1 / 38

Impacts of Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Policies

Impacts of Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Policies. Uwe A. Schneider Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University Contributors Kerstin Jantke, Ivie Ramos, Christine Schleupner, Timm Sauer, Chris Llull ( Hamburg University ), Bruce A. McCarl ( Texas A&M University ),

caesar-cervantes
Télécharger la présentation

Impacts of Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Policies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impacts of Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Policies Uwe A. Schneider Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University Contributors Kerstin Jantke, Ivie Ramos, Christine Schleupner, Timm Sauer, Chris Llull (Hamburg University), Bruce A. McCarl (Texas A&M University), Petr Havlik, Oskar Franklin, Steffen Fritz, Michael Obersteiner (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), Erwin Schmid (University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna), Juraj Balkovic, Rastislav Skalsky (Soil Science and Conservation Research institute, Bratislava), Martin Weih (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences ), Andre Faaji, Edward Smeets (Utrecht University)

  2. Questions & Challenges • Research Tools • Policy Analysis • Conclusions

  3. Land Use Climate (Environment) Policies Society

  4. Questions • Mitigation Potential of Climate Policies? • Land Management Adaptation? • Commodity Market Impacts? • Environmental Side Effects? • Social Side Effects?

  5. Challenges • Heterogeneity (Resources, Technologies) • Complexity (Mitigation Options, Markets, Externalities, Policies) • Global Scope

  6. Land use competition

  7. Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model - FASOM • Partial Equilibrium, Bottom-Up Model • Maximizes sum of consumer and producer surplus • Constrained by resource endowments, technologies, policies • Spatially explicit, discrete dynamic • Integrates environmental effects • Programmed in GAMS

  8. FASOM History • US (1993) • EU (2004) • Global (2006)

  9. FASOM Structure Limits Limits Resources Land Use Technologies Products Markets Inputs Demand Functions, Trade Processing Technologies Environmental Impacts Supply Functions Limits

  10. FASOM - Spatial Resolution • Political regions • Ownership (forests) • Farm types • Farm size • Soil texture • Stone content • Altitude levels • Slopes • Soil state • Many crop and tree species • Tillage, planting irrigation, fertilization harvest regime

  11. Homogeneous Response Units • Altitude: • < 300 m • 300-600 m • 600-1100 m • >1100 m • Slope Class: • 0-3% • 3-6% • 6-10% • 10-15% • … DE11 DE12 • Texture: • Coarse • Medium • Medium-fine • Fine • Very fine DE14 • Soil Depth: • shallow • medium • deep DE13 • Stoniness: • Low content • Medium content • High content

  12. 8 EUFASOMBiodiversityScope 69 Vertebrate Wetland Species

  13. 2016 cells 25 countries 6 biogeo-regions Biodiversity - Spatial Resolution

  14. Climate Policy Analysis

  15. I US Agricultural Sector Results Mainly based on McCarl and Schneider (2001). Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in U.S.Agriculture and Forestry. SCIENCE 294:2481-2481.

  16. US Agricultural Mitigation 500 450 400 350 Technical Potential Competitive Economic Potential 300 Carbon price (Euro/tce) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation (mmtce)

  17. US Mitigation Strategy Mix 500 Afforestation Sink 400 Tillage Carbon Sink 300 Carbon price ($/tce) CH4 N2O Decrease 200 Bioenergy Emission Offsets 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Emission reduction (mmtce)

  18. US Tillage Carbon Sink 500 400 Economic Potential 300 Carbon price ($/tce) Competitive Economic Potential 200 Technical Potential 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Soil carbon sequestration (mmtce)

  19. US Afforestation Sink 500 400 Economic Potential Competitive Economic Potential 300 Carbon price ($/tce) 200 Technical Potential 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Emission reduction (mmtce)

  20. US Bioenergy Emission Offsets 500 Economic Potential 400 Competitive Economic Potential 300 Carbon price ($/tce) 200 Technical Potential 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Emission reduction (mmtce)

  21. US Crop Management Impacts 115 110 Irrigation 105 Intensity (Base = 100%) 100 95 Tillage 90 85 Fertilization 80 75 0 100 200 300 400 500 Carbon equivalent price ($/mtce)

  22. US Agricultural Markets 220 200 Crop prices 180 160 140 Livestock prices Fisher index 120 Livestock production 100 80 60 Crop production Crop exports 40 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Carbon price ($/tce)

  23. US Welfare Changes 8 6 4 Gross Producer Surplus 2 Net Producer Surplus 0 Billion $ -2 Emission Payments -4 -6 ConsumerSurplus -8 -10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Carbon price ($/tce)

  24. US Environmental Co-Effects 100 N Subsurface Flow 90 80 N Percolation Pollution (%/acre) 70 Soil Erosion 60 50 P Loss 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Carbon price ($/tce)

  25. Emission Leakage 160 Non-Annex I crop net exports for agricultural GHG mitigation policy in: 150 140 Fisher’s Ideal Index 130 USA Only 120 Annex I Countries 110 100 All Countries 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 Carbon price ($/tce)

  26. II European Agricultural Sector Results Unpublished simulations with EUFASOM

  27. 2010 EU Bioenergy Targets • 21% Renewable Electricity ≈ 610 thousand GWh ≈ 300 million wet tons of biomass • 5.75% Bio-Fuels

  28. 0 25 50 75 100 Biomass Crop Share for 300 Mt Target

  29. Climate Mitigationvs. BiodiversityProtection

  30. 2010 EU Biodiversity Targets • 2001: European Council committed to ‘halt the decline of biodiversity by 2010’ in Europe • 2002: EU joined about 130 countries in agreeing ‘to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010‘ worldwide BUT • Biodiversity loss still accelerating • Reservation often ad hoc and uncoordinated • 2010 only three years away

  31. Habitat Needs Simulations with the independent 69 species based habitat module of EUFASOM show that 10, 20, 30, 40 viable populations for each species require 22, 35, 42, and 61 million hectares, respectively, in specific locations

  32. 0 25 50 75 100 Wetland Area Share for a 40 Mha Target

  33. 0 25 50 75 100 Biomass Crop Share for 300 Mt Target

  34. EU25 Bioenergy Potentials 600 Wetland Requirement = 40 Mha 500 400 Marginal Biomass Costs in Euro/ton 300 30 Mha 200 10 Mha 100 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 European Biomass Production in million wet tons

  35. Cereal Straw Removal 3 2 1 Yields years 0 percentage change 10 20 30 40 50 -1 -2 -3 -4 Soil Organic Carbon -5 Unpublished EPIC Simulations by E. Schmid

  36. Conclusions • Low mitigation targets, low marginal mitigation costs, more extensive agriculture, water and soil quality benefits • High mitigation targets, high marginal cost, more intensive agriculture, more pressure on food and biodiversity • Simultaneous biodiversity policies increase agricultural mitigation cost • Integrated analysis important (climate, soil, water, biodiversity, fuel, food) to prevent today’s solution becoming the problem of tomorrow

  37. Integrated Analysis in CCTAME2008-2011

  38. Thank you.

More Related