|
|
Kipling, R. P., Bannink, A., Bellocchi, G., Dalgaard, T., Fox, N. J., Hutchings, N. J., et al. (2016). Modeling European ruminant production systems: Facing the challenges of climate change. Agricultural Systems, 147, 24–37.
Abstract: Ruminant production systems are important producers of food, support rural communities and culture, and help to maintain a range of ecosystem services including the sequestering of carbon in grassland soils. However, these systems also contribute significantly to climate change through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while intensi- fication of production has driven biodiversity and nutrient loss, and soil degradation. Modeling can offer insights into the complexity underlying the relationships between climate change, management and policy choices, food production, and the maintenance of ecosystem services. This paper 1) provides an overview of how ruminant systems modeling supports the efforts of stakeholders and policymakers to predict, mitigate and adapt to climate change and 2) provides ideas for enhancing modeling to fulfil this role. Many grassland models can predict plant growth, yield and GHG emissions from mono-specific swards, but modeling multi-species swards, grassland quality and the impact of management changes requires further development. Current livestock models provide a good basis for predicting animal production; linking these with models of animal health and disease is a prior- ity. Farm-scale modeling provides tools for policymakers to predict the emissions of GHG and other pollutants from livestock farms, and to support the management decisions of farmers from environmental and economic standpoints. Other models focus on how policy and associated management changes affect a range of economic and environmental variables at regional, national and European scales. Models at larger scales generally utilise more empirical approaches than those applied at animal, field and farm-scales and include assumptions which may not be valid under climate change conditions. It is therefore important to continue to develop more realistic representations of processes in regional and global models, using the understanding gained from finer-scale modeling. An iterative process of model development, in which lessons learnt from mechanistic models are ap- plied to develop ‘smart’ empirical modeling, may overcome the trade-off between complexity and usability. De- veloping the modeling capacity to tackle the complex challenges related to climate change, is reliant on closer links between modelers and experimental researchers, and also requires knowledge-sharing and increasing technical compatibility across modeling disciplines. Stakeholder engagement throughout the process of model development and application is vital for the creation of relevant models, and important in reducing problems re- lated to the interpretation of modeling outcomes. Enabling modeling to meet the demands of policymakers and other stakeholders under climate change will require collaboration within adequately-resourced, long-term inter-disciplinary research networks
|
|
|
|
Mittenzwei, K., Persson, T., Höglind, M., & Kværnø, S. (2017). Combined effects of climate change and policy uncertainty on the agricultural sector in Norway. Agric. Syst., 153, 118–126.
Abstract: Highlights • A framework to study climate and policy uncertainty in agriculture is presented. • Combining both sources of uncertainty has ambiguous effects on agriculture. • Uncertainty needs to be highlighted in modelling tools for policy analysis. Abstract Farmers are exposed to climate change and uncertainty about how that change will develop. As farm incomes, in Norway and elsewhere, greatly depend on government subsidies, the risk of a policy change constitutes an additional uncertainty source. Hence, climate and policy uncertainty could substantially impact agricultural production and farm income. However, these sources of uncertainty have, so far, rarely been combined in food production analyses. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a combination of policy and climate uncertainty on agricultural production, land use, and social welfare in Norway. Output yield distributions of spring wheat and timothy, a major forage grass, from simulations with the weather-driven crop models, CSM-CERES-Wheat and, LINGRA, were processed in the a stochastic version Jordmod, a price-endogenous spatial economic sector model of the Norwegian agriculture. To account for potential effects of climate uncertainty within a given future greenhouse gas emission scenario on farm profitability, effects on conditions that represented the projected climate for 2050 under the emission scenario A1B from the 4th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and four Global Climate Models (GCM) was investigated. The uncertainty about the level of payment rates at the time farmers make their management decisions was handled by varying the distribution of payment rates applied in the Jordmod model. These changes were based on the change in the overall level of agricultural support in the past. Three uncertainty scenarios were developed and tested: one with climate change uncertainty, another with payment rate uncertainty, and a third where both types of uncertainty were combined. The three scenarios were compared with results from a deterministic scenario where crop yields and payment rates were constant. Climate change resulted in on average 9% lower cereal production, unchanged grass production and more volatile crop yield as well as 4% higher farm incomes on average compared to the deterministic scenario. The scenario with a combination of climate change and policy uncertainty increased the mean farm income more than a scenario with only one source of uncertainty. On the other hand, land use and farm labour were negatively affected under these conditions compared to the deterministic case. Highlighting the potential influence of climate change and policy uncertainty on the performance of the farm sector our results underline the potential error in neglecting either of these two uncertainties in studies of agricultural production, land use and welfare.
|
|
|
|
Lotze-Campen, H., von Witzke, H., Noleppa, S., & Schwarz, G. (2015). Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany. Agric. Syst., 136, 79–84.
Abstract: Highlights • We analyze the economic effects of plant breeding research in Germany. • Effects of reduced CO2 emissions due to productivity increases are being quantified. • Expansion of global agricultural area has been reduced by 1–1.5 million ha. • CO2 emissions have been reduced by 160–235 million tons. • German plant breeding research has an economic value of 10.8–15.6 billion EUR. Abstract We analyze the economic effects of plant breeding research in Germany. In addition to market effects, for the first time also effects of reduced CO2 emissions due to productivity increases are being quantified. The analysis shows that investments in German plant breeding research in the period 1991–2010 have reduced the global expansion of agricultural area by 1–1.5 million hectares. This has led to reduced CO2 emissions of 160–235 million tons. The economic value generated by plant breeding research, through increased production and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, is estimated at 10.8–15.6 billion EUR in the same period. This can be translated into a social rate of return on research investment in the range of 40–80% per year. Projections for the period 2011–2030 generate a return rate in the range of 65–140% per year. Investments into plant breeding research in Germany are highly profitable from a societal point of view. At the same time, our results show significant under-investments in agricultural research in Germany. These results provide a good justification for policy-makers to reverse funding cuts for public agricultural research over the last decades and to improve institutional conditions for private research, e.g. through better protection of intellectual property rights.
|
|
|
|
Cortignani, R., & Dono, G. (2015). Simulation of the impact of greening measures in an agricultural area of the southern Italy. Land Use Policy, 48, 525–533.
Abstract: Together, sustainable management of natural resources and climate action form one of the three objectives of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy. This objective is being addressed by replacing the existing direct payments under Pillar 1 with a basic payment, combined with an additional payment conditional on farmers undertaking agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, a policy referred to as greening. In this study, the impact of greening was assessed using a hybrid model calibrated using positive mathematical programming. The model describes the macro-types of farm production in a Mediterranean agricultural area. The results show that greening was not beneficial throughout the study area and only some farm types have been particularly affected. However, greening appears to have a positive impact on curtailing the use of chemicals, particularly nitrogen, and on crop diversity. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Zimmermann, A., & Britz, W. (2016). European farms’ participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy, 50, 214–228.
Abstract: Due to their diversity and voluntariness, agri-environmental measures (AEMs) are among the Common Agricultural Policy instruments that are most difficult to assess. We provide an EU-wide analysis of AEM adoption and farm’s total AEM support over total Utilised Agricultural Area using a Heckman sample selection approach and single farm data. Our analysis covers 22 Member States over the 2000-2009 period, assesses the entire portfolio of AEMs and focuses on the relationship between AEM participation and farming system. Results show that participation in AEMs is more likely in less intensive production systems, where, however, per committed hectare AEM premiums tend to be lower. Member States group into three categories: high/low intensity farming systems with low/high AEM enrollment rates, respectively, and large high diversity countries with medium AEM enrollment rates. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
