|
Havlik, P. (2014). Climate change impacts on agricultural sector: A global perspective..
|
|
Frank, S., Witzke, P., Zimmermann, A., Havlik, P., & Ciaian, P. (2014). Climate Change Impacts on European Agriculture: A Multi Model Perspective..
|
Havlik, P., Leclere, D., Valin, H., Herrero, M., Schmid, E., & Obersteiner, M. (2014). Effects of climate change on feed availability and the implications for the livestock sector. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Global mean surface temperature is projected to rise by 0.4-2.6°C until 2050, and the contrast in precipitations between wet and dry regions and wet and dry seasons will also increase according to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013). The climate change will impact livestock in many ways going from heat stress through livestock diseases to feed quality and availability (Thornton et al., 2009). Recently, projected climate change impacts on crop and grassland productivity became available with high spatial resolution at global scale through the AgMIP and ISI-MIP projects. The objective of this paper is to investigate how climate change impacts on crops and grassland will influence livestock production globally and its distribution across regions. This analysis is carried out using the global partial equilibrium agricultural and forestry sector model GLOBIOM (Havlík et al., 2013). The model represents agricultural production at a spatial resolution going down to 5 x 5 minutes of arc. Crop and grassland productivities are estimated by means of biophysical process based models (EPIC and CENTURY) at this resolution for current and future climate. Livestock representation follows a simplified version of the Seré and Steinfeld (1996) production system classification. This approach recognizes differences in feed base and productivities between grazing and mixed crop-livestock production systems across different agro-ecological zones (arid, humid, temperate/highlands). Our study highlights that the differential impacts of climate change on crop and grassland productivity will influence the relative competitiveness of different livestock production systems. Maintaining livestock production in some regions will depend on their capacity to adapt. Institutional and physical infrastructure will be needed to facilitate these transformations.
|
von Lampe, M., Willenbockel, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Cai, Y., Calvin, K., et al. (2014). Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 3.
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.
|
Robinson, S., van Meijl, H., Willenbockel, D., Valin, H., Fujimori, S., Masui, T., et al. (2014). Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 21–35.
Abstract: This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models.
|
