Scenario Development for International Scenario Development for International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)Technology for Development (IAASTD)
Mark W. RosegrantMark W. RosegrantIFPRI
Washington DC, USA
Page 2INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Overview of the TalkOverview of the Talk
What is IAASTD? What are scenarios and why use
them? Proposed approach for IAASTD
scenarios Overview of IMPACT global food and
water model Knowledge, Science and Technology
(KST) in scenario modeling
Page 3INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD: Overarching QuestionIAASTD: Overarching Question
“How to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development through access to, and use of agricultural knowledge, science and technology”?
Page 4INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD: Four Broad QuestionsIAASTD: Four Broad Questions
What are the challenges that can be addressed through agricultural KST?
What are the likely positive and negative consequences of agricultural KST?
What are the enabling conditions required to optimize the uptake and diffusion of agricultural KST?
What investments are needed to help realize the potential of agricultural KST?
Page 5INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD CharacteristicsIAASTD Characteristics
Structural features: Intergovernmental process, with a multi-stakeholder Bureau Co-sponsored by seven international agencies – FAO, GEF,
UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, World Bank, and WHO Based on an international consultative process and well-
defined user needs Prepared and peer-reviewed by hundreds of experts from all
stakeholder groups
Substance features Multi-thematic (nutritional security, livelihoods, human
health, environmental sustainability) Multi-spatial using a consistent framework Multi-temporal (now to 2050) employing plausible futures Integrates indigenous and institutional knowledge Assesses scientific knowledge and the effectiveness of
institutions and policies
IAASTD Conceptual FrameworkIAASTD Conceptual FrameworkHuman Impacts on:•Incomes and employment
•Hunger•Human health
•Resilience and vulnerability•Social and Gender Equality•Economic diversification
•Rural livelihoods•Quality of natural environment
•Social Stability
Indirect change driversEconomic
•Demographic (urbanization, migration)•Socio-political (policies and institutions)
•Cultural and ethical (values)•Global KST
Agricultural KST•New knowledge (including policies)
•New technologies (biological and non-biological)•Harnessing/Maintenance/adaptation
of indigenous knowledge•Effective knowledge exchange systems
•KST system responsiveness & adaptability•KST system accountability
Direct change drivers•Biodiversity loss
•Volume and pattern of demand•Consumption patterns•Labor availability
•Land and water availability•Agricultural policy and regulatory
environment•GHG emissions and Climate change
•Farmers decisions
Agricultural goods and Services•Food production•Fiber, oils, material•Biomass/energy•Medicines
•Landscape and environmental management
•Carbon sequestration•Agro-ecosystem function
Page 7INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
What are Scenarios and Why Use Them? What are Scenarios and Why Use Them?
Scenarios are stories about the future with a logical plot and narrative governing the manner in which events unfold
Purpose of scenarios:• Information dissemination• Scientific exploration• Decision-making tool
Types of scenarios• Exploratory vs. anticipatory scenarios• Baseline vs. policy scenarios• Qualitative vs. quantitative scenarios, or a
combination
Page 8INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD Approach to ScenariosIAASTD Approach to Scenarios
Structured accounts of possible futures Describe futures that could be, rather than futures that will be Alternative, dynamic stories that capture key ingredients of
our uncertainty about the future of our study system Constructed to provide insight into drivers of change, reveal
the implications of current trajectories, and illuminate options for action
Encompass quantitative models and realistic projections, but much of their value lies in incorporating both qualitative and quantitative understandings of the system and in forcing people to evaluate and reassess their beliefs and assumptions about the system
What are the consequences of plausible changes in development paths for hunger, poverty alleviation, human health, and the environment?
Page 9INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Scenario Development Process for Scenario Development Process for IAASTDIAASTD Procedure builds from MA approach and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology
Integrates qualitative and quantitative scenarios• Qualitative – understandable way to
communicate complex information, considerable depth, comprehensive feedback effects and incorporate a wide range of views about the future
• Quantitative – check the consistency of qualitative scenarios, provide relevant numerical information and “enrich” qualitative scenarios by trends and dynamics
Page 10INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Scenario Development FrameworkScenario Development Framework
Two essential activities• Formulation of alternative scenario
storylines – facilitates internal consistency of different
assumptions – takes into account broad range of elements
and feedback effects • Quantification
– helps provide insights into those processes where sufficient knowledge exists to allow modeling
– takes into account interactions among various drivers and services
Page 11INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Phase I: Organizational steps
1. Establish a scenario team.2. Establish a scenario panel.3. Conduct interviews and workshops with
scenario end users (broad stakeholder consultation).
