Transcript Checking Misbehaving Mathematical Programs

Impacts of Agricultural
Adaptation to Climate Policies
Uwe A. Schneider
Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University
Contributors
Kerstin Jantke, Ivie Ramos, Christine Schleupner, Timm Sauer, Chris
Llull (Hamburg University), Bruce A. McCarl (Texas A&M University),
Petr Havlik, Oskar Franklin, Steffen Fritz, Michael Obersteiner
(International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), Erwin Schmid
(University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna),
Juraj Balkovic, Rastislav Skalsky (Soil Science and Conservation
Research institute, Bratislava), Martin Weih (Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences ), Andre Faaji, Edward Smeets (Utrecht
University)
I.
Questions & Challenges
II.
Research Tools
III.
Policy Analysis
IV.
Conclusions
Land Use
Climate
(Environment)
Policies
Society
Questions

Mitigation Potential of Climate Policies?

Land Management Adaptation?

Commodity Market Impacts?

Environmental Side Effects?

Social Side Effects?
Challenges

Heterogeneity (Resources, Technologies)

Complexity (Mitigation Options, Markets,
Externalities, Policies)

Global Scope
Land use
competition
Forest and Agricultural Sector
Optimization Model - FASOM
Partial Equilibrium, Bottom-Up Model
 Maximizes sum of consumer and producer
surplus
 Constrained by resource endowments,
technologies, policies
 Spatially explicit, discrete dynamic
 Integrates environmental effects
 Programmed in GAMS

FASOM History

US (1993)

EU (2004)

Global (2006)
FASOM Structure
Limits
Limits
Resources
Inputs
Supply
Functions
Land Use
Products
Markets
Processing
Technologies
Demand
Functions,
Trade
Technologies
Environmental
Impacts
Limits
FASOM - Spatial Resolution

Soil texture
 Stone content
 Altitude levels
 Slopes
 Soil state






Political regions
Ownership
(forests)
Farm types
Farm size
Many crop and tree
species
Tillage, planting
irrigation, fertilization
harvest regime
Homogeneous
Response Units
Altitude:
1. < 300 m
2. 300-600 m
3. 600-1100 m
4. >1100 m
Texture:
1. Coarse
2. Medium
3. Medium-fine
4. Fine
5. Very fine
Stoniness:
1. Low content
2. Medium content
3. High content
Slope Class:
1. 0-3%
2. 3-6%
3. 6-10%
4. 10-15%
5. …
Soil Depth:
1. shallow
2. medium
3. deep
DE11
DE12
DE13
DE14
EUFASOM
Biodiversity
Scope
69
Vertebrate
Wetland
Species
Biodiversity - Spatial Resolution
2016 cells
25 countries
6 biogeo-regions
Climate Policy Analysis
I
US Agricultural
Sector Results
Mainly based on McCarl and Schneider (2001). Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation in U.S.Agriculture and Forestry. SCIENCE 294:2481-2481.
US Agricultural Mitigation
500
Carbon price (Euro/tce)
450
400
350
Technical
Potential
Competitive
Economic
Potential
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation (mmtce)
800
US Mitigation Strategy Mix
Carbon price ($/tce)
500
Afforestation
Sink
400
300
CH4
N2O
Decrease
200
100
0
0
20
40
Tillage
Carbon
Sink
60
Bioenergy
Emission
Offsets
80
100
120
140
160
Emission reduction (mmtce)
180
200
US Tillage Carbon Sink
Carbon price ($/tce)
500
400
Economic
Potential
300
200
Competitive
Economic
Potential
100
Technical
Potential
0
0
20
40
60
80
100 120 140
Soil carbon sequestration (mmtce)
160
US Afforestation Sink
Carbon price ($/tce)
500
400
300
Competitive
Economic
Potential
Economic
Potential
200
Technical
Potential
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
Emission reduction (mmtce)
250
300
US Bioenergy Emission Offsets
Carbon price ($/tce)
500
Economic
Potential
400
Competitive
Economic
Potential
300
200
Technical
Potential
100
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Emission reduction (mmtce)
300
350
Intensity (Base = 100%)
US Crop Management Impacts
115
110
Irrigation
105
100
95
Tillage
90
85
Fertilization
80
75
0
100
200
300
Carbon equivalent price ($/mtce)
400
500
US Agricultural Markets
Fisher index
220
200
180
160
Crop prices
140
Livestock prices
120
100
Livestock production
80
60
40
20
Crop exports
0
50
Crop production
100
150
200
Carbon price ($/tce)
250
300
US Welfare Changes
8
6
4
Gross Producer Surplus
Billion $
2
Net Producer
Surplus
0
-2
Emission
Payments
-4
-6
Consumer Surplus
-8
-10
0
20
40
60
Carbon price ($/tce)
80
100
US Environmental Co-Effects
100
Pollution (%/acre)
N Subsurface Flow
90
80
N Percolation
70
Soil Erosion
60
50
P Loss
40
0
50
100
150
200
Carbon price ($/tce)
250
300
Emission Leakage
Fisher’s Ideal Index
160
Non-Annex I crop net exports for
agricultural GHG mitigation
policy in:
150
140
130
120
Annex I Countries
USA Only
110
100
90
All Countries
0
20
40
60
Carbon price ($/tce)
80
100
II
European Agricultural
Sector Results
Unpublished simulations with EUFASOM
2010 EU Bioenergy Targets
 21%
Renewable Electricity
≈ 610 thousand GWh
≈ 300 million wet tons of
biomass
 5.75%
Bio-Fuels
Biomass Crop Share for 300 Mt Target
0
25
50
75
100
Climate Mitigation
vs.
Biodiversity Protection
2010 EU Biodiversity Targets


