Download Deliverable 2B.1

Work package 2B Agriculture and water
Deliverable 2B1: Report review of the literature
Project: ClimateCost
Project full title: Full Costs of Climate Change
Grant agreement no.: 212774, collaborative project
Proposal/Contract no.: ENV.2007.1.1.6.1.
Start date of project: 01/01/09
Participants
Ana Iglesias, Luis Garrote, Sonia Quiroga
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain
Date: 17/07/2009
Duration: 32 months
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Title:
Deliverable 2B1: Report review of the literature
Purpose:
Filename:
Deliverable 2_1B vs 1.doc
Date:
July 2009
Authors:
Ana Iglesias, Luis Garrote, Sonia Quiroga
Document history:
Status:
Citation:
Copyright:
Copyright statement:
Working paper number:
ISBN:
Project Coordinator: Thomas E Downing
Stockholm Environment Institute, Oxford
266 Banbury Road, Suite 193
Oxford OX2 7DL, U.K.
Tel: +44 1865 426316; Fax: +44 1865 421898
Mobile: +44 7968 065957
[email protected],
www.sei.se/oxford
Technical Coordinator: Paul Watkiss
Paul Watkiss Associates
[email protected]
Tel +44 797 1049682
http://www.climatecost.cc/
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Table of Contents
Introduction and Objectives.............................................................................................. 1
1 Objectives of WP2B ................................................................................................. 1
1.1
2
Objectives of deliverable D_2B1 .............................................................................................. 1
A review of previous studies .................................................................................... 2
Global impacts ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2
European wide impacts ............................................................................................................. 5
2.3
Synthesis of main impacts ....................................................................................................... 11
2.4
Monetary estimates.................................................................................................................. 19
2.5
Treatment of climate and socio-economic change .................................................................. 20
2.6
Disparities in the results .......................................................................................................... 20
3
A review of methods .............................................................................................. 21
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4
Possible research strategy for ClimateCost ............................................................ 35
4.1
4.2
5
Approaches .............................................................................................................................. 21
Models ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Economic models .................................................................................................................... 26
Summary of methods............................................................................................................... 29
Treatment of adaptation........................................................................................................... 30
Treatment of sectoral inter-linkages ........................................................................................ 35
Planned methods of analysis for the ClimateCost study.......................................................... 35
Potential input to the integrated models and CGMs ................................................................ 40
References .............................................................................................................. 41
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Introduction and Objectives
1
Objectives of WP2B
This work package focuses on agriculture and water resources.
The general objective of WP 2B is to assess impacts from climate change on
agriculture and water availability with and without adaptation. The physical impacts will
be derived in detail from the scenarios of climate variability and change provided by
WP1 for Europe. Possible impacts for China may be derived if climate scenarios and
data for validation of the physical models are available. The results of the WP will
generate the information for integrated assessment models and the economic models.
The methodology will be an extension of the PESETA-Agriculture methodology,
incorporating water availability and management and land use. The following aspects
to be considered will be derived from the results of this Deliverable (literature review).
The output from the task will aim to respond to policy questions related to vulnerability
of regions and social groups, conflicts among water users and adequacy and revision
of existing policy. The results will provide the quantitative estimation of agricultural
production and water requirements to be used in the economic analysis; the water
quantification of water availability for other sectors; evaluation of water requirements
under climate and policy scenarios, the economic and environmental valuation of
agricultural production and water.
Deliverables:
1.1

2B1 Report Review of literature. Month 6.

2B2 Report Analysis for Europe (model ready). Month 15.

2B3 Report Analysis of impacts and adaptation for all scenarios and regions.
Quantification of water requirement satisfaction across all sectors and
evaluation of policy implications and scenarios (application of the model). Month
24.
Objectives of deliverable D_2B1
This report aims to provide an improved understanding of the potential implications of
climate change and adaptation options for agriculture and water for people. It also aims
to assist policy to address the proprieties for adaptation.
Following this section, this report includes a (section 2), a review of previous
knowledge (section 3), a review of methods (section 4), an analysis of key issues
(section 5), Finally, the key recommendations are presented in section 6.
1
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
2
A review of previous studies
Climatic conditions affect directly agriculture and water resources. Diseases and pest
infestations over land and water are also weather-dependent. Societies, cultures and
economies have evolved adapting to mean climatic conditions. The success of
adaptation depends on the strategy, and it is determined by the economic, social, and
environmental vulnerability.
In regions of the world that are sensitive to climatic hazards -- droughts, floods,
temperature extremes, storms, such as the Mediterranean, agricultural production
varies largely and conflicts over water resources are common. In areas that
concentrate activities of high economic value, the vulnerability to extreme events is
high. Regardless of the coping strategy, climate extremes may have catastrophic
consequences, particularly if such anomalies are not predicted.
Climate is a main determinant of the productivity of the land and potential development
of water resources. While aspects of climate change such as longer growing seasons
and warmer temperatures may bring some benefits; there will also be a range of
adverse impacts, including reduced water availability and more frequent extreme
weather events. Agriculture has shown, throughout history, a great ability to adapt to
changing conditions, with or without a conscious response by farmers. Water for
people is always adapting to changes in society. However, it is likely that the changes
imposed by climate change in the future and as expressed above will and have
exceeded the limits of natural adaptation, thereby requiring policies to support and
enable major changes in management.
There have been several hundred studies into the potential impacts of climate change
in water and agriculture. Studies have focussed on particular issues (e.g. soil erosion,
biodiversity, and farm income), time-frames (e.g. 2020s, 2050s, and 2100), scenarios
(e.g. SRES) and spatial scales (from local to global). Current knowledge about
potential impacts is diverse and often fragmented. Below is a literature review that
includes:
2

