Implementing Bilateral Trade in a Global Landuse Model

International Relations/Trade, Land Economics/Use,

Climate dependent equilibrium model

In the framework of AgMIP (Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project; www.agmip.org), several articles have been published in which about 10 leading, agro-economic models analysed the impact of climate change on agricultural yields, area, consumption and food prices (Lotze-Campen et al. 2014, Nelson et. al 2014a,b Schmitz et al. 2014). A part of these articles are available freely through the publisher (e.g. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3274). PIK has not only contributed through model simulations with the spatially explicit, agro-economic model MAgPIE, but also by coordinating this activity. Starting with AgMIP phase II in 2015, AgMIP has now for the first time conducted the model-analysis for different "Shared Socio-economic Pathways" (short SSPs). A first study has been published in the renowned journal “Environmental Research Letters” (Wiebe et al. 2015). These are important contributions to task 2.3 which aimed at simulating the impact of global climate changes on agricultural systems.Another study which is under revision in the journal PNAS, investigates the impact of climate change on agricultural welfare. The results of this paper are based on simulations with 20 different General Circulation Models (GCMs). This provides the opportunity to understand the uncertainty inherent in the different climate models better and improves the credibility of results.All mentioned articles and results are based on harmonized yield changes, which are a result of multi-model simulations, conducted in the framework of ISI-MIP (Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project) and coordinated at PIK. These model results are publicly available (www.isi-mip.org) and part of an open source strategy of the institute. The modelling group around the agro-economic model MAgPIE (Model of Agriculture and its Impact on the Environment) currently discusses an open source strategy for publishing the model code. As a first step, a detailed description of the model will be available shortly (http://redmine.pik-potsdam.de/projects/magpie/wiki).PIK and the modelling group around MAgPIE have also contributed to the geoportal GLUES (Global Assessment of Land Use Dynamics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ecosystem Services) where project partners can publish and share global and regional data sets as well as model results on scenarios of land use, climate change and economic development. MAgPIE results on landuse change, emissions and deforestation for different socio-economic scenarios have been made available there (http://catalog-glues.ufz.de/terraCatalog/Start.do;jsessionid=80F6A3D2C446674B898881D0589887E4)

Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe

Agricultural aspects have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), but only to a limited extent. In order to analyze the future dynamics of agricultural development they need to be complemented and specified by Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), which cover different aspects of agricultural development as for example European agricultural and domestic policy, environmental policies,  different livestock management systems, cropping systems or irrigation efficiencies.In this paper we will develop a general framework for RAPs where we define for each SSP the corresponding specific agricultural development. Some aspects of the above mentioned specifics can be derived from the definitions in the SSPs, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development. Agricultural policies on the other hand are not included in the SSP definitions. Here we will define agricultural and environmental policies, including the available funding in each area of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (pillars 1 and 2). As RAPs can only to a small degree be developed as European guidelines and implemented unilaterally, it is important to translate the overall storylines into specific scenario parameterization at national levels. Concerned by this are 1. national policies, as well as the agri-environmental schemes of the CAP in Pillar II, 2. livestock efficiencies and the development of extensive and intensive farm management, and  3. crop management systems.Additionally we will define which respresentative concentration pathways (RCPs) will match best the future agricultural and agro-economic trajectories. The following 5 preliminary RAPs for Europe will be further developed in our analysis:EU-RAP1 (Sustainable Europe) : strong CAP, strong shift on environmental regulation, no producer support, green CAP with strong mititgation componentEU-RAP2 (Middle of the road): BAU or things will stay as they are.EU-RAP3 (Fragmented Europe): Europe breaks up, rich countries support farmers with national subsidies, poor countries do not. There is no CAP anymoreEU-RAP4 (Two Europes): Europe is divided in a poor and a rich part. In the rich part a green and environmental friendly  CAP will be implemented, in the poor part of Europe, the CAP will cease to existEU-RAP5(Fossil fueled Europe): free market world, strong institutions, weak on enviromental regulations, low domestic polices? Local green CAP without mitigation

The Impacts of Water Management Policies on Agricultural Production in Australia - An Economic Analysis

