|
|
Schönhart, M. (2016). Case 1: Integrated assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation trade-offs in Austria.. Rotterdam (Netherlands).
Abstract: Presentation SC 2.10 Farming systems. Case 1: Integrated assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation trade-offs in Austria, Martin Schönhart, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Austria (2016). Presented at the international conference Adaptation Futures 2016, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. No Label
|
|
|
|
Wehrheim, P. (2016). Agriculture and land use in the Commission proposals for the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Introduction: policy context•Impact Assessment: options, models, examples•Proposal for Effort Sharing Regulation and LULUCF Regulation•Conclusions and Outlook: more work for modellers 1. Fully in line with Paris Agreement, no backsliding on robustness and transparency2.Provides for continuity•Addresses Member States and not individual farmers or foresters•Stand-alone LULUCF pillar•No-debit rule (from KP)•Flexibility within LULUCF and from ESR to LULUCF3.Proposes limited innovations•Flexibility to the ESR up to 280 mt CO2•Aligning accounting rules (AF,CM/GM)•Defining EU-internal process to set national forest management levels•Simplifying administrationConclusions (2)
|
|
|
|
Topp, K. (2016). Case 4: Adaptation of European dairy farms to climate change: a case study approach.. Rotterdam (Netherlands).
Abstract: Presentation SC 2.10 Farming systems. Case 4: Adaptation of European dairy farms to climate change: a case study approach, Kairsty Topp, Scotland's Rural College, United Kingdom (2016). Presented at the international conference Adaptation Futures 2016, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. No Label
|
|
|
|
Hoveid, Ø. (2016). What are the risks of food price changes? A time series analysis (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: It is a widely held belief (IPCC) that climate change bringsmore risks to the worldI Since the start of MACSUR, TradeM has had risk on theagenda, but few results have so far come out. It has beenclaimed though, that there is no evidence for more risk in theglobal wheat market (Steen and Gjølberg 2014) (TradeMworkshop at Hurdalssjøen)I I have myself had the ambition of creating a dynamicstochastic model of the food system in which risk would be anintegral part, but time has been too shortI I have also pointed to methods from finance to reveal insights,and that is the road to be followed here, guided by Bølviken &Benth (2000) Buyer’s risk larger than seller’s risk — due to asymmetricdistribution of returns. Large price jumps are more likely thanequally sized price falls.I Long term positions much more risky than short term ones —as expectedI Agricultural commodities much less risky than crude oilI Price risk are related to volatility, and their changes over timewill have similar causal explanationsI Risks of producers and consumers of agricultural commoditieswill to some extent be related to the price risk, and also totheir portfolios and the co-variance between returns
|
|
|
|
Sinabell, F. (2016). Yield potentials and yield gaps in soybean production in Austria – a biophysical and economic assessment (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: context of analysis:• stakeholders. policy relevance: CC and protein crops• research problem:• how large is the yield gap and what can be done• data• approaches• findings• discussion and outlook yield gap analysis is a daunting task• what can be learned• economics matters: prices of crop and other crops• land expansion: more land becoming more marginal• management matters a lot but – not directly observable in data• significant knowledge gaps still there• way forward:• look at other crops• explore options to improve management
|
|