Global impacts: food production and irrigation water requirements

European wide impacts: agricultural productivity

Synthesis of main impacts

Treatment of climate and socioeconomic change

Disparities in the results
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Global impacts
2.1.1
Impacts on food production
Potential impacts of climate change on world food supply have been estimated in
several studies (Parry et al., 2004). Results show that some regions may improve
production, while others suffer yield losses. This could lead to shifts of agricultural
production zones around the world. Furthermore, different crops will be affected
differently, leading to the need for adaptation of supporting industries and markets.
Climate change may alter the competitive position of countries with respect, for
example, to exports of agricultural products. This may result from yields increasing as a
result of altered climate in one country, whilst being reduced in another. The altered
competitive position may not only affect exports, but also regional and farm-level
income, rural employment and, of course, the type of crops grown in a region. While
most studies are unlikely to include an analysis of competitiveness itself, it is possible
to evaluate the relative position of a country by studying these analyses of climate
change effects on global food trade. Indeed, some data on country-level output are
available as part of the global studies.
The combined model and scenario experiments demonstrate that the world, for the
most part, appears to be able to continue to feed itself under the different climate and
socio-economic scenarios during the rest of this century (Parry et al., 2004). However,
this outcome is achieved through production in the developed countries (which mostly
benefit from climate change) compensating for declines projected, for the most part, for
developing nations. While global production appears stable, regional differences in
crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant
polarisation of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst
the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater inequality.
Although Figure 1 shows that global production appears stable (additional quantitative
data are provided by Parry et al., 2004), regional differences in crop production are
likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarization of effects, with
substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations. The
most serious effects are at the margins (vulnerable regions and groups). Individuals
particularly vulnerable to environmental change are those with relatively high
exposures to changes, high sensitivities to changes, low coping and adaptive
capacities, and low resilience and recovery potential. Adaptation is necessary, but
adaptation has limits (technology and biotechnology, political and cultural).
3
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Figure 1 Percentage change in average crop yields for the HadCM2 climate change
scenario. Source: Parry et al. (2004).
2.1.2
Impacts on water for irrigation
In a warmer climate, irrigation water demand is expected to increase for most regions
(Arnell, 1999). As shown in Figure 2, this increase is projected to be more pronounced
in southern areas of Europe (Döll and Siebert, 2001). Simulations of the effects of
climate change on the water balance at the European scale (Arnell, 1999) suggest that
under most climate change scenarios, northern Europe would see an increase in
annual average streamflow, but southern Europe would experience a reduction in
streamflow. According to the IPCC (IPCC, 2007), the level of confidence of these
projections is estimated to be medium to high.
Therefore, greater water shortages and increased competition between agricultural and
urban as well as industrial uses of water are expected mostly for southern areas of
Europe. This may lead to increasing restrictions on irrigation in agriculture and
horticulture for these regions. For these reasons, we have characterized the potential
intensity of this climate change impact as high for southern Europe.
4
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Private adaptation options to these impacts include agronomic practices such as
conservation tillage or irrigation management (Olesen and Bindi, 2002). Increased
competition for scarce water resources may promote the introduction of more efficient
irrigation systems (Abildtrup and Gylling, 2001). However, private coping capacity can
be considered moderate for this climate change impact because, in most European
regions, are highly dependent on the adaptation actions adopted by the hydrological
sector, where public intervention continues to play a key role. Some authors have
pointed out the need of reforming water markets to encourage a more prudent use of
water (Olesen and Bindi, 2002).
Figure 2 Relative change of annual net irrigation requirement between present time
(1961–1990) and 2025 as a result of climate change (MPI climate scenario; areas
equipped for irrigation in 1995 shown). Source: Döll and Siebert, 2001.
2.2
2.2.1
European wide impacts
Agricultural productivity
Figure 3 shows that relative changes in European agricultural production are
advantageous for northern countries while the most serious negative effects are in
southern countries.
The effects of climate change and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide are expected
to lead, overall, to small increases in European crop productivity at moderate warming.
Yet within this macro scale, impacts on crop yields are expected to vary across
Europe. In southern Europe, higher temperatures and droughts are projected to
worsen conditions in a region already vulnerable to climate variability. Crop productivity
will be negatively affected by reduced water supply and heat stress, and will be at risk
from increased frequency of wildfires. In central and eastern Europe, summer rainfall is
projected to decline leading to increased water stress. In northern Europe and Alpine
regions, climate change is projected to bring mixed effects: initial benefits such as
increased crop yields (at moderate levels of warming) are likely to be outweighed over
time by more frequent flooding and increasing ground instability. Altered carbon and
nitrogen cycles may affect soil erosion and water quality in all regions.
5
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Some lowland crops that are currently grown in southern Europe will become viable
further north or at higher altitudes. Energy crops (such as oilseed rape, maize, etc),
solid bio-fuel crops, starch crops and barley show a northward expansion in potential
cropping area, but a reduction in the south. Importantly, the potential benefits from
climate change will only be possible if water requirements are met.
Rising temperatures are expected to increase the frequency of heat stress and the risk
of disease in livestock. Severe heat stress will enhance the risk of mortality in intensive
livestock systems, most notably for pigs and broiler chickens in northwest Europe.
Warmer conditions will support the dispersal of disease-bearing insects (including new
vectors currently limited by colder temperatures) and enhance the survival of viruses.
The productivity of forage crops along the Atlantic coast may be reduced by drought
such that availability is no longer sufficient for livestock feed at current demand.
Figure 3 Crop yield changes under the HadCM3/HIRHAM A2 and B2 scenarios for the
period 2071-2100 and for the ECHAM4/ RCA3 A2 and B2 scenarios for the period 20112040 compared to baseline (Iglesias et al., 2007; PESETA Project).
2.2.2
Risks and opportunities in the European agroclimatic regions
This section summarizes the projected impact of climate change in the main European
agro-climatic areas based on state-of-the art knowledge. A detailed regional analysis of
the risks and opportunities for the farming sector arising from these expected impacts
in each area is presented in the following section.
6
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Figure 3 Main agro-climatic zones in Europe (Source: Iglesias et al., 2007; PESETA)
BOREAL
Important changes in temperature and precipitation are expected. Temperature will
increase considerably in these northern latitudes, especially in Finland, with very
significant increases in yearly precipitation. Winters are projected to be much wetter
increasing the risks of winter floods and flash floods. Intense precipitation and severe
storms are also expected to become more frequent. There will be potential for
cultivating new areas and crops due to much longer growing seasons. Yields could
increase by 40%, under limited warming but agriculture could suffer from new pests
and diseases. The warmer climate could aggravate the problems of water quality in the
Baltic Sea. Permafrost changes due to warming will also be of particular concern for
soils.
ATLANTIC NORTH
Temperature increases by 2080 are expected to be moderate at 1.5 - 2.5 °C, while
total annual rainfall is expected to decrease slightly in the summer, but with an
increased risk of flooding in winter (Reynard et al., 2001). There will be potential for
increasing yields of forage crops due to longer growing seasons and for increasing the
area sown to barley and potatoes (Holden et al., 2003). Impacts on crop yields due to
warming may vary according to crop type but new pests and diseases may be
introduced.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL
Temperature increases of 2.5 to 4 °C are forecast. Precipitation is expected to
decrease in total, but with increased proportion of rainfall falling over winter. This
greater intensity of winter precipitation and warmer temperatures are expected to
increase the frequency of storms and flooding, especially as in this zone there are the
confluences of several large rivers. Summers are projected to become dryer and
hotter. The longer growing season is forecast to increase yields of wheat. There is also
likely to be an increase in the northern range over which crops such as soya and
sunflowers may be grown. The greatest problem to be faced by agriculture in this zone
may be rising sea level which may affect low-lying land in eastern England and the
North Sea coasts of Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, some of the most
7
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
productive agricultural areas in those countries. Reduced water resources during
summer may lead to conflicting demands between agriculture and other users.
ATLANTIC SOUTH
Temperature increases of 3 to 4 °C are forecast, while yearly rainfall is expected to
decrease, especially in the southern part of the zone. Water resources may be a
problem leading to conflict with other users. A greater risk of forest fires has been
identified in this area, and this may have impacts on adjacent areas of permanent
crops. Despite the decrease on total water availability, winter flooding is predicted to
increase (De Cunha et al., 2002). Crop yields are predicted to decrease by c. 14%.
CONTINENTAL NORTH
Annual mean temperature increases are forecast to be in the order of 3 to 4 °C. Total
annual rainfall is expected to increase, with precipitation increases in the winter while
reduction in summer could occur in several areas. The increased rainfall is predicted to
lead to a greater number of intense rainfall events and to increase the risk of flooding,
which may be particularly severe as this area has large areas of low-lying land
vulnerable to flooding from rivers. A warmer climate may lead to an increase in the
northern range over which crops such as soya, sunflowers may be grown and potential
increases in yield from the longer growing season.
CONTINENTAL SOUTH
Significant temperature increases of 3 to 5 °C are forecast, while total annual rainfall is
expected to decrease. Reduced precipitation is predicted to reduce yields of wheat and
maize. However, yields of crops with a greater requirement for heat are forecast to
increase. Reduced precipitation and the encroachment of agriculture are expected to
lead to a reduction in the area of wetlands. Extreme weather events may increase in
frequency.
ALPINE
Increases in extreme weather events will affect vulnerable mountain areas while any
intensification of the hydrological cycle is likely to increase erosion, floods, and glacier
retreat. An accelerated rate of glacier retreat has been observed in the last decade.
This zone is vulnerable to accelerated permafrost thaw, which may lead to
destabilization of soils and landslides. Increased temperatures are forecast to decrease
the depth of snow cover and reduce biodiversity. The distribution of land use will
change due as the distribution of species in mountainous areas may shift upwards.
MEDITERRANEAN NORTH
Decreases in crop yields up to 40% under current management conditions are forecast
for much of this zone. In addition yield variability is also forecast to increase. A
decrease in water availability is predicted together with an increase in water demand.
Decreasing water resources in some areas may affect soil structure while reduced soil
drainage may lead to increased salinity. However, an increase in frequency and
intensity of floods is predicted in some areas where significant winter rainfall is likely.
These changes are expected to reduce the diversity of Mediterranean species.
8
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
MEDITERRANEAN SOUTH
Decreases in crop yields are also forecast for this zone, together with greater yield
variability. A significant reduction in water availability is predicted together with an
increase in water demand, leading to potential conflict between users. Decreasing
water resources are likely to damage soil structure while reduced soil drainage may
lead to increased salinity. These changes are expected to reduce the diversity of
Mediterranean species.
Table 1 summarises the climate change impacts by agro-climatic region (Iglesias et al.,
2009).
9
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Table 1 Climate change impacts on agro-climatic zones in Europe. Source: Iglesias et al.,
2009.
Agro-climatic
Impact described and direction of change
area
Boreal
Atlantic
- Increase in crop suitability.
- Positive relationship between yield and temperature.
- Permafrost thaw. Destabilization of soils, landslides, negative effects on
forests.
- Changes in population distributions of terrestrial ecosystems, biodiversity
loss.
- Increase in pest populations and distribution with increased temperature.
- Increased weather extremes and susceptibility of forest to extremes and
pests.
- Glaciers retreat with increased CO2 and temperature.
- Increase in pest populations in boreal forests insects and distribution with
increased temperature.
- Decrease in productivity of short rotation forests.
- Accelerated rate of glacier mass loss, secondary impacts on economy
- Definition of agro-climatic regions, observed changes in distribution of
barley and potato.
- Decreased available water resources. Increased floods.
- Increased frequency and intensity of forest fires.
- Increased wheat yield with higher temperatures.
- Changes in health, nutrition, productivity of livestock.
- Land use change, ecosystem disturbances and fragmented populations.
- Increased flood frequency.
- Soil erosion
-
Continental
10
-
Increased rate of melting of snow
Decrease in precipitation leading to reduced yields of wheat
Increase in frequency and intensity of floods.
Glacier retreat and snow depth decrease.
Disappearance of wetlands, encroachment of agriculture.
Modification of forest structure and functions, decreased productivity.
Intensification of hydrological cycles, more extreme events, need for
management.
Increase in crop production with increasing temperature, pests too.
Increase in yields of soybean especially in mineral soil.
Changes in crop productivity and distributions.
Increased frequency of extreme floods and droughts events.
Increased frequency and intensity of flash floods in the summer.
Increased mortality of trees.
Decrease in runoff of up to 50% in mountain areas.
Snow cover early-melting.
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Agro-climatic
Impact described and direction of change
area
Alpine
- Snow melt increase Intensification of hydrological cycle (increased erosion,
floods and glacier retreat).
- Increase in extreme climate events affecting vulnerable areas like
mountains.
- General increase, greater differences between day and night temperatures.
- Increased speed of snow melt Secondary effects of glacier retreat on
tourism economy.
- Distribution of species in mountainous areas may shift upwards.
- Accelerated permafrost thaw, destabilization of soils, landslides.
- Observations of decreased snow depth, with differences among regions.
- Higher than average temperature increase. Decrease of snow cover depth
and loss of biodiversity
- Accelerated rate of glacier mass loss in the last decade.
- Observed changes in the inventory of biodiversity and species distribution.
- Vegetation is quite stable but land use change is highly possible.
- Distribution of pasture land use will change due to changing conditions
Mediterranean -
Increase in frequency and intensity of floods.
Decrease in maize yields.
General increase grapevine in yields.
Decrease of yields up to 40% under current management conditions.
General decrease in yields and increase in irrigation requirements.
Crop yields variations
Increased variability of yields and associated risk.
Decrease in water availability and increase in water demand.
Decreased productivity, changes in distribution.
Reduced diversity of seedlings Loss of diversity in Mediterranean species.
Changes in drainage of soils leading to increased salinity.
Desertification Water resources deficit, affected soil structure.
Synthesis of main impacts
2.3
Here we summarise the climate factors and determinants of change in agriculture, the
expected direction of change and the potential consequences for agriculture and water
for agriculture. The primary drivers include changes in atmospheric CO2, O3, sea level
rise, extreme events, precipitation and average temperature and heat stress, as
discussed below. Table 2 summarises the impacts on agriculture and water for
agriculture derived from the changes in the main drivers.
INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2

The result is an increased biomass production and increased potential
efficiency of physiological water use in crops and weeds.

Modified hydrologic balance of soils due to C/N ratio modification. Changed
weed ecology with potential for increased weed competition with crops. Agro-
11
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
ecosystems modification. N cycle modification. Lower yield increase than
expected
INCREASE ATMOSPHERIC O3

Crop yield decrease
INCREASE TEMPERATURE

Increase differences in day-night temperature. Modifications in crop suitability
and productivity. Changes in weeds, crop pests and diseases. Changes in
water requirements. Changes in crop quality. Modifications in crop productivity
and quality

Increases in heat waves. Damage to grain formation, increase in some pests
CHANGES IN THE HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE

Increased temporal and spatial variability of floods and droughts Crop failure.
Yield decrease. Competition for water

Intensified hydrological cycle Changed patterns of erosion and accretion.
Changed storm impacts. Changed occurrence of storm flooding and storm
damage

Increased water logging. Increased pest damage. Decrease in water resources
availability, increase in demand
SEA LEVEL RISE

