Integrated Management of Land-use Systems under Systemic Risks and Food-(bio)energy-water-environmental Security Targets: A Stochastic Global Biosphere Management Model

Interdependencies among land-use systems resemble a complex network connected through demand–supply relations, and disruption of the network may catalyze systemic risks affecting food, energy, water, and environmental security (FEWES) worldwide. This paper describes the conceptual development, expansion, and practical application of a stochastic version of the Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM), a model that is used to assess competition for land use between agriculture, bioenergy, and forestry at regional and global scales. In the stochastic version of the model, systemic risks of various kinds are explicitly covered and can be analyzed and mitigated in all their interactions. While traditional deterministic scenario analysis produces sets of often contradictory outcomes, stochastic GLOBIOM explicitly derives robust decisions that leave the systems better off, independently of what scenario occurs. Stochastic GLOBIOM is formulated as a stochastic optimization model that is central for evaluating portfolios of robust interdependent decisions: ex ante strategic decisions (production allocation, storage capacities) and ex post adaptive (demand, trading, storage control) decisions. For example, the model is applied to the case of increased storage facilities, which can be viewed as catastrophe pools to buffer production shortfalls and fulfill regional and global FEWES requirements when extreme events occur. Expected shortfalls and storage capacities have a close relation with Value-at-Risk and Conditional Value-at-Risk risk measures. The Value of Stochastic Solutions is calculated to present the benefits of the stochastic over the deterministic model

Climate change induced transformations of agricultural systems: insights from a global model

Climate change might impact crop yields considerably and anticipated transformations of agricultural systems are needed in the coming decades to sustain affordable food provision. However, decision-making on transformational shifts in agricultural systems is plagued by uncertainties concerning the nature and geography of climate change, its impacts, and adequate responses. Locking agricultural systems into inadequate transformations costly to adjust is a significant risk and this acts as an incentive to delay action. It is crucial to gain insight into how much transformation is required from agricultural systems, how robust such strategies are, and how we can defuse the associated challenge for decision-making. While implementing a definition related to large changes in resource use into a global impact assessment modelling framework, we find transformational adaptations to be required of agricultural systems in most regions by 2050s in order to cope with climate change. However, these transformations widely differ across climate change scenarios: uncertainties in large-scale development of irrigation span in all continents from 2030s on, and affect two-thirds of regions by 2050s. Meanwhile, significant but uncertain reduction of major agricultural areas affects the Northern Hemisphere's temperate latitudes, while increases to non-agricultural zones could be large but uncertain in one-third of regions. To help reducing the associated challenge for decision-making, we propose a methodology exploring which, when, where and why transformations could be required and uncertain, by means of scenario analysis

The Net Global Effects of Alternative U.S. Biofuel Mandates

One of the declared objectives of U.S. biofuel policy is the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, but many studies have questioned whether such a reduction would actually occur and, if so, how large it would be. This report describes the global market, land use, GHG emissions, and nitrogen use impacts of the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) and several alternative biofuel policy designs, which differ in terms of mandate magnitude and feedstock composition, over the 2010-2030 period

Addressing climate change adaptation with a stochastic integrated assessment model: Analysis of common agricultural policy measures

Stochastic agro-economic model GLOBIOM is used to demonstrate how best to design and evaluate the CAP’s financial and structural measures, both individually and jointly, in the face of inherent uncertainty and risk. The model accounts for plausible shocks simultaneously and derives measures that are robust against all shock scenarios; it can thus help avoid the irreversibility and sunk costs that occur in unexpected scenarios.To allow adequate agricultural production, we show that the distribution of CAP funds needs to account for exposure to risks, security targets, and the synergies between policy measures, including production, trade, storage, and irrigation technologies

Climate change impacts and mitigation in the developing world: An Integrated Assessment of the Agriculture and Forestry Sectors. Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 7477

This paper conducts an integrated assessment of climate change impacts and climate mitigation on agricultural commodity markets and food availability in low- and middle-income countries. The analysis uses the partial equilibrium model GLOBIOM to generate scenarios to 2080. The findings show that climate change effects on the agricultural sector will increase progressively over the century. By 2030, the impact of climate change on food consumption is moderate but already twice as large in a world with high inequalities than in a more equal world. In the long run, impacts could be much stronger, with global average calorie losses of 6 percent by 2050 and 14 percent by 2080. A mitigation policy to stabilize climate below 2 degrees C uniformly applied to all regions as a carbon tax would also result in a 6 percent reduction in food availability by 2050 and 12 percent reduction by 2080 compared to the reference scenario. To avoid more severe impacts of climate change mitigation on development than climate change itself, revenue from carbon pricing policies will need to be redistributed appropriately. Overall, the projected effects of climate change and mitigation on agricultural markets raise important issues for food security in the long run, but remain more limited in the medium term horizon of 2030. Thus, there are opportunities for low- and middle- income countries to pursue immediate development needs and thus prepare for later periods when adaptation needs and mitigation efforts will become the greatest

Agricultural productivity and greenhouse gas emissions: Trade-offs or synergies between mitigation and food security?

In this letter, we investigate the effects of crop yield and livestock feed efficiency scenarios on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture and land use change in developing countries. We analyze mitigation associated with different productivity pathways using the global partial equilibrium model GLOBIOM. Our results confirm that yield increase could mitigate some agriculture-related emissions growth over the next decades. Closing yield gaps by 50% for crops and 25% for livestock by 2050 would decrease agriculture and land use change emissions by 8% overall, and by 12% per calorie produced. However, the outcome is sensitive to the technological path and which factor benefits from productivity gains: sustainable land intensification would increase GHG savings by one-third when compared with a fertilizer intensive pathway. Reaching higher yield through total factor productivity gains would be more efficient on the food supply side but halve emissions savings due to a strong rebound effect on the demand side. Improvement in the crop or livestock sector would have different implications: crop yield increase would bring the largest food provision benefits, whereas livestock productivity gains would allow the greatest reductions in GHG emission. Combining productivity increases in the two sectors appears to be the most efficient way to exploit mitigation and food security co-benefits