Land-based climate change mitigation measures can affect agricultural markets and food security.

Earlier studies have noted potential adverse impacts of land-related emissions mitigation strategies on food security, particularly due to food price increases-but without distinguishing these strategies' individual effects under different conditions. Using six global agroeconomic models, we show the extent to which three factors-non-CO2 emissions reduction, bioenergy production and afforestation-may change food security and agricultural market conditions under 2 °C climate-stabilization scenarios. Results show that afforestation (often simulated in the models by imposing carbon prices on land carbon stocks) could have a large impact on food security relative to non-CO2 emissions policies (generally implemented as emissions taxes). Respectively, these measures put an additional 41.9 million and 26.7 million people at risk of hunger in 2050 compared with the current trend scenario baseline. This highlights the need for better coordination in emissions reduction and agricultural market management policies as well as better representation of land use and associated greenhouse gas emissions in modelling.

Coordinating AgMIP data and models across global and regional scales for 1.5°C and 2.0°C assessments.

The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) has developed novel methods for Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments (CGRA) of agriculture and food security in a changing world. The present study aims to perform a proof of concept of the CGRA to demonstrate advantages and challenges of the proposed framework. This effort responds to the request by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the implications of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C and 2.0°C above pre-industrial conditions. The protocols for the 1.5°C/2.0°C assessment establish explicit and testable linkages across disciplines and scales, connecting outputs and inputs from the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs), Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble scenarios, global gridded crop models, global agricultural economics models, site-based crop models and within-country regional economics models. The CGRA consistently links disciplines, models and scales in order to track the complex chain of climate impacts and identify key vulnerabilities, feedbacks and uncertainties in managing future risk. CGRA proof-of-concept results show that, at the global scale, there are mixed areas of positive and negative simulated wheat and maize yield changes, with declines in some breadbasket regions, at both 1.5°C and 2.0°C. Declines are especially evident in simulations that do not take into account direct CO2 effects on crops. These projected global yield changes mostly resulted in increases in prices and areas of wheat and maize in two global economics models. Regional simulations for 1.5°C and 2.0°C using site-based crop models had mixed results depending on the region and the crop. In conjunction with price changes from the global economics models, productivity declines in the Punjab, Pakistan, resulted in an increase in vulnerable households and the poverty rate.This article is part of the theme issue 'The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.

Biophysical and economic implications for agriculture of +1.5° and +2.0°C global warming using AgMIP Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments.

This study presents results of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments (CGRA) of +1.5° and +2.0°C global warming above pre-industrial conditions. This first CGRA application provides multi-discipline, multi-scale, and multi-model perspectives to elucidate major challenges for the agricultural sector caused by direct biophysical impacts of climate changes as well as ramifications of associated mitigation strategies. Agriculture in both target climate stabilizations is characterized by differential impacts across regions and farming systems, with tropical maize Zea mays experiencing the largest losses, while soy Glycine max mostly benefits. The result is upward pressure on prices and area expansion for maize and wheat Triticum aestivum, while soy prices and area decline (results for rice Oryza sativa are mixed). An example global mitigation strategy encouraging bioenergy expansion is more disruptive to land use and crop prices than the climate change impacts alone, even in the +2.0°C scenario which has a larger climate signal and lower mitigation requirement than the +1.5°C scenario. Coordinated assessments reveal that direct biophysical and economic impacts can be substantially larger for regional farming systems than global production changes. Regional farmers can buffer negative effects or take advantage of new opportunities via mitigation incentives and farm management technologies. Primary uncertainties in the CGRA framework include the extent of CO2 benefits for diverse agricultural systems in crop models, as simulations without CO2 benefits show widespread production losses that raise prices and expand agricultural area.

Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections.

Understanding uncertainties in land cover projections is critical to investigating land-based climate mitigation policies, assessing the potential of climate adaptation strategies and quantifying the impacts of land cover change on the climate system. Here, we identify and quantify uncertainties in global and European land cover projections over a diverse range of model types and scenarios, extending the analysis beyond the agro-economic models included in previous comparisons. The results from 75 simulations over 18 models are analysed and show a large range in land cover area projections, with the highest variability occurring in future cropland areas. We demonstrate systematic differences in land cover areas associated with the characteristics of the modelling approach, which is at least as great as the differences attributed to the scenario variations. The results lead us to conclude that a higher degree of uncertainty exists in land use projections than currently included in climate or earth system projections. To account for land use uncertainty, it is recommended to use a diverse set of models and approaches when assessing the potential impacts of land cover change on future climate. Additionally, further work is needed to better understand the assumptions driving land use model results and reveal the causes of uncertainty in more depth, to help reduce model uncertainty and improve the projections of land cover.

Hotspots of uncertainty in land-use and land-cover change projections: a global-scale model comparison.

Model-based global projections of future land-use and land-cover (LULC) change are frequently used in environmental assessments to study the impact of LULC change on environmental services and to provide decision support for policy. These projections are characterized by a high uncertainty in terms of quantity and allocation of projected changes, which can severely impact the results of environmental assessments. In this study, we identify hotspots of uncertainty, based on 43 simulations from 11 global-scale LULC change models representing a wide range of assumptions of future biophysical and socioeconomic conditions. We attribute components of uncertainty to input data, model structure, scenario storyline and a residual term, based on a regression analysis and analysis of variance. From this diverse set of models and scenarios, we find that the uncertainty varies, depending on the region and the LULC type under consideration. Hotspots of uncertainty appear mainly at the edges of globally important biomes (e.g., boreal and tropical forests). Our results indicate that an important source of uncertainty in forest and pasture areas originates from different input data applied in the models. Cropland, in contrast, is more consistent among the starting conditions, while variation in the projections gradually increases over time due to diverse scenario assumptions and different modeling approaches. Comparisons at the grid cell level indicate that disagreement is mainly related to LULC type definitions and the individual model allocation schemes. We conclude that improving the quality and consistency of observational data utilized in the modeling process and improving the allocation mechanisms of LULC change models remain important challenges. Current LULC representation in environmental assessments might miss the uncertainty arising from the diversity of LULC change modeling approaches, and many studies ignore the uncertainty in LULC projections in assessments of LULC change impacts on climate, water resources or biodiversity.

Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks.

Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m(2). The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17% reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11%, increase area of major crops by 11%, and reduce consumption by 3%. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.

Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy.

Limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations to low levels requires strategies to manage anthropogenic carbon emissions from terrestrial systems as well as fossil fuel and industrial sources. We explore the implications of fully integrating terrestrial systems and the energy system into a comprehensive mitigation regime that limits atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We find that this comprehensive approach lowers the cost of meeting environmental goals but also carries with it profound implications for agriculture: Unmanaged ecosystems and forests expand, and food crop and livestock prices rise. Finally, we find that future improvement in food crop productivity directly affects land-use change emissions, making the technology for growing crops potentially important for limiting atmospheric CO2 concentrations.