Sea level intrusion in coastal agricultural areas and salinization of water supply
Table 2 Climate change impacts that determine risks and opportunities to agricultural
production at the global or European wide scale. Source: Iglesias et al., 2009
Climate change impact
Reference
Europe or global scale studies
Changes in agricultural
optimal zones and
agroecosystems due to
changes in optimal farming
conditions
Antle et al., 2004; Darwin, 2004; Ewer et al., 2005; Fischer et al.,
2005a; Lansigan et al., 1997; Metzger et al., 2006; Olesen et al.,
2002; Rosato et al., 2003; Rousevell et al., 2005, 2006
Changes in crop productivity Agrell et al., 2004; Allard et al. 2003, 2004; Arnell et al., 2002;
Carbone et al., 2003; Challinor et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2005; Daepp
and quality
et al., 2001; Darwin, 2004; Döös et al., 1999; Edwards et al., 2001;
Ehleringer et al., 2002; Ewert et al., 2007; Fuhrer et al., 2003; Gill et
al., 2002; Gregory et al., 2005; Jablonski et al., 2002; Kimball et al.,
2002; Milchunas et al., 2005; Newman et al., 2001; Nowak et al.,
2004; Ollinger et al., 2002; Parry et al., 2001, 2004; Peng et al.,
2004; Picon-Cochard et al., 2004; Rosenzweig et al., 2001, 2005,
2008; Rotter et al., 1999 ; Shaw et al., 2002; Stacey et al., 2002;
Teyssonneyre et al., 2002; Thomas et al., 2003; Tubiello et al., 2000,
2002; Wullschleger et al., 2002; Zhao et al., 2003; Zvereva et al
2006; Ashmore 2005; Fiscus et al., 2005; Caldwell et al., 2005;
Dhakhwa et al., 1998; Volder et al., 2004; Mearns et al., 1996;
Beniston 2004 ; Schar et al., 2004; Wheeler et al., 2000
12
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Climate change impact
Reference
Increased risk of agricultural
pests, diseases, weeds
Biodiversity loss
Chakraborty et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2001, 2005a, 2005b; Cocu et
al., 2005; Crozier et al., 2006; Easterling et al., 2001, 2003; Gan,
2004; Hannah et al., 2002; Iglesias et al., 2002; Patterson et al.,
1999; Runion, 2003; Tamis et al., 2001; Todd et al., 2002
Increased risk of extreme
events
Arnell 1999; Bradford 2000; Burke et al., 2006; COPA-COGECA
2003; Hanson et al., 2000; Hisdal et al., 2001; Martinez et al., 2003;
Motha et al., 2005; Reichstein et al., 2002; Rosenzweig et al., 2001;
Vogt et al., 2000
Changes in water availability, Alcamo et al., 2003, 2007, 2008; Arnell, 1999, 2004; Boorman et al.,
permafrost, need of irrigation 1997; Döll 2002; Eckhardt et al., 2003; Fisher et al., 2005; Gleick,
2003; Mimikou et al., 2000; Rosenzweig et al., 2005; Vorosmarty et
al., 2000
Deterioration of water and soil Laporte et al., 2002; Rounsevell et al., 1999, 2005a, 2005b, 2006;
Yeo, 1998
quality, desertification
Sea level intrusion
Nicholls et al., 2004;
Changes in livestock
productivity
Frank et al., 2001; Mitchell et al., 2001
Improvement of energy
efficiency in glasshouses
Due to increase in temperautre in the climate change scenarios
13
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
CHANGES IN LAND USE
A shift in the location of optimal conditions for specific crop or livestock production
systems may lead to a loss of rural income and soil deterioration in the areas where
those modes of production can no longer be maintained. Such losses of established
farming practices may lead to a loss of cultural heritage, land abandonment and
increased risk of desertification. There is a high risk of these problems occurring during
the 21st century.
Rising sea levels may also lead to significant land use changes. An indirect effect on
agriculture may occur if rising sea levels make population centres uninhabitable. The
displaced populations will need to be housed and at least some of the housing is likely
to be built on agricultural land.
CHANGES IN OPTIMAL FARMING SYSTEMS
Adaptation to these changes would require new investments and managerial skills. The
financial feasibility of the new investments required will depend on the profits
generated by the new optimal farming systems. The support of public agricultural
education networks and agricultural research centers plays a key role for facilitating to
farmers the acquisition of new managerial skills. For this impact, private coping
capacity could be considered moderate. Decreases in productivity could cause
agricultural use land abandonment. The level of confidence of these projections are
estimated to be low because their uncertainty is the result of adding the uncertainty on
future agricultural prices to the uncertainty upon the climate change impacts on
agricultural productivity. The intensity of this impact could be considered high in the
areas were the optimal farming systems are extensive. Intensive farming systems are
more resilient to climate change.
CROP GROWTH CONDITIONS, CROP PRODUCTIVITY AND CROP DISTRIBUTION
In some regions a positive relationship between temperature and crop yield is forecast
with increased wheat and grass yields resulting from higher temperatures and
increased CO2 concentrations.
Greater concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have the potential to increase
biomass production and to increase the physiological efficiency of water use in crops
and weeds. However, increases in CO2 do not produce proportional increases in crop
productivity; other factors play a significant role. While experiments with increased
concentrations of CO2 under controlled conditions have been shown to significantly
increase yields of crops, these increases have occurred when other factors such as
moisture supply, nutrients and pest and disease incidence have not been limiting. In
practice, an insufficient supply of water or nutrients or greater pest/disease attack or
competition from weeds is expected to frequently negate the fertilizing impact of
increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Since weed growth may also be
enhanced by increased CO2, a changed weed ecology may emerge with the potential
to increase weed competition with crops
14
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Increased concentrations of tropospheric ozone will be expected to reduce crop yields.
Ozone enters plant leaves through the stomatal openings in the leaf surface where it
produces by-products that reduce the efficiency of photosynthesis.
When the optimum temperature range for a crop is exceeded, plant growth tends to be
reduced. The optimum temperature varies between species, yet most crops are
sensitive to episodes of high temperature. Air temperatures between 45 and 55°C that
continue for at least 30 minutes damage crop leaves in most environments; even lower
temperatures (35 to 40°C) can be damaging if they persist. The vulnerability of crops to
temperature damage varies with developmental stage. High temperatures during
reproductive development are particularly injurious – for example, to corn at tasseling,
to soybean at flowering, and to wheat at grain-filling. Soybean is one crop that seems
to be able to recover from heat stress.
Heat stress and drought stress often occur simultaneously, with one contributing to the
other. They are often accompanied by high solar irradiance and high winds. When
crops are subjected to drought stress, their stomata close. Such closure reduces
transpiration and, consequently, raises plant temperatures.
The delineation of agro-climatic regions is likely to change. There may be losses of
indigenous crop varieties, in particular traditional top and soft fruit varieties. The risks
associated with these problems are considered high for some crops and regions.
Episodes of high relative humidity, frost, and hail can also affect yield and quality of
fruit and vegetables.
In some regions a positive relationship between temperature and crop yield is forecast
with increased wheat and grass yields from higher temperatures and increased CO2
concentrations. The distribution of agro-climatic regions is likely to change. There may
also be losses of indigenous crop varieties, in particular traditional top and soft fruit
varieties. The risks associated with these problems are considered high for some crops
and regions.
LOSS OF RURAL INCOME AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
In some regions of Europe, economic welfare of rural societies depends heavily on
incomes generated by agriculture. Likewise, traditional farming systems are valued by
some societies as a cultural heritage. The level of confidence of projections related to
this impact are considered to be low because their uncertainty is the result of adding
the uncertainty on future agricultural prices, the uncertainty upon the climate change
impacts on agricultural productivity, and the uncertainty related to the society
perception on the value of this cultural heritage. Alternative income generator activities
and employments in rural areas contribute to increase the private coping activity of
farmers. Technology and innovation can also contribute to improve the
competitiveness of European farming systems. Despite these considerations, we have
considered that farmer's private coping activity against the climate change impact is
moderate. The intensity of this effect is difficult to characterize qualitatively on the basis
of the information available.
15
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
AGRICULTURAL PESTS AND DISEASES
Crop yield and quality may decrease, risking loss of rural income due to the incidence
of new or more intense problems of pests and disease. Actions taken to mitigate these
risks may lead to a decrease in water quality from increased use of pesticides. The risk
of these problems has been assessed as medium.
CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL CHANGES FOR BIODIVERSITY
Climate change is likely to lead to changes in the distribution of species. The great
speed at which climate is forecast to change is likely to lead to a loss of natural
adaptation options and a loss of diversity, especially in Mediterranean species.
Changes in land use due to climate change may lead to ecosystems disturbances and
fragmented populations. These risks are regarded as of medium likelihood.
INCREASED RISK
An increasing number of studies are showing the effect of current climate variability
and extremes in agricultural production, especially in areas where crops are cultivated
near their climatic limits (Rosenzweig et al., 1999; Iglesias et al., 2000). Changes in
climate variability and extremes are likely to be at least as important as changes in
mean climate conditions in determining climate change impacts and vulnerability (high
confidence) (IPCC TAR, 2001). Increased frequency of extremes events could result in
higher insurance fees. The application of risk management techniques may contribute
to increase the private coping capacity of farmers in these areas. But the ability of crop
diversification strategies to mitigate the increase in climate variability impacts depend
on the magnitude of such increase. The private adaptive capacity to this impact is
considered low.
EXPENDITURE IN EMERGENCY AND REMEDIATION ACTIONS
The need for increased spending as a result of damage caused by extreme weather
events will lead to a loss of rural income and economic imbalances between the more
and less prosperous parts of Europe, especially since insurance cover tends to
increase with higher income. The risk of this is regarded as high for regions with low
adaptive capacity, but medium for other regions of Europe.
CHANGES IN WATER RESOURCES
The impacts of climate change and increased climate variability water resource
availability and demand. The main consequences of changes in water resources
include:
16

Increased demand for water in all regions due to increases in crop
evapotranspiration in response to increased temperatures.

Increased water shortages, particularly in the spring and summer months,
increasing the water requirement for irrigation, especially in southern and southeastern Europe.

