Post on 03-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Impacts of Agricultural Impacts of Agricultural Adaptation to Climate PoliciesAdaptation to Climate Policies
Uwe A. SchneiderUwe A. SchneiderResearch Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg UniversityResearch Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University
ContributorsContributorsKerstin Jantke, Ivie Ramos, Christine Schleupner, Timm Sauer, Chris Kerstin Jantke, Ivie Ramos, Christine Schleupner, Timm Sauer, Chris Llull (Llull (Hamburg UniversityHamburg University), Bruce A. McCarl (), Bruce A. McCarl (Texas A&M UniversityTexas A&M University),),
Petr Havlik, Oskar Franklin, Steffen Fritz, Michael Obersteiner Petr Havlik, Oskar Franklin, Steffen Fritz, Michael Obersteiner ((International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), Erwin Schmid ), Erwin Schmid
((University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, ViennaUniversity of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna), ), Juraj Balkovic, Rastislav Skalsky (Juraj Balkovic, Rastislav Skalsky (Soil Science and Conservation Soil Science and Conservation
Research institute, BratislavaResearch institute, Bratislava), Martin Weih (), Martin Weih (Swedish University of Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Agricultural Sciences ), Andre Faaji, Edward Smeets (), Andre Faaji, Edward Smeets (Utrecht Utrecht
UniversityUniversity) )
I.I. Questions & ChallengesQuestions & Challenges
II.II. Research ToolsResearch Tools
III.III. Policy AnalysisPolicy Analysis
IV.IV. ConclusionsConclusions
Land Use
PoliciesSociety
Climate(Environment)
QuestionsQuestions
Mitigation Potential of Climate Policies?Mitigation Potential of Climate Policies?
Land Management Adaptation?Land Management Adaptation?
Commodity Market Impacts?Commodity Market Impacts?
Environmental Side Effects?Environmental Side Effects?
Social Side Effects?Social Side Effects?
ChallengesChallenges
Heterogeneity (Resources, Technologies)Heterogeneity (Resources, Technologies)
Complexity (Mitigation Options, Markets, Complexity (Mitigation Options, Markets, Externalities, Policies)Externalities, Policies)
Global ScopeGlobal Scope
Land use competition
Forest and Agricultural Sector Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model - FASOMOptimization Model - FASOM
Partial Equilibrium, Partial Equilibrium, Bottom-UpBottom-Up Model Model Maximizes sum of consumer and producer Maximizes sum of consumer and producer
surplussurplusConstrained by resource endowments, Constrained by resource endowments,
technologies, policiestechnologies, policiesSpatially explicit, discrete dynamicSpatially explicit, discrete dynamic Integrates environmental effectsIntegrates environmental effectsProgrammed in GAMSProgrammed in GAMS
FASOM HistoryFASOM History
US (1993)US (1993)
EU (2004)EU (2004)
Global (2006)Global (2006)
FASOM FASOM StructureStructure
Resources Land Use
Technologies
Processing Technologies
Products Markets
Inputs
Limits
Supply Functions
Limits
Demand Functions,Trade
Limits
Environmental Impacts
FASOM - Spatial ResolutionFASOM - Spatial Resolution
Soil textureSoil textureStone contentStone contentAltitude levelsAltitude levelsSlopesSlopesSoil stateSoil state
Political regionsPolitical regions Ownership (forests)Ownership (forests) Farm typesFarm types Farm sizeFarm size
Many crop and tree Many crop and tree speciesspecies
Tillage, planting Tillage, planting irrigation, fertilization irrigation, fertilization harvest regimeharvest regime
Altitude:1. < 300 m2. 300-600 m3. 600-1100 m4. >1100 m
Texture:1. Coarse2. Medium3. Medium-fine4. Fine 5. Very fine
Soil Depth:1. shallow2. medium3. deep
Stoniness:1. Low content2. Medium content3. High content
Slope Class:1. 0-3%2. 3-6%3. 6-10%4. 10-15%5. …
Homogeneous Homogeneous Response UnitsResponse Units
DE13
DE12
DE11
DE14
69 69 Vertebrate Vertebrate
WetlandWetlandSpeciesSpecies
EUFASOMEUFASOMBiodiversityBiodiversity
ScopeScope
2016 cells 25 countries 6 biogeo-regions
Biodiversity - Spatial ResolutionBiodiversity - Spatial Resolution
Climate Policy AnalysisClimate Policy Analysis
I I US Agricultural US Agricultural Sector ResultsSector Results
Mainly based on McCarl and Schneider (2001). Greenhouse Gas Mainly based on McCarl and Schneider (2001). Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in U.S.Agriculture and Forestry. Mitigation in U.S.Agriculture and Forestry. SCIENCESCIENCE 294:2481-2481. 294:2481-2481.
