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.