Reduced water quality due to higher water temperatures and lower levels of
runoff in some regions, particularly in summer, imposing further stress in
irrigated areas.
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
W ATER RESOURCE AND IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Changes in hydrological regimes will lead to differences in water needs by agriculture.
Decreased availability of water may lead to crops suffering moisture stress, insufficient
water being available for irrigation, possible risks of reduced water quality, increased
risk of soil salinization and conflicts between users.
For crop production, a change in the seasonality of precipitation may be even more
important than a change in the annual total. The water regime of crops is also
vulnerable to a rise in the daily rate and potential seasonal pattern of
evapotranspiration, brought on by warmer temperature, drier air, or windier conditions.
Interannual variability of precipitation is a major cause of variation in crop yields and
yield quality. Crop yields are most likely to suffer if dry periods occur during critical
developmental stages. In most grain crops, flowering, pollination, and grain-filling are
especially sensitive to water stress. Management practices offer strategies for growing
crops in water-scarce conditions. For example, the effects of drought can be minimized
by early planting of cultivars with rapid rates of development; fallowing and weed
control can help to conserve moisture in the soil.
By reducing vegetative cover, droughts exacerbate wind and water erosion, thus
affecting future crop productivity. Increasing demand for water is likely to lead to
increased groundwater abstraction and depletion of those resources. The likelihood of
these risks occurring is reported as high.
Excessively wet years may also cause yield declines due to waterlogging and
increased pest infestations. High soil moisture in humid areas can also hinder field
operations. Intense bursts of rainfall may damage younger plants and promote lodging
of standing crops with ripening grain. The extent of crop damage depends on the
duration of precipitation and flooding, crop developmental stage, and air and soil
temperatures.
TOO MUCH WATER
Heavier winter rain and the decreased proportion of winter precipitation falling and
being stored as snow will increase the occurrence of floods, damaging crops at
vulnerable stages of development and disrupting farm activity.
Excessively wet years may cause declining yields as a result of waterlogging and
increased pest and disease problems.
Intense rain and hail-storms can affect yield and quality of vulnerable crops, such as
soft fruits.
Sea level rise will directly impact some agricultural land, contribute to greater pressures
via changes to land use around urban areas and increase the salinity of some water
resources.
TOO LITTLE WATER
17
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Reduced water availability may lead to insufficient water available for irrigation, crops
suffering from heat and drought stress, and increased competition for water resources
may result in higher prices and regulatory pressure.
Increased manure and fertiliser applications (as a response to reduced nutrient
uptake), may lead to a reduction in water quality as nutrients and other leachates are
not sufficiently diluted by rainfall.
Drought will lead to soil degradation, which is a major threat to the sustainability of
Europe’s land resources and may impair the ability of European agriculture to
successfully adapt to climate change.
Increased salinity may result in land abandonment as it becomes unsuitable for
cropping.
W ATER QUALITY, SOIL FERTILITY, SALINITY AND EROSION
Lower levels of winter rainfall will mean that various leachates are not adequately
diluted, leading to decreased water quality. Other climate-induced changes in crop
growth, such as reduced yields and associated extra fertilizer and manure loading, will
exacerbate the problem of water quality.
Increased salinity, as a result of drought or seal level rise, may lead to land becoming
unsuitable for cropping and being abandoned. In extreme cases this may lead to
desertification. The risk of these problems occurring is reported to be high.
Soil degradation is a major threat to the sustainability of Europe’s land resources and
may impair the ability of European agriculture to adapt successfully to climate change.
European soils are currently experiencing a range of conservation problems, including
high erosion rates (and erosion-derived agro-chemical pollution of waterways),
declines in soil organic matter and vulnerability of soil organic carbon pools. These are
linked to site factors and changing land management practices and are being
exacerbated by climate change and the increasing incidence of extreme weather
events.
Although different EU policies (e.g. agriculture, nature conservation, pesticides, and
water) have the potential to contribute to soil protection, they are not in themselves
sufficient to ensure adequate levels of protection for all soils in Europe. For this reason,
the EC adopted (in September 2006) a comprehensive EU strategy dedicated to soil
protection. The proposal for a Framework Directive (COM(2006)232) sets out common
principles for protecting soils across the EU, from which Member States can decide
how best to protect their own soils and use them in a sustainable manner. However,
the Directive must embrace the potential synergies between soil protection, land use
change, the long-term sustainability of farming systems and climate change, linking in
issues of adaptation and mitigation, carbon sequestration and the emission of
greenhouse gases in the agriculture sector.
18
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
CHANGES IN OPTIMAL CONDITIONS FOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
A warmer and drier climate may reduce forage production leading to changes in
optimal farming systems and loss of rural income in areas dependent on traditional
grazing agriculture. In some northern areas a warmer climate, by extending the
growing season, has the potential to increase forage production. However, such areas
are also forecast to have increased over-winter rainfall and so it may be difficult to fully
utilise the increased potential. In other parts of Europe new crops such as soya could
be grown to produce livestock feed. However, a switch away from grazed forages and
increasing heat stress, both leading to an increased requirement for livestock housing,
will increase costs and, by increasing manure production, may lead to a decrease in
water quality in consequence of contamination following manure spreading. The risk
associated with these problems is regarded as low.
2.4
Monetary estimates
The effects of climate change in regional, national, or global agricultural economy have
been analysed by using several types of economic models in order to estimate the
potential impacts of climate change on production, consumption, income, gross
domestic product (GDP), employment, and farm value (Darwin, 2004; Kaiser et al.,
1993; Reilly et al., 2003). For agricultural impact assessment, the models allocate
domestic and foreign consumption and regional production based on given
perturbations of crop production, water supply, and demand for irrigation derived from
biophysical techniques. Population growth and improvements in technology are set
exogenously. These models measure the potential magnitude of climate change
impacts on the economic welfare of both producers and consumers of agricultural
goods. The predicted changes in production and prices from agricultural sector models
can then be used in general equilibrium models of the larger economy.
Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models comprise a representation of all major
economic sectors, empirically estimated parameters and no unaccounted supply
sources or demand sinks. In general equilibrium models countries are linked through
trade, world market prices and financial flows, and change in relative prices induce
general equilibrium effects throughout the whole economy. Although partial equilibrium
models make it possible to estimate the costs of policy measures, taking substitution
processes in production and consumption as well as market clearing conditions into
account, CGE models additionally allow for adjustments in all sectors, enable to
consider the interactions between the intermediate input market and markets for other
commodities or intermediate inputs, and complete the link between factor incomes and
consumer expenditures (Conrad, 2001).
The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change (Stern et al., 2006) argues that
“the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of
global GDP each year. This has been challenged by many economists with large
working experience in climate change.
19
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Quiroga and Iglesias (2008) provide monetary estimates of the impacts of climate
change in European agriculture. Future scenarios are derived from several socioeconomic scenarios and experiments conducted using global climate models and
regional climate models. The economic valuation is conducted by using GTAP general
equilibrium model across simulations based on crop productivity changes that consider
no restrictions in the volume water availability for irrigation in current irrigated areas or
in the application of nitrogen fertilizer. Thus the results should be considered optimistic
from the production point and pessimistic from the environmental point of view.
Regional differences between northern and southern European countries are found
and the monetary estimates show that uncertainty derived from socio-economic
scenarios has a larger effect than uncertainty derived from climate scenarios.
2.5
Treatment of climate and socio-economic change
Table 3 presents a summary of the treatment of climate and socio-economic changes
in the impact studies in agriculture and water resources published over the last 20
years.
Table 3 Treatment of climate and socio-economic change
Treatment of climate and socioeconomic change
Climate change scenarios considered
Aspects considered in the published studies
Climate variables considered
T, PP, Solar radiation , CO2
Socio-economic variables
Time periods
Productivity, land use, water availability, GDP,
population
2010 to 2100
Consideration of major events
Rarely
All IPCC scenarios
Long-term (post 2100) catastrophic events Very rarely
(input for WP3)
Very high climate sensitivity (>6 C)
Very rarely
2.6
Disparities in the results
Many studies provide different results. There are a number of reasons for this.
Impacts occur at different scales (farm, community, region, country). However,
assessments of climate impacts, and modelling of agricultural productivity, are usually
at regional, national or global scales. The application of information from coarse-scale
impact studies to devise farm-level adaptation measures is fraught with difficulties.
The inherent uncertainty in climate science, tools and impacts projections may lead to
confused results and communication of the results.
The main disparity in the results arises from the different assumptions on the
consideration of water (or lack of consideration) in the agricultural assessments.
20
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
A review of methods
3
This section describes the methods used in the assessment of the specific climate
change impacts being considered.
This section focuses on the methods for making climate change impact evaluations.
The merits of each approach vary according to the level of impact being studied, and
they may frequently be mutually supportive. For example, simple agro-climatic indices
often provide the necessary information on how crops respond to varying rainfall and
temperature in wide geographical areas; crop-specific models are use to test
alternative management that can in turn be used as a component for an economic
model that analyses regional vulnerability or national adaptation strategies. Therefore,
a mix of approaches is often the most rewarding.
3.1
Approaches
Studies at the Country level provide an opportunity for establishing the communication
pathways between technical information and policy. In many cases the potential for
application of the results of the assessment strongly depend on the sources of
technical information provided overlooking the content of the information. Ogunseitan
(2003) analyses the different sources of information and their potential for influencing
policy development in Africa. Three different sources of technical information are
recognized: Local scientific knowledge; technology transfer from foreign experts and
communicated to the local experts (scientists and/or policy makers); and multi-national,
in which information is co-produced by international collaborations. The technical
information can be evaluated by analyzing three characteristics: Relevance (i.e.,
relative level of national attention paid to the information), credibility (i.e., level of trust
and believability attributed by regional agencies to international sources), and
legitimacy (i.e., subscription of national agencies to the recommendations of the
technical assessments). Table 4 outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the
approaches for producing technical information summarizing the research of
Ogunseitan (2003).
Table 4 Approaches to produce information. Information source: Ogunseitan (2003).
Approach
Strengths
Weaknesses
Local scientific
knowledge
- Highly relevant
- Non participation of the
- Focus on the potential of climate
international community may
change to exacerbate existing
question the credibility of the
local stresses
assessments by the
- Integration of local perspectives
internationally connected local
increases the credibility of the
scientists that may influence
assessments
policy makers
21
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Research and
- International accredited scientists - Scientifically credible
technology transfer
increase the credibility of the
international assessments may
assessment
suffer from perception of
- Funding and support from foreign
irrelevance at the local level
sources may encourage the
- Studies focused at the global
legitimacy of the assessment
or regional level may
compromise credibility at the
local level
Multi-National
- Integration of the local
- Focus on international forums
cooperation
perspectives and international
and issues may affect the
accredited scientists and
legitimacy at the National level
Institutions may increase the
legitimacy of the assessments
It is important that impacts, vulnerability and adaptation assessments be undertaken
for as many different locations as possible and for different sizes of study region,
focusing not only on final production, but also on other indicators of vulnerability of the
agricultural sector. This will only be most useful, however, if the methods of
assessment are broadly compatible, enabling the generation of sets of results that can
be compared and integrated into a wider picture of the world food system as a whole.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review toward a set of approaches that will
enable progress toward this objective.
The adaptation capacity of the agriculture sector in developing countries is challenged
in particular, because climate change comes in conjunction with high development
pressure, increasing populations, water management that is already regulating most of
available water resources, and agricultural systems that are often not adapted
(anymore) to local conditions. Evidence for limits to adaptation of socioeconomic and
agricultural systems in many regions can be documented in recent history. For
example, water management schemes were not able to cope with sustained droughts
or floods in the late 1990s and early 2000s in many countries, causing severe damage
to agriculture and to vulnerable populations. Effective measures to cope with long-term
drought and water scarcity are limited and difficult to implement because of the variety
of the stakeholders involved and the lack of adequate means to negotiate new policies.
3.2
Models
In addition, studies can be undertaken using a regional approach or a site-specific
approach. In a regional approach, several existing simple tools can be applied and
tested under a range of conditions in a given region, and the results are visualized in
the form of maps. This simple regional approach is essential for integrating climate
change, crop production, water demand indices, and socioeconomic indices at the
regional scale, thus providing a first-order evaluating tool to analyze possible
adaptation strategies.
Each of these different methods yields information on different types of impacts. For
example, simple agroclimatic indices can be used to analyze large-area shifts of
22
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
cropping zones, whereas process-based crop growth models should be used to
analyze changes in crop yields. Effects on income, livelihoods, and employment are
assessed using economic and social forms of analysis.
The major challenge facing all agriculture-climate evaluations is the incorporation of
qualitative changes deriving from complex interactions. For example, a decrease in
crop yields in developing countries leads to severe qualitative changes. Whether the
resulting chain of interactions (e.g., from malnutrition to social conflicts) can be
modelled is rather dubious.
AGROCLIMATIC INDICES AND GIS
Simple agroclimatic indices combined with GIS have been used to provide an initial
evaluation of both global agricultural climate change impacts and shifts in agricultural
suitable areas in particular regions. The agroclimatic indices are based on simple
relationships of crop suitability or potential to climate (e.g., identifying the temperature
thresholds of a given crop or using accumulated temperature over the growing season
to predict crop yields; e.g., Holden, 2001). This type of empirically derived coefficient is
especially useful for broad-scale mapping of areas of potential impact.
The agroclimatic indices are based on simple relationships of crop suitability or
potential to climate (e.g., identifying the temperature thresholds of a given crop or using
accumulated temperature over the growing season to predict crop yields) (Petr, 1991;
Holden, 2001; Tooming, 1993). This type of empirically-derived coefficients are
especially useful for broad-scale mapping of areas of potential impact. Indices
frequently used to measure moisture include: Thornthwaite’s Precipitation
Effectiveness Index; Palmer Drought Index; Relative Dryness Index; Standart
Precipitation Index.
When combined with a spatially comprehensive data base and a geographic
information system (GIS), simple agroclimatic indices enable the mapping of altered
crop potential for quite large areas at relatively low cost. This combination of
agroclimatic index, GIS and a synthetic climatic scenario offers rapid and inexpensive
means of mapping the effects of climatic change on crop suitability. Examples of the
application of agroclimatic indices in Africa (Badini et al., 1997) and Europe (Carter and
Saarikko, 1996; Holden, 2003; Holden and Brereton, 2004) provide an analysis and
understanding of the intimate relationships between the weather, soils and agricultural
production systems, and especially the complexities associated with the variability and
distribution of rainfall and soil type are essential elements in improving crop production
and agricultural planning decision making.
There are three basic methods for agroclimatic spatial analysis and the choice of the
method depends on data availability (Carter and Saarikko, 1996). First, the simplest
method of representing zones is to interpolate between site estimates onto a base
map. Here subjective methods can be used to account for local features such as soils,
altitude or proximity to lakes, which are known to influence crop potential. The second
method is to first interpolate the original environmental data to a finer resolution, e.g.,
to a regular grid, and compute the measures using the gridded data. This method has
been applied both for suitability and productivity purposes. In the third method a region
23
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
is divided into contiguous units of varying size depending on the environmental
properties. The indices can then be calculated at sites that are considered
representative of predefined homogenous areas to derive spatial estimated.
STATISTICAL MODELS AND YIELD FUNCTIONS
Complex multivariate models attempt to provide a statistical explanation of observed
phenomena by accounting for the most important factors (e.g., predicting crop yields
on the basis of temperature, rainfall, sowing date and fertiliser application). Statistical
models may be developed from empirical data or from the combination of empirical
data and simulated data that represents the causal mechanisms of the agricultural
responses to climate.
Models build only on the basis of present day climatic variations are well understood
and relevant for engaging stakeholders. A possible weakness in considering future
climate change is their limited ability to predict effects of climatic events that lie outside
the range of present day variability. The method may also be criticised for being based
on statistical relationships between factors rather than on an understanding of the
important causal mechanisms. However, where models are founded on a good
knowledge of the determining processes and where there are good grounds for
extrapolation, they can still be useful predictive tools in climate impact assessment.
Multiple regression models can be developed to represent process-based yield
responses to these environmental and management variables. Yield functions have
been used to evaluate the sensitivity and adaptation to climate in China (Rosenzweig
et al., 1997), Spain (Iglesias et al., 1999), and globally (Parry et al., 2003).
PROCESS-BASED CROP MODELS
Process-based models use simplified functions to express the interactions between
crop growth and the major environmental factors that affect crops (i.e., climate, soils,
and management), and many have been used in climate impact assessments. Most
were developed as tools in agricultural management, particularly for providing
information on the optimal amounts of input (such as fertilizers, pesticides, and
irrigation) and their optimal timing. Dynamic crop models are now available for most of
the major crops. In each case, the aim is to predict the response of a given crop to
specific climate, soil, and management factors governing production.
The ICASA/IBSNAT dynamic crop growth models (International Consortium for
Application of Systems Approaches to Agriculture – International Benchmark Sites
Network for Agrotechnology Transfer) are structured as a decision support system to
facilitate simulations of crop responses to management (DSSAT). The ICASA/IBSNAT
