Showing papers by "Keith Wiebe published in 2020"

Modelling the global economic consequences of a major African swine fever outbreak in China.

Abstract: African swine fever is a deadly porcine disease that has spread into East Asia where it is having a detrimental effect on pork production. However, the implications of African swine fever on the global pork market are poorly explored. Two linked global economic models are used to explore the consequences of different scales of the epidemic on pork prices and on the prices of other food types and animal feeds. The models project global pork prices increasing by 17-85% and unmet demand driving price increases of other meats. This price rise reduces the quantity of pork demanded but also spurs production in other parts of the world, and imports make up half the Chinese losses. Demand for, and prices of, food types such as beef and poultry rise, while prices for maize and soybean used in feed decline. There is a slight decline in average per capita calorie availability in China, indicating the importance of assuring the dietary needs of low-income populations. Outside China, projections for calorie availability are mixed, reflecting the direct and indirect effects of the African swine fever epidemic on food and feed markets.

Are scenario projections overly optimistic about future yield progress

Abstract: Historical increases in agricultural production were achieved predominantly by large increases in agricultural productivity. Intensification of crop and livestock production also plays a key role in future projections of agricultural land use. Here, we assess and discuss projections of crop yields by global agricultural land-use and integrated assessment models. To evaluate these crop yield projections, we compare them to empirical data on attainable yields by employing a linear and plateauing continuation of observed attainable yield trends. While keeping in mind the uncertainties of attainable yields projections and not considering future climate change impacts, we find that, on average for all cereals on the global level, global projected yields by 2050 remain below the attainable yields. This is also true for future pathways with high technological progress and mitigation efforts, indicating that projected yield increases are not overly optimistic, even under systemic transformations. On a regional scale, we find that for developing regions, specifically for sub-Saharan Africa, projected yields stay well below attainable yields, indicating that the large yield gaps which could be closed through improved crop management, may also persist in the future. In OECD countries, in contrast, current yields are already close to attainable yields, and the projections approach or, for some models, even exceed attainable yields by 2050. This observation parallels research suggesting that future progress in attainable yields in developed regions will mainly have to be achieved through new crop varieties or genetic improvements. The models included in this study vary widely in their implementation of yield progress, which are often split into endogenous (crop management) improvements and exogenous (technological) trends. More detail and transparency are needed in these important elements of global yields and land use projections, and this paper discusses possibilities of better aligning agronomic understanding of yield gaps and yield potentials with modelling approaches.

Modeling impacts of faster productivity growth to inform the CGIAR initiative on Crops to End Hunger

Abstract: In 2017-2018, a group of international development funding agencies launched the Crops to End Hunger initiative to modernize public plant breeding in lower-income countries. To inform that initiative, USAID asked the International Food Policy Research Institute and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service to estimate the impacts of faster productivity growth for 20 food crops on income and other indicators in 106 countries in developing regions in 2030. We first estimated the value of production in 2015 for each crop using data from FAO. We then used the IMPACT and GLOBE economic models to estimate changes in the value of production and changes in economy-wide income under scenarios of faster crop productivity growth, assuming that increased investment will raise annual rates of yield growth by 25% above baseline growth rates over the period 2015-2030. We found that faster productivity growth in rice, wheat and maize increased economy-wide income in the selected countries in 2030 by 59 billion USD, 27 billion USD and 21 billion USD respectively, followed by banana and yams with increases of 9 billion USD each. While these amounts represent small shares of total GDP, they are 2-15 times current public R&D spending on food crops in developing countries. Income increased most in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Faster productivity growth in rice and wheat reduced the population at risk of hunger by 11 million people and 6 million people respectively, followed by plantain and cassava with reductions of about 2 million people each. Changes in adequacy ratios were relatively large for carbohydrates (already in surplus) and relatively small for micronutrients. In general, we found that impacts of faster productivity growth vary widely across crops, regions and outcome indicators, highlighting the importance of identifying the potentially diverse objectives of different decision makers and recognizing possible tradeoffs between objectives.

Reply to: An appeal to cost undermines food security risks of delayed mitigation

Abstract: 1Ritsumeikan University, Kusatsu, Japan. 2International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria. 3Center for Social and Environmental Systems Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Tsukuba, Japan. 4Department of Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Nishikyo-ku, Japan. 5Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany. 6PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands. 7European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain. 8Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, College Park, MD, USA. 9Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research, The Hague, The Netherlands. 10Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 11International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC, DC, USA. 12Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. 13E-Konzal Co. Ltd, Osaka, Japan. 14Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 15Institute for Food and Resource Economics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. ✉e-mail: thase@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp The core of the critique by Hayek at al.1 of our paper2 seems to be that by raising concerns about secondary impacts of emissions mitigation efforts, our study will hinder social and political efforts to reduce emissions. However, this is contrary to what we intend; to quote from the study: “in particular, it highlights the need for carefully designed mitigation policies for agriculture and land use, to ensure that progress towards climate stabilization and food security can be simultaneously achieved.” Nowhere in our paper do we suggest that delaying mitigation efforts is an option for the future. Hayek et al. claim that our study is based on an inappropriate and opaque set of model ensembles and assumptions. While we understand concerns that using a large number of complex models does inherently reduce the transparency and replicability of the research, each of the models used is individually well-documented and established, and together these models have already been used in a number of published intercomparisons on both agricultural climate impacts and emissions mitigation. Our modelling approach, scenario settings and assumptions reflect state-of-the-art methods of modelling and analysis of these topics. Although all models have limitations, and our scenarios do not reflect either the full suite of future climate-related risks or all policy strategies for emissions mitigation, the study does offer valid, relevant insights into the complex nature of climate change impacts and mitigation.

Climate adaptation and job prospects for young people in agriculture

Abstract: According to the United Nations, the world’s population will grow by 2 billion people over the coming decades to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 (UNDESA-DP 2019a). The dignity and life prospects of those additional 2 billion people will depend on their ability to meet basic needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter, and their access to adequate employment. The most pressing need for jobs will be felt in those regions and countries that have not yet gone through the demographic transition,1 and where the cohort of young people is growing rapidly. The challenge will be compounded by an increasingly crowded, more competitive world with fewer natural resources per capita, and by the threat of climate change, which is projected to affect every sector of the economy (Arent 2014).