climate change and agriculture - world bank...climate change series climate change and agriculture a...

C L I M A T E C H A N G E S E R I E S

Climate Changeand Agriculture

A Review of Impactsand Adaptations

Pradeep KurukulasuriyaShane Rosenthal

PAPER NO. 91

June 2003

Published jointly with the Agruicultureand Rural Development Department

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb452162

Typewritten Text

78739

Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and discussion. The useand citation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed tothe World Bank. Copies are available from the Environment Department, The World Bank by calling 202-473-3641.

Climate Changeand Agriculture

A Review of Impactsand Adaptations

Pradeep KurukulasuriyaShane Rosenthal1

THE WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

June 2003

The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

Manufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing June 2003

Pradeep Kurukulasuriya and Shane Rosenthal are doctoral students at the Yale University’s School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies. We wish to thank Robert Mendelsohn (Yale University), Ariel Dinar (ARD, World Bank),and Ajay Mathur (ENV, World Bank) for helpful comments in earlier drafts. We are also grateful to Ian Noble (ENVCF,World Bank) and John Horowitz (University of Maryland) for their comments and suggestions in a review of thispaper. We thank Pat Daly (World Bank) for editorial assistance and advice.

iiiClimate Change Series

Contents

CONTENTS III

FOREWORD V

ABBREVIATIONS VII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Chapter 1Background 3

1.1 Why is Climate Change a Concern in Agriculture? 31.2 Addressing Climate Concerns Through Adaptation 51.3 Objectives of Review 5

Chapter 2Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture 7

2.1 Mechanism for Climatic Impacts on Crops 72.2 Quantitative Studies on Impacts of Climate Change 9

2.2.1 Estimation Methods 92.2.2 Results from Agronomic and Agro-Ecological Zone Analysis Studies 11

2.3 Estimates of Impacts of Climate Change With Adaptation 182.3.1 Agronomic Studies 182.3.2 Ricardian Studies 24

Chapter 3Adaptations to Climate Change 27

3.1 Addressing Climate Variability and Climate Change 273.2 Ex-Post and Ex-Ante Adaptations 293.3 Private versus Public Adaptations 30

Chapter 4Typology of Adaptations in Agriculture 33

4.1 Short-Term Adaptations 334.1.1 Farm Responses 334.1.2 Temporary Migration 364.1.3 Insurance 38

iv Environment Department Papers

Indicators of Environment and Sustainable Development — Theories and Practical Experience

4.2 Long-Term Adaptations 414.2.1 Changing Crop Type and Location 424.2.2 Development of New Technologies and Modernization 444.2.3 Improving Water Management 454.2.4 Permanent Migration of Labor 48

4.3 Adaptations Irrespective of the Temporal Dimension of Climate Impacts 494.3.1 Investment and Accumulation of Capital 494.3.2 Reform of Pricing Schemes, Development of Open Markets, and other Reforms 504.3.3 Adoption of New Technologies 514.3.4 Promotion of Trade 524.3.5 Extension Services 524.3.6 Diversification of Income-Earning and Employment Opportunities 534.3.7 Dissemination of Climate Data 544.3.8 Institutional Planning and Implementation 54

Chapter 5Matrix of Adaptations 59

Chapter 6Conclusions and the Way Forward 67

NOTES 71

REFERENCES 77

vClimate Change Series

Foreword

Climate change is widely agreed to be already areality, and its adverse impacts on thevulnerability of poor communities aresuperimposed on existing vulnerabilities.Climate change will further reduce access todrinking water, negatively affect the health ofpoor people, and will pose a real threat to foodsecurity in many countries in Africa, Asia andLatin America. Consequently, the World Bank ismoving towards mainstreaming climate risk inall its work, and integrating climate-changeadaptation, where appropriate, in projects,strategies and policies. We believe this isnecessary to ensure the effectiveness of ourinvestments in poverty eradication andsustainable development.

Agricultural outputs, as well as the livelihoods ofpeople who depend on it, are particularlyvulnerable to climate change, and it is important

that we assess adaptation mechanisms to reducethese vulnerabilities. Strategies to cope withcurrent climate variability provide a goodstarting point for addressing adaptation needs inthe context of poverty reduction. Learning fromexperience can help prevent the underachieve-ment of sustainable development efforts, as wellas avoid maladaptation.

As a first step in this direction, the EnvironmentDepartment and the Agriculture & RuralDevelopment Department asked PradeepKurukulasuriya and Shane Rosenthal, bothdoctoral students at Yale University, to reviewthe impacts of climate on agriculture, and theadaptation mechanisms that farmers andcountries have used to cope with these impacts.We are pleased to present their review as a jointworking paper of the two Departments.

Kevin M. CleaverDirector

Agriculture & RuralDevelopment Department

Kristalina I. GeorgievaDirector

Environment Department

viiClimate Change Series

Abbreviations

AET Actual evapotranspiration

ACRU Agrohydrological model

CCCM Climate and Carbon Cycle Modeling

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GDP Gross domestic product

GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (United States)

GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies (United States)

OSU Oregon State University (United States)

PET Potential evapotranspiration

UKMO United Kingdom Meteorological Office (United Kingdom)

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

1Climate Change Series

Executive Summary

The vulnerability of the agricultural sector toboth climate change and variability is wellestablished in the literature. The generalconsensus is that changes in temperature andprecipitation will result in changes in land andwater regimes that will subsequently affectagricultural productivity. Research has alsoshown that specifically in tropical regions, withmany of the poorest countries, impacts onagricultural productivity are expected to beparticularly harmful. The vulnerability of thesecountries is also especially likely to be acute inlight of technological, resource, and institutionalconstraints. Although estimates suggest thatglobal food production is likely to be robust,experts predict tropical regions will see both areduction in agricultural yields and a rise inpoverty levels as livelihood opportunities formany engaged in the agricultural sector becomeincreasingly susceptible to expected climatepressures.

While contemporary policy dialogue has focusedon mitigating emissions that induce climatechange, there has been relatively limiteddiscussion of policies that can address climateimpacts. First, climate variability is already aproblem both in developed and developingcountries. Second, even moderate climatechange provides added impetus to promotinglocal adaptation options concurrently with thepursuit of global efforts on mitigation strategies.That is, adaptation to climate change and

variability (including extreme events) at thenational and local levels is regarded as apragmatic strategy to strengthen capacity tolessen the magnitude of impacts that are alreadyoccurring, could increase gradually (orsuddenly), and may be irreversible.

Consequently, several key themes have emergedfrom the current literature on adaptations toclimate change. First, given the range of currentvulnerability and diversity of expected impacts,there is no single recommended formula foradaptation. Second, responsibility foradaptations will be in the hands of privateindividuals as well as government. Third, thetemporal dimension of policy responses is likelyto have a significant role in the effectiveness offacilitating adaptation to climate change. One setof measures will decrease the short-termvulnerabilities of the agricultural sector throughadaptations to weather effects. These measureswill therefore address concerns with climatevariability. However, more often than notpolicies aimed at reducing vulnerability to shortterm climate variation will not reducevulnerability to long term climate change.Another set of strategies that reducevulnerability to climate change will thus benecessary. This second set of adaptationmeasures include options such as improvingwater management practices, modernization byadopting and utilizing new technologies, andchanging crop types and location, including

Environment Department Papers2

Climate Change and Agriculture — A Review of Impacts and Adaptations

migrating permanently away from theagricultural sector. Finally, a third set ofadaptation options need to incorporateeconomic, institutional, political, and socialpolicy changes that promote sustainabledevelopment. The pursuit of such “no-regrets”options through an interdisciplinary approach isfundamental to strengthening local capacity toadapt.

In conclusion, it is clear that in the short run,adaptation options in the agricultural sectorneed to reflect what is currently known aboutclimate conditions. In contrast, in the long termit is necessary for national sectoral policy andassistance provided by international agencies to

developing countries to reflect expected changesin the future from climate change. The focus ofpolicymakers should thus be on formulating andimplementing policies that promote betteradaptation. In particular, incentives thatpromote adaptation need to be formulated andincorporated into project designs. It is also clearthat policymakers should promote dynamicadaptation, as it is unlikely that there will be onesolution for all time. Finally, incentives thatpromote adaptation policies should beincorporated into poverty reduction and othersustainable development policies that in turnwill also enhance the resiliency of theagricultural sector.


Background

1.1 Why is Climate Change a Concern inAgriculture?

Numerous factors shape and drive theagricultural sector. Market fluctuations, changesin domestic and international agriculturalpolicies (such as the form and extent of subsidies,incentives, tariffs, credit facilities, andinsurance), management practices, terms oftrade, the type and availability of technology andextension, land-use regulations and biophysicalcharacteristics (availability of water resources,soil quality, carrying capacity, and pests anddiseases) are among the set of primaryinfluences. Given its inherent link to naturalresources, agricultural production is also at themercy of uncertainties driven by climatevariation, including extreme events such asflooding and drought.

Over the last decade or so, climate change (interms of long-term changes in mean temperatureor precipitation normals, as well as an increasedfrequency of extreme climate effects) hasgradually been recognized as an additionalfactor which, with other conventional pressures,will have a significant weight on the form, scale,and spatial and temporal impact on agriculturalproductivity. The general consensus to emergefrom the literature is that in the absence ofadequate response strategies to long-termclimate change as well as to climate variability,diverse and region-specific impacts will becomemore apparent. Some impacts are expected to be

adverse; others, favorable. At times, impacts willbe slow to unfold, enabling local farmers andnational governments time to respond. Thedistribution of impacts will vary as both theability to respond to impacts and resources withwhich to do so vary across nations. In othercases, impacts will be unexpected, andappropriate responses may not easily be knownor implemented in advance.

Impacts of climate variability and change on theagricultural sector are projected to steadilymanifest directly from changes in land andwater regimes, the likely primary conduits ofchange. Changes in the frequency and intensityof droughts, flooding, and storm damage areexpected. Climate change is expected to result inlong-term water and other resource shortages,worsening soil conditions, drought anddesertification, disease and pest outbreaks oncrops and livestock, sea-level rise, and so on.Vulnerable areas are expected to experiencelosses in agricultural productivity, primarily dueto reductions in crop yields (Rosenzweig andothers 2002). Increasing use of marginal land foragriculture (especially among smallholderfarms) is anticipated as the availability andproductivity potential of land begin to decline.2

In contrast, climate change is also expected toresult in some beneficial effects, particularly intemperate regions (Mendelsohn and others1999). The lengthening of growing seasons,carbon fertilization effects, and improved

1



conditions for crop growth are forecast tostimulate gains in agricultural productivity inhigh-latitude regions, such as in northern Chinaand many parts of northern America andEurope.

Consequently, the likely impacts of climatechange on the agricultural sector have promptedconcern over the magnitude of future global foodproduction (Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) 1996; Bindi and Olesen 2000).Early global estimates predict (withoutconsideration of CO2 fertilization effects oradaptation) a 20–30 percent reduction in grainproduction (Darwin and others 1995).3 Based onagronomic research in low latitude countries,Reilly and others (1994, 1996) approximateglobal welfare changes in the agricultural sector(without adaptations) between losses of US$61.2billion and gains of US$0.1 billion. This is incontrast to losses of US$37 billion to gains ofUS$70 billion with appropriate adaptations inplace. More recently, studies that reflect CO2fertilization impacts and adaptation suggest thatglobal agricultural supply is likely to be robust inthe face of moderate warming. Under the mostsevere scenarios of climate change, however,significant losses are expected worldwide (seealso studies by Fischer and others (1993, 1996;see also Rosenzweig and others 1993;Rosenzweig and Parry 1994); Darwin and others(1995, 1996); Tsigas and others (1996); Adamsand Hurd 1999; Reilly 1999; Rosenzweig 2000).

Given the range of warming predicted by thescientific community, regional and localvariation in impacts on the agriculturalproduction is likely to be high. However, arapidly emerging consensus is that the worstimpacts will be in tropical regions (Rosenzweigand others 1993; Mendelsohn 2000; IPCC 2001;Sachs 20034 As a result, experts predict a spatialshift of crops and agricultural practices away

from the tropics toward the temperate and polarregions (IPCC 2001). Early estimates suggest 4–24 percent losses in production in the developedcountries, and 14–16 percent losses in developingcountries (IPCC 1996). Dryland areas (whererainy seasons are already short and significantwater shortages are currently the norm) arelikely to be among the most vulnerable. Declinesin aggregate production are anticipated in mostof Africa and South and East Asia (for example,Western India, Bangladesh, and Thailand), withincrements in countries such as Indonesia,Malaysia, Taiwan, and parts of India and China.Murdiyarso (2000) highlights that riceproduction in Asia may decline by 3.8 percent ofproduction levels of 2000 (estimated at 430metric tons) under likely future climate regimes.5

The concern with climate change is heightenedgiven the linkage of the agricultural sector topoverty. In particular, it is anticipated thatadverse impacts on the agricultural sector willexacerbate the incidence of rural poverty.Impacts on poverty are likely to be especiallysevere in developing countries where theagricultural sector is an important source oflivelihood for a majority of the rural population.In Africa, estimates indicate that nearly 60–70percent of the population is dependent on theagricultural sector for employment, and thesector contributes on average nearly 34 percentto gross domestic product (GDP) per country.6 Inthe West African Sahel alone, more than 80percent of the population is involved inagriculture and stock-farming in rural areas, andthe two sectors contribute approximately 35percent of the countries’ GDPs (Mohamed andothers 2002). With lower technological andcapital stocks, the agricultural sector in suchpoorer developing countries is unlikely towithstand the additional pressures imposed byclimate change without a concerted responsestrategy (Crosson 1997). According to some


Background

estimates, the overall economic impact ofclimate change on the agricultural sector couldbe up to 10 percent of GDP (Hernes and others1995; IPCC 2001).