models have been used widely for evaluating climate impacts in agriculture at different
levels ranging from individual sites to wide geographic areas (see Rosenzweig and
Iglesias, 1994, 1998, for a full description of the method). This type of model structure
is particularly useful in evaluating the adaptation of agricultural management to climate
change. The DSSAT software includes all ICASA/IBSNAT models with an interface
that allows output analysis.
24
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
The WOFOST model suite is generic and includes model parameters for certain crops
(Supit et al., 1994; Boogaard et al., 1998). There are several versions of the models,
which are under continuous development at the University of Wageningen.
The EPIC model (Erosion Productivity Impact Calculator; Sharpley and Williams, 1990)
incorporates simplified crop growth functions that respond to climate, environment, and
management; it has been used in some climate impact assessments.
CROPWAT is an empirical irrigation management model developed by the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to calculate regional crop water and
irrigation requirements from climatic and crop data (CROPWAT, 1995, 2004). Net
irrigation demand (balance between the crop evapotranspiration and the water
available for the crop) can be calculated for more than 1,000 sites around the world
included in the FAOClim database (FAO, 2004). The model can be adjusted to include
irrigation efficiency for each region.
Rosenzweig and Iglesias (1998) provide more complete guidelines for using crop
models in adaptation studies. Table 5 summarises the main characteristics and data
requirements of the DSSAT models.
Table 5 Description of the DSSAT crop models
Description: The DSSAT models use simplified functions to predict the growth of crops as
influenced by the major factors that affect yields, i.e., genetics, climate (daily solar radiation,
maximum and minimum temperatures, and precipitation), soils, and management. Models
are available for many crops (see Table 7.5); these have been validated over a wide range
of environments and are not specific to any particular location or soil type. Modeled
processes include phenological development, growth of vegetative and reproductive plant
parts, extension growth of leaves and stems, senescence of leaves, biomass production and
partitioning among plant parts, and root system dynamics. The models include subroutines
to simulate the soil and crop water balance and the nitrogen balance.
Variables: The primary variable influencing each phase of plant development is temperature.
Potential dry matter production is a function of intercepted radiation; the interception by the
canopy is determined by leaf area. The dry matter allocation to different parts of the plant
(grain, leaves, stem, roots, etc.) is determined by phenological stage and degree of water
stress. Final grain yield is the product of plant population, kernels per plant, and kernel
weight. To account for the effect of elevated carbon dioxide on stomatal closure and
increased leaf area index, a ratio of transpiration under elevated CO2 conditions to that
under ambient conditions is added.
Inputs
Type of data
Requirements
Source of data
Current climate
Daily maximum and minimum National meteorological or research
temperatures and solar
institutions. Daily data may be
radiation for at least a 20simulated from monthly averages
year period.
when not available.
Modified climate (climate Modified daily maximum and National meteorological or research
change scenarios)
minimum temperatures,
institutions.
precipitation, and solar
radiation for a period of the
same length as the current
climate.
25
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Crop management
Soils
Economics (optional)
Crop variety, sowing date
Agricultural research institutions.
and density, fertilizer and
irrigation inputs (dates and
amounts).
Soil albedo and drainage,
Agricultural or hydrological research
and a description of the
institutions.
different layers of the soil
profile (texture, water holding
capacity, organic matter, and
nitrogen).
Cost of labor and price of unit Agricultural statistics.
production.
Outputs: Variables included in the summary output file are the main phenological events,
yield and yield components.
For more information: Rosenzweig and Iglesias, 1994 and 1998.
3.3
Economic models
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Economic models are designed to estimate the potential impacts of climate change on
production, consumption, income, gross domestic product (GDP), employment, and
farm value. These may be only partial indicators of social welfare, however. Not all
social systems, households, and individuals (for example, smallholder farmers) may be
appropriately represented in models that are based on producer and consumer theory.
Many of the economic models used in impact analyses to date do not account for the
climate-induced alterations in the availability of land and water for irrigation, although
such important considerations can be included. Studies and models based on marketoriented economies assume profit and utility maximizing behaviour.
Several types of economic approaches have been used for agricultural impact
assessment. The most useful of these are simple economic forecasting approaches
(e.g., Benioff et al., 1996), which are forecasts based on a structured framework of
available economic (production, consumption, and governing policies) and agricultural
(production techniques and alternative crops) information. These are generally simple
techniques that can be used in most climate impact studies.
The following approaches can also be used, although they are relatively complicated
and may be difficult, time-consuming, or expensive to apply.
Three broad classes of economic model can be identified: Programming models,
economic models, and Input-Output models. Programming models have an objective
function and constraints. The objective function represents the behaviour of the
producer (e.g., profit maximising or cost minimizing). If the objective function and
constraints are linear, the model is a Quadratic Programming (QP) model. If either the
objective function or the constraints are nonlinear, the resulting model is a Nonlinear
Programming model.
26
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Economic models consist of supply and/or demand functions which use as
independent variables prices and a number of 'technical' variables, and usually include
time to represent those parts of the economy that undergo steady change. Like
programming models, these models also have their parameters numerically quantified,
but econometric models differ substantially in their structure from programming models.
Input-output (IO) models are developed to study the interdependence of production
activities. The outputs of some activities become inputs for others, and vice versa.
These input-output relationships are generally assumed to be constant, which is a
weakness of the approach, since re-organization of production or feedback effects
(such as between demand and prices) may change relationships between activities.
This is of particular concern when projecting production activities beyond a few years
into the future.
ECONOMIC REGRESSION MODELS
Mendelson et al, 1994. Statistical relationships between climate variables and
economic indicators. Farmer adaptation to local climate conditions is implicitly
considered. World food prices and domestic farm output prices are considered
constant.
ECONOMIC CROSS-SECTIONAL MODELS
One form of economic analysis is the use of spatial analogues, that is, cropping
patterns in areas with climates similar to what may happen under climate change. This
Ricardian approach has been used in a number of applications (e.g., Mendelsohn et
al., 1994, 1999). Economic models can be based on statistical relationships between
climate variables and economic indicators. An advantage of the approach is that farmer
adaptation to local climate conditions is implicitly considered. Among the
disadvantages are that food prices and domestic farm output prices are considered
constant, and key factors that determine agricultural production, such as water
availability and carbon fertilization, are not generally considered.
MICROECONOMIC MODELS (FARM LEVEL)
These are models based on the goal of maximizing economic returns to inputs. They
are designed to simulate the decision-making process of a representative farmer
regarding methods of production and allocation of land, labor, existing infrastructure,
and new capital. These farm models have most often been developed as tools for rural
planning and agricultural extension, simulating the effects of changes in inputs (e.g.,
fertilizers, irrigation, credit, management skills) on farm strategy (e.g., cropping mix,
employment). They tend to be optimizing economic models using linear programming
and require quite specific data and advanced analytic skills. Many take a range of farm
types that is representative of those existing in a region and, for each of these types,
simulate the mix of crops and inputs that would maximize farm income under given
conditions. These conditions can be varied (variation of weather, prices of crops, and
fertilizers) and the appropriate farm response modeled. Changes of climate, instead of
variations of weather, can be input, and the farm-level response in output and income
is then simulated.
HOUSEHOLD AND VILLAGE MODELS
27
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
In semi-commercial economies, it may be more appropriate to focus on the household
or village as the unit of response. Here the objective may be to secure a minimum level
of income rather than to maximize income, and the focus of analysis should be on the
strategies developed to reduce the negative effects of crop yield changes rather than
increase the positive ones. Frequently referred to as coping strategies, these have
been analyzed in particular detail in the context of risk of hunger (often related to
drought). As with farm models, those climate impact assessments that have included
successful analyses on responses at the household and village level have tended to
borrow from existing studies, adapting them to consider changes in climate rather than
variations of weather. For specific examples of their use in climate impact assessment
in Kenya and India, see Akong’a et al. in Parry et al. (1998) and Jodha in Gadgil et al.
(1988). For a more general discussion, see Downing (1991).
COST AND BENEFITS
One of the most valuable forms in which results of impact assessments can be
provided is as costs or benefits. Methods of evaluating these range from formal
economic techniques such as cost benefit analysis to descriptive or qualitative
assessments. Cost-benefit analysis is often employed to assess the most efficient
allocation of resources. This is achieved through the balancing or optimisation of
various costs and benefits anticipated in undertaking a new project or implementing a
new policy, accounting for the reallocation of resources likely to be brought about by
external influences such as climate change. The approach makes explicit the
expectation that a change in resource allocation is likely to yield benefits as well as
costs, a useful counterpoint to many climate impact studies, where negative impacts
have tended to receive the greatest attention.
MACROECONOMIC MODELS
These can be models of a regional, national, or global agricultural economy. For
climate change purposes, the models allocate domestic and foreign consumption and
regional production based on given perturbations of crop production, water supply, and
demand for irrigation derived from biophysical techniques. Population growth and
improvements in technology are set exogenously. These models measure the potential
magnitude of climate change impacts on the economic welfare of both producers and
consumers of agricultural goods. The predicted changes in production and prices from
agricultural sector models can then be used in general equilibrium models of the larger
economy. Adams et al. (1990) and Fischer et al. (2002) provide key examples of the
use of macroeconomic models.
28
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
3.4
Summary of methods
Table 6 summarises the methods in the agricultural sector.
Table 6 Summary of the characteristics of the main agricultural models
Type of model Description and use
Strengths
Agroclimatic
Based on combinations Simple
indices and GIS of climate factors
calculation. Effective for
important for
comparing across regions
crops. Used in many or crops.
agricultural planning
studies. Useful for
general audiences.
Statistical
Based on the empirical
models and yield relationship between
functions
observed climate and
crop responses. Used
in yield prediction for
famine early warning
and commodity
markets.
Process-based Calculate crop
crop models
responses to factors
that affect growth and
yield (i.e., climate,
soils, and
management). Used
by many agricultural
scientists for research
and development.
Weaknesses
Climate based only,
lack management
responses or
consideration of carbon
fertilization.
Presentday crop and
Do not explain causal
climatic variations are well mechanisms. May not
described.
capture future climate
crop relationships or
CO2 fertilization.
Process based, widely
calibrated, and
validated. Useful for
testing a broad range of
adaptations. Test
mitigation and adaptation
strategies simultaneously.
Available for most major
crops.
Require detailed
weather and
management data for
best results.
Economic tools Calculate land values, Useful for incorporating
commodity prices, and financial considerations
economic outcomes for and market-based
farmers and consumers adaptations.
based on crop
production data.
Not all social systems,
households, and
individuals
appropriately
represented. Climateinduced alterations in
availability of land and
water not always taken
into account. Focus
on profit and utilitymaximizing
behavior. Models are
complex and require a
lot of data.
Household and Description of coping Useful in semi-commercial
village models strategies for current economies.
conditions by
household and village
as the unit of response.
Not generalizable; Do
not capture future
climate stresses, if
different from current.
29
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
3.5
Treatment of adaptation
A single, widely accepted set of procedures has not been established for evaluating
local or regional adaptation to climate change, probably due in part to the great
differences in priorities between different locations. Furthermore, assessing adaptation
options involves value adjustments, which are subjective and can be controversial. The
optimal method needs to measure the effectiveness of the adaptation and to
incorporate the information into a concise form usable by decision-makers. The
complexity of dealing with conflicting objectives and multiple criteria is recognized as
one of the most difficult issues in conducting adaptation analyses.
Box 1 Definitions: impact, risk, opportunity, adaptation
Impacts are the consequences of climate change that are likely to affect agricultural activities.
For example, a decrease in rainfall during summer is likely to impact grain filling of cereals.
Risk is the possible adverse outcome of a particular impact. From the example given above,
there is a risk that summer droughts will reduce wheat yields.
Opportunity is the possible beneficial outcome of a particular impact. From the example given
above, there is an opportunity that increased average temperatures will expand the potential
areas for cultivation in northern European regions that are currently limited due to sub zero
temperatures in the spring.
Adaptation is a measure, or measures, that can be taken to reduce the impact of a particular
risk. From the example above, there are a number of means by which cereal growers could
adapt to increased summer drought, such as using irrigation.
European agricultural policy faces some serious challenges in the coming decades –
even without climate change. The most striking of these are the loss of comparative
advantage in relation to international growers, competition for international markets,
declining rural populations, land deterioration, competition for water resources, and
rising costs due to environmental protection policies. Demographic changes are
altering vulnerability to water shortages and agricultural production in many areas, with
potentially serious consequences at local and regional levels. Population and land-use
dynamics, and the overall policies for environmental protection, agriculture, and water
resource management, are the key drivers for possible adaptation options to climate
change.
The 2003 reforms of the CAP were a first step towards a framework for the sustainable
development of EU agriculture. The central objective of the reforms was to promote an
agricultural sector that was competitive and responsive to the market. This was
founded on the principles of high standards for the environment, the public, animal and
plant health, and animal welfare. Decoupling brought about greater market
responsiveness, whereas higher standards were achieved through cross compliance.
The future direction of the CAP is likely to build on the 2003 reforms, with a continued
shift from market intervention and further decoupling. Notably, the production of key
commodities, including sugar, tobacco, olive oil, and fruit and vegetables, have been
30
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
reformed since 2003, and negotiations between Member States on reform of the wine
sector are underway.
To minimize the negative impacts of climate change on European agriculture, and to
take advantage of the potential benefits, adaptation efforts will need to be introduced at
all levels and may need to be coordinated across the EU. Changes at the level of an
individual farmer, relating to tillage practice, cultivar variety, planting date and the use
of external inputs have been widely studied and demonstrate that adaptation to climate
impacts can occur autonomously to some degree with little or no external support.
However, farm businesses are unlikely to be able to adapt to the extent, speed and
severity of impacts of anticipated changing climatic patterns and extreme events,
leaving European agriculture increasingly unstable and vulnerable. The issue is even
more pertinent where ‘at risk’ regions and farm businesses are already economically
marginal or at the edge of climate tolerance. Here overall rules for farm support, Rural
Development policy and crisis management will play important roles in increasing
agriculture’s resilience to climate change impacts.
The key task facing those this climate adaptation assessment is to identify those
regions likely to be vulnerable to climate change, so that impacts can be avoided (or at
least reduced) through implementation of appropriate measures of adaptation that are
in synergy with the overall environmental, agricultural and water policies of the
European Union.
Adaptation refers to all those responses to climate change that may be used to reduce
vulnerability or to actions designed to take advantage of new opportunities that may
arise as a result of climate change. Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust
to climate change, including climate variability and extremes, to moderate potential
damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences
Private adaptation is on the actor’s rational self interest and it is initiated and
implemented by individuals, households or private companies. Public adaptation
addresses collective needs and it is initiated and implemented by governments at all
levels.
While most adaptation to climate change will ultimately be characterised by responses
at the farm level, encouragement of response by policy affects the speed and extent of
adoption. Most major adaptations may require 10 to 20 years to implement. Two broad
types of adaptation are considered here: farm-based adaptation (private) and policy
adaptation (public).
Farm based adaptation includes changes in crops or crop management. Table 13
outlines examples of farm based adaptation measures that can be implemented. The
degree of implementation or success of the measures depends on the adaptive
capacity of farmers as individual agents. The adaptive capacity can be evaluated by
using indicators (Table 14). The indicators of adaptive capacity for European farmers
are very robust, suggesting that their adaptive capacity is very high and therefore it can
be safely assumed that private adaptation may be optimally implemented providing that
there are not policy restrictions (i.e., environmental issues arising from options that
result in environmental damage).
31
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Policy based adaptation creates synergies with the farmers’ responses particularly in
countries where education of the rural population is limited. Agricultural research to test
the robustness of alternative farming strategies and development of new crop varieties
are also among the policy based measures with a potential for being effective in the
future.
Public adaptation may be implemented at the local level or regional level. For example,
at the local level adaptation initiatives may combine water reallocation initiatives,
engineering and structural improvements to water supply infrastructure, agriculture
policies and urban planning/management. At the national/regional level, priorities
include placing greater emphasis on integrated, cross-sectoral water resources
management, using river basins as resource management units, and encouraging
sound and management practices. Given increasing demands, the prevalence and
sensitivity of many simple water management systems to fluctuations in precipitation
and runoff, and the considerable time and expense required to implement many
adaptation measures, the agriculture and water resources sectors in many areas and
countries will remain vulnerable to climate variability. Water management is partly
determined by legislation and co-operation among government entities, within
countries and internationally; altered water supply and demand would call for a
reconsideration of existing legal and cooperative arrangements.
In contrast with private adaptation, public adaptation is far more uncertain and difficult
to project. In Europe, the trend in agricultural and water policy focuses on resource
management, and in most cases environmental issues are gaining relevance in
contrast with agricultural production and this trend will be intensified after 2012 when
the CAP will be revised. Policy adaptation is more limited than private farmers’
adaptation since the management of scarce resources – especially water -- implies the
establishment of priorities between production strategies, other users such energy, and
the environment. In this context two scenarios may modify the results obtained of the
physical impacts:

