Search

Wildfire events are driven by complex interactions of climate and anthropogenic interventions. Predictions of future wildfire events, their extremity, and their impact on the environment and economy must account for the interactions between these drivers. Economic policy and land use decisions influence the susceptibility of an area to climate extremes, the probability of burning, and future decision making. To better understand how climate-driven drought events and adaptation efforts affect burned area, agricultural production losses, and land use decisions, we developed a storyline approach centered on Indonesia’s 2015 fire events, which saw significant (>5%) production losses of palm oil. We explored analogous events under three warming conditions and two storylines (multi-model ensemble mean climate change and high impact). We employed a model chain consisting of CMIP6 climate modeling to quantify climate change impacts, a wildfire climate impacts and adaptation model (FLAM) to predict burned areas, and the Global biosphere management model (GLOBIOM) to predict the resultant production losses and socio-economic consequences in the oil palm sector in Indonesia and, by extension, the EU. FLAM is a mechanistic, modular fire model used to reproduce and project wildfires based on various scenario criteria and input variables, whereas GLOBIOM is a global economic land use model, which assesses competition for land use and provides economic impacts based on scenario data. We found that total burned area and production loss can increase by up to 25% and lead to local price increases up to 70%, with only minor differences beyond 2.5 degrees of warming. Our results highlight the importance of considering the interactions of future warming, drought conditions, and extreme weather events when predicting their impacts on oil palm losses and burned area. This study sets the stage for further exploration on the impacts of land management policies on local and international environments and economies in the context of global warming.

Facilitating dietary change is pivotal to improving population health, increasing food system resilience, and minimizing adverse impacts on the environment, but assessment of the current ‘status-quo’ and identification of bottlenecks for improvement has been lacking to date. We assessed deviation of the Gambian diet from the EAT-Lancet guidelines for healthy and sustainable diets and identified leverage points to improve nutritional and planetary health. We analysed the 2015/16 Gambian Integrated Household Survey dataset comprising food consumption data from 12 713 households. Consumption of different food groups was compared against the EAT-Lancet reference diet targets to assess deviation from the guidelines. We computed a ‘sustainable and healthy diet index (SHDI)’ based on deviation of different food groups from the EAT-Lancet recommendations and modelled the socio-economic and geographic determinants of households that achieved higher scores on this index, using multivariable mixed effects regression. The average Gambian diet had very low adherence to EAT-Lancet recommendations. The diet was dominated by refined grains and added sugars which exceeded the recommendations. SHDI scores for nutritionally important food groups such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, dairy, poultry, and beef and lamb were low. Household characteristics associated with higher SHDI scores included: being a female-headed household, having a relatively small household size, having a schooled head of the household, having a high wealth index, and residing in an urban settlement. Furthermore, diets reported in the dry season and households with high crop production diversity showed increased adherence to the targets. While average Gambian diets include lower amounts of food groups with harmful environmental footprint, they are also inadequate in healthy food groups and are high in sugar. There are opportunities to improve diets without increasing their environmental footprint by focusing on the substitution of refined grains by wholegrains, reducing sugar and increasing fruit and vegetables consumption.

Even though enormous expectations for greenhouse gas mitigation in the land use sector exist at the same time worries about potential implications for sustainable development have been raised as many Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are closely tied to developments in the sector. Here we assess the implications of achieving selected key SDG indicators for Zero Hunger, Clean Water and Sanitation, Responsible Consumption and Production, and Life on Land on the land-based climate change mitigation potential. We find that protecting highly biodiverse ecosystems has profound impacts on biomass potentials (−30% at >12 US dollar per gigajoule) while other SDGs mainly affect greenhouse gas abatement potentials. Achieving SDGs delivers synergies with greenhouse gas abatement and may even in the absence of additional mitigation policies allow to realize up to 25% of the expected greenhouse gas abatement from land use required to stay on track with the 1.5 °C target until 2050. Future land use mitigation policies should consider and take advantage of these synergies across SDGs.

