|   | 
Details
   web
Records
Author Schmitz, C.; Kreidenweis, U.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Popp, A.; Krause, M.; Dietrich, J.P.; Müller, C.
Title (up) Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Regional Environmental Change Abbreviated Journal Reg Environ Change
Volume 15 Issue 8 Pages 1757-1772
Keywords Land-use change; Trade liberalisation; Tropical deforestation; Forest; protection; Agricultural productivity growth; land-use; brazilian amazon; co2 concentrations; carbon emissions; conservation; climate; mitigation; forests; impact; growth; Environmental Sciences & Ecology
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.
Address 2016-10-31
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 1436-3798 1436-378x ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4810
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D.
Title (up) Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.
Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 85-85
Keywords climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; cmip5
Abstract Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
Address 2016-10-31
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 0169-5150 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4796
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D.
Title (up) Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Agricultural Economics Abbreviated Journal Agric. Econ.
Volume 45 Issue 1 Pages 85-101
Keywords climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; CMIP5
Abstract Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 0169-5150 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4536
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Schmitz, C.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Gerten, D.; Dietrich, J.P.; Bodirsky, B.; Biewald, A.; Popp, A.
Title (up) Blue water scarcity and the economic impacts of future agricultural trade and demand Type Journal Article
Year 2013 Publication Water Resource Research Abbreviated Journal Water Resource Research
Volume 49 Issue 6 Pages 3601-3617
Keywords water scarcity; land use model; irrigation efficiency; trade liberalization; livestock consumption; modeling; land cover change; water budgets
Abstract An increasing demand for agricultural goods affects the pressure on global water resources over the coming decades. In order to quantify these effects, we have developed a new agroeconomic water scarcity indicator, considering explicitly economic processes in the agricultural system. The indicator is based on the water shadow price generated by an economic land use model linked to a global vegetation-hydrology model. Irrigation efficiency is implemented as a dynamic input depending on the level of economic development. We are able to simulate the heterogeneous distribution of water supply and agricultural water demand for irrigation through the spatially explicit representation of agricultural production. This allows in identifying regional hot spots of blue water scarcity and explicit shadow prices for water. We generate scenarios based on moderate policies regarding future trade liberalization and the control of livestock-based consumption, dependent on different population and gross domestic product (GDP) projections. Results indicate increased water scarcity in the future, especially in South Asia, the Middle East, and north Africa. In general, water shadow prices decrease with increasing liberalization, foremost in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. Policies to reduce livestock consumption in developed countries not only lower the domestic pressure on water but also alleviate water scarcity to a large extent in developing countries. It is shown that one of the two policy options would be insufficient for most regions to retain water scarcity in 2045 on levels comparable to 2005.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 0043-1397 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes TradeM Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4502
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Nelson, G.C.; Valin, H.; Sands, R.D.; Havlík, P.; Ahammad, H.; Deryng, D.; Elliott, J.; Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Von Lampe, M.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Mason d’Croz, D.; van Meijl, H.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Müller, C.; Popp, A.; Robertson, R.; Robinson, S.; Schmid, E.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Willenbockel, D.
Title (up) Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Abbreviated Journal Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Volume 111 Issue 9 Pages 3274-3279
Keywords Agriculture/*economics; Carbon Dioxide/analysis; *Climate Change; Commerce/statistics & numerical data; Computer Simulation; Crops, Agricultural/*growth & development; Forecasting; Humans; *Models, Economic; agricultural productivity; climate change adaptation; integrated assessment; model intercomparison
Abstract Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m(2). The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17% reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11%, increase area of major crops by 11%, and reduce consumption by 3%. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Editor
Language English Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN 0027-8424 1091-6490 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4535
Permanent link to this record