As research on the spatial variation in climatechange and its subsequent impacts mounts, it isbecoming increasingly apparent that both acrossand within regions vulnerability to climateimpacts will be diverse. Another expectation isthe high cost of maladaptation, where policies toaddress climate change are not fullyimplemented or are poorly designed. Indeveloping countries, the expansion of humansettlements to marginal land and hazardousareas such as deltas and low-lying coastlines andother climate-sensitive areas has no doubtcontributed to worsening the expected problems(Burton 2001). In short, it is apparent that somecommunities will be better equipped andpositioned to deal with the many possibleoutcomes associated with sudden or gradualclimate scenarios.

1.2 Addressing Climate ConcernsThrough Adaptation

In order to address the expected pressures on theagricultural as well as other economic sectors,policymakers have thus far largely focused onaddressing climate change through mitigation ofhuman-induced emissions of greenhouse gasesand sequestration of carbon. However, it isbecoming widely accepted that mitigation aloneis unlikely to be sufficient as a climate policy(Pielke 1998). As understanding improves of theworkings of ecosystems and socioeconomicsystems’ function and the extent of their likelyresilience to climatic stimuli, there is an intensivepush for contemporary policy dialogue tocomplement mitigation initiatives withadaptation policies as another key defenseagainst climate change. The recognition that

some countries (especially the developingcountries and, particularly, the poorest segmentsof society within countries), will not be able toavoid the impacts of climate change has addedimpetus to promoting adaptation (Burton 2001).In addition, under-preparedness to increasedfrequency or lengthening of periods of drought,higher temperatures, and climate variability (forexample, extreme events) can be prohibitivelycostly and can severely undermine expensivelong-term investments.

Numerous studies have consequentlyemphasized the need to pursue adaptation inaddition to mitigation strategies.7 TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) notes that adaptability through changesin “processes, practices or structures” is a crucialelement in reducing potential adverse impacts orenhancing beneficial impacts of climate change(IPCC 2001). Adaptation is regarded as a vitalcomponent of climate change impacts andvulnerability assessment (Skinner and others2001). In the context of development, Burton(1996) asserts that a practical response strategyis to improve adaptation to climate variability,including extreme events.8 Smith (1997)maintains that adaptation is necessary to avoidimpacts that can otherwise occur gradually andmay be irreversible. That is, increasing therobustness of infrastructure designs andinvestments can reap immediate benefitsthrough improved resilience to climatevariability and extreme atmospheric events.Adaptation is viewed as a crucial step tostrengthen local capacity to deal with forecastedand unexpected climatic conditions (Smith andothers 1996; Smit and others 1999).

1.3 Objectives of Review

Given the growing urgency of adaptation ofagriculture to climate change, numerous issues



need to be addressed. For one, what is the rangeof adaptation options based on experiences toclimate issues in agriculture? Moreover, why hasadaptation been successful in some instances andnot in others? That is, what conditions determinethe ability to adapt and successfully cope withthe challenges that climate change will bring tobear? What underlying socioeconomic andinstitutional conditions are necessary to facilitatethe adoption of various measures that scientific(field) and natural experiments have shown cancushion the adverse impacts of climate change?

This review contends that experiences inadaptation to current climate across the world’snumerous agro-ecological zones hold muchscope for providing crucial insights on thevarious options for dealing with future climatechange scenarios. Consequently, in examiningthe above issues, a key objective of the review isto provide an overview of the typology ofprimary measures undertaken at the macro andmicro level to adapt to climate change impacts inagriculture. The discussion that follows is aimedat improving understanding of the underlyingprocesses and conditions necessary forsuccessfully identifying and designingappropriate adaptive measures for dealing withfuture climate change impacts in the agriculturalsector and their implementation in developingcountries. The review focuses predominantly onthe agricultural sector, although some examplesfrom other sectors such as forestry and water arealso highlighted. Both micro and macro levelpolicy responses to climate change impacts areexamined.

As a point of departure, this review begins withthe assumption that human-induced changes in

climate will occur over the coming decades9

(IPCC 1996, 2001). Given the long lifetime ofatmospheric greenhouse gases, the stock of thesegases in the atmosphere will continue toaccumulate for some time into the future,regardless of the rate at which mitigationpolicies at the international level are successful(IPCC 1996). Consequently, some level ofhuman-induced climate change is inevitableeven if uncertainty remains over the extent towhich (and where, specifically,) impacts will bemost acutely felt.

The review is organized in the following way:Section 2 discusses some of the primaryliterature on the impacts of climate change onagriculture in various parts of the world.Following a brief overview of the mechanism ofclimate change impacts on agriculture, results ofimpact studies on agriculture and forestry usingdifferent estimation techniques (agronomic andeconomic) are presented. Studies incorporatingadaptation and those that are not arehighlighted. Section 3 focuses on the scope andvarieties of adaptation strategies. Private versuspublic adaptation as well as the temporaldimension of adaptations is discussed. Section 4examines short- and long-run adaptations ingreater detail. In particular, an attempt is madeto develop a typology of the main responsestrategies that are highlighted in the literature.Moreover, constraints that may prevent suchadaptations to be successfully implemented arediscussed. Section 5 presents a summary matrixof the suite of response strategies based onmaterials in section 4, in addition to outliningnecessary support policies and otherprerequisites. Section 6 concludes and highlightskey themes to emerge from the review.


Impacts of ClimateChange on Agriculture

An extensive literature has developed on theimpacts of climate change on agriculture, withthe earliest focusing primarily on thevulnerability of the sector. The general messageto emerge from this literature is that the degreeof vulnerability of the agricultural sector toclimate change is contingent on a wide range oflocal environmental and management factors.Key features include local biological conditionssuch as soil content, type of crop that is grown,extent of knowledge and awareness of expectedchanges in climate, type and objectives of themanagement regimes prevalent in agriculture(that is, maximizing output or revenues, and soon), the extent of support from government andother external (private) agencies, and the abilityof key stakeholders (at the national, local, andhousehold level) to undertake the necessaryremedial steps to address climate concerns, toname a few. In a sense, the increased uncertaintyof climate effects represents an additionalproblem that farmers have to address. Forexample, poor soil quality, financial constraints,and lack of access to markets can constrainagricultural productivity to begin with,regardless of climate effects. Climate change thusrepresents an additional burden that for farmerstranslates into production risks associated withcrop yields, probabilities of extreme events,timing of field operations, and timing ofinvestments in new technologies.10

2.1 Mechanism for Climatic Impacts onCrops

Hulme (1996) describes four ways in whichclimate would have a physical effect on crops.11

First, changes in temperature and precipitation willalter the distribution of agro-ecological zones.Changes in soil moisture and content and thetiming and length of growing seasons12 will beaffected in various ways in different parts of theworld. Rosenzweig and Hillel (1995) state that inmiddle and higher latitudes, higher temperatureswill lengthen growing seasons and expand crop-producing areas pole-ward, thus benefitingcountries in these regions. While less fertile soilsin higher latitudes will temper some of the gainsof an extended growing season, it is not clear towhat additional extent soils will be a realconstraint given that numerous other factors(such as changes in precipitation levels, fertilizeruse, irrigation availability, and so on) will alsohave a significant influence on the final outcome.In contrast, in lower latitudes, it is expected thathigher temperatures will adversely affectgrowing conditions,13 especially in areas wheretemperatures are close to or at the optimal levelfor crop growth to begin with. Irrigationavailability and demand will also be affected byboth changes in temperature and precipitation.Reduction in precipitation is likely to intensifyfurther aquifer exploitation for agriculture andplace additional burdens on other surface andgroundwater resources from non-agriculturaluse (such as industrial and municipal needs). Anincrease of potential evapotranspiration is likelyto intensify drought stress, especially in thesemiarid tropics and subtropics (Hillel andRosenzweig 1989).

2



For example, temperatures in Africa areexpected to rise at less than the global average,and will have varying impacts depending uponthe underlying type of agro-ecological zone. Thatis, impacts will depend on initial temperatures.Fischer and Velthuizen (1996) and Downing(1992) explore the impact of climate change onKenya, and find that higher temperatures wouldhave a positive impact in highland areas.Downing (1992), relying on a model of land useto estimate changes in availability of landsuitable for cropping, has shown that in highlandareas of western Kenya, there is likely to be a 67percent increase in “high potential” land inresponse to a 2.5° C rise in average temperature.In contrast, rising ambient temperatures mayhave a detrimental effect in many lowland areas,particularly those that are semiarid. For somecrops, plant metabolism begins to break downabove 40°C, and a reduction in growing periodsdue to accelerated growth can reduce the yields(Hulme, 1996).

Second, carbon dioxide effects are expected tohave a positive impact due to, for example,greater water use efficiency and higher rate ofphotosynthesis. Numerous publications dealingwith the agronomic effects of climate changeoffer the following explanation concerningcarbon dioxide concentrations, which areexpected to rise by as much as 57 percent by 2050(Ringius and others 1996; Hulme 1996). Risingcarbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphereare important to agriculture because theyincrease the rate of photosynthesis and water useefficiency. These effects are strongest for plantswith the C3 photosynthetic pathway,14 whichinclude crops such as wheat, rice, and soybean.Carbon dioxide enrichment is also positive—though not by as much— for C4 plants such asmaize, millet, and sorghum, and many grasses(and thus weeds). IPCC (1996) and Reilly etal.(1996) estimate that a doubling of carbon

dioxide concentrations would lead to yieldimprovements ranging from 10–30 percent.Ringius and others (1996) suggest that water useefficiency will increase in the same range.However, while higher atmosphericconcentrations of CO2 will, by reducingevapotranspiration, improve water useefficiency of crops and increase the rate ofphotosynthesis (Darwin 2001), the net result maybe moderated by costly pest and weedinfestations (Rosenzweig and Hillel 1995).15

At the same time, there is a debate on whetherexpected increments in productivity due to CO2have been overestimated. Horowitz16 arguesthat while increases in global temperature occurwith a lengthy lag (after the increasedconcentration of greenhouse gases), fertilizationshould happen virtually instantaneously. Thus,given the increase in CO2 concentration that hasoccurred, Horowitz claims that the fertilizationeffects in crop yields should already be apparent.Of course, carbon fertilization effects may beresponsible for some of the rapid increases inproduction observed throughout the world.

Several papers have examined effects of carbonfertilization in forests. In natural forests, there isreason to believe that carbon fertilization effectsmay be limited by shortages in other nutrients(citation). Clearly this is less of a problem withagriculture where farmers regularly supplementnutrients through fertilizers. Berry andRoderick (2002) examine the relationshipbetween the observed 20 percent increase in CO2over the last two hundred years and land-useeffects on Australian vegetation and concludethat the seasonally green leaves of annual andephemeral herbaceous plants vegetation cover isroughly the same over this period. In addition,their results highlighted that the increase inevergreen cover is likely to have been caused bythe increase in CO2 concentrations, but it alone is


Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture

unlikely to be the sole cause of the change. Inanother paper, Lutze and others (1999) reportthat crop growth under elevated CO2 led tospring frost damage in field-grown seedlings ofsnow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora Sieb, ex Spreng),a usually frost-tolerant eucalyptus. Their resultsuggests that an increase in frost susceptibilitymay lower likely gains in productivity from CO2fertilization. This result clearly will be lessimportant as frost risk is reduced from highertemperatures.

Third, water availability (or runoff) is a criticalfactor in determining the impact of climatechange in many places, particularly in Africa. Anumber of studies suggest that precipitation andthe length of the growing season are critical indetermining whether climate change positivelyor negatively affects agriculture (Hulme, 1996;Fischer, 1996; Strzepek and Smith 1995;Sivakumar 1992). However, as outlined earlier,constraints abound on the scientific ability topredict trends in rainfall with much certainty.For other parts of the world too, there is lessconfidence about precipitation than otherclimatic changes. A lack of comprehensiveregional and sub-regional precipitation modelslimit researchers’ ability to reach firmconclusions about related impacts on agriculture.

Fourth, agricultural losses can result fromclimatic variability and the increased frequencyof extreme events such as droughts and floods orchanges in precipitation and temperaturevariance. As outlined in Rosenzweig and Hillel(1995), a higher frequency of droughts is likely toincrease pressure on water supplies fornumerous reasons ranging from planttranspiration to allocation. In contrast, increasesin rainfall intensity in other regions can lead tohigher rates of soil erosion, leaching ofagricultural chemicals, and runoff that carries

livestock waste and nutrients into water bodies.While current climate forecasts are not clearabout how extreme events and variability willchange across agro-climatic zones, it is expectedthat adjustment costs are likely to be higher withgreater rates of change (Adams and others 1999).One area that has received substantial attentionin recent years is El Niño/Southern oscillation(ENSO). ENSO has been responsible forconsiderable variation in both temperature andprecipitation. Of particular concern are areassuch as Southern Africa where these effects areimportant.17

The expected variability of temperature,precipitation, atmospheric carbon content, andextreme events are forecast to have profoundeffects on plant growth and yields, crops, soils,insects, weeds, diseases, livestock, and wateravailability in Africa (Adams and others 1998;see also IPCC (1996) for a wide-rangingoverview of the likely impacts on theagricultural sector). Burton (2001) suggests thatexpected impacts in dryland areas includereduction in rainfall, rise in temperature, andincreased rainfall variability. Some arid areassuch as Mauritania, Mali, and Niger may evenget higher levels of rainfall. Highland areas arealso expected to benefit, since the growing seasonwould be lengthened and the incidence of frostdiminished. In contrast, other, more subhumidzones, such as Burkino Faso, Mali and Ghana areexpected to suffer from reductions in rainfall.

