|   | 
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 Mitter, H.; Schönhart, M.; Meyer, I.; Mechtler, K.; Schmid, E.; Sinabell, F.; Bachner, G.
Title (up) Agriculture Type Book Chapter
Year 2015 Publication Abbreviated Journal
Volume Issue Pages
Keywords TradeM
Abstract
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Springer Place of Publication Vienna Editor Steiniger, K.; König, M.
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Cost of Inaction in Austria Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference
Notes Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 2652
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Mitter, H.; Schönhart, M.; Meyer, I.; Mechtler, K.; Schmid, E.; Sinabell, F.; Bachner, G.
Title (up) Agriculture Type Book Chapter
Year 2015 Publication Abbreviated Journal
Volume Issue Pages 121-144
Keywords
Abstract
Address
Corporate Author Thesis
Publisher Place of Publication Vienna Editor Steininger, K.; König, M.; Bednar-Friedl, B.; Kranzl, L.; Loibl, W.; Prettenthaler, F.
Language Summary Language Original Title
Series Editor Series Title Economic Evaluation of Climate Change Impacts. Development of a Cross-Sectoral Framework and Results for Austria Abbreviated Series Title
Series Volume Series Issue Edition
ISSN ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference
Notes TradeM, ftnotmacsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5014
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