|
|
Kyle, P., Müller, C., Calvin, K., & Thomson, A. (2014). Meeting the radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways in a world with agricultural climate impacts. Earth’s Future, 2, 83–98.
Abstract: This study assesses how climate impacts on agriculture may change the evolution of the agricultural and energy systems in meeting the end-of-century radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways (RCPs). We build on the recently completed Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP) exercise that has produced global gridded estimates of future crop yields for major agricultural crops using climate model projections of the RCPs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). For this study we use the bias-corrected outputs of the HadGEM2-ES climate model as inputs to the LPJmL crop growth model, and the outputs of LPJmL to modify inputs to the GCAM integrated assessment model. Our results indicate that agricultural climate impacts generally lead to an increase in global cropland, as compared with corresponding emissions scenarios that do not consider climate impacts on agricultural productivity. This is driven mostly by negative impacts on wheat, rice, other grains, and oil crops. Still, including agricultural climate impacts does not significantly increase the costs or change the technological strategies of global, whole-system emissions mitigation. In fact, to meet the most aggressive climate change mitigation target (2.6W/m(2) in 2100), the net mitigation costs are slightly lower when agricultural climate impacts are considered. Key contributing factors to these results are (a) low levels of climate change in the low-forcing scenarios, (b) adaptation to climate impacts simulated in GCAM through inter-regional shifting in the production of agricultural goods, and (c) positive average climate impacts on bioenergy crop yields.
|
|
|
|
Weindl, I., Bodirsky, B. L., Rolinski, S., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Muller, C., et al. (2017). Livestock production and the water challenge of future food supply: Implications of agricultural management and dietary choices. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 47, 121–132.
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Paas, W., Kanellopoulos, A., van de Ven, G., & Reidsma, P. (2016). Integrated impact assessment of climate and socio-economic change on dairy farms in a watershed in the Netherlands. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, .
Abstract: Climate and socio-economic change will affect the land use and the economic viability of Dutch dairy farms. Explorations of future scenarios, which include different drivers and impacts, are needed to perform ex-ante policy assessment. This study uses a bio-economic farm model to assess impacts of climate and socio-economic change on dairy farms in a sandy area in the Netherlands. Farm data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network provided information on the current production levels and available farm resources. First, the farm plans of individual farms were optimized in the current situation to benchmark farms and assess the current scope for improvement. Secondly, simulations for two scenarios were included: a Global Economy with 2 °C global temperature rise (GE/W+) and a Regional Community with 1 °C global temperature rise (RC/G). The impacts of climate change, extreme events, juridical change (including abolishment of milk quota), technological change and price changes were evaluated in separate model runs within the predefined scenarios. We found that farms can increase profit both by intensification and land expansion; the latter especially for medium sized farms (less than 70 cows). Climate change including the effect of increased occurrence of extreme events may negatively affect farm gross margin in the GE/W+ scenario. Lower gross margins are compensated for by the effects of technology and price changes. In contrast with the GE/W+ scenario, climate change has positive impacts on farm profit in RC/G, but less favourable farm input-output price ratios have a negative effect. Technological change is needed to compensate for revenue losses due to higher input prices. In both GE/W+ and RC/G scenarios, dairy farms increase production and the use of artificial fertilizer. Medium sized farms have more options to increase profit than the large farms: they benefit more from the abolishment of the milk quota and better adapt to negative and positive impacts of climate change. While the exact impact of different drivers will always remain uncertain, this study showed that changes in prices, technology and markets have a relatively larger impact than climate change, even when extreme events are taken into account. By using whole farm plans as activities that can be selected, the model is grounded in observations, and it was shown that half of the farms are gross margin maximizers as assumed in the model. The model therefore indicates ‘what could happen if’, and gives insights in drivers and impacts of dairy farming in the region.
|
|
|
|
Schönhart, M., Mitter, H., Schmid, E., Heinrich, G., & Gobiet, A. (2014). Integrated analysis of climate change impacts and adaptation measures in Austrian agriculture. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 156–176.
Abstract: An integrated modelling framework (IMF) has been developed and applied to analyse climate change impacts and the effectiveness of adaptation measures in Austrian agriculture. The IMF couples the crop rotation model CropRota, the bio-physical process model EPIC and the bottom-up economic land use model PASMA at regional level (NUTS-3) considering agri-environmental indicators. Four contrasting regional climate model (RCM) simulations represent climate change until 2050. The RCM simulations are applied to a baseline and three adaptation and policy scenarios. Climate change increases crop productivity on national average in the IMF. Changes in average gross margins at national level range from 0% to + 5% between the baseline and the three adaptation and policy scenarios. The impacts at NUTS-3 level range from -5% to + 7% between the baseline and the three adaptation and policy scenarios. Adaptation measures such as planting of winter cover crops, reduced tillage and irrigation are effective in reducing yield losses, increasing revenues, or in improving environmental states under climate change. Future research should account for extreme weather events in order to analyse whether average productivity gains at the aggregated level suffice to cover costs from expected higher climate variability.
|
|