2001: European Council committed to ‘halt the
decline of biodiversity by 2010’ in Europe
2002: EU joined about 130 countries in
agreeing ‘to significantly reduce the rate of
biodiversity loss by 2010‘ worldwide
BUT



Biodiversity loss still accelerating
Reservation often ad hoc and uncoordinated
2010 only three years away
Habitat Needs
Simulations with the independent 69 species
based habitat module of EUFASOM show
that 10, 20, 30, 40 viable populations for
each species require 22, 35, 42, and 61
million hectares, respectively, in specific
locations
Wetland Area Share for a 40 Mha Target
0
25
50
75
100
Biomass Crop Share for 300 Mt Target
0
25
50
75
100
Marginal Biomass Costs in Euro/ton
EU25 Bioenergy Potentials
600
500
Wetland Requirement = 40 Mha
400
300
30 Mha
200
100
0
10 Mha
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
European Biomass Production in million wet tons
400
3
Cereal Straw Removal
percentage change
2
1
Yields
years
0
10
20
30
-1
-2
-3
-4
Soil Organic Carbon
-5
Unpublished EPIC Simulations by E. Schmid
40
50
Conclusions




Low mitigation targets, low marginal mitigation
costs, more extensive agriculture, water and soil
quality benefits
High mitigation targets, high marginal cost, more
intensive agriculture, more pressure on food and
biodiversity
Simultaneous biodiversity policies increase
agricultural mitigation cost
Integrated analysis important (climate, soil,
water, biodiversity, fuel, food) to prevent today’s
solution becoming the problem of tomorrow
GIS
 Topography
 Soil texture
 Current climate
 Current land use
 Current soil state

1
Climate
Model
3
Biophysical
Models
GIS
 Future rainfall
 Future temperature
4
 Future emissions
 Future land use
 Future soil state
2
5
Integrated
Analysis in
CCTAME
Technological Data
 Emissions
 Inputs & outputs
6
Regions
 Technologies
 Costs
 Yields
 Inventories
7
8
Farm
Models
9
2008-2011
Countries
 Population growth
 GDP growth
 Supply and
13
demand functions
 Time preference
 Technical Change
Exogenous
11
Regions
 Emissions
 Production
 Cost functions
 Biodiversity
10
9
Policy Data
 Scope
 Instruments
 Intensities
16
12
14
MultiSector
Models
17
15
Countries
 Land exchange
 Prices
 Supply
 Demand
 Processing
 Trade
Endogenous
Thank you.