1 / 47

Gerald Nelson Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Theme leader, CCAFS

Gerald Nelson Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Theme leader, CCAFS. Food Security and Climate Change: Current IMPACT Results and Future Plans. Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling Forum Wednesday, September 27, 2011. Overview. Food Security and climate change results from IMPACT

lida
Télécharger la présentation

Gerald Nelson Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Theme leader, CCAFS

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. Gerald Nelson Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI Theme leader, CCAFS Food Security and Climate Change: Current IMPACT Results and Future Plans Forestry and Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Modeling ForumWednesday, September 27, 2011

  2. Overview • Food Security and climate change results from IMPACT • How we got them • How do we compare with others • Should you believe any of us Page 2

  3. Food Security and Climate Change Results Nelson, Gerald C., Mark W. Rosegrant, et al. 2010. Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Page 3

  4. Food security challenges are unprecedented • Many more people in developing countries • Between 2000 and 2050, 50 percent globally; almost all in developing countries • With higher incomes comes more demand for quantity and quality • Climate change – a threat multiplier with uncertain outcomes • Reduced productivity of existing varieties and cropping systems Page 4

  5. Income and population growth drive prices higher(price increase (%), 2010 – 2050, Baseline economy and demography) Page 5 Nelson et al, 2010

  6. Climate change increases prices even more(price increase (%), 2010 – 2050, Baseline economy and demography) Minimum and maximum effect from four climate scenarios Page 6 Nelson et al, 2010

  7. Developed Country, Change in Net Exports of Cereals, 2010-2050 (million mt) With perfect mitigation, DC net cereal exports change little between 2010 and 2050. With climate change, DC net cereal exports grow less or decline. Page 7

  8. Countries with more than 1 million hectares of crop area increase, 2010–2050 (000 hectares) Page 8

  9. Countries with more than 1 million ha of crop area decline, 2010–2050 (000 hectares) Page 9

  10. Assessing food security and climate change outcomes Developedcountries All developingcountries Low-income developing countries

  11. Where do the Results Come From:The IMPACT Modeling suite Page 11

  12. The IMPACT Modeling Environment Hydrology and Water Supply Demand Models Climate Scenarios Crop Models Partial equilibrium economic model Page 12

  13. Supply Side Spatial Resolution:281 Food Production Units Page 13

  14. Change in average annual precipitation, 2000-2050, CSIRO GCM, A1B (mm) Page 14

  15. Change in average annual precipitation, 2000-2050, MIROC GCM, A1B (mm) Page 15

  16. Current process for incorporating climate effects on crops into IMPACT

  17. GCM/SRES scenario climate results are down scaled to 0.5 degree/5 minute resolution 2000 June average minimum temperature 2050 CSIRO/A2 June average rainfall

  18. Planting months are chosen based on current and future climate conditions 2000 Rainfed planting month 2050 CSIRO/A2 Rainfed planting month

  19. Soils are represented by 27 generic soil profiles based on the harmonized FAO soil datasets Soil profiles color coded by location

  20. The remaining inputs fall under management practices Choice of crop variety Rainfed versus irrigated sources of water Planting densities, row spacing, and transplanting details Fertilizer types, amounts, and application dates

  21. DSSAT generates projected yields for each location 2000 Rainfed maize yield 2050 CSIRO/A2 Rainfed maize yield

  22. SPAM 2000 areas are used to weight the projected yields when aggregating to FPUs Rainfed maize physical area in 2000

  23. FPU boundaries and crop model pixel results 2000 Rainfed maize yield with FPU boundaries in South Asia

  24. Projected yields from DSSAT are aggregated up to the FPU-level for use in IMPACT By crop and rainfed/irrigated... Find total SPAM area within FPU Find total production (SPAM area × DSSAT yield) within FPU Compute area-weighted-average yield as total production / total area

  25. Yield Effects, Rainfed Maize, CSIRO A1B (% change 2000 climate to 2050 climate) Nelson et al, 2010

  26. Yield Effects, Rainfed Maize, MIROC A1B (% change 2000 climate to 2050 climate) Page 26 Nelson et al, 2010

  27. Corn Yield Change, 2000-2050 (%)CNR GCM, A1 GHG Scenario Page 27

  28. Corn Yield Change, 2000-2050 (%)CSI GCM, A1 GHG Scenario Page 28

  29. Corn Yield Change, 2000-2050 (%)ECH GCM, A1 GHG Scenario Page 29

  30. Corn Yield Change, 2000-2050 (%)MIR GCM, A1 GHG Scenario Page 30

  31. How do we compare with others: ComparingIMPACT, ENVISAGE, LEITAP Page 31

  32. Alternate Perspectives on Price Scenarios (perfect mitigation), 2004-2050 IMPACT has substantially greater price increases Page 32

  33. Alternate perspectives on agricultural area changes, 2004-2050 Page 33

  34. IMPACT Area Response, at FPU Level Atni = crop area α = crop area intercept PStni = producer price ε = area price elasticity WATtni = water stress = exogenous area growth rate

  35. Selected CGE Area Supply Functions • Envisage (World Bank/FAO) • LEITAP (Wageningen) • - Asymptote • Ɛ - Price elasticity Page 35

  36. Aggregate land supply parameters for ENVISAGE and LEITAP Ratio of all land rated very suitable, suitable, moderately suitable land and marginally suitable land to actual arable land in use Page 36

  37. Should you believe any of us:Examples of The quality of Data Page 37

  38. How much irrigated area in India? Intl. Water Management Inst.113 M ha (net) Government of India57-62 M ha Source: Thenkabail 2009

  39. Where do land cover maps disagree on forest and cropland? All colored areas below. Source: FAO and ILRI (forthcoming 2011)

  40. Where do MODIS v. 5 and GlobCover disagree on crop area globally? All colored areas below. Source: FAO and ILRI (forthcoming 2011)

  41. Comparing Land Cover data in Africa Globcover 2005 – (300m) GLC2000 2000 – (1km) MODIS 2001 – (5km) Africover 1999-20 01 – (30m) Page 41

  42. Kenya All maps use the same legend GLC2000 Globcover Zhe Guo, HarvestChoice2011 (unpublished).” MODIS Africover

  43. Uganda Rwanda All maps use the same legend Globcover GLC2000 MODIS Africover Zhe Guo, HarvestChoice2011 (unpublished).”

  44. Tanzania All maps use the same legend Globcover GLC2000 MODIS Africover Zhe Guo, HarvestChoice2011 (unpublished).”

  45. Ethiopia Globcover GLC2000 All maps use the same legend MODIS Zhe Guo, HarvestChoice2011 (unpublished).”

  46. What is needed? • Regular observations • Observations year after year • Repeated observations • Multiple observations within a year and across years • Appropriate spatial resolution • Similar to field size • Discrimination • Minimum spectral frequencies to detect agricultural and natural resource change Page 46

  47. www.ifpri.org www.ccafs.cgiar.org Thank you

More Related