|
|
Zimmermann, A., Webber, H., Zhao, G., Ewert, F., Kros, J., Wolf, J., et al. (2017). Climate change impacts on crop yields, land use and environment in response to crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements. Agric. Syst., 157, 81–92.
Abstract: Impacts of climate change on European agricultural production, land use and the environment depend on its impact on crop yields. However, many impact studies assume that crop management remains unchanged in future scenarios, while farmers may adapt their sowing dates and cultivar thermal time requirements to minimize yield losses or realize yield gains. The main objective of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of climate change impacts on European crop yields, land use, production and environmental variables to adaptations in crops sowing dates and varieties’ thermal time requirements. A crop, economic and environmental model were coupled in an integrated assessment modelling approach for six important crops, for 27 countries of the European Union (EU27) to assess results of three SRES climate change scenarios to 2050. Crop yields under climate change were simulated considering three different management cases; (i) no change in crop management from baseline conditions (NoAd), (ii) adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements to give highest yields to 2050 (Opt) and (iii) a more conservative adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements (Act). Averaged across EU27, relative changes in water-limited crop yields due to climate change and increased CO2 varied between -6 and + 21% considering NoAd management, whereas impacts with Opt management varied between + 12 and + 53%, and those under Act management between 2 and + 27%. However, relative yield increases under climate change increased to + 17 and + 51% when technology progress was also considered. Importantly, the sensitivity to crop management assumptions of land use, production and environmental impacts were less pronounced than for crop yields due to the influence of corresponding market, farm resource and land allocation adjustments along the model chain acting via economic optimization of yields. We conclude that assumptions about crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements affect impact variables but to a different extent and generally decreasing for variables affected by economic drivers.
|
|
|
|
Vilvert, E., Lana, M., Zander, P., & Sieber, S. (2018). Multi-model approach for assessing the sunflower food value chain in Tanzania. Agric. Syst., 159, 103–110.
Abstract: Sunflower is one of the major oilseeds produced in Tanzania, but due to insufficient domestic production more than half of the country’s demand is imported. The improvement of the sunflower food value chain (FVC) understanding is important to ensure an increase in the production, availability, and quality of edible oil. In order to analyse causes and propose solutions to increase the production of sunflower oil, a conceptual framework that proposes the combined use of different models to provide insights about the sunflower FVC was developed. This research focus on the identification of agricultural models that can provide a better understanding of the sunflower FVC in Tanzania, especially within the context of food security improvement. A FVC scheme was designed considering the main steps of sunflower production. Thereafter, relevant models were selected and placed along each step of the FVC. As result, the sunflower FVC model in Tanzania is organized in five steps, namely (1) natural resources; (2) crop production; (3) oil processing; (4) trade; and (5) consumption. Step 1 uses environmental indicators to analyse soil parameters on soil-water models (SWAT, LPJmL, APSIM or CroSyst), with outputs providing data for step 2 of the FVC. In the production step, data from step 1, together with other inputs, is used to run crop models (DSSAT, HERMES, MONICA, STICS, EPIC or AquaCrop) that analyse the impact on sunflower yields. Thereafter, outputs from crop models serve as input for bio-economic farm models (FSSIM or MODAM) to estimate production costs and farm income by optimizing resource allocation planning for step 2. In addition, outputs from crop models are used as inputs for macro-economic models (GTAP, MAGNET or MagPie) by adjusting supply functions and environmental impacts within steps 3, 4, and 5. These models simulate supply and demand, including the processing of products to determine prices and trade volumes at market equilibrium. In turn, these data is used by bio-economic farm models to assess sunflower returns for different farm types and agro-environmental conditions. Due to the large variety of models, it is possible to assess significant parts of the FVC, reducing the need to make assumptions, while improving the understanding of the FVC.
|
|
|
|
von Lampe, M., Willenbockel, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Cai, Y., Calvin, K., et al. (2014). Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 3.
Abstract: Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales.
|
|
|
|
Valin, H., Sands, R. D., van der Mensbrugghe, D. and, Nelson, G. C., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., et al. (2014). The future of food demand: Understanding differences in global economic models. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 51–67.
Abstract: Understanding the capacity of agricultural systems to feed the world population under climate change requires projecting future food demand. This article reviews demand modeling approaches from 10 global economic models participating in the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). We compare food demand projections in 2050 for various regions and agricultural products under harmonized scenarios of socioeconomic development, climate change, and bioenergy expansion. In the reference scenario (SSP2), food demand increases by 59-98% between 2005 and 2050, slightly higher than the most recent FAO projection of 54% from 2005/2007. The range of results is large, in particular for animal calories (between 61% and 144%), caused by differences in demand systems specifications, and in income and price elasticities. The results are more sensitive to socioeconomic assumptions than to climate change or bioenergy scenarios. When considering a world with higher population and lower economic growth (SSP3), consumption per capita drops on average by 9\% for crops and 18% for livestock. The maximum effect of climate change on calorie availability is -6% at the global level, and the effect of biofuel production on calorie availability is even smaller.
|
|
|
|
Robinson, S., van Meijl, H., Willenbockel, D., Valin, H., Fujimori, S., Masui, T., et al. (2014). Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 21–35.
Abstract: This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models.
|
|