4. Determine the objectives and focus of the scenarios.
5. Clarify the focal questions of the scenarios.
Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Scenarios – Three PhasesScenarios – Three Phases
Page 12INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Phase II: Scenario writing and quantification
1. Construct a zero-order draft of scenario storylines.
2. Organize modeling analyses and begin quantification.
3. Revise zero-order storylines and construct first-order storylines
4. Quantify scenarios.5. Augment/revise storylines based on results of
quantifications.6. Derive new driving forces and re-run the
models.
Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Scenarios – Three PhasesScenarios – Three Phases
Page 13INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Phase III: Synthesis, review and dissemination
1.Distribute draft scenarios for general review.2.Develop final version of the scenarios. 3.Publish and disseminate the scenarios.
Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Scenarios – Three PhasesScenarios – Three Phases
Page 14INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Drivers and OutputsDrivers and Outputs
Population development – total population and age distribution in different regions
Economic development – assumed growth of GDP per region and changes in economic structure
Technology development – covers many model inputs such as rate of improvement in the efficiency of domestic water use, or the rate of increase in crop yields
Demand—dietary preferences and dynamics of change Human behavior –willingness of people to invest time or
money in energy conservation or water conservation Institutional factors – existence and strength of local,
national, and global institutions to promote education, international trade and international technology transfer• International technology transfer – represented directly
(e.g. trade barriers, import tariffs) or indirectly (e.g. income elasticity for education)
Page 15INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Four Forward-looking ScenariosFour Forward-looking Scenarios
globalized fragmented
Environmentally reactive
Environmentally pro-active
AdaptingMosaic
Order from Strength
TechnoGarden
Global Orchestration
Page 16INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Global OrchestrationGlobal Orchestration
Dominant Approach for Sustainability
Economic Approach
Social Policy Foci
Create demand for environmental protection via economic growth and social improvements; public goods
Redefinition of the public and private sector roles; improving market performance; trade liberalization; focus on global public good
Increase global equity; public health; global education
Focus on macro-scale policy reform for environmental sustainability
Page 17INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Order from StrengthOrder from Strength
Dominant Approach for Sustainability
Economic Approach
Social Policy Foci
Reactive problem-solving by individual nations; sectoral approaches, creation of parks and protected reserves
Regional trade blocs, mercantilism, self-sufficiency
Security and protection
Retreat from global institutions, focus on national regulation and protectionism
Page 18INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Adapting MosaicAdapting Mosaic
Dominant Approach for Sustainability
Economic Approach
Social Policy Foci
Learning via management and monitoring, shared management responsibility, adjustment of governance structures to resource users, common-property institutions
Focus on local development; trade rules allow local flexibility/interpretation; local non-market rights
Local communities linked to global communities; local equity
Retreat from global institutions, focus on strengthened local institutions and local learning
Page 19INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Techno GardenTechno Garden
Dominant Approach for Sustainability
Economic Approach
Social Policy Foci
Green technology, eco-efficiency, tradeable ecological property rights
Global reduction of tariff boundaries, fairly free movement of goods, capital and people, global markets in ecological property
Improving individual and community technical expertise; policies follow opportunities; competition
Emphasis on development of technologies to substitute for ecosystem services
Modeling to Quantify Parts of Modeling to Quantify Parts of the MA scenariosthe MA scenarios
Storylines
Global Orchestration, Techno Garden, etc.
IMPACTWorld food production
IMAGE 2 Global change
WaterGAPWorld water
resources
Model Inputs
Demographic Economic Technological
AIM Global change
Model Outputs
Provisioning Services - Food (meat, fish, grain production)- Fiber (timber)- Freshwater (renewable water resources & withdrawals)- Fuel wood (biofuels)Regulating - Climate regulation (C flux) - Air quality (NOx, S emissions)Supporting primary production
Population GrowthPopulation GrowthPopulation in Millions
Region Global Orchestration Techno Garden Adapting Mosaic Order from Strength
1995 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100
Former Soviet Union 285 290 282 245 292 281 252 288 273 246 287 257 216
Latin America 477 637 742 681 672 831 950 708 933 1,155 710 944 1,309
Middle East/North Africa
312 478 603 597 509 692 788 537 765 924 539 774 972
OECD1,020 1,136 1,255 1,153 1,117 1,154 1,077 1,079 1,068 978 1,076 998 856
Asia3,049 3,861 4,104 3,006 4,039 4,535 3,992 4,201 4,992 4,753 4,210 5,023 5,173