2.2 Quantitative Studies on Impacts ofClimate Change

2.2.1 Estimation Methods

The quantitative estimates on impacts of climatechange have been based predominantly onexperimental and cross-sectional studies. Theexperimental approach includes agro-economicsimulation models, as applied in early studies by



Parry and others (1988), Adams and others(1989). The method is similar to a carefullycontrolled experiment where climate levels orother variables of interest (such as CO2) areadjusted (rather than the more likely transientclimate scenarios driven by gradual incrementsin greenhouse gas forcing—see Reilly 2003), andimpacts on crop productivity are estimated. Avery similar approach is the agro-ecological zoneanalysis, a technique where predicted yields,based on the initial assignment of crops tospecific agro-ecological zones, are utilized incrop simulation models that track the changesthat take place in the agro-ecological zones andcrops as climate changes. In turn, the results areincorporated in economic and generalcirculation models (GCM) to predict the scaleand range of impacts.

Mendelsohn and others (1994) and Mendelsohnand Dinar (1999) outline several criticisms of theagronomic (or production function) approach.One serious criticism is that such models tend tooverestimate damages. The underlyingconstraint is that yield estimates from controlledexperiments (for effects of temperature,precipitation, and carbon dioxide) that, bydefinition, do not incorporate adaptations in theform of modified farming methods, remained atthe heart of model specification.18.That is,estimation models are based on the unrealisticassumption that farmers would not adapt, ortake into account, the effects of governmentinterventions to offset climate impacts.19

Moreover, given the high cost of controlledexperimentation, estimates of impacts werelimited primarily to grains ( an exception beingAdams and others 1998)and to a few locationsaround the world (Mendelsohn 2000). Othersalso argue that crop models have focused onagricultural productivity in marginal lands intropical climates20 (Rosenzweig and Parry, 1994;Reilly and others 1996).

Dinar and Beach (1998) cast doubt on theaccuracy of predictions made by agro-economicmodels given that price effects cannot besatisfactorily included in domestic-level models.They assert that since agricultural markets arecharacteristically worldwide, agricultural pricescan only be reliably predicted using globalmodels. Despite the efforts made by agro-economic models employed in studies byRosenzweig and Parry (1994), Darwin and others(1994) and Reilly and others (1994), which Dinarand Beach (1998) suggest represent some of thebest attempts to measure global prices, accuratemeasurement of climate-induced supply changesremains problematic. The magnitude of theerrors is compounded in light of data limitationsin the case of developing countries.

In addition, while agro-ecological zone analysismakes use of established data on the distributionof zones in developing countries, there are somedrawbacks. Mendelsohn and Dinar (1999) pointout that the large temperature categoriesreflected in the climate zones make it difficult tocapture subtle changes within a zone. That is, asubtle shift between climatic zones is likely toresult in a dramatic change in crop production incontrast to no effect when there are changeswithin a zone. In addition, they also point outthat in early models (as applied in studies byDarwin and others 1995), the calibration of priceeffects is crude and the effects of soils andclimate have to be analyzed separately.

In contrast, recent studies have begun to focus onefficient adaptation. One way this has been donein economic research is through the applicationof the Ricardian approach, which attempts tocapture the influence of economic, climatic, andenvironmental factors on farm income or landvalues (Mendelsohn, Nordhaus, and Shaw 1994).This approach is preferred to the traditionalestimation methods, given that instead of ad hoc



adjustments of parameters that are characteristicof the traditional approach, the Ricardiantechnique automatically incorporates efficientadaptations by farmers to climate change. Thatis, so long as the costs and benefits of agriculturalproduction21 have a market value, they will beincluded in the analysis.

The primary criticism of the Ricardian approachis its failure to fully control the impact ofimportant variables that could also explain thevariation in farm incomes. Incompletespecification can result in an underestimation ofdamages and overestimation of benefits. Theassumption of constant prices is anotherdrawback (Cline, 1996). With regard to the latter,Mendelsohn and others (1994) agree that theinclusion of price effects is problematic and theRicardian approach is weaker for it. However,this weakness also applies to all agronomicmodels which are confronted with the samedifficulty of predicting domestic price changeswhen changes in agricultural prices due toclimate change are determined at the globallevel. Although the Ricardian approach does notaddress this problem, Mendelsohn and others(1994) contend that the bias is less than 7percent.

Furthermore, Quiggin and Horowitz (1999)argue that the Ricardian approach assumes thatadjustment is costless, which will also bias thefinal outcome. The authors state that the primarycosts of climate change will be costs ofadjustment and that both natural capital andlong-lived physical capital stocks will be reducedin value as a result of climate change. Themagnitude of loss will depend on the variabilityand stochasticity of climate change.

More recently, Timmins (2001) concludes thatthe traditional Ricardian approach may yield

biased results when land within locations (suchas at the district or county level) isheterogeneous and land owners behaveoptimally. Consequently, the conditions underwhich such a bias will occur are underlined, andan empirical model that controls for it issuggested. Based on results from its applicationto data from Brazil, Timmins highlights theimportance of the bias and shows (among otherthings) that the agricultural implications ofglobal climate change may not be as favorable asthe application of the traditional Ricardianmodels suggested.

While research has provided importantinformation on the likely impacts of climatechange, there is an ongoing debate on theappropriateness of various types of models thatare used to estimate impacts. Smit and Pilifosova(2001) emphasize, as others such as Tol andothers, (1998) have also done, that many of theassumptions of impact models may not matchwith actual behavior. Yohe and others (1996)and Yohe and Neumann (1997) make thedistinction between rational behavior underperfect information and rational behavior underuncertainty. It is argued that efficient adaptationtechniques are only theoretically possible andnot without uncertainty, as individuals may notnecessarily behave rationally nor be willing toact with imperfect information.

2.2.2 Results from Agronomic and Agro-Ecological Zone Analysis Studies

(a) AgricultureIn one of the earliest agronomic studies,Newman (1980) undertook a crop productionstudy of the United States and concludes that theU.S. cornbelt would shift northeast for every 1º Crise in temperature. Similarly, Rosenzweig (1985)finds that climate change would increase winter



wheat production in Canada, and regional shiftsin wheat cultivars in the United States. Eswaranand Van den Berg (1993) use geographicinformation systems (GIS) to examine shifts incrop production and find that higher latituderegions are likely to benefit as areas become moreappropriate for agricultural production throughclimate change. Parry and others, (1988), whilenot taking into account CO2 effects oradaptation, also conclude, based on evidencefrom a number of agricultural case studies, thatwarmer temperature in high-latitude countrieswill by the lengthening of the growing seasonincrease crop production. Higherevapotranspiration, however, is found to lead toadverse impacts on crop yields.

Early studies from developing countries alsopredominantly relied on agronomic models withlimited adaptation. Recent research on climateimpacts on Indian agriculture by Tata EnergyResearch Institute (TERI) highlights results fromsome studies undertaken in India.22 For example,in one of the earliest studies, Seshu and Cady(1984) estimate a decrease in rice yield in Indiaat the rate of 0.71 ton per hectare given anincrease in minimum temperature from 18o C to19o C. The authors also associate a decrease of0.41 ton per hectare with a temperature increasefrom 22o C to 23o C. Similarly, Sinha andSwaminathan (1991) find that a 2o C increase inmean air temperature could decrease rice yieldby about 0.75 ton per hectare in the high-yieldareas and by about 0.06 ton per hectare in thelow-yield coastal regions. Further, a 0.5o Cincrease in winter temperature would reducewheat crop duration by seven days and reduceyield by 0.45 ton per hectare. In particular, theincrease in winter temperature is estimated toaccount for a 10 percent reduction in wheatproduction in the high-yield states of Punjab,Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. In a crop

simulation study, Rao and Sinha (1994) estimatethat wheat yields could decrease by 28–68percent. Similarly, Aggarawal and Sinha (1993)show that in North India, a 1o C rise in meantemperature would have no significant effect onwheat yields, while a 2oC increase would reduceyields in most places.

A number of publications (Downing, 1992;Rosenzweig and others 1995; and Desanker,2002) focus on the “vulnerability” of Africancountries to climate-induced reductions inagricultural production, and on the impact onindividual farmers. Downing (1992) examinesthe impact of climate change on food security inthree countries in Africa (Zimbabwe, Kenya, andSenegal). A variety of methods are employed,and careful attention is given to the definition ofvulnerability. Data on numerous non-climaticfactors such as the socioeconomic setting, tradeissues, institutional structures, and geographyare drawn on to examine “current vulnerability,risk of present and future climatic variations andresponses to reduce present vulnerability andimprove resiliency to future risks.”

Hulme and others (1999) examine actual andpredicted continent-wide changes intemperature and rainfall in Africa during 1900–2100, drawing on data related to diurnaltemperature range and rainfall variability. Usingemissions scenarios prepared for IPCC’s ThirdAssessment Report and other models, the studypresents four new scenarios, or “futures” ofregional temperature, rainfall, carbon dioxideconcentrations, and sea-level changes. Theresults of the scenarios are consistent with theIPCC conclusion, indicating that warming willcontinue and in most cases will accelerate. Whilethe authors assert that in 100 years the continentcould be 2–6oC warmer on average, they are lessconfident about future changes in rainfall due to



two primary reasons. Firstly, ENSO-type climatevariability, a key determinant of rainfallvariability in Africa, has not been representedsatisfactorily in most global climate changemodels. In addition, the failure of GCMs toaccount for the dynamic land cover-atmosphereinteractions and dust and biomass aerosols,important interactions in explaining climatevariability, including recent desertification of theSahel region, reduce the confidence of estimateson future precipitation levels.

Research on the agronomic impacts of climatechange in Africa has largely focused on southernAfrica. Hulme (1996) describes three models formaize that have been used for impact analysis inthis region. The CERES-Maize site model wasused to examine sites in Zimbabwe. Researchreported in publications by Eid (1994), Muchena(1994), and Makadho (1996) is based on thismodel. The Agrohydrological (ACRU) modelwith CERES-Maize is described in Schulze andothers (1993) and Schulze and others (1996). Themonthly crop-climate model uses the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) waterrequirements satisfaction index (WRSI) to assessthe sensitivity of maize to moisture deficits atcertain times of year. Conclusions from thesestudies appear to be consistent. In most areas ofsouthern Africa, the benefits from increases incarbon dioxide (higher water use efficiency,higher rates of photosynthesis) would outweighadverse effects of lower rainfall and highertemperatures. The window for planting is alsolengthened, which can have a positive effect.This research is applied in a number of country-and region-specific studies of the wider impactsof climate change, which are described inpublications reviewed further below.

Sivakumar (1992) focuses on changing rainfallpatterns and production of Pearl millet, the main

staple crop in Niger. He finds that previousstudies on the implications of declining rainfallfor agriculture in western Africa (which usedmonthly data) were too arbitrary an interval as arealistic index of crop responses. Using data ondaily precipitation from 21 stations from theNiger rainfall database at the InternationalCrops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics (ICRISAT) Sahelian Center, the authorestablishes patterns over the period 1921–1990and explores correlations with millet yields andaggregate production. His conclusions indicatethat shifts in the patterns of rainfall during the1965––1988 period (relative to the 1945–1965period) reduced the growing season by 5–20 daysacross various locations in Niger, makingcropping more risky. Sivakumar notes that theimplications for agriculture are important, notonly because the absolute amount of rainfall hasdecreased, but also because its timing haschanged. In particular, a decrease in the Augustrainfall is troubling for millet producers becauseof the lack of adequate water supply during thesensitive reproductive growth stage. The authornotes that in times of drought farmers willsacrifice cash crops in order to save food crops, afinding that may partially explain a decline ingroundnut production over a 10–15 year periodbeginning in the mid-1960s. This type of climaticchange is thought to have importantimplications for sustainable agriculture, sincecontinuing low rainfall can result in acceleratedenvironmental degradation. A failure tointensify production has led to cropping inmarginal lands that are more susceptible torainfall variability and wind erosion.

Other publications reporting on research inAfrica apply agronomic research toinvestigations of the wider impacts of climatechange for a particular country or region. Theseinclude Phillips and McIntyre (2000) on Uganda,



Fischer and Velthuizen (1996) on Kenya, Schulzeand others (1993) on southern Africa, andMakadho (1996) on Zimbabwe.

According to Downing’s outlook (Downing 1992)for Kenya in 1992, potential food productionwould increase with higher temperatures andgreater rainfall. However, those in semiaridareas, particularly “vulnerable socioeconomicgroups,” could face serious difficulties whentheir already low yields decrease further as aresult of insufficient rainfall. Similarly, Fischerand Velthuizen (1996) suggest that the overallimpact on the sector may be positive, but thatresults will vary by region. Kenya has a widerange of agro-ecological conditions, from hot andarid lowland areas to cool, humid highlands.Increases in concentrations of carbon dioxide areexpected to have a positive effect overall, aswould additional rainfall, to the extent theyoccur. The authors warn, however, that if risingtemperatures are not accompanied by increasesin precipitation (to make up for higher rates ofevapotranspiration), then large decreases inagricultural production could result. This is aparticular concern in low-lying areas of easternand southern Kenya. In the highlands of thecentral and western parts of the country, highertemperatures could increase production due tolarger areas becoming suitable for cropping.Furthermore, due to higher cropping intensitiesin these places, higher production would morethan outweigh any effects of lower moisture. Insome areas, reduced moisture could diminish thepotential impact of pests and disease. Theauthors conclude that “the national level foodproductivity potential of Kenya may wellincrease with higher levels of atmosphericcarbon dioxide and climate-change-inducedincreases in temperature, provided this isaccompanied by some increase in precipitationas predicted by several global circulationmodels.”