Achieving climate neutrality in the European Union (EU) by 2050 will require substantial efforts across all economic sectors, including agriculture. At the same time, an ambitious unilateral EU agricultural mitigation policy is likely to have adverse effects on the sector and may have limited efficiency at global scale due to emission leakage to non-EU regions. To analyse the competitiveness of the EU’s agricultural sector and potential non-CO _2 emission leakage conditional on mitigation efforts outside the EU, we apply three economic agricultural sector models. We find that an ambitious unilateral EU mitigation policy in line with efforts needed to achieve the 1.5 °C target globally strongly affects EU ruminant production and trade balance. However, since EU farmers rank among the most greenhouse gas efficient producers worldwide, if the rest of the world were to start pursuing agricultural mitigation efforts too, economic impacts of an ambitious domestic mitigation policy get buffered and EU livestock producers could even start to benefit from a globally coordinated mitigation policy.

Agriculture is one of the sectors that is expected to be most significantly impacted by climate change. There has been considerable interest in assessing these impacts and many recent studies investigating agricultural impacts for individual countries and regions using an array of models. However, the great majority of existing studies explore impacts on a country or region of interest without explicitly accounting for impacts on the rest of the world. This approach can bias the results of impact assessments for agriculture given the importance of global trade in this sector. Due to potential impacts on relative competitiveness, international trade, global supply, and prices, the net impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector in each region depend not only on productivity impacts within that region, but on how climate change impacts agricultural productivity throughout the world. In this study, we apply a global model of agriculture and forestry to evaluate climate change impacts on US agriculture with and without accounting for climate change impacts in the rest of the world. In addition, we examine scenarios where trade is expanded to explore the implications for regional allocation of production, trade volumes, and prices. To our knowledge, this is one of the only attempts to explicitly quantify the relative importance of accounting for global climate change when conducting regional assessments of climate change impacts. The results of our analyses reveal substantial differences in estimated impacts on the US agricultural sector when accounting for global impacts vs. US-only impacts, particularly for commodities where the United States has a smaller share of global production. In addition, we find that freer trade can play an important role in helping to buffer regional productivity shocks.

The role of improving the enforcement of Brazil’s Forest Code in reducing deforestation in the Amazon has been highlighted in many studies. However, in a context of strong political pressure for loosening environmental protections, the future impacts of a nationwide implementation of the Forest Code on both environment and agriculture remain poorly understood. Here, we present a spatially explicit assessment of Brazil’s 2012 Forest Code through the year 2050; specifically, we use a partial equilibrium economic model that provides a globally consistent national modeling framework with detailed representation of the agricultural sector and spatially explicit land-use change. We test for the combined or isolated impacts of the different measures of the Forest Code, including deforestation control and obligatory forest restoration with or without environmental reserve quotas. Our results show that, if rigorously enforced, the Forest Code could prevent a net loss of 53.4 million hectares (Mha) of forest and native vegetation by 2050, 43.1 Mha (81%) of which are in the Amazon alone. The control of illegal deforestation promotes the largest environmental benefits, but the obligatory restoration of illegally deforested areas creates 12.9 Mha of new forested area. Environmental reserve quotas further protect 5.8 Mha of undisturbed natural vegetation. Compared to a scenario without the Forest Code, by 2050, cropland area is only reduced by 4% and the cattle herd by 8%. Our results show that compliance with the Forest Code requires an increase in cattle productivity of 56% over four decades, with a combination of a higher use of supplements and an adoption of semi-intensive pasture management. We estimate that the enforcement of the Forest Code could contribute up to 1.03 PgCO _2 e to the ambitious GHG emissions reduction target set by Brazil for 2030.

