Abstract: Empirical findings on actors’ roles and responsibilities in the climate change adaptation process are rare even though cooperation between private and public actors is perceived important to foster adaptation in agriculture. We therefore developed the framework SAER (Stimuli-Actions-Effects-Responses) to investigate perceived relationships between private and public climate change adaptation in agriculture at regional scale. In particular, we explore agricultural experts’ perceptions on (i) climatic and non climatic factors stimulating private adaptation, (ii) farm adaption actions, (iii) potential on-farm and off-farm effects from adaptation, and (iv) the relationships between private and public adaptation. The SAER-framework is built on a comprehensive literature review and empirical findings from semi structured interviews with agricultural experts from two case study regions in Austria. We find that private adaptation is perceived as incremental, systemic or transformational. It is typically stimulated by a mix of bio-physical and socio-economic on-farm and off-farm factors. Stimulating factors related to climate change are perceived of highest relevance for systemic and transformational adaptation whereas already implemented adaptation is mostly perceived to be incremental. Perceived effects of private adaptation are related to the environment, weather and climate, quality and quantity of agricultural products as well as human, social and economic resources. Our results also show that public adaptation can influence factors stimulating private adaptation as well as adaptation effects through the design and development of the legal, policy and organizational environment as well as the provision of educational, informational, financial, and technical infrastructure. Hence, facilitating existing and new collaborations between private and public actors may enable farmers to adapt effectively to climate change. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Understanding the drivers of yield levels under climate change is required to support adaptation planning and respond to changing production risks. This study uses an ensemble of crop models applied on a spatial grid to quantify the contributions of various climatic drivers to past yield variability in grain maize and winter wheat of European cropping systems (1984-2009) and drivers of climate change impacts to 2050. Results reveal that for the current genotypes and mix of irrigated and rainfed production, climate change would lead to yield losses for grain maize and gains for winter wheat. Across Europe, on average heat stress does not increase for either crop in rainfed systems, while drought stress intensifies for maize only. In low-yielding years, drought stress persists as the main driver of losses for both crops, with elevated CO2 offering no yield benefit in these years.

Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.