Makadho (1996) shows this to be a likelyoutcome for maize in Zimbabwe, withdecreasing yields of up to 17 percent in drierareas. Using climate data from four agro-ecologically representative stations inZimbabwe, the author bases his analysis upontwo climate change models, the GeophysicalFluid Dynamics Laboratory model (GDFL) andthe Climate and Carbon Cycle Modeling Groupmodel (CCCM). Under both irrigated and non-irrigated conditions, in some regions maizeproduction is expected to decrease significantly(by approximately 11–17 percent). Increments intemperature that shorten the crop growthperiod, especially the “grain-filling period,” areunderlined as the primary cause of the cropreductions.

Downing (1992) also confirms that shifts in agro-climatic potential would affect national foodproduction and land use in Zimbabwe. With a 2o

C increase in temperature, the core agriculturalzone decreases by a third. The semiextensivefarming zone is particularly sensitive to smallchanges in climate. Farmers in this zone, alreadyvulnerable in terms of self-sufficiency and foodsecurity, are expected to be further marginalizeddue to increased risk of crop failure. Asubsequent report by the Government ofZimbabwe,23 follows closely the analysis andresults found in Downing (1992) and Hulme(1996).24

The focus of the analysis for Senegal is onpopulation growth in the face of climate change.A carrying-capacity model is applied thatcompares consumption requirements with foodproduction. The findings for 1990 suggest that ofthe country’s 93 arrondissements (that is,precincts), two-thirds have rural populationsexceeding their rainfed carrying capacity. Whilerecognizing the limits of the model, the author



believes these results should be of concern,particularly if climate change were to increasethe number of areas that are not food self-sufficient.

The Senegalese Government’s InitialCommunication on Climate Change(Government of the Republic of Senegal, 1997)provides a detailed account of the same researchreported in Downing (1992). The report devotessignificant attention to the implications ofclimate change for food security, and emphasizesthe pressure that a 2.7 percent per yearpopulation growth rate places on the economy inlight of the climate change that has taken placesince 1966 – mainly in the form of much-reducedrainfall.25

Hulme (1996) suggests that the droughts of1984/85 and 1991/92 in southern Africa showedhow vulnerable the southern Africa region is toclimate and the impact that changes can have onfood security and water resources. Both droughtshad a significant impact on maize production inthe southern Africa region. Problems ofdesertification are attributed more to humanimpacts, particularly demographic change.Moreover, analyses of vulnerability center onnational food balances, food production, anddependence on food imports and food aid.Hulme (1996) also constructs an index ofvulnerability based on these variables and GNP,and rates eight countries. According to themodel, South Africa is the least vulnerable andAngola is most vulnerable. Downing (1992)characterizes vulnerability as (a) referring to aconsequence as opposed to a cause, (b) implyingan adverse consequence, and (c) a “relativeterm” rather than an absolute measurement ofdeprivation.

Yates and Strzepek (1998) explore how climate-induced changes in water resource availability,

crop yields, crop water use, land resources, andglobal agricultural markets affect Egyptianagriculture.26 The authors point out theuniqueness of the agricultural sector in Egypt,namely, that all agricultural land is irrigatedwith water from the Nile River. AlthoughEgypt’s population is not growing quickly ascompared with many other developingcountries, an expected doubling by 2060 requiresefforts to increase agricultural production. Theauthors emphasize the country’s highdependence on natural resources make itespecially vulnerable to climate change.27

The paper confirms previous suspicions thatEgypt is vulnerable to global warming,fluctuations in agricultural markets (local andglobal), and changes in agriculture and waterand land resources. Specific conclusions that aremade include: (i) population and economicgrowth scenarios are significant factors; (ii) acountry adaptation to climate change isimportant; (iii) water resources availability andcrop water use are important to consider inassessing vulnerability; (iv) water is a limitingfactor; (v) economic, trade and social policiesgreatly affect the potential integrated impacts ofclimate change. Finally, emphasis is placed onthe value of an integrated, economy-wideapproach to assessing impacts and vulnerability.

Benson and Clay (1998) explore the impact ofdroughts on national economies in southernAfrica. Using data from countries includingNamibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique,Malawi, Lesotho, and Botswana, they maintainthat industrial economies may be morevulnerable to such shocks than the developingcountries of Africa. While developing economieswould appear to be more vulnerable because oftheir dependence on agriculture, “weak inter-sectoral linkages, a high degree of self-



provisioning, relatively small non-agriculturalsectors, and often poor transport infrastructure”have the effect of containing the impact of thedrought. Evidence presented in the reportsuggests that the relationship between the levelof complexity of an economy and itsvulnerability to drought take the form of aninverted U.

(b) ForestryAssessing the impact on forests is clearly achallenging task, as socioeconomic forces arecritical and must be taken account of in order toget meaningful results. Smith and others (1995)provide an excellent overview of research on theimpact of climate change on forestry, andinclude many useful references. They estimatethe impacts of climate change on the distributionof global vegetation and identify and evaluateadaptive strategies for reducing vulnerability offorested ecosystems.

The Southern Africa Savanna/Woodlands PilotProject assessed potential impacts at a regionaland country level, looking at effects onvegetation structure, woody biomass, and naturereserves. It was conducted for the entiresubequatorial region, with an emphasis on theSouthern African Development CooperativeCouncil member nations of Angola, Botswana,Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia,Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.Country studies analyzing the potential impactson fuelwood provision, surface erosion due tovegetation loss, and protected areas wereconducted for Zimbabwe and Malawi.

Regional impacts were predicted by coupling theHoldridge Life Zone Classification system28 withfour major global climate change models. TheGeophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL),Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and

United Kingdom Met Office (UKMO) scenariosshow mesic forest declining anywhere from 18 to63 percent from current coverage, while theOregon State University (OSU) scenario projectsan increase by 46 percent. The OSU modelpredicts a significant increase in precipitationrelative to evapotranspiration, showing thesensitivity of the projections to rainfall. Resultsfor the first three models reflect an overalldrying predicted for the region. A majorconclusion is that changes in forest cover byforest type are largely determined by therelationship of actual evapotranspiration (AET)and potential evapotranspiration (PET) toprecipitation. The authors caution that theapproach they use is somewhat static, since theHoldridge classification system does not takeinto account temporal constraints in thetransition from one vegetation type to another.

Results from the study of Zimbabwe areconsistent with the regional analysis, in that theUKMO, GFDL, and GISS models show anincrease in the aridity of forests, and aconcomitant decline in production of woodybiomass. However, the OSU model, due to its’more optimistic predictions concerningprecipitation, show no change in these and othermeasures related to the production of fuelwood.

Matarira and Mwamuka (1996) report onresearch on the impact of climate change on theforest resources of Zimbabwe. The authors alsouse the Holdridge Life Zone ClassificationSystem and the GISS general circulation modelscenarios of global climate change to assess likelychanges in forest cover by type. Under the GISSscenario, almost one-fifth of the total land area isprojected to shift from subtropical thornwoodland and subtropical dry forest to tropicalvery dry forest. The authors conclude that thislikely trend is attributable to “a future decline in



precipitation patterns and an increase inambient temperature.”

Dixon and others (1996) report on results of acomparative assessment of current and futureforest distribution in Cameroon and Ghana thatconsiders the impact of human-induced land usechanges and global climate change. Using thesame Holdridge classification system employedby Smith and others (1995) and Matarira andMwamuka (1996), the authors apply four generalcirculation model scenarios of climate change(GISS, OSU, UKMO, and GFDL).

The GISS, Oregon State University (OSU), andUKMO scenarios predict an expansion incoverage for evergreen and deciduous forests.The magnitude of change differs depending onthe GCM used. In contrast to these results, theGFDL scenario projects a possible decrease inforest area. The authors point out limitations ofthe analysis, including that the Holdridge systemis static and does not take into account thecarbon dioxide enrichment impacts on water-useefficiency or seasonality of precipitation. Theanalysis assumes that vegetation changes canoccur as quickly as changes in climate. Theinclusion of anthropocentric land-use factors inthe analysis is not made clear.

Schulze and Kunz (1995) map the spatialdistributions of areas in South Africa, Swaziland,and Lesotho climatically suited to optimumgrowth of two commercially cultivated treespecies (Pinus patula and Eucalyptus grandis) andtwo subtropical fruit crops, avocado and pecannut. This is done for present climatic conditionsand for a future climate scenario for southernAfrica. The authors used a series of climatechange scenarios on temperature andprecipitation applicable to southern Africa thatwere based on IPCC publications and data.

The results suggest that the impacts of futuretemperature increases on spatial distributionsare species-dependent. The future scenariofavored E. grandis and the two horticulturalcrops – both cultivated for the export market –but were unfavorable for P. patula. E. grandis, atimber species, and the two crops were likely tofind new suitable areas in a westward shift.Avocado and pecan nut were expected to fareeven better than timber species, and thus mayout-compete commercial tree species for landuse.

Eeley and others (1999) examine the potentialimpact of climate change on forest distributionin KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa. Theauthors define bioclimatic ”profiles” for eightforest subtypes, and compare the distribution ofthese with climatic and geographic variables.Five models are developed to predict thedistribution of each forest subtype on the basis oftheir bioclimatic profiles. These are used toproject changes in forest distribution underfuture climatic conditions expected with adoubling of global atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Under projected climatic conditions, forest shiftsin altitude and latitude to occupy an area similarto its current potential distribution, but moreextensive than its actual present distribution. Theauthors believe that these results showconsiderable sensitivity of these forest subtypesto climate change. They believe thatanthropocentric factors have limited the“radiation potential” of forest and its “ability totrack environmental change.”

In a study based on the United States, Sohngenand Mendelsohn (1998) emphasize the role ofinformation in eventual impacts by examiningseveral scenarios. In one scenario, assumingforesters have information on climate impacts



and the most efficient response (for example, interms of which trees to plant), then the resultspoint out that if foresters are caught unaware ofthe occurrence of the climate impacts in terms ofdiebacks, net present benefits of climate changewill range from $2.2 billion to $16.2 billion. Incontrast, when impacts are foreseen in advance,enabling adaptation, the estimated benefitsrange from $4.9 billion and $17.3 billion. Incontrast, assuming foresters do not havesufficient foresight, then net present benefitsrange from -$4.3 billion to $11.7 billion (whencaught unaware) and -$0.4 billion to $13.9billion (when timely adaptations are made). Theresults suggest, as Tol and others (1998) outline,whether or not the impacts are known or notappears to not matter significantly given thattimber can be salvaged after dieback andmarkets shift to areas that are least vulnerable toimpacts.

2.3 Estimates of Impacts of ClimateChange With Adaptation

The estimated net impacts from the abovestudies provide limited information on the extentof actual vulnerability to climate effects(Mendelsohn and others 1994). Consequently,numerous studies have emerged that affirm thatadaptation has the potential to negate asignificant amount of the vulnerabilityassociated with climate change.

2.3.1 Agronomic Studies

In contrast to the early studies cited above,others such as Adams and others (1990, 1993,1999), Kaiser and others (1993), Easterling andothers (1993) have emerged that examine farmalternatives and the most efficient adaptationchoices under various climatic scenarios. Studieson climate impacts on agriculture incorporatingC02 fertilization effects and adaptation in theUnited States and other temperate regions

suggest that adaptation of input choice,production practices, and outputs to suit thechanging climatic conditions will reduce muchof the expected damages.

For example, Adams and others (1990)examining simulations using atmospheric, plantscience, and agro-economic models outline thatirrigated acreage in the United States willincrease. Their results show that as climatechange increased in severity, the contribution ofU.S. production into export markets declined.Adams and others (1993) analyze the effects ofclimatic conditions on farmer input and outputchoices. With CO2 fertilization and trade effects,the authors suggest net gains of $9–10.8 billion.In another study based on the United States,Darwin and others (1995) estimate impacts torange from -$4.8 billion to $5.8 billion. Theirstudy also shows that climate change results in38.9–55.3 percent of U.S. land assigned to a newland class—reflecting the new length of thegrowing season. Net changes in land classesreflect increments in land allocated to cropproduction, while in many scenarios, land inpasture also increases by 0.7–7.4 percent. Theimplication is that climate change will increasethe total amount of land in agriculturalproduction in the United States, even with 8.6–19.1 percent of cropland abandoned forproduction. While it is acknowledged that somecommunities will be severely affected by climatechange (for example, in some scenarios, area inthe Midwest/Southeast of the United States arelikely to shift to a land class with a shortergrowing season), in other areas climate changewill favor wheat production and reduce theproduction of other grains and livestock. Theauthors find that production of oil crops (exceptsoybeans), pulses, fibers, vegetables, andtemperate region fruit are likely to increase,while production of corn and roots and tubersfall.



Of the more recent studies, Southworth andothers (2002a) investigate the impacts of climatechange and changing climate variability due toincreased atmospheric CO2 concentration onsoybean yields in the Midwestern Great LakesRegion. Based on nine representative farmlocations and six future climate scenarios, theirresults indicated that earlier planting datesproduced soybean yield increases of up to 120percent above current levels in the central andnorthern areas of the study region. In thesouthern areas, comparatively small increases(0.1 to 20 percent) and small decreases (–0.1 to –25 percent) in yield are observed. The latter isattributed to greater warming, and the doubledclimate variability scenario – a more extremeand variable climate. The authors find that CO2fertilization effects (555 -parts per million) aresignificant for soybean, increasing yields around20 percent under future climate scenarios.Beneficial impacts are estimated in terms ofmean soybean yield increases of 40 percent overcurrent levels

In another study, Southworth and others (2002b)examine winter wheat yields under increasedlevels of CO2 concentrations in five US states(Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, andWisconsin). These regions are selected given thatthey are currently considered as marginal areasin terms of wheat production, but have thepotential to become a more important under awarmer climate. The authors find that under thesame CO2 fertilization effects (555 parts permillion), wheat yields increased 60 to 100percent above current yields across the centraland northern areas of the study region whenmodeled for 2050–59 climate change scenarios.The southern states were observed to be theworst affected, as expected, even with CO2fertilization effects factored in the model. Theauthors conclude that postponing planting toearly September was optimal.