Adaptation with emphasis on water resources protection and urban
development. This may be taken as the case of no agricultural adaptation.

Adaptation with emphasis with protection of agricultural production and rural
development. This may be taken as the case of best scenario for agricultural
adaptation.
The implications of these two policy scenarios are not uniform across all regions in
Europe. In some regions, such as Boreal, Continental North or Atlantic North,
agriculture in future scenarios does not depend on water policy and therefore water
management policy will have no effect in crop yields, but restrictions in the use of
fertilisers are expected to have an effect. The greatest effects of adaptation are
expected in Southern Europe, where water availability for irrigation is crucial to
maintain agricultural activity.
The patterns are positive effects except on Mediterranean countries. The most
important increases seem to concern the continental south region, where the
32
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
productivity increases enlarge GDP more intensively due to the importance of
agricultural sector in the region. Water restrictions and socio-economic variables that
modify the probabilities of change occurring may also be considered in further studies.
The monetary estimates also show that in all cases the socio-economic signal,
including population patterns (such as migrations) has a larger effect over economic
results than the climate signal. That is relevant since the physical effects studies can
not capture this effect, while don’t consider factors reallocation.
In this study, a common categorisation of planned adaptations into two main groups
has been followed (HM Government UK, 2006), classified here as “building adaptive
capacity” and “taking adaptive action” (Table 24). These are complementary forms of
action, with adaptive actions usually following later in time after adaptive capacity has
been built up.
The term “adaptive capacity”, used in this definition of vulnerability, has also been
widely cited in the literature, often with reference to human groups (from individuals to
communities to institutions) that could adapt to climate change. However, the definition
extends beyond human activities. “Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust
to climate change, including climate variability and extremes, to moderate potential
damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences”
(IPCC, 2001).
Building adaptive capacity involves ensuring that the scientific, technical and socioeconomic evidence, the skills, the governmental and non-governmental partnerships,
the policies and the resources are in place to enable adaptation to be undertaken. An
example is the UK Government’s Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation (Agriculture)
R & D Programme (Defra, 2005) which has considered: the implications of drought risk
and increased winter rainfall for crop performance; the impacts of climate change on
grassland systems, nutrient pollution and soil function; identification and costing of
agricultural adaptive responses; and knowledge transfer issues. In many cases, efforts
to build adaptive capacity may be best made at a sectoral level, but even within
individual organisations, or for an individual farmer, a certain amount of capacity
building (e.g. awareness-raising, education) is initially required as the foundation for
the next step of taking actual adaptive action.
Taking adaptive action involves increasing the resilience of systems, structures and
people to climate risks by reducing their vulnerability and optimising their ability to
accommodate and adapt to change. An example from northwest Europe is the
management of flood meadows to accommodate increased rainfall and the
development of water storage facilities for use in summer irrigation. Anticipatory
adaptation, as opposed to reactive adaptation, is important for sustaining existing and
future assets with long life spans. Efforts to take adaptive action will necessarily be
location and context specific, as they require a deliberate change of practice, whether
in management, process or infrastructure.
Adaptation strategies are put in place to deliver adaptations. An adaptation strategy
is a broad plan of action that is implemented through policies and measures.
Adaptation strategies are not only reactions to posed threats of climate change, but
33
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
can comprise at the same time a large number of technical, social, economic and
environmental challenges (Iglesias et al., 2007a; Olesen and Bindi, 2002).
Table 7 Summary of approaches to adaptation
Type of
adaptation
Building
adaptive
capacity
Characteristics
Examples
Creating the information and
conditions (regulatory, institutional,
and managerial) that enable
adaptation actions to be undertaken
Climate change impacts research
funded by agriculture advisory
services. Awareness-raising among
farmers. Genetic resources for
breeding programmes. Policy support
tools.
Taking adaptive Taking actions that will help reduce Creating water collection and storage
action
vulnerability to climate risks or exploit facilities on farms for use in irrigation.
opportunities
Introducing new crop varieties.
Diversification. Resource management
tools and infrastructure.
Autonomous or Adaptation that occurs naturally or
Natural responses of agricultural crops
unassisted
arises not as a conscious response to seasonal changes. Autonomous
adaptation
to changing climate
farming practices evolution.
We have categorised three types of adaptation options in the agriculture sector:
management, technical/equipment and infrastructural. The type of measure will largely
determine the extent to which farmers can adopt them without additional assistance.
Farmers should be able to carry out some changes in management measures without
support. This will also be true, to a large extent, for technical measures, while
infrastructural measures are likely to require significant capital investment. Some
examples of this simple classification are given below, together with some caveats to
its use.
MANAGEMENT MEASURES
The choice of crop variety and pesticide are management decisions which farmers
make every year. These decisions are based on information taken from a number of
sources: agrochemical industry publications and representatives, government
extension service advisers, discussions with other farmers and articles in the farming
press; larger farmers may employ professional consultants to provide guidance. To a
large extent, the market forces that have driven historic innovation and adaptation may
continue to drive the adoption of new measures.
TECHNICAL/EQUIPMENT MEASURES
The distinction between these and management measures are somewhat arbitrary, as
technical understanding is needed to implement the management decisions outlined
above. However, the introduction of new crops or livestock, together with the
agrochemicals needed, may be considered technical since the husbandry
requirements may be new to the farming community. The introduction of improved
irrigation equipment may also be regarded as a technical measure. Advice may be
needed from government agencies, as commercial firms may be slow to develop
34
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
products in these areas, waiting instead to see if markets can be established before
committing resources to product development and promulgation. Extensive breeding
and testing programmes may be necessary to identify cultivars and breeds appropriate
to changing local conditions.
INFRASTRUCTURAL MEASURES
Infrastructural measures will vary greatly in scale and expense, but all will require an
element of capital investment. The introduction of on-farm harvesting and storage of
rainwater is one example of such a measure. While the necessary capital outlay may
appear modest (e.g. adding guttering to the roofs of farm buildings and collecting water
in an earth-banked reservoir), farm incomes and profits in many parts of the EU are not
currently sufficient to finance such a measure. A second example is the
encouragement of farmers to effectively manage flood plains. This is likely to need
public support investment to provide incentives for them to relinquish current practices
in riparian zones and adopt protective measures. The re-creation of water meadows
may require a farm currently devoted to arable production to invest in the
establishment of a livestock enterprise.
3.6
Treatment of sectoral inter-linkages
The sectoral inter-linkages are very limited in previous studies. The inter-linkage of
water, land use and agriculture will be a major contribution of WP2B in ClimateCost.
4
4.1
Possible research strategy for ClimateCost
Planned methods of analysis for the ClimateCost study
Table 8 summarises the approach.
Table 8 Key issues in the approach for impact assessment in this study
Key issues
Approach in this study
Objectives
Impact quantification including strategies to minimize impacts
Agricultural models driven by changes in climate, ware availability,
socio economic conditions and adapted management
Drivers of agricultural Climate and socio-economic factors (global climate models and
change
SRES scenarios)
Current vulnerability to Response to extreme events and underlying causes of impacts in
climate and extreme current systems
events
Validation of the modelling tools under current conditions
Adaptation
Integrated from the onset as part of the input definition of the system
in the agricultural models
35
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
The agricultural production estimates will incorporate some major improvements:

Contributing to the economics of adaptation

Looking at the energy policy effects

Variability effects, ecosystems

Consistent crop simulation methodology and climate change scenarios

Consistent foundation for estimation of water supply and demand

Quantitative foundation for estimation of physiological CO2 effects on crop
yields

Adaptation explicitly considered (social vulnerability and adaptive capacity)

Weighting of model site results by contribution to regional and national, and
rainfed and irrigated production

The production functions under the climate change scenarios to be used for the
monetary estimates will be obtained with the following steps:

Determining crop responses at the site level, crop yield and water demand will
be estimated

