different worlds which correspond to the SSPs. Finally both frameworks are combined.
|
|
Weindl, I., Bodirsky, B. L., Rolinski, S., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Muller, C., et al. (2017). Livestock production and the water challenge of future food supply: Implications of agricultural management and dietary choices. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 47, 121–132.
Abstract: Human activities use more than half of accessible freshwater, above all for agriculture. Most approaches for reconciling water conservation with feeding a growing population focus on the cropping sector. However, livestock production is pivotal to agricultural resource use, due to its low resource-use efficiency upstream in the food supply chain. Using a global modelling approach, we quantify the current and future contribution of livestock production, under different demand-and supply-side scenarios, to the consumption of “green” precipitation water infiltrated into the soil and “blue” freshWater withdrawn from rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Currently, cropland feed production accounts for 38% of crop water consumption and grazing involves 29% of total agricultural water consumption (9990 km(3) yr(-1)). Our analysis shows that changes in diets and livestock productivity have substantial implications for future consumption of agricultural blue water (19-36% increase compared to current levels) and green water (26-69% increase), but they can, at best, slow down trends of rising water requirements for decades to come. However, moderate productivity reductions in highly intensive livestock systems are possible without aggravating water scarcity. Productivity gains in developing regions decrease total agricultural water consumption, but lead to expansion of irrigated agriculture, due to the shift from grassland/green water to cropland/blue water resources. While the magnitude of the livestock water footprint gives cause for concern, neither dietary choices nor changes in livestock productivity will solve the water challenge of future food supply, unless accompanied by dedicated water protection policies.
|
|
Weindl, I., Popp, A., Bodirsky, B. L., Rolinski, S., Lotze-Campen, H., Biewald, A., et al. (2017). Livestock and human use of land: Productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics. Global And Planetary Change, 159, 1–10.
Abstract: Land use change has been the primary driving force of human alteration of terrestrial ecosystems. With 80% of agricultural land dedicated to livestock production, the sector is an important lever to attenuate land requirements for food production and carbon emissions from land use change. In this study, we quantify impacts of changing human diets and livestock productivity on land dynamics and depletion of carbon stored in vegetation, litter and soils. Across all investigated productivity pathways, lower consumption of livestock products can substantially reduce deforestation (47-55%) and cumulative carbon losses (34-57%). On the supply side, already minor productivity growth in extensive livestock production systems leads to substantial CO2 emission abatement, but the emission saving potential of productivity gains in intensive systems is limited, also involving trade-offs with soil carbon stocks. If accounting for uncertainties related to future trade restrictions, crop yields and pasture productivity, the range of projected carbon savings from changing diets increases to 23-78%. Highest abatement of carbon emissions (63-78%) can be achieved if reduced consumption of animal-based products is combined with sustained investments into productivity increases in plant production. Our analysis emphasizes the importance to integrate demand- and supply-side oriented mitigation strategies and to combine efforts in the crop and livestock sector to enable synergies for climate protection.
|
|
Biewald, A. (2015). Climate dependent equilibrium model (Vol. 6).
Abstract: In the framework of AgMIP (Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project; www.agmip.org), several articles have been published in which about 10 leading, agro-economic models analysed the impact of climate change on agricultural yields, area, consumption and food prices (Lotze-Campen et al. 2014, Nelson et. al 2014a,b Schmitz et al. 2014). A part of these articles are available freely through the publisher (e.g. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3274). PIK has not only contributed through model simulations with the spatially explicit, agro-economic model MAgPIE, but also by coordinating this activity. Starting with AgMIP phase II in 2015, AgMIP has now for the first time conducted the model-analysis for different “Shared Socio-economic Pathways” (short SSPs). A first study has been published in the renowned journal “Environmental Research Letters” (Wiebe et al. 2015). These are important contributions to task 2.3 which aimed at simulating the impact of global climate changes on agricultural systems.Another study which is under revision in the journal PNAS, investigates the impact of climate change on agricultural welfare. The results of this paper are based on simulations with 20 different General Circulation Models (GCMs). This provides the opportunity to understand the uncertainty inherent in the different climate models better and improves the credibility of results.All mentioned articles and results are based on harmonized yield changes, which are a result of multi-model simulations, conducted in the framework of ISI-MIP (Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project) and coordinated at PIK. These model results are publicly available (www.isi-mip.org) and part of an open source strategy of the institute. The modelling group around the agro-economic model MAgPIE (Model of Agriculture and its Impact on the Environment) currently discusses an open source strategy for publishing the model code. As a first step, a detailed description of the model will be available shortly (http://redmine.pik-potsdam.de/projects/magpie/wiki).PIK and the modelling group around MAgPIE have also contributed to the geoportal GLUES (Global Assessment of Land Use Dynamics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ecosystem Services) where project partners can publish and share global and regional data sets as well as model results on scenarios of land use, climate change and economic development. MAgPIE results on landuse change, emissions and deforestation for different socio-economic scenarios have been made available there (http://catalog-glues.ufz.de/terraCatalog/Start.do;jsessionid=80F6A3D2C446674B898881D0589887E4). No Label
|
|
Biewald, A. (2016). Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Agricultural aspects have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), but only to a limited extent. In order to analyze the future dynamics of agricultural development they need to be complemented and specified by Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), which cover different aspects of agricultural development as for example European agricultural and domestic policy, environmental policies, different livestock management systems, cropping systems or irrigation efficiencies.In this paper we will develop a general framework for RAPs where we define for each SSP the corresponding specific agricultural development. Some aspects of the above mentioned specifics can be derived from the definitions in the SSPs, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development. Agricultural policies on the other hand are not included in the SSP definitions. Here we will define agricultural and environmental policies, including the available funding in each area of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (pillars 1 and 2). As RAPs can only to a small degree be developed as European guidelines and implemented unilaterally, it is important to translate the overall storylines into specific scenario parameterization at national levels. Concerned by this are 1. national policies, as well as the agri-environmental schemes of the CAP in Pillar II, 2. livestock efficiencies and the development of extensive and intensive farm management, and 3. crop management systems.Additionally we will define which respresentative concentration pathways (RCPs) will match best the future agricultural and agro-economic trajectories. The following 5 preliminary RAPs for Europe will be further developed in our analysis:EU-RAP1 (Sustainable Europe) : strong CAP, strong shift on environmental regulation, no producer support, green CAP with strong mititgation componentEU-RAP2 (Middle of the road): BAU or things will stay as they are.EU-RAP3 (Fragmented Europe): Europe breaks up, rich countries support farmers with national subsidies, poor countries do not. There is no CAP anymoreEU-RAP4 (Two Europes): Europe is divided in a poor and a rich part. In the rich part a green and environmental friendly CAP will be implemented, in the poor part of Europe, the CAP will cease to existEU-RAP5(Fossil fueled Europe): free market world, strong institutions, weak on enviromental regulations, low domestic polices? Local green CAP without mitigation
|