Using a dynamic crop model, Rosenzweig andothers (2002) simulate the effect of heavyprecipitation on crop growth, and plant damagefrom excess soil moisture in order to estimate theimpact on U.S. corn production. The authors findthat damages of approximately $3 billion peryear are likely to result from climate variability.The authors highlight that the burden of theselosses is likely to be borne directly by thoseimpacted or transferred to private orgovernmental insurance and disaster reliefprograms.

Recent research in the United States alsosuggests that early predictions of the beneficialimpacts of climate change on agriculture intemperate regions may have been overlyoptimistic. Lobel and Asner (2003) suggest a 17percent decrease in both corn and soybean yieldsin the United States for each degree increase ingrowing season temperature, indicating a higherobserved sensitivity of agriculture totemperature than studies had previouslypredicted. Similarly, Antle and others (2002),treating adaptation as an endogenous economicresponse to climate change in a study of drylandgrain production systems of the Northern Plainsregion of the United States, find that climatechange would induce a shift in the use ofproduction systems towards a winter wheat-fallow system and grass and away from springwheat and barley systems. Moreover, they findthat the most adverse changes occur in the areaswith the poorest resource endowments and whenmitigating effects of CO2 fertilization andadaptation are absent. The authors conclude thatvulnerability is a function of how it is measured,and conditional on multifaceted interactionsbetween climate change, CO2 level, adaptation,and economic conditions such as relative outputprices.

However, Reilly and others (2003) conclude that,in general, the agricultural production in the



United States will largely be positive. Theirresults, based on examining shifts in the locationof crops and trends in the variability of U.S.average crop yields of maize, wheat, andpotatoes from 1866 to 1998, suggest that non-climatic forces account for the north- andwestward movement of crops and observedtrends in yield variability. The authors argue thatthe observed climate change over the last 100years had a negligible impact on the nationalaggregate measures of crop variation andlocation. Instead, changes in productiontechnology, the introduction of hybrid crops, andeconomic factors are highlighted as likelyexplanations for the northward movement ofcrops. Changes in observed yield variation areexplained by factors such as ability of farmers toadopt technologies that reduce yield losses (suchas irrigation, grain drying, and impact of federalfarm programs on production choices) andconcentration in areas better suited toproduction. The authors also point out thatgovernment policies to limit financial losses mayhave been an important factor in the willingnessof farmers to accept the risk of losses through anorthern movement of production.

Estimates of economic welfare changes in theReilly and others (2002) study range from $0.8billion to $12.2 billion.29 The gains in welfarewere distributed across domestic and foreignconsumers and domestic producers, with gainsto consumers accruing through lowercommodity prices. The results also revealedlosses in income to U.S. producers (due to lowerprices) between $0.1 billion and $5 billion.Although simulations of impacts on theagricultural economy under various climaticscenarios suggested production incrementsoverall, substantial variation in production wasalso observed. Substantial production losses insoybean, wheat, rice, and tomato yields were

observed in the hot and dry Southern and Plainsarea of the United States. In addition, the authorssuggest an increase in expenditure on pesticides(although the additional expenditure is projectedto reduce the benefits of climate change by only$100 billion). At the same time, the resultsrevealed a decline in the number of irrigatedacres and in water demand for irrigation ofbetween 5 and 35 percent. According to Reillyand others, this “reflects the fact that on net,climate change was productivity enhancing andthe definition of an increase in productivity ineconomic terms is that the same amount ofoutput can be produced with fewer total inputs”(page 58). The implication of the latter is that, atleast in the United States, the competition forwater with urban demands would reduce.

Similar micro level studies based on othercountries have also been completed. Rosenzweigand others (1993) use crop models to simulateeffects of warming on four different types ofgrains in a cross-section of countries andecological regions. Depending on the forecastedrate of growth in the economy, population andtrade, and level of adaptation and effect ofprojected CO2 fertilization, net climate changeimpacts were modest to negligible in temperatecountries, but persistent in developing counties.

Numerous agronomic studies have also focusedon African countries. Muchena (1994) exploredthe impact of climate change on maizeproduction in Zimbabwe, and in simulationsfound that a 2o C rise in ambient temperature ledto unacceptably low yields. A similar result wasobserved even when the positive effects of aconcomitant rise in CO2 levels were included inthe analysis. More recently, Phillips andMcIntyre (2000) describe results from a study ofhistorical climate data aimed at understandingthe effect of ENSO events on agriculture in



Uganda. They show that sea surfacetemperatures associated with these events bringabout different changes in unimodal (one peak inrainfall per year) and bimodal (two peaks inrainfall per year) areas. In unimodal zones, “theEl Niño events are associated with a depressionof the August peak in rainfall, but a lengtheningof the season, potentially providing anopportunity for growing later-maturing crops. Inbimodal areas, there is little change in the firstpeak in August, but the second peak inNovember is enhanced in El Niño years anddepressed in La Niña years.” The authors discussimplications for the choice of crops and thetiming of planting, and point out that makinguse of this information may depend on theexistence of an effective extension service.Cropping changes may require inputs of varioustypes such as fertilizer.

Schulze and others (1993) apply the CERES-Maize model used in a study of Zimbabwe, whileMuchena (1994) and Makadho (1996) apply it toSouth Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland. Theanalysis simulates yields and productivity underpresent and future climatic conditions, takinginto account the effects of increasing carbondioxide concentrations and resultant expectedincreases in temperature. Changes inprecipitation are not considered given theuncertainty of predicted changes.30 The resultsshow a large dependence on the intra-seasonaland inter-annual variation of rainfall. Resultsfrom the primary productivity model indicatethat a decline in productivity is likely tomarginal. Soil water availability is a key variableand accounts for a fair amount of geographicvariability. Results from yield analysis show thatfor nitrogen-unlimited simulations in areasyielding at least 8 tons per hectare, elevatedtemperatures and carbon dioxide concentrationsfail to increase yields significantly. In more

variable conditions (4–8 tons per hectare), thereis an expansion into areas previously yieldingbelow 4 tons per hectare. In areas with marginalrainfall for maize production, climate changehas little impact on the already low yields.Overall, the results point to a general incrementin potential maize production.

Onyeji and Fischer (1994) consider the impacts ofclimate change on Egypt. They use estimates ofpotential changes in agricultural productionunder conditions of global climate change toprovide insights on the economy-wideimplications for Egypt. The analysis takesaccount of wider impacts of climate change onworld commodity trade, and the consequenteffect on Egypt’s economy. The study examinesscenarios with and without adaptation, andcompares results with a reference scenario of noclimate change.

Estimates of changing crop yields are centeredon maize and wheat, based on InternationalBenchmark Sites Network for AgrotechnologyTransfer (IBSNAT) crop model simulationexperiments at two sites in Egypt. The data arecoupled with production data from the cropmodelers, FAO, and the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) to getchanges in national yield. Yield changes for cropsother than wheat and maize were estimated“based on their similarities to the modeledcrops.” Estimates were made for three scenariosunder each of the GISS, GFDL, and UKMOmodels, with and without the effects of carbondioxide enrichment. The first scenario assumesno investments in adaptation; the second, onlysmall investments; and third, the largeinvestments. The projected changes in yield werethen applied to the Basic Linked System (BLS) ofNational Agricultural Models, a modeldeveloped by the International Institute for



applied Systems Analysis. Impacts for the period1990–2060 were simulated. The BLS is a worldlevel general equilibrium model, with 35national and regional models; individual modelsare linked via a world market module. Amongthe results, the authors find that largeinvestments in adaptation are required to makesignificant gains in avoiding the adverse impactson the economy. Changes in GDP range from –6.2 percent (with no adaptation) to +0.7 percent(with large investments in adaptation).

Mohamed and others (2002) examine the impactof inter-annual rainfall variability over theprevious 30 years and future climate changescenarios on millet production in Niger. Resultsfrom the study indicate that sea surfacetemperature anomalies; the amount of rainfall inJuly, August, and September; the number ofrainy days, and the wind erosion factor weresignificant determinants of millet productivity.The authors estimate that production of milletwill be about 13 percent lower by 2025, as aconsequence of reduction of the total amount ofrainfall for July, August, and September,combined with an increase in temperature.Similarly, Van Duivenbooden and others (2002)assess the impact of climate variability andchange on groundnut and cowpea production,Their estimates suggest that by 2025, productionof groundnut will be between 11 and 25 percentlower, while cowpea yield will fall maximally 30percent.

Rosenzweig and Parry (1994) find that a rise intemperature of 4° C could result in grain yieldsin India reducing by 25–40 percent. Achanta(1993), simulating irrigated yields for PantnagarDistrict (in Uttar Pradesh State in northernIndia) under doubled CO2 and increasedtemperature, concludes that the impact on riceproduction would be positive in the absence of

nutrient and water limitations. See also Luo andLin (1999), who review numerous studies thatfocus on climate impacts on agriculture based onAsian countries prior to 1999. The mainconclusion to emerge from those, besides earlyestimates of impacts, is that countries in thetropical zones (essentially South and SoutheastAsia) are among the most vulnerable.

More recently, Murdiyarso (2000) estimates thepotential impact of climate change andvariability on rice production in Asia, taking intoaccount CO2 effects, to be a decrease of 7.4percent of rice potential per degree increase intemperature. In addition, the author highlightsthat constraints in land availability will lead tothe increasing use of marginal lands foragriculture, thereby depressing production. Theauthor also states that the risks to productionfrom climate variability and uncontrolled land-use planning are likely to pose a much largerthreat to sustainable food production.

Mirza and others (2003) examine the impact ofclimate change on river discharges inBangladesh, including possible changes in themagnitude, extent, and depth of floods of theGanges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna (GBM)rivers. Using a sequence of empirical models andthe MIKE11-GIS hydrodynamic model, togetherwith various climate change scenarios, indicatedthat future changes in the peak discharge of theGanges and Meghna rivers are expected to behigher than those for the Brahmaputra River. Asa result, faster changes in inundation areexpected at low temperature increases than athigher temperature changes. Changes in landinundation will have significant implications onrice agriculture and cropping patterns inBangladesh.

Studies from other parts of the world providesimilar interesting conclusions. For example, Jin



and others (1994) find that the effect of new ricecultivars and changing planting dates for riceproduction in southern China increased yields inseveral of the sites. In another study, You (2001)notes that switching from rice to corn has thepotential to have significant savings in wateruse. You’s research estimates also suggestsavings in water in agriculture of more than 7billion cubic meters. In contrast, Chang (2003)finds, through an analysis based on yieldresponse regression models for sixty crops, asignificant potential impact of climate change onTaiwan’s agricultural sector. The welfareanalysis that is undertaken suggests that bothwarming and climate variations will have asignificant but non-monotonic impact on cropyields, and while society is unlikely to sufferfrom warming, increments in precipitation couldbe adverse to farmers.

Naylor and others (2001) highlight ENSO-relatedfluctuations in rice production on the island ofJava, where more than half of Indonesia’s rice isgrown. Examining data from 1971 to 1998 onarea planted, harvested, and yields, reveals thatEl Niño and La Niña events significantly affectthe timing of planting and result in fluctuationsin production. The authors point out that theconsequent domestic price instability has anadverse impact on food security for the lowestincome groups, who are net purchasers of riceand who spend 50 percent or more of theirhousehold budgets on food.

The cost of climate variability on rice productionis again underlined in a study by Lansigan andothers (2000) based on the Philippines.According to the authors, climate variability inthe form of typhoons, floods, and droughts haveresulted in 82.4 percent of the total Philippinerice losses from 1970 to 1990. The cost ofdomestic losses in 1990 alone from climatic

events had amounted to US$39.2 million(including losses of US$11 million due to floodsand typhoons and losses of US$28.2 million fromdrought). The authors find that the occurrencesof El Niño events are associated with periods ofdrought in the Philippines and delaying ofsowing. In addition, data suggest that rice yieldlosses of 65 percent, 81 percent, and 52 percent(in 1973, 1983, and 1990, respectively) are aresult of reductions in wet season cropping dueto El Niño.

Planting dates were varied and new varieties ofmaize introduced in a study on agriculture inGreece by Kapetanaki and Rosenzweig (1997).Their results suggest that adjusting to earlierplanting dates increased yields by nearly 10percent while the introduction of new varietiesalso helped mitigate negative impacts. Inanother study, Iglesias and Minguez (1997)report on the effect of other adaptations such asusing hybrid seeds, alterating the sowing datesand practicing double cropping for wheat andmaize, as well as using short-cycle maizevarieties as a second crop in Spain. The authorsexamined the effect of combinations of theseadaptation strategies and found that not only didyields increase despite higher temperatures butalso led to more efficient use of water (nearlyfrom 1 to 10 percent in southern regions and 40–80 percent in northern regions) and land.

More recently, in a study conducted in theEastern European region, Stuczyinski and others(2000) conclude that Polish agriculture couldchange from -5 percent to +5 percent of currentlevels with adaptations, while withoutadaptations, production is likely to reduce by 5–25 percent. In a study of climate impacts onagriculture in Kazakhstan, Mizina and others(1997) find a range of impacts depending on thepredicted climate scenario, from 70 percent



reductions in yields (in a doubling of CO2scenario) to possible yield increments (seeMizina and others (1999)). Similarly,Alezandrov and Hoogenboom (2000) find thatcurrent CO2 levels of 330 parts per millionresulted in yield reductions of winter wheat(especially maize) in Bulgaria. The authorsascribe the reduction to a shorter crop seasondue to higher temperature and reduction inprecipitation. However, their GCM simulationsalso indicated that the inclusion of the directeffects of CO2 resulted in an increase in winterwheat yields.

