|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
Ventrella, D., Giglio, L., Charfeddine, M., & Dalla Marta, A. (2015). Consumptive use of green and blue water for winter durum wheat cultivated in Southern Italy. Italian Journal of Agrometeorology, 20(1), 33–44.
Abstract: In this study at the regional scale, the model DSSAT CERES-Wheat was applied in order to simulate the cultivation of winter durum wheat (WW) and to estimate the green water (GW) and the blue water (BW) through a dual-step approach (with and without supplemental irrigation). The model simulation covered a period of 30 years for three scenarios including a reference period and two future scenarios based on forecasted global average temperature increase of 2 and 5 degrees C. The GW and BW contribution for evapo transpiration requirement is presented and analyzed on a distributed scale related to the Puglia region (Southern Italy) characterized by high evaporative demand of the atmosphere. The GW component was dominant compared to BW, covering almost 90% of the ETc of WW Under a Baseline scenario the weight BW was 11%, slightly increased in the future scenarios. GW appeared dependent on the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall during the crop cycle, and to the hydraulic characteristics of soil for each calculation unit. After considering the effects of climate change on irrigation requirement of WW we carried out an example of analysis in order to verify the economic benefit of supplemental irrigation for WW cultivation. The probability that irrigation generates a negative or zero income ranged between 55 and 60% and climate change did not impact the profitability of irrigation for WW as simulated for the economic and agro-pedoclimatic conditions of Puglia region considered in this study.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Shrestha, S., Thomson, S. G., Barnes, A. P., & Stott, A. W. (2015). Impacts of greening measures and flat rate regional payments of the Common Agricultural Policy on Scottish beef and sheep farms. J. Agric. Sci., 153(04), 676–688.
Abstract: The latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms could bring substantial changes to Scottish farming communities. Two major components of this reform package, an introduction of environmental measures into the Pillar 1 payments and a move away from historical farm payments towards regionalized area payments, would have a significant effect on altering existing support structures for Scottish farmers, as it would for similar farm types elsewhere in Europe where historic payments are used. An optimizing farm-level model was developed to explore how Scottish beef and sheep farms might be affected by the greening and flat rate payments under the current CAP reforms. Nine different types of beef and sheep farms were identified and detailed biophysical and financial farm-level data for these farm types were used to parameterize the model. Results showed that the greening measures of the CAP did not have much impact on net margins of most of the beef and sheep farm businesses, except for ‘Beef Finisher’ farm types where the net margins decreased by 3%. However, all farm types were better off adopting the greening measures than not qualifying for the greening payments through non-compliance with the measures. The move to regionalized farm payments increased the negative financial impact of greening on most of the farms but it was still substantially lower than the financial sacrifice of not adopting greening measures. Results of maximizing farm net margin, under a hypothetical assumption of excluding farm payments, showed that in most of the mixed (sheep and cattle) and beef suckler cattle farms the optimum stock numbers predicted by the model were lower than actual figures on farm. When the regionalized support payments were allocated to each farm, the proportion of the mixed farms that would increase their stock numbers increased whereas this proportion decreased for beef suckler farms and no impact was predicted in sheep farms. Also under the regionalized support payments, improvements in profitability were found in mixed farms and sheep farms. Some of the specialized beef suckler farms also returned a profit when CAP support was added.
|
|