US Agricultural MitigationUS Agricultural Mitigation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Car
bon
pric
e (E
uro/
tce)
Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation (mmtce)
TechnicalPotential
CompetitiveEconomic Potential
US Mitigation Strategy MixUS Mitigation Strategy Mix
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Car
bon
pri
ce (
$/tc
e)
Emission reduction (mmtce)
CH4 N2ODecrease
Tillage CarbonSink
AfforestationSink
Bioenergy EmissionOffsets
US Tillage Carbon SinkUS Tillage Carbon Sink
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Car
bon
pric
e ($
/tce
)
Soil carbon sequestration (mmtce)
Technical Potential
Economic Potential
Competitive EconomicPotential
US Afforestation SinkUS Afforestation Sink
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Car
bon
pric
e ($
/tce
)
Emission reduction (mmtce)
Technical Potential
Economic PotentialCompetitive
Economic Potential
US Bioenergy Emission OffsetsUS Bioenergy Emission Offsets
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Car
bon
pric
e ($
/tce
)
Emission reduction (mmtce)
Technical Potential
Economic Potential
Competitive EconomicPotential
US Crop Management ImpactsUS Crop Management Impacts
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
0 100 200 300 400 500
Inte
nsit
y (B
ase
= 1
00%
)
Carbon equivalent price ($/mtce)
Fertilization
Tillage
Irrigation
US Agricultural MarketsUS Agricultural Markets
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fis
her
ind
ex
Carbon price ($/tce)
Crop prices
Livestock prices
Livestock production
Crop productionCrop exports
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Bil
lion
$
Carbon price ($/tce)
US Welfare ChangesUS Welfare Changes
Gross Producer Surplus
Emission Payments
Net Producer Surplus
Consumer Surplus
US Environmental Co-EffectsUS Environmental Co-Effects
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Pol
luti
on (
%/a
cre)
Carbon price ($/tce)
N Percolation
N Subsurface Flow
Soil Erosion
P Loss
Emission LeakageEmission Leakage
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
0 20 40 60 80 100
Fis
her
’s I
dea
l In
dex
Carbon price ($/tce)
USA Only Annex I Countries
All Countries
Non-Annex I crop net exports foragricultural GHG mitigation policy in:
II II European Agricultural European Agricultural
Sector ResultsSector Results
Unpublished simulations with EUFASOMUnpublished simulations with EUFASOM
2010 EU Bioenergy Targets2010 EU Bioenergy Targets
21% Renewable Electricity 21% Renewable Electricity
≈ ≈ 610 thousand GWh610 thousand GWh
≈ ≈ 300 million wet tons of 300 million wet tons of biomassbiomass
5.75% Bio-Fuels5.75% Bio-Fuels
Biomass Crop Share for 300 Mt TargetBiomass Crop Share for 300 Mt Target
0
25
50
75
100
Climate MitigationClimate Mitigationvs. vs.
BiodiversityBiodiversity ProtectionProtection
2010 EU Biodiversity Targets2010 EU Biodiversity Targets
2001: European Council committed to ‘2001: European Council committed to ‘halt the halt the decline of biodiversity by 2010decline of biodiversity by 2010’ in Europe ’ in Europe
2002: EU joined about 130 countries in 2002: EU joined about 130 countries in agreeing ‘agreeing ‘to significantly reduce the rate of to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010biodiversity loss by 2010‘ worldwide‘ worldwide
BUTBUT
Biodiversity loss still accelerating Biodiversity loss still accelerating Reservation often ad hoc and uncoordinatedReservation often ad hoc and uncoordinated 2010 only three years away2010 only three years away
Habitat NeedsHabitat Needs
Simulations with the independent 69 species Simulations with the independent 69 species based habitat module of EUFASOM show based habitat module of EUFASOM show that 10, 20, 30, 40 viable populations for that 10, 20, 30, 40 viable populations for each species require 22, 35, 42, and 61 each species require 22, 35, 42, and 61 million hectares, respectively, in specific million hectares, respectively, in specific locationslocations
Wetland Area Share for a 40 Mha TargetWetland Area Share for a 40 Mha Target
0
25
50
75
100
Biomass Crop Share for 300 Mt TargetBiomass Crop Share for 300 Mt Target
0
25
50
75
100
EU25 Bioenergy PotentialsEU25 Bioenergy Potentials
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Mar
gina
l Bio
mas
s C
osts
in E
uro/
ton
European Biomass Production in million wet tons
10 Mha
30 Mha
Wetland Requirement = 40 Mha
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
10 20 30 40 50
per
cent
ag
e ch
an
ge years
Cereal Straw RemovalCereal Straw Removal
Soil Organic Carbon
Yields
Unpublished EPIC Simulations by E. Schmid
ConclusionConclusionss Low mitigation targets, low marginal mitigation Low mitigation targets, low marginal mitigation
costs, more extensive agriculture, water and soil costs, more extensive agriculture, water and soil quality benefitsquality benefits
High mitigation targets, high marginal cost, more High mitigation targets, high marginal cost, more intensive agriculture, more pressure on food and intensive agriculture, more pressure on food and biodiversitybiodiversity
Simultaneous biodiversity policies increase Simultaneous biodiversity policies increase agricultural mitigation costagricultural mitigation cost
Integrated analysis important (climate, soil, Integrated analysis important (climate, soil, water, biodiversity, fuel, food) to prevent today’s water, biodiversity, fuel, food) to prevent today’s solution becoming the problem of tomorrowsolution becoming the problem of tomorrow
Policy Data Scope Instruments Intensities
Climate Model
Countries Land exchange Prices Supply Demand Processing Trade
Countries Population growth GDP growth Supply and
demand functions Time preference Technical Change
Biophysical Models
GIS Topography Soil texture Current climate Current land use Current soil state
GIS Future rainfall Future temperature Future emissions Future land use Future soil state
Regions Technologies Costs Yields Inventories
Regions Emissions Production Cost functions Biodiversity
Technological Data Emissions Inputs & outputs
Farm Models
Multi- Sector
Models
Endogenous Exogenous
1
3
6
5
7
8
9
13 15
16
17
2
4
11
12
14
109
Integrated Integrated Analysis in Analysis in CCTAMECCTAME
2008-20112008-2011
Thank you.Thank you.