To keep global warming possibly below 1.5 °C and mitigate adverse effects of climate change, agriculture, like all other sectors, will have to contribute to efforts in achieving net negative emissions by the end of the century. Cost-efficient distribution of mitigation across regions and economic sectors is typically calculated using a global uniform carbon price in climate stabilization scenarios. However, in reality such a carbon price would substantially affect food availability. Here, we assess the implications of climate change mitigation in the land use sector for agricultural production and food security using an integrated partial equilibrium modelling framework and explore ways of relaxing the competition between mitigation in agriculture and food availability. Using a scenario that limits global warming cost-efficiently across sectors to 1.5 °C, results indicate global food calorie losses ranging from 110–285 kcal per capita per day in 2050 depending on the applied demand elasticities. This could translate into a rise in undernourishment of 80–300 million people in 2050. Less ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation in the land use sector reduces the associated food security impact significantly, however the 1.5 °C target would not be achieved without additional reductions outside the land use sector. Efficiency of GHG mitigation will also depend on the level of participation globally. Our results show that if non-Annex-I countries decide not to contribute to mitigation action while other parties pursue their mitigation efforts to reach the global climate target, food security impacts in these non-Annex-I countries will be higher than if they participate in a global agreement, as inefficient mitigation increases agricultural production costs and therefore food prices. Land-rich countries with a high proportion of emissions from land use change, such as Brazil, could reduce emissions with only a marginal effect on food availability. In contrast, agricultural mitigation in high population (density) countries, such as China and India, would lead to substantial food calorie loss without a major contribution to global GHG mitigation. Increasing soil carbon sequestration on agricultural land would allow reducing the implied calorie loss by 65% when sticking to the initially estimated land use mitigation requirements, thereby limiting the impact on undernourishment to 20–75 million people, and storing significant amounts of carbon in soils.

Livestock farming is the world’s largest land use sector and utilizes around 60% of the global biomass harvest. Over the coming decades, climate change will affect the natural resource base of livestock production, especially the productivity of rangeland and feed crops. Based on a comprehensive impact modeling chain, we assess implications of different climate projections for agricultural production costs and land use change and explore the effectiveness of livestock system transitions as an adaptation strategy. Simulated climate impacts on crop yields and rangeland productivity generate adaptation costs amounting to 3% of total agricultural production costs in 2045 (i.e. 145 billion US$). Shifts in livestock production towards mixed crop-livestock systems represent a resource- and cost-efficient adaptation option, reducing agricultural adaptation costs to 0.3% of total production costs and simultaneously abating deforestation by about 76 million ha globally. The relatively positive climate impacts on grass yields compared with crop yields favor grazing systems inter alia in South Asia and North America. Incomplete transitions in production systems already have a strong adaptive and cost reducing effect: a 50% shift to mixed systems lowers agricultural adaptation costs to 0.8%. General responses of production costs to system transitions are robust across different global climate and crop models as well as regarding assumptions on CO _2 fertilization, but simulated values show a large variation. In the face of these uncertainties, public policy support for transforming livestock production systems provides an important lever to improve agricultural resource management and lower adaptation costs, possibly even contributing to emission reduction.

In this letter, we investigate the effects of crop yield and livestock feed efficiency scenarios on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture and land use change in developing countries. We analyze mitigation associated with different productivity pathways using the global partial equilibrium model GLOBIOM. Our results confirm that yield increase could mitigate some agriculture-related emissions growth over the next decades. Closing yield gaps by 50% for crops and 25% for livestock by 2050 would decrease agriculture and land use change emissions by 8% overall, and by 12% per calorie produced. However, the outcome is sensitive to the technological path and which factor benefits from productivity gains: sustainable land intensification would increase GHG savings by one-third when compared with a fertilizer intensive pathway. Reaching higher yield through total factor productivity gains would be more efficient on the food supply side but halve emissions savings due to a strong rebound effect on the demand side. Improvement in the crop or livestock sector would have different implications: crop yield increase would bring the largest food provision benefits, whereas livestock productivity gains would allow the greatest reductions in GHG emission. Combining productivity increases in the two sectors appears to be the most efficient way to exploit mitigation and food security co-benefits.