Abstract: The extensive clearing of tropical forests throughout past decades has been partly assigned to increased trade in agricultural goods. Since further trade liberalisation can be expected, remaining rainforests are likely to face additional threats with negative implications for climate mitigation and the local environment. We apply a spatially explicit economic land-use model coupled to a biophysical vegetation model to examine linkages and associated policies between trade and tropical deforestation in the future. Results indicate that further trade liberalisation leads to an expansion of deforestation in Amazonia due to comparative advantages of agriculture in South America. Globally, between 30 and 60 million ha (5-10 %) of tropical rainforests would be cleared additionally, leading to 20-40 Gt additional emissions by 2050. By applying different forest protection policies, those values could be reduced substantially. Most effective would be the inclusion of avoided deforestation into a global emissions trading scheme. Carbon prices corresponding to the concentration target of 550 ppm would prevent deforestation after 2020. Investing in agricultural productivity reduces pressure on tropical forests without the necessity of direct protection. In general, additional trade-induced demand from developed and emerging countries should be compensated by international efforts to protect natural resources in tropical regions.

Abstract: Land use and management intensity can influence provision of ecosystem services (ES). We argue that forest/agroforestry production systems are characterized by relatively higher C:O/C:N and ES value compared to arable production systems. Field investigations on C:N/C:O and 15 ES were determined in three diverse production systems: wheat monoculture (Cwheat), a combined food and energy system (CFE) and a beech forest in Denmark. The C:N/C:O ratios were 194.1/1.68, 94.1/1.57 and 59.5/1.45 for beech forest, CFE and Cwheat, respectively. The economic value of the non-marketed ES was also highest in beech forest (US$ 1089 ha(-1) yr(-1)) followed by CFE (US$ 800 ha(-1) yr(-1)) and Cwheat (US$ 339 ha(-1) yr(-1)). The combined economic value was highest in the CFE (US$ 3143 ha(-1) yr(-1)) as compared to the Cwheat (US$ 2767 ha(-1) yr(-1)) and beech forest (US$ 2365 ha(-1) yr(-1)). We argue that C:N/C:O can be used as a proxy of ES, particularly for the non-marketed ES, such as regulating, supporting and cultural services. These ES play a vital role in the sustainable production of food and energy. Therefore, they should be considered in decision making and developing appropriate policy responses for land use management.

Abstract: ► Endogenous technological change in an economic land use model ► Estimation of yield elasticity with respect to investments in technological change ► Projections of future agricultural productivity rates ► Validation with observed data and historic trends ► Trade-off between required technological change and forest protection objectives Technological change in agriculture plays a decisive role for meeting future demands for agricultural goods. However, up to now, agricultural sector models and models on land use change have used technological change as an exogenous input due to various information and data deficiencies. This paper provides a first attempt towards an endogenous implementation based on a measure of agricultural land use intensity. We relate this measure to empirical data on investments in technological change. Our estimated yield elasticity with respect to research investments is 0.29 and production costs per area increase linearly with an increasing yield level. Implemented in the global land use model MAgPIE (“Model of Agricultural Production and its Impact on the Environment”) this approach provides estimates of future yield growth. Highest future yield increases are required in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Our validation with FAO data for the period 1995–2005 indicates that the model behavior is in line with observations. By comparing two scenarios on forest conservation we show that protecting sensitive forest areas in the future is possible but requires substantial investments into technological change.