|
|
Jayet, P., & Petsakos, A. (2013). Evaluating the efficiency of a uniform N-input tax under different policy scenarios at different scales. Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 18(1), 57–72.
Abstract: Nitrate pollution from agriculture is an important environmental externality, caused by the excessive use of fertilizers. The internalization of this problem, via a tax on mineral nitrogen, could lead to a second best solution, reducing nitrate emissions. Several authors suggest that a reduction in agricultural support could produce similar results. In this paper, we examine the effects of different levels of a uniformly implemented nitrogen tax in France under two policy scenarios, corresponding to post Agenda 2000 and 2003 Luxembourg reforms of European Union ’ s Common Agricultural Policy, in order to reveal the synergies and conflicts between the tax and the policy scenarios in terms of nitrate emissions abatement. The analysis is performed at different geographical scales, from the national to the regional and is based on a bioeconomic approach that involves the coupling of the economic model AROPAj with the crop model STICS. Results show that the efficiency of the N-tax varies according to the geographical scale of the analysis and the type of farming. Furthermore, we prove that a uniform implementation may lead to perverse effects that should always be taken into account when introducing second-best instruments.
|
|
|
|
Nelson, G. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Calvin, K., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2014). Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 85–101.
Abstract: Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
Lotze-Campen, H., von Lampe, M., Kyle, P., Fujimori, S., Havlik, P., van Meijl, H., et al. (2014). Impacts of increased bioenergy demand on global food markets: an AgMIP economic model intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 103–116.
Abstract: Integrated Assessment studies have shown that meeting ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation targets will require substantial amounts of bioenergy as part of the future energy mix. In the course of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), five global agro-economic models were used to analyze a future scenario with global demand for ligno-cellulosic bioenergy rising to about 100 ExaJoule in 2050. From this exercise a tentative conclusion can be drawn that ambitious climate change mitigation need not drive up global food prices much, if the extra land required for bioenergy production is accessible or if the feedstock, for example, from forests, does not directly compete for agricultural land. Agricultural price effects across models by the year 2050 from high bioenergy demand in an ambitious mitigation scenario appear to be much smaller (+5% average across models) than from direct climate impacts on crop yields in a high-emission scenario (+25% average across models). However, potential future scarcities of water and nutrients, policy-induced restrictions on agricultural land expansion, as well as potential welfare losses have not been specifically looked at in this exercise.
|
|
|
|
Müller, C., & Robertson, R. D. (2014). Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 37–50.
Abstract: Assessments of climate change impacts on agricultural markets and land-use patterns rely on quantification of climate change impacts on the spatial patterns of land productivity. We supply a set of climate impact scenarios on agricultural land productivity derived from two climate models and two biophysical crop growth models to account for some of the uncertainty inherent in climate and impact models. Aggregation in space and time leads to information losses that can determine climate change impacts on agricultural markets and land-use patterns because often aggregation is across steep gradients from low to high impacts or from increases to decreases. The four climate change impact scenarios supplied here were designed to represent the most significant impacts (high emission scenario only, assumed ineffectiveness of carbon dioxide fertilization on agricultural yields, no adjustments in management) but are consistent with the assumption that changes in agricultural practices are covered in the economic models. Globally, production of individual crops decrease by 10-38% under these climate change scenarios, with large uncertainties in spatial patterns that are determined by both the uncertainty in climate projections and the choice of impact model. This uncertainty in climate impact on crop productivity needs to be considered by economic assessments of climate change.
|
|
|
|
Ventrella, D., Giglio, L., Charfeddine, M., Lopez, R., Castellini, M., Sollitto, D., et al. (2012). Climate change impact on crop rotations of winter durum wheat and tomato in southern Italy: yield analysis and soil fertility. Ital. J. Agron., 7(1), 15.
Abstract: Cropping systems are affected by climate change because of the strong relationship between crop development, growth, yield, CO2 atmospheric concentration and climate conditions. The increasing temperatures and the reduction of available water resources may result in negative impacts on the agricultural activity in Mediterranean environments than other areas. In this study the CERES-Wheat and CROPGRO-Tomato models were used to assess the effects of climate change on winter wheat (Triticum durum L.) and processing tomato (Lycopersicon aesculentum Mill.) in one of most productive areas of Italy, located in the northern part of the Puglia region. In particular we have compared three different General Circulation Models (HadCM3, CCSM3, ECHAM5) subjected to a statistical downscaling under two future IPCC scenarios (B1 and A2). The analysis was carried out at regional scale repeating the simulations for seven homogeneous area characterizing the spatial variability of the region. In the second part of the study, considering only HadCM3 data set, climate change impact on long-term sequences of the two crops combined in three crop rotations were evaluated in terms of yield performances and soil fertility as indicated by the soil organic content of carbon and nitrogen. The comparison between GCMs showed no significant differences for winter durum wheat yield, while noticeable differences were found for yield and irrigation requirements of tomato. Under future scenarios, the production levels were reduced for tomato, whereas positive yield effects were observed for winter durum wheat. For winter durum wheat the simulation indicated that two- and three-year rotations, including one year of tomato cultivation, improved the cereal yield and this positive effect maintained its validity also in future scenarios. For both crops higher requirements of water and nitrogen were predicted under future scenarios. This result coupled with the decrease of yield caused negative reduction of water use efficiency and nitrogen use efficiency for tomato cultivation.
|
|