2.3.2 Ricardian Studies

The Ricardian technique has been applied to theUnited States (see also Mendelsohn, Nordhausand Shaw (1994, 1996,), and Mendelsohn andDinar (2002)), England and Wales (Maddison2000), India and Brazil (Kumar and Parikh,1998), Sanghi (1998), Sanghi, Mendelsohn andDinar (1998), McKinsey and Evenson (1998),Sanghi and Mendelsohn (1999), Timmins 2001),Cameroon (Molua, 2002) and recently, Tunisia(Etsia and others 2002).

In their seminal paper on the use of theRicardian technique to value climate impacts,Mendelsohn, Nordhaus and Shaw (1994)differentiate between economic costs andbenefits associated with climate changedepending on the time of year the impactsoccurred.31 Their estimates from the cross-sectional approach method indicate moreconservative estimates (relative to contemporaryagronomic studies) of likely impacts in theUnited States that range from -$5.8 billion to+$36.6 billion (excluding CO2 effects), contingenton the type of model and climate scenario usedin the analysis.32

Sanghi, Mendelsohn, and Dinar (1998) apply theRicardian technique using district level data onagricultural yields and land values in Brazil.

Their results demonstrate that the net impact isnegative, with substantial damages in the center-west region of the country, while the southernareas (currently the most fertile) benefitmoderately. The authors estimate, given a 2° Cincrease in temperature and an 8 percentincrease in precipitation by 2100, a reduction inexpected agricultural net revenue of 12.3 percentin the case of India, and 20 percent in Brazil(without carbon fertilization effects). As notedby the authors, this is a higher estimate of netimpacts relative to earlier estimates. In generalthe authors find that temperature changes havean adverse impact, whereas an increase inprecipitation is beneficial. Significant regionalvariation is observed in the impacts from a 2degree increase in temperature normals and a 7percent increase in precipitation normals.Moreover, coastal and inland regions of India areshown to have the most harmful impacts,whereas high-value agricultural regions sufferlimited damage. In response, the authorshighlight the need to develop heat-tolerant high-value crops, as well as minimizing runoff inorder to take advantage of increased rainfallduring the winter season. Mitigation of pestinfestations during the warmer winter climatesis also advocated to be necessary.

Kumar and Parikh (1998) examine adaptationoptions while estimating the agriculturalimpacts. The relationship between farm level netrevenue and climate variables is estimated usingcross-sectional data in India. The authorsdemonstrate that even with adaptation byfarmers of their cropping patterns and inputs inresponse to climate change, losses would remainsignificant. The loss in farm-level net revenuegiven a temperature rise of 2°C–3.5°C isestimated to range between 9 percent and 25percent. Kumar and Parikh (1998) projected a30–35 percent reduction in rice yields for Indiagiven a similar temperature increase (or losses in



the range of US$3–4 billion). Moreover, theauthors conclude that controlling for yearlyweather deviations did not appear to make asignificant difference, thereby suggesting thatvarious other factors, such as government policyand prices, were having a major influence onvariations in net revenues.

McKinsey and Evenson (1998) employ a modelspecification that is similar to the Ricardianmodel developed by Mendelsohn and others(1994). In particular, they utilize a net revenuespecification of the model, and using two-stageleast squares, examine the processes oftechnological and infrastructural change thatcharacterized India’s green revolution. In contrastto earlier studies, McKinsey and Evenson (1998)examine the primary technological variables ofthe green revolution— namely, that of adoptionof high-yielding varieties, and expansion ofmulti-cropping and irrigation, within aframework that also incorporate detailed data onsoils and climate, public and private investmentvariables, and prices. Their results highlight thatclimate affects technology development anddiffusion. The authors also find that theconverse—where technology developmentaffects the impacts of climate on productivity.Furthermore, the authors assert that technologydevelopment and difficusion and climate has asignificant impact on net revenue in agriculturein India.

Maddison (2000) employs the Ricardiantechnique to estimate the marginal value ofvarious farmland characteristics in England andWales. His findings reveal that climate, soilquality, and elevation, in addition to thestructural attributes of farmland, weresignificant determinants of farmland prices.Maddison also finds that landowners areconstrained by their inability to costlesslyrepackage their land (given that the size of the

plot has a considerable influence on the price peracre).

In a forthcoming paper, Mendelsohn and Dinar(2002) revisit (using recent data) the U.S. casestudy examined earlier by Mendelsohn andothers (1994) to test whether surface waterwithdrawal can help explain the variation offarm values across the United States, andwhether adding these variables to the standardRicardian model changes the measured climatesensitivity of agriculture. The paper concludesthat the value of irrigated cropland is notsensitive to precipitation, and increases in valuewith temperature. The authors find thatsprinkler systems are used primarily in wet, coolsites, whereas gravity, and especially dripsystems, help compensate for highertemperatures. These results indicate thatirrigation can help agriculture adapt to globalwarming.

In a study of the southwestern region ofCameroon, Molua (2002) explores the impact ofclimate variability on agricultural productionthrough an analysis at the farm household level.The results suggest that precipitation duringgrowing, and adaptation methods throughchanges in soil tillage and crop rotation practiceshave significant effects on farm returns. Resultsfrom the Ricardian analysis confirm that farm-level adaptations including change in tillage androtation practices and change in planting andharvesting dates positively correlate with higherfarm returns. In addition, Molua finds thatirrigation in the growth period, especially duringdry spells, is very important for productivity.

Etsia and others (2002) examine the economicimpact of climate change on agriculture inTunisia using cross-sectional regional data overan 8-year period. Assuming CO2 doubling, as



well as increase in temperature of 1.5 degrees(C), and 7 percent increase in rainfall, theirresults point out that Tunisia is likely to sufferlosses in agricultural production of 7–22 percent.

The authors submit that primary crop-producingareas in the non-coastal regions are likely toexperience a reduction in revenues.


Adaptations to Climate Change

Adaptation to climate impacts in general, and inthe agricultural sector in particular, is not a newphenomenon. Natural and socioeconomicsystems have continuously been adaptingautonomously, or in accordance with a plan, to achanging environment throughout history (albeitwith various natural and socioeconomicconstraints that required surmounting33

(Rosenzweig and Liverman 1992; Rosenberg1992). In fact, as argued by Burton and others(1996), the complexity and interrelationship ofvarious sectors and systems suggest thatadaptations “made by one particular system maynot have necessarily transpired by accident butcould have occurred either in part, or as a whole,and in association with other sectors that it isinherently linked with.”

As studies cited above highlight, the right mix ofadaptations have the potential to significantlyreduce (or enhance) the magnitude of potentialadverse (or beneficial) impacts on agriculturalproductivity. Research has shown that theagricultural sector is especially adaptable giventhat technological, resources, and managementchanges can be undertaken relatively quickly(Mendelsohn 2000).34.However, as Smit andPilifosova (2001) stress, in order to formulateeffective adaptation policies, an understandingof the processes involved in adaptation decisionsis necessary. This includes information on stepsin the process, decision rationales, uncertainties,choices of adaptation types and timing,conditions that stimulate or dampen adaptation,

and consequences or performance of adaptationstrategies or measures (Burton, 1997; Tol andothers 1998; Basher 1999; Klein and others 1999;Smit and others 1999). It is also apparent fromthe empirical literature that while adaptationoptions are numerous, they must be site- andsector-specific and reflect numerous decisionrules. Schneider and others (2000), for instance,suggest these should include the extent of beliefthat the climate is actually changing; awarenessof the type and form of change; knowledge oftechnology, not only today but in years to come;and assumptions about what governmentalpolicies will be in various regions and over time.

3.1 Addressing Climate Variability andClimate Change

With impacts on the agricultural sectormanifesting from both climate variability andlong-run climate change, the type of adaptationoption that is implemented is clearly crucial.While climate variability impacts will beessentially local in scale, climate change willaffect long-term trends. The literature reflectsthis distinction in terms of studies that focus onthe impact of adaptations to changing averageclimate conditions as opposed to others thatconcentrate on adjusting to inter-annualvariations and extremes. It is also this distinctionthat underscores the necessity (as argued below)of different policies to address climate variabilityand climate change impacts.

3



The importance of adapting to climatevariability in addition to changes in meanclimate has been highlighted in numerousstudies. (Besides those highlighted in theprevious section, see also Schneider and others2000; Polsky and Easterling 2001; Brumbelowand Georgakakos 2001.) Smit and Pilifosova(2001) argue that climate change-related stimuliare not only limited to changes in averageannual conditions, but also include variabilityand associated extremes. The impact of variableclimate and extreme events has been noted to besignificant in poorer developing countries (Huq2002; Hay 2002).35 Similarly, studies based onindustrial countries, for example, Reilly andothers (2001) contend that the consequences ofclimate change in the United States pivot onchanges in climate variability and extremeevents. In another study based on crop yields inthe United States, Brumbelow and Georgakakos(2001) find higher irrigation demands insouthern regions and decreased irrigationdemands in the northern and western areas forboth higher means and extremes in climate. Theimportance of considering climate variability inaddition to changes in mean climate whenestimating adaptation has also been highlightedin numerous studies in developing countries(Robock and others 1993; Mearns and others1997; Alderwish and Al-Eryani 1999;Alexandrov 1999; Qunyingand Lin 1999; andMurdiyarso 2000). IPCC states “the key featuresof climate change for vulnerability andadaptation are those related to variability andextremes, not simply changed averageconditions” (IPCC 2001; Chapter 18). The reportargues that communities are generally moreadaptable to gradual changes in average climateconditions given the time dimension, but clearlyless so to changes in the frequency or magnitudeof variable climate conditions, especiallyextremes.

Recent research, however, by Mendelsohn andothers (2002),36 based on cross-sectional county-level data of agricultural productivity in theUnited States, Brazil, and India, reveals thatwhile climate variance is important, it explainsonly a very limited portion of the observedvariation in net revenue in cross-sectionalanalysis. Results have repeatedly shown strongevidence that climate normals relative to climatevariance, specifically for those months that arecrucial for agricultural productivity (includingpost planting, growth, and harvesting periods)are more significant and explain a largeproportion of the variance in net and grossrevenue and fraction of land under agriculture.The economic studies undertaken to dateconsistently reveal this result—a finding incontrast to studies using alternate methods ofimpact estimation.

The need to address climate variability and long-term climate change does, therefore, raise thequestion of when to adapt, particularly giventhat some impacts are more difficult to adapt tothan others. For example, in the case ofinfrastructure, there is limited need to undertakecostly investments to address climate variabilityconcerns. Such types of investments in(especially capital-intensive) adaptationsbecome less attractive when sudden or dramaticchanges in climate can render the investmentsinappropriate and costly. Some of the investmentliterature has outlined that there is value in notinvesting in new technologies at present giventhat it preserves the option of investing at abetter time in the future (Schimmelpfenning1995). Studies on climate impacts on agriculturein the United States, for instance, have lentsupport by establishing that costly adaptationsand mitigation options are not warranted as yet.Instead, limited modifications to farmproduction methods are viewed to be moreeffective (such as water conservation in



agriculture and restructuring crop insurance anddisaster assistance programs to counter potentialrisks). In contrast, in terms of recent results, suchas Quiggen and Horowitz’s37 finding that themain market-based effects of climate impactswill be on very long-lived infrastructure whosevalue is associated with its location (for example,dams, roads, grain storage facilities, foodprocessing facilities, and so forth), then it isnecessary to make investments to ensure thatvulnerability to anticipated climate change isreduced. That is, there is greater benefit fromadaptation options in socioeconomic sectors andsystems where the turnover of capitalinvestment and operating costs is shorter, ratherthan where long-term investment is required(Yohe and others 1996; Sohngen andMendelsohn, 1998; and Smit and Pilifosova2001). In the case of the latter, given that thepace of climate change is slow, there is time tomake the necessary adjustments in a dynamicway over time (Mendelsohn and Nordhaus1999).

A key message that is thus emphasized in thispaper is that climate variability and climatechange need to be treated separately in that eachwill require a different set of policies. Some haveargued that given the linkages between these twodrivers of climate impacts, the distinctionbetween adapting to short-run concerns asopposed to long-term issues is sometimesblurred.38 However, the fact remains that sometypes of adaptations are simply designed toaddress short-term impacts from variableclimate. These typically have little or no benefitfor reducing vulnerability in the long term.Others are more appropriate for reducingsusceptibility to climate change impacts in thelong run, but clearly have limited effect orfunctionality in the short term. This does not,however, preclude the fact that there are some

adaptations that will be successful regardless ofthe temporal dimension of climate impacts.Nevertheless it is important that policy isappropriately targeted to address the exactnature of climate concerns.

3.2 Ex-Post and Ex-Ante Adaptations

In theory, the literature discusses two types oflikely responses to address climate impacts,namely, those that are reactive or, alternatively,anticipatory adaptations. Measures made inanticipation of a coming change are ex-ante.They require that the decision maker be able topredict what is coming. Reactive (orautonomous) adaptations consist of copingstrategies that agents and institutions are likelyto make in response to climate impacts after thefact (ex-post). These strategies merely requirethe decision maker to be aware of changes thathave occurred. The question that arises is thuswhen should adaptations be pursued? Both ex-ante and ex-post strategies have strengths andweaknesses.

The effectiveness of reactive measures isdependent on resources at hand to cope with anevent. The capacity to adapt autonomouslydepends on, among other things, institutionalsupport, manpower, financial and technologicalresources (see Ausubel, 1991; Yohe and others1996; Mendelsohn, 1999; Mendelsohn andNeumann 1999). However, Barnett (2001) arguesthat focusing policy on such autonomousadaptations is likely to be futile because there isno guarantee that the necessary processes thattrigger adaptation, which are essentiallygoverned by the “respective influences of biologyand culture on human behavior” (page 980) willoccur. On the other hand, Mendelsohn (1999)emphasizes that sectors that can adjust quicklyto climate change can adapt to climate as itunfolds. In this respect, sectors such as



agriculture do not generally have long-lastingcapital and thus the early depreciation of capitalto adjust to climate change would not benecessary.

