Abstract: The extensive clearing of tropical forests throughout past decades has been partly assigned to increased trade in agricultural goods. Since further trade liberalisation can be expected, remaining rainforests are likely to face additional threats with negative implications for climate mitigation and the local environment. We apply a spatially explicit economic land-use model coupled to a biophysical vegetation model to examine linkages and associated policies between trade and tropical deforestation in the future. Results indicate that further trade liberalisation leads to an expansion of deforestation in Amazonia due to comparative advantages of agriculture in South America. Globally, between 30 and 60 million ha (5-10 %) of tropical rainforests would be cleared additionally, leading to 20-40 Gt additional emissions by 2050. By applying different forest protection policies, those values could be reduced substantially. Most effective would be the inclusion of avoided deforestation into a global emissions trading scheme. Carbon prices corresponding to the concentration target of 550 ppm would prevent deforestation after 2020. Investing in agricultural productivity reduces pressure on tropical forests without the necessity of direct protection. In general, additional trade-induced demand from developed and emerging countries should be compensated by international efforts to protect natural resources in tropical regions.

Abstract: Adaptation of agriculture to climate change will be driven at the farm level in first place. The MONICA model was employed in four different modelling exercises for demonstration and testing different management options for farmers in Germany to adjust their production system. 30-Year simulations were run for the periods 1996-2025 and 2056-2085 using future climate data generated by a statistical method on the basis of measured data from 1961 to 2000 and the A1B scenario of the IPCC (2007a). Crop rotation designs that are expected to become possible in the future due to a prolonged vegetation period and at the same time shortened cereal growth period were tested for their likely success. The model suggested that a spring barley succeeding a winter barley may be successfully grown in the second half of the century, allowing for a larger yields by intensification of the cropping cycle. Growing a winter wheat after a sugar beet may lead to future problems as late sowing makes the winter wheat grow into periods prone to drought. Irrigation is projected to considerably improve and stabilise the yields of late cereals and of shallow rooting crops (maize and pea) on sandy soils in the continental climate part of Germany, but not in the humid West. Nitrogen fertiliser management needs to be adjusted to increasing or decreasing yield expectations and for decreasing soil moisture. On soils containing sufficient amounts of Moisture and soil organic matter, enhanced mineralisation is expected to compensate for a greater N demand. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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.