Sub-Saharan Africa 558 858 1,109 1,132 907 1,329 1,516 951 1,492 1,775 956 1,570 1,988
World5,701 7,260 8,095 6,814 7,537 8,821 8,575 7,764 9,522 9,830 7,777 9,567 10,514
Income Growth (GDP/cap/year)Income Growth (GDP/cap/year)Economic Growth Rates (percent per year)
Region Historic Global Orchestration Techno Garden Adapting Mosaic Order from Strength
1971-2000
1995-2020
2020-2050
2050-2100
1995-2020
2020-2050
2050-2100
1995-2020
2020-2050
2050-2100
1995-2020
2020-2050
2050-2100
Former Soviet Union 0.4 3.50 4.91 3.14 2.94 4.49 3.14 2.60 4.03 3.08 2.24 2.64 2.72
Latin America 1.2 2.80 4.28 2.24 2.36 3.93 2.24 2.06 2.99 2.23 1.78 2.29 1.77
Middle East/North Africa
0.7 1.96 3.42 2.50 1.74 3.27 2.50 1.61 2.43 2.40 1.51 1.75 1.93
OECD2.1 2.45 1.93 1.34 2.22 1.74 1.35 2.00 1.56 1.19 2.06 1.31 0.86
Asia5.0 5.06 5.28 3.08 4.24 4.70 3.13 3.76 4.12 2.52 3.22 2.43 2.07
Sub-Saharan Africa -0.4 1.69 3.97 4.08 1.44 3.80 4.08 1.21 2.85 3.31 1.02 2.12 2.16
World1.4 2.38 3.00 2.26 1.90 2.46 2.25 1.46 1.91 1.88 1.39 1.04 1.26
Page 23INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Sample Qualitative Scenarios for IAASTDSample Qualitative Scenarios for IAASTD
Intensive agriculture – emphasis on• Intensive agriculture• Economic growth• Public goods
Low input agriculture• Low-input agricultural technology
Adaptive ecosystem targeting• Agricultural science and technology targeted to
ecosystems• Indigenous technology and participatory breeding
Rates of change in dietary preferences• Convergence to Western diets, decline in Western
meat demand, acceptance of biofortication
Page 24INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
KSTKST within a Policy Modeling Framework within a Policy Modeling Framework
“K” - different from “S” and “T” - latent and not easily measured
KST - hard to separate due to obvious feedbacks
Observing “S” & “T”• in cross-section can be used to
construct a “possibility frontier” – additional models
• observe over time to identify trends and underlying drivers
Page 25INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
How to Account for KnowledgeHow to Account for Knowledge
Knowledge - embodied in • education (for the general population) • agricultural extension• Indigenous knowledge
Agricultural extension - has direct effects on crop productivity and yields
Education – • enhance overall labor productivity (not
only in agriculture)• positive effects in nutrition outcomes
(through malnutrition work)
Page 26INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Should we Endogenize Science and Should we Endogenize Science and Technology ?Technology ?
Keeping ST exogenous - allows one to look at clear counter-factual comparisons and scenarios
Endogenizing ST – may restrict the range of investment scenarios that can be examined
Not clear if necessary length of data over time is available to properly specify an endogenous relationship for Science and Technology
Page 27INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Science and Technology in Science and Technology in ScenariosScenarios
Changes in rainfed and irrigated area growth for crops
Changes in rainfed and irrigated yield growth for crops
Changes in numbers and yield growth for livestock
Changes in production growth for 4 types of fisheries commodities (high value vs. low value)
SUPPLY SIDE
Page 28INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Science and Technology in Science and Technology in ScenariosScenarios
Changes in dietary preferences over time (leading to changes in kilocalorie composition) – disaggregation to the potential impact of micronutrient breeding
DEMAND SIDE
Page 29INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Science and Technology in Science and Technology in ScenariosScenarios
Estimation of the impact of • biosafety and biotechnology
regulations and phyto-sanitary restrictions
• changes in supply and demand on child malnutrition
• crop yields from climate change Subsidies, taxes, tariffs and other trade
restrictions
ALSO
Page 30INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Spatially Disaggregating Spatially Disaggregating
Impact of KST-related investments on productivity growth, can be better captured with the following disaggregations:
Greater spatial resolution for production of food and water allocations
Disaggregation of crop categories to explicitly model dryland crops
Differentiation between high and low-input rain-fed agriculture
Disaggregation among GMO and non-GMO options
Page 31INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The Education-Nutrition The Education-Nutrition Relationship in IMPACT-WATERRelationship in IMPACT-WATER Malnourished children are projected as follows:
– %MALt= - 25.24 * ln (PCKCALt) - 71.76 LFEXPRATt– - 0.22 SCHt - 0.08 WATERt
NMALt = %MALt x POP5t
%MAL = Percent of malnourished children PCKCAL = Per capita calorie consumption SCH = Total female enrollment in secondary education as
a % of the female age-group LFEXPRAT = Ratio of female to male life exp. at birth WATER = Percent of people with access to clean
water NMAL = Number of malnourished children, and POP5 = Number of children 0 to 5 years old
Page 32INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
How to Account for InvestmentsHow to Account for Investments
Current model framework examines the impact of investments made in• Roads• Irrigation• Schools• Safe water • Agricultural technology
Can further disaggregate agricultural technology investments to account for GMO and non-GMO technologies, drought/salt tolerant variety breeding, etc.