An alternative response strategy encompassesprecautionary or planned (ex-ante) adaptationsto climate change. Mendelsohn (1999) assertsthat this type of adaptation should be moreappropriately aimed at capital-intensive sectors(coastal sector, forestry). These sectors eithertake time to respond or are currently under stressdue to other pressures such that any furtherexposure to climate change will help push themover critical threshold boundaries. As Burton(1996) and Smit and Pilifosova (2001) outline, aplanned approach to address climate impacts issensible given that it can increase the efficiencyand effectiveness of reactive measures.39 Ingeneral, planned adaptations are called forthrough dynamic public policy40 (Bryant andothers 2000) and formulated on the basis ofrobustness, flexibility, and net benefits(Lewandrowski and Brazee 1993; World Bank1998).

Both ex-ante and ex-post adaptation measurescan be implemented at numerous levels,including at the global, regional, or nationallevel. They can also be incorporated in responsestrategies adopted by individuals or localcommunities. In addition, both direct andindirect response strategies aimed to negateconcerns about predicted impacts of climatechange are included in the possible mix of ex-ante strategies (Benioff and others 1996;Fankhauser 1996; Smith 1997; Pielke 1998; UNEP1998). Such adaptations have been recognized tohave the potential to reduce long-termvulnerability as well as realize opportunitiesassociated with climate change, regardless ofautonomous adaptation (Smith 1997; Burton andothers 1998; Fankhauser and others 1999).

3.3 Private versus Public Adaptations

At the outset, it is important to differentiatebetween private and public adaptations. Privateadaptations are those undertaken only for theexclusive benefit of the individual decisionmaker. The adoption of various measures will bedriven purely by self-interest and underlyingwelfare-maximizing objectives (including profitmaximization, output maximization, and soforth). Mendelsohn (1999), for example, arguesthat adoption is likely to be a function of thefarmer’s own discount rate for undertakingadaptations. The higher the discount rate, theless likely that ex-ante adaptations will beundertaken. In such instances, it is probable thatonly short-term, ad hoc, ex-post adaptations areto be adopted.

Consequently, there is little evidence to suggestthat only private adaptations will be adequate tocounter climate impacts on agriculture. That is,reliance on the adjustments made by privateagents to protect resources that have essentiallythe characteristics of a public good41 (such as, forinstance, managing water resources forirrigation, maintaining soil quality, forecastingclimate, research on adaptation initiatives) willtypically lead to the classic problem of under-provision42 by the market (Leary 1999).Conflicting objectives among multiplestakeholders are likely to complicate matters.43

In light of high information requirements orequity requirements,44 or other externalitiesassociated with adaptation, some types ofgovernment-sponsored adaptive measurestherefore become necessary. While self-interestwill encourage the adoption of efficient privateadaptations, public adaptation will be efficientonly with government intervention. The latterwill in turn be determined by factors such as theinstitutional environment, community structure,



and existing public policies.45 Moreover, policydesigns will need to accommodate a series ofsubtle changes over time as there is unlikely to beone solution that will be adequate for all time.For example, Mendelsohn (1999) stresses theneed for public (or joint) adaptation to bedynamic, particularly in capital-intensive sectorsor where there are long-term assets.

Potential strategies include adaptation optionsintroduced at the national or local level as wellas those adopted by agents in the field (forexample, farmers) as part of ongoingadjustments in agricultural practices (Dolan2001). Clearly, numerous conditions will dictatethe extent and means of adaptation. It is evidentthat given the diversity of interests, risks, andresources faced by various stakeholders inagriculture, there is likely to be an extensivetypology of adaptive responses that areappropriate for each agricultural zone. At themicro level, adaptability to climate change willalso be contingent on the ability of farmers orother primary decision makers to negate impacts(or capitalize on opportunities) associated with achanged climatic environment. This in turn islikely to be dictated by numerous key factors,including the type of local farming system,tenure system, access to financial resources, level

of skills, extent of support (that is, extension),and market conditions. The success of many ofthe micro level adaptation options will alsodepend on household risks being independent(Skees and others 2002). When there arecovariate risks (as in the case of extreme climaticevents), options to reduce vulnerability arelimited to insurance.

At the macro level, effective adaptation toclimate change in agriculture demands acombination of adjustments in the ecological,social, and economic systems. In particular, theinstitutional environment, as well as theprevalent economic, social, and political forceswill play a significant role (Chiotti and Johnson(1995); IPCC (1996); Chiotti and others (1997);Smit and others 1999). Kelly and Adger (1999)maintain numerous local factors, includingeconomic and social considerations, humancapital limitations, and institutional capacity,will have a significant role in facilitating orconstraining the development andimplementation of adaptation measures.Variations in these key local factors acrosscountries mean that it is unlikely that the suite ofresponse strategies will be the same or applieduniformly.


Typology of Adaptationsin Agriculture

The following sections focus on the typology ofadaptation options in agriculture.46 Thediscussion is categorized within the followingframework. First, several micro level adaptationoptions are examined. These include farmproduction adjustments such as diversificationand intensification of crop and livestockproduction; changing land use and irrigation;and altering the timing of operations. Second,there are numerous market responses that haveemerged as potentially effective adaptationmeasures to climate change. They includedevelopment of crop and flood insuranceschemes, innovative investment opportunities incrop shares and futures, credit schemes, andincome diversification opportunities. A thirdsubset of adaptation options encompassesinstitutional changes. Many that fall within thiscategory require government responses. Thelatter comprise pricing policy adjustments suchas the removal of perverse subsidies,development of income stabilization options,agricultural policy including agriculturalsupport and insurance programs; improvementin agricultural markets, and broader goals, suchas the promotion of inter-regional trade inagriculture. A fourth (and final) set of adaptationoptions considered in this paper are technologicaldevelopments. These consist of the developmentand promotion of new crop varieties and hybridsand advances in water management techniques(for example, irrigation, conservation tillage).

The remainder of this paper examines some ofthe primary adaptation options to emerge fromthe literature. The discussion will attempt tohighlight some of the underlying constraints andconditions that need to be addressed for theirsuccessful adoption. Following Dolan (2001),47

the discussion of adaptation options is based onmeasures that are appropriate for the short andlong term. Measures that are likely to producebenefits irrespective of the time dimension arediscussed in section 4.3. In this following section,key short-term adaptations that emerge in theliterature are highlighted.

4.1 Short-Term Adaptations

From the existing literature, it is clear that sometypes of adaptations are more appropriate toaddress short-term concerns. Most often, thoughnot exclusively, these measures primarilyaddress weather effects (that is, climatevariability).

4.1.1 Farm Responses

(a) Crop and Livestock Diversification and Changesin Timing of Farm OperationsAmong the most important and direct currentadaptations to climate variability are a variety offarm level responses. Diversification of crop andlivestock varieties, including the replacement ofplant types, cultivars, hybrids, and animal breedswith new varieties intended for higher droughtor heat tolerance, have been advocated as havingthe potential to increase productivity in the face

4



of temperature and moisture stresses (Benioffand others 1996; Smit and others 1996; Chiottiand others 1997; Downing and others 1997;Baker and Viglizzo 1998). Diversity in seedgenetic structure and composition has beenrecognized as an effective defense againstnumerous factors, including disease and pestoutbreak and, importantly, climate hazards. In astudy of adaptations in Nigeria by Mortimoreand others (2000), it was found that farmers used3–12 types of pearl millet, 6–22 varieties ofsorghum and 14–42 varieties of other cultivars.Seed inventories were from multiple sourcesincluding inheritances, own selections fromplanted material, and imported types withrecognized advantages over indigenous ones forthe new climate. According to the authors, directtransfers of seeds from extension agents wererare although some were traced to originate tothose developed in agricultural stations withinNigeria or neighboring Niger. The primary modeof transfer appears to have been outcrossing—where farmers select from types grown inneighboring farms or even in the wild and storethe seeds for planting in consequent years.Evidence from the selection of millet seeds, forexample, indicates that farmers manage theirown genetic pool by selecting and storing thebest seeds from each year’s crop.

Other options include changes in the timing andintensity of production. Delcourt and Van kooten(1995) note several options for addressingimpacts on yields and soils from climate impacts.Changing land-use practices such as the locationof crop and livestock production, rotating orshifting production between crops and livestock,and shifting production away from marginalareas can help reduce soil erosion and improvemoisture and nutrient retention. The latterincludes not only changes in land allocation fordifferent uses, but also the abandonment of landaltogether and the cultivation of new land

(Kaiser and others 1993; Lewandrowski andBrazee 1993; Reilly 1995; El-Shaer and others1996; Erda 1996; Easterling 1996; Iglesias andothers 1996; Mizina and others 1999; Parry2000).

Brklacich and others (2000) suggest that alteringthe intensity of fertilizer and pesticideapplication as well as capital and labor inputscan help reduce risks from climate change infarm production.48 Adjusting the croppingsequence, including changing the timing ofsowing, planting, spraying, and harvesting, totake advantage of the changing duration ofgrowing seasons and associated heat andmoisture levels is another option. Altering thetime at which fields are sowed or planted canalso help farmers regulate the length of thegrowing season to better suit the changedenvironment. Farmer adaptation can alsoinvolve changing the timing of irrigation (de Loeand others 1999) or use of other inputs such asfertilizers (Chiotti and Johnston 1995). In a studyon Tanzania, O’Brien and others (2000) reportthat farmers undertake several of suchadaptation measures in response to informationfrom climate forecasts.

In addition, Baker and others (1998) highlightseveral adaptation measures for livestock andrangeland management that have emerged tooffset climate impacts. Possibilities include shiftsin biological diversity, species composition and/or distribution. The options also include changein grazing management (timing, duration, andlocation) or in mix of grazers or browsers;varying supplemental feeding; changing thelocation of watering points; altering the breedingmanagement program; changes in rangelandmanagement practices; modifying operationproduction strategies as well as changing marketstrategies. In temperate climatic areas, plannedadaptation measures in livestock management


Typology of Adaptations in Agriculture

that are advocated include the use of vegetativebarriers or snow fences to increase soil moisture,or windbreaks to protect soil from erosion. Inwarmer climates, adverse climatic conditionssuch as heat stress can be moderated by theadoption of appropriate technology such as theuse of sprinklers in livestock buildings or feedlots(Chiotti and others 1997). Other measures basedon recommendations in IPCC (1996) includeadjusting livestock stocking rates (see also Reillyand others 1996); implementing feedconservation techniques (see also Smit andothers 1996) and fodder banks to moderate theconsequences for animal production duringperiods of poor crops; changing the mix ofgrazing or browsing animals; altering animaldistribution by the use of mineral blocks,watering points, and fences; implementing weedmanagement programs; restoring degradedareas; and increasing native rangelandvegetation or plant-adapted species.

However, numerous constraints can make eventhese farm level adaptations difficult. For one,short term adaptations are not costless. The mostsignificant problem to overcome is thatdiversification is costly in terms of the incomeopportunities that farmers forego (that is,switching crop varieties can be expensive,making crop diversification typically lessprofitable than specialization—Skees and others1999). Moreover, traditions can often by difficultto overcome and will dictate local practices. Forexample, if a local region has a long and richtradition of planting a particular crop variety,the transition to newer and more suitablevarieties can be difficult.

(b) Improved Nutrient and Pest ControlManagementIncreased CO2 levels and higher temperaturesare likely to induce a need for increased plant

protection in light of likely pest and diseaseoutbreaks (Chen and McCarl 2001). Downingand others (1997); and Parry and others (2000)highlight that changes in the application ofpesticides and integrated pest and diseasecontrol may be necessary to negate such impacts.Alternative production techniques and crops, aswell as locations, that are resistant to infestationsand other risks can also be relied upon aseffective response strategies. For example, it hasbeen emphasized that this is one reason whypearl millet is a primary crop in the Sahel, aregion where poor soils, variation in rainfall, andhigh evapotranspiration make other grains toorisky to produce (Fafchamps 1999). FAO (2000)reports that farmers diversify output throughmixed farming systems of crops and livestock tospread the risk of infrequent, and uncertain, pestand disease infestations.49

A range of management practices have alsoemerged that can assist farmers adapt to loss ofsoil moisture and organic carbon contents andincreased soil erosion as a result of changingclimate conditions. Erda (1996), and Parry andothers (2000) discuss improved nutrientmanagement techniques to maintain soil fertilityand prevent erosion. Smit (1993) and Easterling(1996) note that changing land topographythrough land contouring and terracing andconstruction of diversions and reservoirs andwater storage and recharge areas can helpreduce vulnerability by reducing runoff anderosion and promoting nutrient restocking insoils (see also de Loë and others 1999). Abidtrupand Gylling (2001) report on the establishment ofagro-forestry to mitigate increased risk of soilerosion in some European countries.

In light of the increased frequency of droughts,farmers can further adapt by changing theselection of crops. Inevitably, this will lead to



shifts in the distribution of agricultural land use,which in itself will have impacts on soils.Alternatively, the introduction of othermanagement techniques that conserve soilmoisture, such as reduced or no tillage, in orderto maintain soil organic carbon contents canresult in improved soil structure and fertility.Mahboubi and others (1993) reveal that soilorganic carbon contents increased by 85 percentafter eight years on clay loam soils following theintroduction of reduced tillage. Kern andJohnson (1991) report that increasing the area ofnon-tillage cropland in the United States from 27percent to a potential 76 percent is estimated toresult in gains of soil organic carbon of 0.43 Gtafter 30 years.50 Fallow and tillage practices(such as the planting of hedges to reduceevaporation together with the introduction ofdrought-resistant crop varieties) as well asalternative drainage methods have also beenfound to assist in reducing water runoff andimproving water uptake.51 Carter (1993)provides a synthesis of existing research andpractices of present conservation tillagepractices in a wide variety of temperate agro-ecosystems and a discussion of methods toovercome soil, climatic, and biologicalconstraints. For example, conservation tillagepractices, which can include maintaining cropresidues from previous harvests on the soilsurfaces are seen as likely to help maintain soilquality and provide protection against winderosion.

