|
|
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Heinke, J., Lucht, W., & Rockström, J. (2016). Integrated crop water management might sustainably halve the global food gap. Environ. Res. Lett., 11(2), 025002.
Abstract: As planetary boundaries are rapidly being approached, humanity has little room for additional expansion and conventional intensification of agriculture, while a growing world population further spreads the food gap. Ample evidence exists that improved on-farm water management can close water-related yield gaps to a considerable degree, but its global significance remains unclear. In this modeling study we investigate systematically to what extent integrated crop water management might contribute to closing the global food gap, constrained by the assumption that pressure on water resources and land does not increase. Using a process-based bio-/agrosphere model, we simulate the yield-increasing potential of elevated irrigation water productivity (including irrigation expansion with thus saved water) and optimized use of in situ precipitation water (alleviated soil evaporation, enhanced infiltration, water harvesting for supplemental irrigation) under current and projected future climate (from 20 climate models, with and without beneficial CO2 effects). Results show that irrigation efficiency improvements can save substantial amounts of water in many river basins (globally 48% of non-productive water consumption in an ‘ambitious’ scenario), and if rerouted to irrigate neighboring rainfed systems, can boost kcal production significantly (26% global increase). Low-tech solutions for small-scale farmers on water-limited croplands show the potential to increase rainfed yields to a similar extent. In combination, the ambitious yet achievable integrated water management strategies explored in this study could increase global production by 41% and close the water-related yield gap by 62%. Unabated climate change will have adverse effects on crop yields in many regions, but improvements in water management as analyzed here can buffer such effects to a significant degree.
|
|
|
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Klein, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Bonsch, M., et al. (2014). Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(6), 064029.
Abstract: The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.
|
|
|
|
Shrestha, S., Abdalla, M., Hennessy, T., Forristal, D., & Jones, M. B. (2015). Irish farms under climate change – is there a regional variation on farm responses? J. Agric. Sci., 153(03), 385–398.
Abstract: The current paper aims to determine regional impacts of climate change on Irish farms examining the variation in farm responses. A set of crop growth models were used to determine crop and grass yields under a baseline scenario and a future climate scenario. These crop and grass yields were used along with farm-level data taken from the Irish National Farm Survey in an optimizing farm-level (farm-level linear programming) model, which maximizes farm profits under limiting resources. A change in farm net margins under the climate change scenario compared to the baseline scenario was taken as a measure to determine the effect of climate change on farms. The growth models suggested a decrease in cereal crop yields (up to 9%) but substantial increase in yields of forage maize (up to 97%) and grass (up to 56%) in all regions. Farms in the border, midlands and south-east regions suffered, whereas farms in all other regions generally fared better under the climate change scenario used in the current study. The results suggest that there is a regional variability between farms in their responses to the climate change scenario. Although substituting concentrate feed with grass feeds is the main adaptation on all livestock farms, the extent of such substitution differs between farms in different regions. For example, large dairy farms in the south-east region adopted total substitution of concentrate feed while similar dairy farms in the south-west region opted to replace only 0.30 of concentrate feed. Farms in most of the regions benefitted from increasing stocking rate, except for sheep farms in the border and dairy farms in the south-east regions. The tillage farms in the mid-east region responded to the climate change scenario by shifting arable production to beef production on farms.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