In the Australian Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) the combination of severe and prolonged droughts and historic water management decisions to divert water for cultivation stressed water resources in such an intensive manner that wetlands went dry and rivers are now far from a natural flow. More appropriate water management policies must be implemented to restore ecological function. However, with 39 % of Australia’s total value of agricultural production, transitions in use need to be managed to minimise economic and social impacts on basin communities while they adjust. Recent studies estimate that industries with high water usage but lower or more volatile value products will be impacted more than higher value products. Therefore, this study’s focus is to analyse different water management policies and their impacts on agricultural production, particularly changes in production of water low value and water high value crops and agricultural water consumption. By applying the Water Integrated Market (WatIM)-Model, benefits and costs of water management policies can be evaluated by identifying changes in quantities, prices and economic welfare, such as consumer and producer surplus. The WatIM-Model is a multi-market model combining water low and water high value crop markets and the water market with its supply and demand. Since the MDB is a complex system with different types of agriculture and water sharing rules in each catchment, economic variables are aggregated in the WatIMModel to examine overall trends and changes in the MDB. By the assumption that policy decisions on one market cause reactions on prices, supply and demand on other markets, market interdependencies can be derived. With these results, the merit of shifting production from water low value crops to water high value crops is examined and advantages and disadvantages of water management policies can be determined. This enables refinement of water management policies to optimise social, economic and environmental outcomes.Water market, water management policy, agriculture, sustainable water allocation, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Cereal and oilseed production in Finland under different socioeconomic scenarios until 2050: an analysis with models of two different scales

201

Large-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve sustainability trade-offs?

Large-scale 2nd generation bioenergy deployment is a key element of 1.5 °C and 2 °C transformation pathways. However, large-scale bioenergy production might have negative sustainability implications and thus may conflict with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda. Here, we carry out a multi-criteria sustainability assessment of large-scale bioenergy crop production throughout the 21st century (300 EJ in 2100) using a global land-use model. Our analysis indicates that large-scale bioenergy production without complementary measures results in negative effects on the following sustainability indicators: deforestation, CO2 emissions from land-use change, nitrogen losses, unsustainable water withdrawals and food prices. One of our main findings is that single-sector environmental protection measures next to large-scale bioenergy production are prone to involve trade-offs among these sustainability indicators—at least in the absence of more efficient land or water resource use. For instance, if bioenergy production is accompanied by forest protection, deforestation and associated emissions (SDGs 13 and 15) decline substantially whereas food prices (SDG 2) increase. However, our study also shows that this trade-off strongly depends on the development of future food demand. In contrast to environmental protection measures, we find that agricultural intensification lowers some side-effects of bioenergy production substantially (SDGs 13 and 15) without generating new trade-offs—at least among the sustainability indicators considered here. Moreover, our results indicate that a combination of forest and water protection schemes, improved fertilization efficiency, and agricultural intensification would reduce the side-effects of bioenergy production most comprehensively. However, although our study includes more sustainability indicators than previous studies on bioenergy side-effects, our study represents only a small subset of all indicators relevant for the SDG agenda. Based on this, we argue that the development of policies for regulating externalities of large-scale bioenergy production should rely on broad sustainability assessments to discover potential trade-offs with the SDG agenda before implementation

Large-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve sustainability trade-offs?

Large-scale 2nd generation bioenergy deployment is a key element of 1.5 °C and 2 °C transformation pathways. However, large-scale bioenergy production might have negative sustainability implications and thus may conflict with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda. Here, we carry out a multi-criteria sustainability assessment of large-scale bioenergy crop production throughout the 21st century (300 EJ in 2100) using a global land-use model. Our analysis indicates that large-scale bioenergy production without complementary measures results in negative effects on the following sustainability indicators: deforestation, CO2 emissions from land-use change, nitrogen losses, unsustainable water withdrawals and food prices. One of our main findings is that single-sector environmental protection measures next to large-scale bioenergy production are prone to involve trade-offs among these sustainability indicators—at least in the absence of more efficient land or water resource use. For instance, if bioenergy production is accompanied by forest protection, deforestation and associated emissions (SDGs 13 and 15) decline substantially whereas food prices (SDG 2) increase. However, our study also shows that this trade-off strongly depends on the development of future food demand. In contrast to environmental protection measures, we find that agricultural intensification lowers some side-effects of bioenergy production substantially (SDGs 13 and 15) without generating new trade-offs—at least among the sustainability indicators considered here. Moreover, our results indicate that a combination of forest and water protection schemes, improved fertilization efficiency, and agricultural intensification would reduce the side-effects of bioenergy production most comprehensively. However, although our study includes more sustainability indicators than previous studies on bioenergy side-effects, our study represents only a small subset of all indicators relevant for the SDG agenda. Based on this, we argue that the development of policies for regulating externalities of large-scale bioenergy production should rely on broad sustainability assessments to discover potential trade-offs with the SDG agenda before implementation

Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under a range of plausible socioeconomic and emissions scenarios