Estimating crop production functions at the regional level that takes into account
water supply and demand, social vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Crop
production functions will be used as inputs for the monetary evaluation.
Some of the key innovations of the study include treatment of adaptation and
integration of land use and water impacts into the evaluation.
THE CHOICES FOR AGRICULTURAL ADAPTATION
While most adaptation to climate change will ultimately be characterised by responses
at the farm level, encouragement of response by policy affects the speed and extent of
adoption. Most major adaptations may require 10 to 20 years to implement. Two broad
types of adaptation are considered here: farm-based adaptation and policy adaptation.
Farm based adaptation includes changes in crops or crop management. Table 13
outlines examples of farm based adaptation measures that will be evaluated. All
measures may contribute to adapt to climate change but in many cases may have
other negative effects, such as environmental damage. Policy based adaptation
creates synergies with the farmers’ responses particularly in countries where education
of the rural population is limited. Agricultural research to test the robustness of
alternative farming strategies and development of new crop varieties are also among
the policy based measures with a potential for being effective in the future.
CURRENT ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
The development of adaptation scenarios should include stakeholder participation
since the stakeholders are both the demand-drivers and the end-users of vulnerability
analysis. Stakeholders include a wide range of people ranging from local and national
policy-makers to individual land managers, such as farmers.
36
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
The essential first step for evaluating future adaptation is to characterize current
adaptive capacity in order to determine the challenges and opportunities for future
management. Table 9 summarizes the categories and indicators of adaptive capacity
attributes.
Table 9 Categories and indicators of adaptive capacity
Coping
capacity
category
Environmental
Economic
Social
Indicators
- Resource base : Water supply; soil quality and diversity; land size and
distribution; land unmanaged; population density
- Risk: Variability of the current climate and extreme events
- Resource base: Land tenure and size; financial capital; material equipment
and machinery; animals; GDP per capita
- Risk: Variability in production; variability in input and output prices
- Financial resources: Access to formal and informal credit
- Diversity: Diversity of the agricultural system (seeds available and used
and number of crops planted); diversity of income sources (agriculture,
livestock, off-farm and non-farm)
- Variability in the rural economy: Migration; land sales, land rental
- Agricultural innovation and information dissemination: Public expenditure in
agricultural research and extension / population; technological gap for
cereal production
- Resource base: Population in the workforce; education; age; gender
- Support programs: Technology transfer; technical assistance
- Social programs: Emergency welfare programs; social services
- Economic capacity: GDP per capita.
- Human and civic resources: % population in the workforce; % population
with literacy level.
- Agricultural innovation and information dissemination: Public expenditure in
agricultural research and extension/population; Technological gap for
cereal production.
- Renewable natural capital: Population density; % land unmanaged.
W ATER
Areas exposed to drought and water scarcity are very sensitive to climate change,
because the current high degrees of water resources use, the imperative need to
allocate more water for environmental uses and the narrow margin which is available to
improve water availability. Climate change in these regions is perceived as an
intensification of existing pressures, which will imply strong reductions in water
availability and further increases in water demand. This will lead to the intensification of
water management conflicts, due to the competition for water among different social
agents and the degradation of water quality through the alteration of the hydrological
cycle. In some regions, current water uses cannot be maintained in the future. If
climate predictions are right, reductions of up to 50% of average annual runoff will lead
to a deep crisis of the whole socioeconomic model, based largely on highly productive
agriculture and tourism industries. The solution to those problems will imply profound
social changes, progressive reduction of water demand and reallocation of water
availability to those uses that are deemed socially as more appropriate.
37
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
In water scarcity regions, the impacts of climate change on natural resources will affect
water uses through water resource systems, which perform functions of regulation,
transportation and distribution of water resources. In these regions, water resources
systems are highly developed and they have achieved a profound transformation of the
natural characteristics of water resources to accommodate the needs of demands.
Hydraulic infrastructure plays a critical role to make water available to users by
overcoming the spatial and temporal irregularities of the natural regimes. The goal is to
provide adequate reliability in water supply to users through water abstraction, storage,
transportation, and distribution. T
The alteration of natural systems is larger in areas with less and more irregular water
resources. Prolonged absence of precipitation and soil moisture deficits do not
necessarily mean water scarcity in these water resources systems, because water can
also be supplied from natural or artificial reservoirs: snow pack, aquifers, and
regulation dams can sustain water demands during periods of meteorological drought.
Traditionally, water managers have designed these systems to overcome drought
situations. The degree at which droughts produce impacts in water resources systems
is analyzed with the help of water resources systems models, and it depends on the
relation between available resources and demands. System modellers estimate
demand reliability, quantified as the probability that a given demand may suffer water
shortages during a given time horizon. This reliability index is normally used for
decision making, identifying demands that do not comply with a pre-specified minimum
standard, in order to evaluate the effect of water conservation or yield enhancement
actions for these demands, and defining the measures to correct the reliability deficit.
Three factors are at play in regulated water resource systems: streamflow variability,
storage capacity and yield reliability. These are usually linked through storage-yieldperformance characteristics, which describe how a system is able to supply its
demands and with what reliability. There is a wide range of techniques which can be
applied for this purpose, from relatively simple regression functions relating these
variables to highly complex water resource systems models. Usually, these complex
simulation or optimization models are used by water resources engineers in areas
prone to water scarcity. The result of the analysis is an estimation of the reliability of
supply for each demand present in the system.
The availability of reservoir storage for regulation of natural resources is an indicator of
robustness to climate changes, especially in the case of within-year regulation
systems. If streamflow variability remained constant, the percentage reduction of
available water resources in systems with adequate reservoir storage volume would be
less than the percentage reduction of natural river discharge. Systems with small
regulation capacity, or systems with an excess of it, show a poorer response to
reduced streamflow. In the first case, the lack of reaction is due to the lack of flexibility
of the regulation system, and a given percentage reduction of river discharge results in
an almost equal reduction of available water resources. In the second case, the lack of
reaction is due to the exhaustion of the regulation capacity of the basin, where almost a
100% of natural resources are made available.
38
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
If, in addition to a reduction of average values, a change of seasonal or interannual
variability is expected, the performance of the regulation system may experience major
changes. Water resources simulation models may be too complex for this type of
analysis, because they require very detailed information of naturalised streamflow
series in each scenario, and they include a representation of system demands which
may change over time as a result of adaptation measures. In the context of Climate
Cost, it is beyond the objectives of the project to collect detailed data on selected
basins in the area of study and perform simulations under climate change scenarios to
obtain restrictions on the social system imposed to water availability.
A possible alternative is the application of generalized storage–yield performance
relationships, like the Gould-Gamma model (McMahon, 1993). These relationships
provide a method to analyze the storage–yield problem using simple input factors such
as the coefficient of variation of streamflow and the required system reliability. Adeloye
et al., 2003 use the methodology to derive storage–yield curves for no failure (100%
reliability) in several locations in the world. If an estimation of the climatic change of
annual flow and coefficient of variation is available for these locations (inferred from
results of GCMs), the methodology would allow for the estimation of water availability
under different reliability requirements. This would be a relevant input to proceed with
the analysis of future socioeconomic scenarios.
Another factor that may contribute to mitigate or intensify impacts of climate change on
water resources in semiarid regions is management of the water resources system.
Adequate rules for management of irrigation systems under drought conditions can
significantly offset the reduction in natural inputs. The measures of demand
management can also achieve a progressive reduction of the needs far greater than
the reduction of available water supply which occurs naturally as a result of climate
change. This requires a coordinated series of actions in terms of awareness and
education, investment in conservation, maintenance and improvement of facilities,
establishment of rules for exchanging water rights and increasing the flexibility of the
operation of the water resource system.
39
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
4.2
Potential input to the integrated models and CGMs
Summarising, (at least) three different information sets are needed: the first to build the
baseline(s) (without-climate-change-impacts) scenario, the second to quantify climate
change impacts without adaptation, the third to determine climate change impacts with
adaptation.
To be completed after discussion with the leader of WP2
Table 10 Data requirements and format
Model
ICES
GEM3
Impacted
economic
variable
Land quality
(productivity)
% change in 2
major crops
productivity
Land quantity
Data format
% of land loss to Baseline construction, relevant data can be
desertification expressed in yearly % changes (for each
year within the period 2001-2050)
For the climate change scenarios, relevant
data can be expressed in yearly basis in
terms of % changes with respect to that year
baseline value.
Region specific data: USA, Europe 15,
Europe 10, Korea-South Africa, CanadaJapan-Australia-New Zealand, Middle EastNorth Africa, Sub Saharan Africa, South Asia,
China, East Asia, Latin and Central America.
% change in 2
major crops
productivity, biofuels 1 and 2
and biodiesel
GCE
IAM
(PAGE 09)
40
% change in 2
major crops
productivity
Baseline and scenario rages
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
5
References
Antle JM, Capalbo SM (2001) Econometric-Process Models for Integrated Assessment
of Agricultural Production Systems. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
83(2):389-401
Arnell NW (2004) Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and
socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14(1), 31-52
Barnett TP, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Potential impacts of a warming climate
on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature, 438, 303-309
Beniston M (2003) Climatic change in mountain regions: A review of possible impacts.
Climatic Change, 59, 5–31
Berry PM, Rounsewell MDA, Harrison PA, Audsley E (2006) Assessing the vulnerability
of agricultural land use and species to climate change and the role of policy in
facilitating adaptation. Environmental Science and Policy 9, 189-204.
Brooks N, Adger WN, Kelly PM (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive
capacity at the national level and implications for adaptation. Global
Environmental Change, 15, 151-163
Burke EJ, Brown SJ, Christidis N (2006) Modelling the recent evolution of global
drought and projections for the 21st century with the Hadley Centre climate
model. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 7(5), 1113-1125
Burton I, Lim B (2005) Achieving adequate adaptation in agriculture. Climatic Change,
70(1- 2), 191-200
CIRCLE 2007 (Climate Impact Research Coordination for a Larger Europe)
http://www.circle-era.net/
COM(2007/354) Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action.
Brussels, 29 June 2007
COM(2008/306/4) Propuesta de reglamento del consejo en el marco del chequeo
médico de la PAC
Darwin R (2004) Effects of greenhouse gas emissions on world agriculture, food
consumption, and economic welfare. Climatic Change 66, 191–238
Dimaranan BV, McDougall RA (2006) Guide to the GTAP Data Base. Global Trade,
Assistance, and Production: The GTAP6 Data Base. Dimaranan [ed], Center for
Global Trade Analysis. Purdue University
Döll P (2002) Impact of Climate Change and variability on Irrigation Requirements: A
Global Perspective. Climate Change, 54, 269–293
Downing TE, Patwardhan A (2005) Assessing Vulnerability for Climate Adaptation.
Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies,
Policies and Measures, B. Lim, E. Spanger- Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone, and
S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 67–90
Eckhardt K, Ulbrich U (2003) Potential impacts of climate change on groundwater
recharge and streamflow in a central European low mountain range. Journal of
Hydrology, 284, 244–252.
41
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
EEA (2008) Impacts of climate change in Europe: An indicator based report.
Evenson RE (1999) Global and local implications of biotechnology and climate change
for future food supplies. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 96, 5921-5928
Ewert F, Rounsevell MDA, Reginster I, Metzger MJ, Leemans R (2005) Future
scenarios of European agricultural land use I. Estimating changes in crop
productivity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 107, 101-116
Fankhauser S, Tol RSJ (2005) On Climate Change and Economic Growth. Resource
and Energy Economics, 27, 1-17
Fuhrer J (2003) Agroecosystem responses to combination of elevated CO2, ozone,
and global climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 97, 1-20
Garote L, Flores F, Iglesias A (2006) Linking drought indicators to policy. The case of
the Tagus basin drought plan REF. REVISTA/LIBRO: Water Resources
Management, Accepted, 2006 forthcoming (A.Iglesias and L. Garrote, guest
editors)
Garrote L (1995) Flood vulnerability assessment and management. Natural Risk and
Civil Protection (Horlick-Jones, Amendola, Casale, eds.) – ISBN 0-419-199705. Pp: 213 -- 225. Chapman Hall: London
Garrote L (1996) RIBS: Distributed rainfall-runoff modelling for the Arno basin
Integrating Radar Estimates of Rainfall in Real Time Flood Forecasting (Borga,
Casale, eds.) ISBN 88-7740-209-X. Pp: 143 -- 152. 1996. Bios. Padova (Italy)
