Hoveid, Ø. (2016). What are the risks of food price changes? A time series analysis (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: It is a widely held belief (IPCC) that climate change bringsmore risks to the worldI Since the start of MACSUR, TradeM has had risk on theagenda, but few results have so far come out. It has beenclaimed though, that there is no evidence for more risk in theglobal wheat market (Steen and Gjølberg 2014) (TradeMworkshop at Hurdalssjøen)I I have myself had the ambition of creating a dynamicstochastic model of the food system in which risk would be anintegral part, but time has been too shortI I have also pointed to methods from finance to reveal insights,and that is the road to be followed here, guided by Bølviken &Benth (2000) Buyer’s risk larger than seller’s risk — due to asymmetricdistribution of returns. Large price jumps are more likely thanequally sized price falls.I Long term positions much more risky than short term ones —as expectedI Agricultural commodities much less risky than crude oilI Price risk are related to volatility, and their changes over timewill have similar causal explanationsI Risks of producers and consumers of agricultural commoditieswill to some extent be related to the price risk, and also totheir portfolios and the co-variance between returns
|
Sinabell, F. (2016). Yield potentials and yield gaps in soybean production in Austria – a biophysical and economic assessment (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: context of analysis:• stakeholders. policy relevance: CC and protein crops• research problem:• how large is the yield gap and what can be done• data• approaches• findings• discussion and outlook yield gap analysis is a daunting task• what can be learned• economics matters: prices of crop and other crops• land expansion: more land becoming more marginal• management matters a lot but – not directly observable in data• significant knowledge gaps still there• way forward:• look at other crops• explore options to improve management
|
Schönhart, M. (2016). Uncertainties from Climate Change on Farms and Ecosystem Services of a Grassland Dominated Austrian Landscape (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: MACSUR 1: development of a method to analysefarm and landscape scale impacts of CC, mitigationand adaptation effects– cropland dominated landscape, crop choice and soilmanagement– climate model uncertainty• Now: test and improve the robustness of the method– grassland landscape, cropland expansion and livestock– uncertainty analysis– variability of weather conditions High spatial resolution creates interfaces to disciplinarymodels and indicators• Challenging data & modelling demand• Increasing productivity can increase intensification pressures• Threatened permanent (extensive) grasslands and landscape elements, but• subject to resource constraints, costs and prices• Future RDP and environmental policy design (e.g. WFD) may need to takechanging productivity into account• Future research: analyze uncertainties & environmentalimpacts• Ensembles of crop and grassland models• Sensitivity analysis on economic input parameters• Qualitative surveys with agricultural experts and farmers
|
Roggero, P. P. (2016). Managing Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Network (MAGGnet): Exploring Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential of Cropland Management Practices (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Established: December 2009, United Nations Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark•Purpose: Facilitate research, development and extension of technologies and practices that will help deliver ways to grow more food (and more climate-resilient food systems) without growing greenhouse gas emissions.•Current Membership: 46 countries (Europe, Americas, Asia Pacific, Africa)
|
Matthews, A. (2016). Is agriculture off the hook in the EU’s 2030 Climate Policy (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: EU climate policy and AFOLU•Overall 2030 level of ambition agreed by European Council October 2014•Commission ESR proposal July 2016 – sharing of effort in NETS across MS plus trading mechanisms•Commission LULUCF proposal – integration of LULUCF into climate policy•AFOLU mitigation pursued through CAP as well as flanking environmental policies•No specific EU targets for agricultural mitigation in NETS•Ultimately, how AFOLU mitigation is pursued will depend on MS decisions2Implications of EU bubble•Commission has put in place trading mechanisms in NETS sectors to ensure least-cost fulfilment of overall EU targets•Challenge of MS ESR targets also depends on use MS make of trading mechanisms•MS have not to date made use of these mechanisms and prefer to meet targets domestically•A number of MS have domestic targets in addition to EU targets•ESR IA looked at adding central information site, central market place for AEA transfers or mandatory auctioning•Links with annual monitoring and 5-year legal compliance checks (2027 and 2032)
|