Previous studies have combined climate, crop and economic models to examine the impact of climate change on agricultural production and food security, but results have varied widely due to differences in models, scenarios and input data. Recent work has examined (and narrowed) these differences through systematic model intercomparison using a high-emissions pathway to highlight the differences. This paper extends that analysis to explore a range of plausible socioeconomic scenarios and emission pathways. Results from multiple climate and economic models are combined to examine the global and regional impacts of climate change on agricultural yields, area, production, consumption, prices and trade for coarse grains, rice, wheat, oilseeds and sugar crops to 2050. We find that climate impacts on global average yields, area, production and consumption are similar across shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP 1, 2 and 3, as we implement them based on population, income and productivity drivers), except when changes in trade policies are included. Impacts on trade and prices are higher for SSP 3 than SSP 2, and higher for SSP 2 than for SSP 1. Climate impacts for all variables are similar across low to moderate emissions pathways (RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0), but increase for a higher emissions pathway (RCP 8.5). It is important to note that these global averages may hide regional variations. Projected reductions in agricultural yields due to climate change by 2050 are larger for some crops than those estimated for the past half century, but smaller than projected increases to 2050 due to rising demand and intrinsic productivity growth. Results illustrate the sensitivity of climate change impacts to differences in socioeconomic and emissions pathways. Yield impacts increase at high emissions levels and vary with changes in population, income and technology, but are reduced in all cases by endogenous changes in prices and other variables

Climate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under a range of plausible socioeconomic and emissions scenarios

Previous studies have combined climate, crop and economic models to examine the impact of climate change on agricultural production and food security, but results have varied widely due to differences in models, scenarios and input data. Recent work has examined (and narrowed) these differences through systematic model intercomparison using a high-emissions pathway to highlight the differences. This paper extends that analysis to explore a range of plausible socioeconomic scenarios and emission pathways. Results from multiple climate and economic models are combined to examine the global and regional impacts of climate change on agricultural yields, area, production, consumption, prices and trade for coarse grains, rice, wheat, oilseeds and sugar crops to 2050. We find that climate impacts on global average yields, area, production and consumption are similar across shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP 1, 2 and 3, as we implement them based on population, income and productivity drivers), except when changes in trade policies are included. Impacts on trade and prices are higher for SSP 3 than SSP 2, and higher for SSP 2 than for SSP 1. Climate impacts for all variables are similar across low to moderate emissions pathways (RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0), but increase for a higher emissions pathway (RCP 8.5). It is important to note that these global averages may hide regional variations. Projected reductions in agricultural yields due to climate change by 2050 are larger for some crops than those estimated for the past half century, but smaller than projected increases to 2050 due to rising demand and intrinsic productivity growth. Results illustrate the sensitivity of climate change impacts to differences in socioeconomic and emissions pathways. Yield impacts increase at high emissions levels and vary with changes in population, income and technology, but are reduced in all cases by endogenous changes in prices and other variables.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 10.13039/100005626Peer Reviewe

Large-scale bioenergy production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs?

Large-scale 2nd generation bioenergy deployment is a key element of 1.5 °C and 2 °C transformation pathways. However, large-scale bioenergy production might have negative sustainability implications and thus may conflict with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda. Here, we carry out a multi-criteria sustainability assessment of large-scale bioenergy crop production throughout the 21st century (300 EJ in 2100) using a global land-use model. Our analysis indicates that large-scale bioenergy production without complementary measures results in negative effects on the following sustainability indicators: deforestation, CO2 emissions from land-use change, nitrogen losses, unsustainable water withdrawals and food prices. One of our main findings is that single-sector environmental protection measures next to large-scale bioenergy production are prone to involve trade-offs among these sustainability indicators—at least in the absence of more efficient land or water resource use. For instance, if bioenergy production is accompanied by forest protection, deforestation and associated emissions (SDGs 13 and 15) decline substantially whereas food prices (SDG 2) increase. However, our study also shows that this trade-off strongly depends on the development of future food demand. In contrast to environmental protection measures, we find that agricultural intensification lowers some side-effects of bioenergy production substantially (SDGs 13 and 15) without generating new trade-offs—at least among the sustainability indicators considered here. Moreover, our results indicate that a combination of forest and water protection schemes, improved fertilization efficiency, and agricultural intensification would reduce the side-effects of bioenergy production most comprehensively. However, although our study includes more sustainability indicators than previous studies on bioenergy side-effects, our study represents only a small subset of all indicators relevant for the SDG agenda. Based on this, we argue that the development of policies for regulating externalities of large-scale bioenergy production should rely on broad sustainability assessments to discover potential trade-offs with the SDG agenda before implementation.EC/H2020/689150/EU/Sustainable Integrated Management FOR the NEXUS of water-land-food-energy-climate for a resource-efficient Europe/SIM4NEXUSEC/FP7/603542/EU/Land use change: assessing the net climate forcing, and options for climate change mitigation and adaptation/LUC4