|
|
Jayet, P., & Petsakos, A. (2013). Evaluating the efficiency of a uniform N-input tax under different policy scenarios at different scales. Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 18(1), 57–72.
Abstract: Nitrate pollution from agriculture is an important environmental externality, caused by the excessive use of fertilizers. The internalization of this problem, via a tax on mineral nitrogen, could lead to a second best solution, reducing nitrate emissions. Several authors suggest that a reduction in agricultural support could produce similar results. In this paper, we examine the effects of different levels of a uniformly implemented nitrogen tax in France under two policy scenarios, corresponding to post Agenda 2000 and 2003 Luxembourg reforms of European Union ’ s Common Agricultural Policy, in order to reveal the synergies and conflicts between the tax and the policy scenarios in terms of nitrate emissions abatement. The analysis is performed at different geographical scales, from the national to the regional and is based on a bioeconomic approach that involves the coupling of the economic model AROPAj with the crop model STICS. Results show that the efficiency of the N-tax varies according to the geographical scale of the analysis and the type of farming. Furthermore, we prove that a uniform implementation may lead to perverse effects that should always be taken into account when introducing second-best instruments.
|
|
|
|
Humblot, P., Jayet, P. A., Clerino, P., Leconte-Demarsy, D., Szopa, S., & Castell, J. F. (2013). Assessment of ozone impacts on farming systems: a bio-economic modeling approach applied to the widely diverse French case. Ecol. Econ., 85, 50–58.
Abstract: As a result of anthropogenic activities, ozone is produced in the surface atmosphere, causing direct damage to plants and reducing crop yields. By combining a biophysical crop model with an economic supply model we were able to predict and quantify this effect at a fine spatial resolution. We applied our approach to the very varied French case and showed that ozone has significant productivity and land-use effects. A comparison of moderate and high ozone scenarios for 2030 shows that wheat production may decrease by more than 30% and barley production may increase by more than 14% as surface ozone concentration increases. These variations are due to the direct effect of ozone on yields as well as to modifications in land use caused by a shift toward more ozone-resistant crops: our study predicts a 16% increase in the barley-growing area and an equal decrease in the wheat-growing area. Moreover, mean agricultural gross margin losses can go as high as 2.5% depending on the ozone scenario, and can reach 7% in some particularly affected regions. A rise in ozone concentration was also associated with a reduction of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions of about 2%, as a result of decreased use of nitrogen fertilizers. One noteworthy result was that major impacts, including changes in land use, do not necessarily occur in ozone high concentration zones, and may strongly depend on farm systems and their adaptation capability. Our study suggests that policy makers should view ozone pollution as a major potential threat to agricultural yields. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Özkan, Ş., Ahmadi, B. V., Bonesmo, H., Østerås, O., Stott, A., & Harstad, O. M. (2015). Impact of animal health on greenhouse gas emissions. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 24–25.
|
|
|
|
Popp, A., Humpenöder, F., Weindl, I., Bodirsky, B. L., Bonsch, M., Lotze-Campen, H., et al. (2014). Land-use protection for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(12), 1095–1098.
Abstract: Land-use change, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, is a massive source of carbon emissions and contributes substantially to global warming(1-3). Therefore, mechanisms that aim to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation are widely discussed, A central challenge is the avoidance of international carbon leakage if forest conservation is not implemented globally’’, Here, We show that forest conservation schemes, even if implemented globally, could lead to another type of carbon leakage by driving cropland expansion in non-forested areas that are not subject to forest conservation schemes (non-forest leakage). These areas have a smaller. but still considerable potential to store carbon(5,6). We show that a global forest policy could reduce carbon emissions by 77 Gt CO2, but would still allow for decreases in carbon stocks of non-forest land by 96 Gt CO2, until 2100 due to non-forest leakage effects. Furthermore; abandonment of agricultural hand and associated carbon uptake through vegetation regrowth is hampered. Effective mitigation measures thus require financing structures and conservation investments that cover the full range of carbon-rich ecosystems. However, our analysis indicates that greater agricultural productivity increases would be needed to compensate for such restrictions on agricultural expansion.
|
|
|
|
Lotze-Campen, H., von Lampe, M., Kyle, P., Fujimori, S., Havlik, P., van Meijl, H., et al. (2014). Impacts of increased bioenergy demand on global food markets: an AgMIP economic model intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 103–116.
Abstract: Integrated Assessment studies have shown that meeting ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation targets will require substantial amounts of bioenergy as part of the future energy mix. In the course of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), five global agro-economic models were used to analyze a future scenario with global demand for ligno-cellulosic bioenergy rising to about 100 ExaJoule in 2050. From this exercise a tentative conclusion can be drawn that ambitious climate change mitigation need not drive up global food prices much, if the extra land required for bioenergy production is accessible or if the feedstock, for example, from forests, does not directly compete for agricultural land. Agricultural price effects across models by the year 2050 from high bioenergy demand in an ambitious mitigation scenario appear to be much smaller (+5% average across models) than from direct climate impacts on crop yields in a high-emission scenario (+25% average across models). However, potential future scarcities of water and nutrients, policy-induced restrictions on agricultural land expansion, as well as potential welfare losses have not been specifically looked at in this exercise.
|
|