Garrote L (1998) A model for visual analysis of gate operation for flood control. Dam
Safety (Berga, ed.) – ISBN-90-5410-974-2. Pp: 1331 -- 1337. 1998. Balkema.
Rotterdam (The Nethrelands)
Garrote L (2001) La energía minihidráulica: Recursos y sistemas. Medioambiente y
desarrollo sostenible: Gestión, energía y salud (Morán, Rodríguez-Fernández,
eds.) – ISBN-84-600-9719-6. Pp: 307 -- 318. 2001. Fundación General UCM.
Madrid (Spain).
Garrote L, Becchi (1997) Object-oriented software for distributed rainfall-runoff
models. ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering – ISSN – 0887-3801
11(3) Pp: 190 -- 194. 1997. ASCE. New York
Garrote L, Bras R (1992) Real-time modelling of river basin response using radargenerated rainfall maps and a distributed hydrologic data base. MIT Parsons
Laboratory Report # 337. Pp: 1 -- 404. 1992. MIT Parsons Lab. Cambridge, MA,
USA
Garrote L, Bras RL (1995) A distributed model for real-time flood forecasting using
digital elevation models. Journal of Hydrology – ISSN – 0022-1694. 167 Pp:
279 -- 306. 1995. Elsevier. Amsterdam
Garrote L, Bras RL (1995) An integrated software environment for real-time use of a
distributed hydrologic model. Journal of Hydrology – ISSN – 0022-1694 167 Pp:
307 -- 326. 1995. Elsevier. Amsterdam
42
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Garrote L, Molina M (2004) A framework for making probabilistic forecasts using
deterministic rainfall-runoff models. Hydrological risk (Brath, Montanari, Toth,
eds.) ISBN 88-7740-378-0. Pp: 239 -- 246. 2004. Bios. Italy
Giorgi F, Lionello P (2008) Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region.
Global and Planetary Change, 63 , pp. 90–104
Gleick PH (2003) Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st
Century. Science Vol. 302, 28 November, pp. 1524-1528
Hansen JW, Jones JW (2000) Scaling-up crop models for climate variability
applications. Agricultural Systems, 65, 43–72
Hertel TW (1997) Global Trade Analysis: Modelling and Applications, Cambridge
University Press
Hulme M, Barrow EM, Arnell NW, Harrison PA, Johns TC, Downing TE (1999) Relative
impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability Nature
397, 688-691
Iglesias A (2002) Prediccion climatica en MERCOSUR: Uso en la gerencia de riesgo y
seguros. In: D. Brandis and E. Muscar (eds). MERCOSUR Medioambiente:
Algunos problemas, algunas propuestas. Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
TIB y MA. ISBN 84-4034602
Iglesias A (2003) Water availability for agriculture under climate change: understanding
adaptation strategies in the Mediterranean. Pages 75-93 in Climate change in
the Mediterranean, socio-economic perspectives of impacts, vulnerability and
adaptation. Giupponi, C. and M. Shechter (eds). Edward Elgar, United Kingdom
Iglesias A (one of the 37 authors in alphabetical order) (2003) Drought: Living with risk.
International Strategy foo Disaster Reduction (ISDR). Naciones Unidas
Iglesias A, Avis K, Benzie M, Fisher P, Harley M, Hodgson N, Horrocks L, Moneo M,
Webb J (2007) Adaptation to Climate Change in the Agricultural Sector. AGRI2006-G4-05. Report to European Commission Directorate -General for
Agriculture and Rural Development. ED05334. Issue Number 1. December
2007. AGRI/2006-G4-05
Iglesias A, Cancelliere A, Cubillo F, Garrote L, Wilhite DA (2008) Coping with drought
risk in agriculture and water supply systems: Drought management and policy
development in the Mediterranean. Springer, The Netherlands
Iglesias A, Cancelliere A, Cubillo F, Garrote L, Wilhite DA (2009c) Coping with drought
risk in agriculture and water supply systems: Drought management and policy
development in the Mediterranean. Springer, The Netherlands
Iglesias A, Erda L, Rosenzweig C (1996) Climate Change in Asia: A Review of the
Vulnerability and Adaptation of Crop Production. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
92 (1/2):13-27.
Iglesias A, Garrote L, Flores F, Moneo M (2007) Challenges to mange the risk of water
scarcity and climate change in the Mediterranean. Water Resources
Management, 21(5), 227-288
43
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Iglesias A, Garrote L, Quiroga S, Moneo M (2009b) A regional comparison of the
effects of climate change on agriculture in the European Union. Submitted to
Climatic Change
Iglesias A, Minguez MI (1997) Modelling crop-climate interactions in Spain:
Vulnerability and adaptation of different agricultural systems to climate change.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1 (3), 273-288
Iglesias A, Moneo M, Quiroga S, Garrote L (2009a) Re-thinking the impacts of climate
change on agriculture in the European Union. Submitted to Climatic Change
Iglesias A, Quiroga S (2007) Measuring cereal production risk form climate variability
agross geographical areas in Spain. Climate Research 34, 47-57.
Iglesias A, Rosenzweig C (2000) Valor de la predicción climatica: Uso en la gerencia
de riesgo y seguros. Gerencia de Riesgo y Seguros, 71, 35-53
Iglesias A, Rosenzweig C (2002) Climate and Pest Outbreaks. In: Pimentel, D. (ed.).
Encyclopedia of Pest Management. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA
Iglesias A, Rosenzweig C, Pereira D (2000) Agricultural impacts of climate in Spain:
developing tools for a spatial analysis. Global Environmental Change, 10, 6980.
Iglesias A, Ward MN, Menendez M, Rosenzweig C (2003) Water Availability for
Agriculture Under Climate Change: Understanding Adaptation Strategies in the
Mediterranean. In: M. Shechter and Giupponi, C. (eds.). Climate Change and
the Mediterranean: Socioeconomic Perspectives of Impacts, Vulnerability and
Adaptation. Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Long S, Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Nösberger J, Ort DR (2006) Food for Thought:
Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations.
Science 312: 1918-1921
Maracchi G, Sirotenko O, Bindi M (2004) Impacts of present and future climate
variability on agriculture and forestry in the temperate regions: Europe. Climatic
Change, 70(1), 117–135
Martín-Carrasco F, Garrote L, Granados A (2003) Evaluation of hydraulic projects:
Problems and advances from a decision-oriented approach. TransactionsInternational Commission on Large Dams –ISSN 0254-0703. 21 Pp: 645 -- 655.
COLD. Montligeon (France)
Martín-Carrasco F, Garrote L, Granados A (2003) Propuestas para mejorar la
eficiencia de la planificación de los recursos hídricos. Revista Ingeniería Civil ISSN-0213-8468. 131 Pp: 9 -- 14. Ministerio de Fomento. Madrid, Spain
Martín-Carrasco F, Garrote L, Granados A (2003) Selecting hydraulic projects under
uncertainty. Transactions-International Commission on Large Dams –ISSN
0254-0703. 21 Pp: 657 -- 667. ICOLD. Montligeon (France)
44
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Martín-Carrasco F, Mediero L, Garrote L (2005) Resolution of conflicts between water
supply reliability and flood control. The case of the Zadorra river. Efficient Use
and Management of Urban Water (Pickering, Noman, Cubillo, eds) - ISBN 9568460-00-4. Pp: 610 -- 616. 2005. International Water Association. Chile.
Medri S, Castellari S, Konig M (Eds.) (2007) Report on the current state of National
Research Programmes on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Europe,
CIRCLE (Climate Impact Research for a Larger Europe)
Mimikou MA, Baltas E, Varanou E, Pantazis K (2000) Regional impacts of climate
change on water resources quantity and quality indicators. Journal of
Hydrology, 234, 95–109
Muchena P, Iglesias A (1995) Vulnerability of maize yields to climate change in
different farming sectors in Zimbabwe. American Society of Agronomy 59, 229239
Nijssen B, O'Donnell GM, Hamlet AF, Lettenmaier DP (2001) Hydrologic Sensitivity of
Global Rivers to Climate Change, Climatic Change, Vol 50(1-2), 143-175
Nordhaus WD (2006) Geography and Macroeconomics: New Data and New Findings.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
(www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0509842103)
OECD (2008) Climate change and agriculture
Olensen JO, Bindi M (2002) Consequences of climate change for European
agricultural productivity, land use and policy. European Journal of Agronomy,
Vol. 16, 239–262.
Olesen J, Bindi M (2002) Consequences of climate change for European agricultural
productivity, land use and policy. European Journal of Agronomy 16, 239-262.
Parry MA, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G (2004) Effects of climate
change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic
scenarios. Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 53–67
Parry ML, Arnell N, McMichael T, Nicholls R, Martens P, Kovats S, Livermore M,
Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Fischer G (2001) Defining critical climate change
threats and targets. Global Environmental Change, 11(3), 181-183
Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Erda L (1998)Agriculture. In: Feenstra JF, Burton
I, Smith JB, Tol R (Eds.). Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact
Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. United Nations Environmental
Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. Pp. 8-1 – 8-45
Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Fischer G (2001) Millions at Risk: Defining Critical
Climate Change Threats and Targets. Global Environmental Change, 11:181183
Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Fischer G, Livermore MTJ (1999) Climate change
and world food security: A new assessment. Global Environmental Change
9:S51-S67
45
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G (2004) Effects of climate
change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic
scenarios. Global Environmental Change 14 (2004) 53–67
Patt AG (1999) Extreme outcomes: the strategic treatment of low probability events in
scientific assessments. Risk Decision and Policy 4, 1–15
PICCMAT (2008) Policy Incentives for Climate Change Mitigation Agricultural
Techniques. European Commission, DG Agriculture, Specific Support Action.
Brussels, October 2008
Porter JR, Semenov MA (2005) Crop responses to climatic variation. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360, 2021-2035
PRUDENCE (Prediction of Regional scenarios and Uncertainties for Defining
EuropeaN Climate change risks and Effects) http://prudence.dmi.dk/
Quiroga S, Iglesias A (2007) . Projections of economic impacts o climate change in
agriculture in Europe. Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales 7(14): 65-82. (in
English)
Quiroga S, Iglesias A, 2007. Projections of economic impacts o climate change in
agriculture in Europe. Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales 7(14): 65-82. (in
English)
Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A (1998) The use of crop models for international climate
change impact assessment. In Understanding Options for Agricultural
Production, G.Y. Tsuji, G. Hoogenboom, and P.K. Thornton (eds.). Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 267-292
Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A (2003) Potential Impacts of Climate Change on World Food
Supply: Data Sets from a Major Crop Modelling Study.
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/giss_crop_study/
Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A (eds) 1994 Implications of Climate Change for International
Agriculture: Crop Modeling Study. EPA 230-B-94-003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Fischer G, Liu Y, Baethgen W, Jones JW (1999) Wheat
yield functions for analysis of landuse change in China. Environmental
Modelling and Assessment 4:128-132
Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Yang XB, Chivian E, Epstein P (2000) Climate Change and
U.S. Agriculture: The impacts or warming and extreme weather events on
productivity, plant diseases, and pests. Center for Health and the Global
Environment, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA. Harvard Medical
School, Cambridge, MA. 46 pp
Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Yang XB, Chivian E, Epstein P (2001) Climate Change and
Extreme Weather Events: Implications for Food Production, Plant Diseases,
and Pests. Global Change and Human Health. 2, 90-104
Rosenzweig C, Parry ML (1994) Potential impact of climate change on world food
supply. Nature 367, 133-138
46
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Rosenzweig C, Strzepek K, Major D, Iglesias A, Yates D, Holt A, Hillel D (2004) Water
availability for agriculture under climate change: Five international studies
Global Environmental Change, 14, 345–360
Rosenzweig C, Strzepek K, Major D, Iglesias A, Yates D, Holt A, Hillel D (2005) Water
availability for agriculture under climate change: Five international studies.
Global Environmental Change
Rosenzweig C, Tubiello FN, Goldberg R, Mills E, Bloomfield J (2002) Increased crop
damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change, Global
Environmental Change, Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages 197-202
Rounsevell MDA, Reginster I, Araujo MB, Carter TR, Dendoncker N, Ewert F, House
JI, Kankaanpaa S, Leemas R, Metzger MJ, Schmit P, Tuck G (2006) A
coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agriculture
Ecosystems and Environment 114, 57-68.
Schär C Vidale PL, Lüthl D, Frei C, Häberli C, Liniger MA, Appenzeller C (2004) The
role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves.
Nature, 427, 332–336
Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araújo MB, Arnell AW, Bondeau A,
Bugmann H, Carter T, Gracia CA, de la Vega-Leinert AC, Erhard M, Ewert F,
Glendining M, House JI, Kankaanpää S, Klein RJT, Lavorel S, Lindner M,
Metzger M, Meyer J, Mitchell TD, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabate S, Sitch S,
Smith B, Smith J, Smith P, Sykes MT, Thonicke K, Thuiller W, Tuck G, Zähle
S, Zierl B (2005) Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change
in Europe. Science, 310, 1333–1337
Semenov MA, Wolf J, Evans LG, Eckersten H, Iglesias A (1996) Comparison of wheat
simulation models under climate change. II. Application of climate change
scenarios. Climate Research 7, 271-281
Smith P, Daniel Martino, Zucong Cai, Daniel Gwary, Henry Janzen, Pushpam Kumar,
Bruce McCarl, Stephen Ogle, Frank O’Mara, Charles Rice, Bob Scholes, Oleg
Sirotenko, Mark Howden, Tim McAllister, Genxing Pan, Vladimir Romanenkov,
Uwe Schneider and, Sirintornthep Towprayoon (2007). Policy and technological
constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in
agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 118, 6-28
Smith P, Z. Somogyi, E. Trines, M. Ward and Y. Yamagata (2007) Greenhouse gas
mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society,
363(1492), 789-813
Stern N, Peters S, Bakhshi V, Bowen A, Cameron C, Catovsky S, Crane D,
Cruickshank S, Dietz S, Edmonson N, Garbett SL, Hamid L, Hoffman G, Ingram
D, Jones B, Patmore N, Radcliffe H, Sathiyarajah R, Stock M, Taylor C, Vernon
T, Wanjie H, Zenghelis D (2006) Stern Review: The Economics of Climate
Change, HM Treasury, London
Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Araujo MB, Sykes MT, Prentice IC (2005) Climate change
threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, USA, 8245- 8250
47
ClimateCost – WP2B – D1
Tol RSL (2006). The Stern review of the economics of climate change: A comment.
Economic and Social Research Institute Hamburg, Vrije and Carnegie Mellon
Universities November 2, 2006. http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnufiles/reports/sternreview.pdf
Tubiello FN, Ewert F (2002) Simulating the effects of elevated CO2 on crops:
approaches and applications for climate change. European Journal of
Agronomy 18, 1-2, 57-74
Vorosmarty C, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB (2000) Global water resources:
Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science, 289, 284288
Wesley E, Peterson F (2005) Agricultural Structure and Economic adjustment.
Agriculture and Human Values, 3(4), 6-15
Wullschleger SD, Tschaplinski TJ, Norby RJ (2002) Plant water relations at elevated
CO2 - Implications for water-limited environments. Plant Cell Environ., 25(2),
319-331
48