| Home | [31–40] << 41 >> |
|
Niemi, J. (2016). Framework of stochastic gross margin volatility modeling of crop rotation with farm management practices (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: DP models with risk aversion through meanvariancespecification is already implemented inLuke and applied in North Savo regionHOWEVER climate change, e.g. changes in mean andvariance of crop yiels, still not yet taken into account– Recently, such crop modelling results have becomeavailble for wheat as well, not only for barley– Still CC impact available for 2 cereals crops only, whilemost farms cultivate more than 2 crops Some early conclusions• The suggested approach is consistent in terms of DPprinciples and mean-variance approach and can provideconsistent results for farm scale risk analysis• It is however hard to utilise the approach except assuming afarm with only few crops (those with crop modelling / otherresults of climate change effects on mean and (co-variance)© Natural Resources Institute Finland• Assuming no change in price (co)variability is a majorsimplification results show farm level (or local) effects ofchanges in mean yields and yield (co)variability only
|
|
Biewald, A. (2016). Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Agricultural aspects have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), but only to a limited extent. In order to analyze the future dynamics of agricultural development they need to be complemented and specified by Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), which cover different aspects of agricultural development as for example European agricultural and domestic policy, environmental policies, different livestock management systems, cropping systems or irrigation efficiencies.In this paper we will develop a general framework for RAPs where we define for each SSP the corresponding specific agricultural development. Some aspects of the above mentioned specifics can be derived from the definitions in the SSPs, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development. Agricultural policies on the other hand are not included in the SSP definitions. Here we will define agricultural and environmental policies, including the available funding in each area of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (pillars 1 and 2). As RAPs can only to a small degree be developed as European guidelines and implemented unilaterally, it is important to translate the overall storylines into specific scenario parameterization at national levels. Concerned by this are 1. national policies, as well as the agri-environmental schemes of the CAP in Pillar II, 2. livestock efficiencies and the development of extensive and intensive farm management, and 3. crop management systems.Additionally we will define which respresentative concentration pathways (RCPs) will match best the future agricultural and agro-economic trajectories. The following 5 preliminary RAPs for Europe will be further developed in our analysis:EU-RAP1 (Sustainable Europe) : strong CAP, strong shift on environmental regulation, no producer support, green CAP with strong mititgation componentEU-RAP2 (Middle of the road): BAU or things will stay as they are.EU-RAP3 (Fragmented Europe): Europe breaks up, rich countries support farmers with national subsidies, poor countries do not. There is no CAP anymoreEU-RAP4 (Two Europes): Europe is divided in a poor and a rich part. In the rich part a green and environmental friendly CAP will be implemented, in the poor part of Europe, the CAP will cease to existEU-RAP5(Fossil fueled Europe): free market world, strong institutions, weak on enviromental regulations, low domestic polices? Local green CAP without mitigation
|