Abstract: Human activities use more than half of accessible freshwater, above all for agriculture. Most approaches for reconciling water conservation with feeding a growing population focus on the cropping sector. However, livestock production is pivotal to agricultural resource use, due to its low resource-use efficiency upstream in the food supply chain. Using a global modelling approach, we quantify the current and future contribution of livestock production, under different demand-and supply-side scenarios, to the consumption of “green” precipitation water infiltrated into the soil and “blue” freshWater withdrawn from rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Currently, cropland feed production accounts for 38% of crop water consumption and grazing involves 29% of total agricultural water consumption (9990 km(3) yr(-1)). Our analysis shows that changes in diets and livestock productivity have substantial implications for future consumption of agricultural blue water (19-36% increase compared to current levels) and green water (26-69% increase), but they can, at best, slow down trends of rising water requirements for decades to come. However, moderate productivity reductions in highly intensive livestock systems are possible without aggravating water scarcity. Productivity gains in developing regions decrease total agricultural water consumption, but lead to expansion of irrigated agriculture, due to the shift from grassland/green water to cropland/blue water resources. While the magnitude of the livestock water footprint gives cause for concern, neither dietary choices nor changes in livestock productivity will solve the water challenge of future food supply, unless accompanied by dedicated water protection policies.

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.

Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.