Alternative farm strategies include increasingproduction per unit of evapotranspiration withthe use of new and improved varieties, reducingwater use in land preparation as well as loss(through seepage and percolation) during thecrop growth period, and adopting efficient wateruse methods. The diffusion of appropriatetechnology to enhance greater water use

efficiency (drip-irrigation and so on) is thereforeimperative.

While the above discussion highlights that manymicrolevel adaptation options exist, it isimportant to take into account the variousfactors that influence the adoption of theseoptions. Country- and site-specific studies haveconsiderable importance in this respect and mustbe encouraged. For example, Adesina andChianu (2002) examine the determinants offarmers’ adoption and adaptation of agro-forestry in Nigeria. The authors find that genderof the farmer, extent of contact with extensionagents, years of experience with agro-forestryand tenancy status in the village are importantfactors. In addition, the extent of land pressure,erosion intensity, fuel wood pressure, theimportance of livestock as an economic activityin the village, and the distance of the villagelocations from urban centers were alsosignificant variables. Human capital variableswere significant in explaining farmers’ decisionsto adapt and modify the technology.

In addition, enabling farmers the options toadapt also requires that other factors first be inplace. In particular, investment in institutionalsupport to promote the dissemination ofknowledge through extension, is important. Thisshould be supported by appropriate land reformsthat establish property rights as well as measuresthat enhance farmers’financial ability toundertake the necessary adaptation (forexample, by improving access to credit andbanking facilities in rural areas).

4.1.2 Temporary Migration

That migration is an important form of riskdiversification has been made clear in theliterature (see for example, Ellis 1998; Aldermanand Paxson 1992). Migration is treated as either



a transient phenomenon, or as a permanentfeature that is necessary for achieving long-termwell-being52 (Saith 1992; Locke 2000).Temporary (or “circular”) migration inagriculture includes seasonal migration whereworkers undertake off-farm or non-farmactivities for part of the year, and return duringharvest time. The movement of labor from oneagricultural area to another area, or acrosssectors, as well as migration between and withinurban and rural areas due to environmental,economic, or demographic reasons,53 is central toa household’s ability to ensure security inlivelihood (De Haan 1999).54 It has the potentialto enhance social resilience of householdsthrough temporary diversification of sources oflivelihood.

However, it is not clear from the literature towhat extent climate change per se can beattributed as the primary factor in thedecisionmaking process of households engagedin agriculture on whether or not to migrate.Some evidence does exist, such as for instance,Tyson and others (2002) who find a significantrelationship between climate patterns inequatorial Africa and subtropical southernAfrica55 and the southward migration andsettlement patterns of the Sotho-Tswanaspeaking people from equatorial East Africa. Theauthors indicate that changes in rainfall in thetwo regions influenced migratory patterns. Inaddition, it has been the case that movement isoften provoked by difficult environmentalconditions (including harsh, sudden climaticevents or series of climatic events) that intensifyliving conditions. There are numerous casestudies, for instance, of pastoral migration, oftenseen as an intentional adaptation for managing aseasonally varying resource base. Desanker(2002) draws attention to nomadic societies thatmigrate in response to annual and seasonal

rainfall variations in the semiarid areas such asthe Sahel and the Kalahari. It is suggested thatthe nomadic pastoral systems are intrinsicallyable to adapt to fluctuating and extremeclimates—provided they have sufficient scopefor movement and that other necessary elementsin the system remain in place. Similarly, based ona study of households in dryland areas innorthern Ethiopia, Meze-Hausken (2000) findsthat a range of coping strategies can delayimpacts after the onset of drought. Whilesocioeconomic standing and resourceendowments (such as animal holdings, non-farmincome remittances, and so forth) play animportant part, migration is often the onlyrecourse at the point that critical thresholdsgoverning habitability within an area areinfringed.

However, in cases that do not involve seasonalpastoralists, some authors’56 maintain thatclimate is rarely the primary force behind themigration decision. Political, economic, gender,ethnic, social, and institutional considerationsalso play an important role.57 For example, in astudy of Pakistan using household data, Goria(1999) examines the role of environmentalfactors as determinants of migration amongrural people. The author concludes that higherexpected income from non-farm sources andproperty assets influence the likelihood ofmigration, a result consistent with the process ofmigration from rural to urban areas and ruralenvironmental degradation. In addition, it isargued that migration occurs among the poorest,with the primary motive being an expected gainfrom natural resources and other sources ofincome. Moreover, as expected, a higher densityand quality of natural assets in the place of origindecrease the likelihood of migration. Locke(2000) provides evidence from Vietnam andIndia that individual cultivator responses to



climate risk have included, among otheradaptations, employment in new areas thatnecessitates temporary migration. However, it israrely one factor (such as climate) that results inmigration. Institutional and government policy(including incentives) have a major influence aswell.

The impact of temporary migration onagricultural productivity has received someattention, and the results have been mixed. Somestudies conclude that remittances during periodsof migration contribute to improve farmproductivity by enabling the purchase ofimproved inputs and technology. Remittancesalso help to overcome capital and creditconstraints that otherwise persist (Conway andCohen 1998). Adger and others (2002) indicatethat remittance flows are invested in human orphysical capital to enhance householdproduction. However, the literature alsoindicates that temporary migration may haveharmful impacts on agricultural productivity.For example, Jokisch (2002) reports on numerousstudies that indicate that household labor thatremains behind is often overstretched duringmigratory periods, resulting in land degradation.Zimmerer (1993) discusses labor shortagescaused by seasonal migration of men thatcontributes to the abandonment of conservationmeasures in farms. Choudhury and Sundriyal(2003) recount, based on research in northeastIndia, that the absence of labor, due to migration,for crucial activities (such as weeding) reducesthe capacity of families to cultivate and manageplots, which ultimately lowers productivity andreduces yields. Of course, some have counteredby suggesting that where labor is abundant,migration need not necessarily cause shortagesthat would compromise productivity (Georges1990). However, other evidence points out thatagricultural productivity loss may be tolerated.

For example, in a study of households engaged inagriculture in Nigeria, Morse and others (2002)find that the constant immigration andemigration of males and females is necessary inthe wider interest of ensuring familysustainability, even if agricultural sustainabilityis compromised. Other studies have revealedthat remittance income can be used inunproductive ways, particularly throughchanges in consumption patterns that have nodirect beneficial impact on productivity (Connelland Conway 2000).

4.1.3 Insurance

That households engaged in agricultureinherently need insurance mechanisms to copewith income risks has long been recognized.Moreddu (2000) outlines four types of risks facedby the agricultural sector, including productionrisks due to weather variation, crop disease andvarious other causalities; ecological risks fromclimate change, pollution, and natural resourcemanagement; market risks, which depend oninput and output price variability; and regulatoryor institutional risks due to state intervention inagriculture. Both formal and informal, as well asprivate and public, insurance programs havebeen discussed as effective measures to helpreduce income losses as a result of climate-related impacts (IPCC 2001). Although strictlynot an adaptation measure—in the sense that itdoes not involve a change of agriculturalpractice such as those outlined above, insuranceis an important welfare-improving adaptation(that is, a means of reducing householdvulnerability). Smit and Skinner (2002) maintainthat institutional responses that provideopportunities for the costs of climate-relatedevents to be distributed through such risk-spreading mechanisms as crop, flood, and otherinsurance schemes will have a significant



influence on shaping farm-level riskmanagement strategies.

Both formal and informal, as well as private andpublic, insurance programs have been discussedas potential mechanisms by which to reduceincome losses from climate related impacts(IPCC 2001). Examples from industrial countriesinclude flood insurance programs such as theprivate insurance systems in the UnitedKingdom and Germany, or public initiativeswhere government bears some or all risks, as inFrance and Spain. In North America, federal-and provincial- (state-) level crop insuranceprograms58 buffer incomes from climate-relatedrisks (80 percent of which is allocated for floodrelief), and taxpayer-subsidized flood insurance(Smit 1993; Chiotti and others 1997; de Loë andothers 1999). Other types of financialinstruments in spreading exposure to climate-related risks include investment in crop shares,and the use of futures or bank loans (see alsoMahul and Vermersch 2000).

In contrast, despite the existence of formalgovernment sponsored insurance programs,successful examples are rare in developingcountries. In India, for example, aComprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme (CCIS)has been in operation in the country since 1985.The scheme was introduced to provide anopportunity for risk management and relief tofarmers whose crops suffer damaged fromnatural disasters. While the scheme has helped anumber of farmers switch to the use of yield-increasing techniques, the program has generallysuffered from low coverage rates and hasbecome increasingly unviable due to claims farexceeding the premiums collected (Governmentof India (GOI), 1998). An Experimental CropInsurance Scheme was introduced by theGovernment of India for one season during1997/98 covering non-loanee small and

marginal farmers growing specified crops inselected districts. The scheme was implementedonly in 14 districts of 5 states. A separateLivestock Insurance Policy59 has beenadministrated by the General InsuranceCorporation of India (GIC) since the early 1990s.In contrast, in Africa, millions of small-scalefarmers are entirely at the mercy of weatherpatterns, with negligible availability and accessto insurance programs. Crop insurance in SouthAfrica, for instance, is primarily limited to hailinsurance and associated property and casualtyrisk on major agricultural crops. According toCrane (2001) ”universal availability of cropinsurance in southern Africa is non-existent andcrop coverage is limited to selected crops andregions where risk can only be effectivelymanaged through the investment of privatecapital.”

In developing countries with weaker financialinstitutions, particularly in rural areas, there hasgenerally been more reliance on informal risk-coping strategies (Alderman and Paxson 1992).Bardhan and Udry (1999) outline numerousstrategies including risk pooling (citing forexample, Platteau and Abraham’s (1987)discussion of a reciprocal credit system amongfishermen in South India and Udry’s (1990)investigation of households in northern Nigeriawho simultaneously participate on both sides ofthe credit market). However, evidence alsoshows that such strategies are bound bynumerous complications that compromise theireffectiveness. For example, Bardhan and Udry(1999) assert that risk-pooling strategies functionwell provided that information asymmetries areminimized (for example, due to the limited sizeof the communities) and the existence ofenforcement mechanisms.

Numerous studies highlight the range ofproblems that exist with providing insurance in



the agricultural sector. Siegel and others (1995)argue that while there are numerous risk-copingstrategies for rural households, their real choiceis limited. Households with extremely lowincomes are inherently highly risk–averse, whichin turn limits their financial ability andwillingness to adopt new technologies that canmaintain and enhance crop productivity. Also,while many risk-coping strategies will besuccessful where risk is shared within a smallcommunity, these strategies are not likely to beadequate for managing covariate risks. That is,as Skees and others (2002) state, traditionalcoping mechanisms are likely to fail where theentire community faces the same risks (that is,covariate risks) that create losses for all. Inaddition, Skees and others (1999) outline thatmany of the risks covered by multiple riskinsurance are inherently uninsurable. Vaughan(1989), cited by Skees and others, declares thatfor risk to be insurable, various conditions thatneed to be satisfied in fact rarely are. Theseinclude “(a) quantification of the likelihood of anevent; (b) damages must be attributable to thatevent and quantification of value; (c) notexcessively high probability of occurrence; and(d) the occurrence of an event or the damages itcauses should not be affected by the insured’sbehavior (no moral hazard).” Skees and others(2000) underscore that factors such asprohibitively high monitoring costs,60 and highopportunity costs of using public funds foragriculture (when a higher return can beobtained elsewhere) limit the viability oftraditional crop insurance programs for mediumand small farmers in developing countries.

In a study of India, Joshi (2001) emphasizes thatthe major problem that plagues the system ofcredit and insurance in India is the inadequacyof crop insurance premiums. The main problem,according to analysts, is that with risk shared

between the national and state governments andthe General Insurance Corporation, the actuarialprobability of the risk covered is not correctlyestimated. Consequently, the system hasencouraged false claims, resulting in its eventualfailure. In another study based on experiences inAntigua and Barbuda, O’Brien (2000) highlightsthat although the insurance industry is thecornerstone of the islands’ development process,access to crop insurance is restricted. Constraintsinclude weak capital structures, oversaturationof insurance providers, and a weak supervisorycapability. The result is that the availability andaffordability of catastrophe insurance is beyondvulnerable communities, including farmers, andfishermen and low-income households.

Another major difficulty in providing insurancein the agricultural sector is due to perverseincentives that arise from the availability ofvarious schemes.61 That is, the speed at whichfarmers adapt can be adversely affected by theexistence and extent of coverage of insuranceprograms. It has been noted, for example, thatdespite the availability of insurance, farmers areat times reluctant to purchase coverage becausethey can expect to receive alternative payments(such as emergency drought relief programs) incatastrophic years from government withoutincurring any costs (Skees and others 1999).IPCC (2001) highlights also that insuranceprograms that are inadequately targeted canfoster complacency and, in the worst cases,maladaptation.

Much remains to be done in the case of usinginsurance to reduce vulnerability. Economiclosses from extreme climatic events in the UnitedStates during the 1988–1999 period weresubstantial, with total damages/costs exceeding$170 billion (Ross and Lott 2000). While inindustrial countries much of this cost is due to



property damage, in developing countries thecosts are often unaccounted but likely to also besubstantial especially given the higher incidenceof loss of human life. According to estimates, theratio of global property/casualty insurancepremiums to weather-related losses— animportant indicator of adaptive capacity,decreased more than three-fold between 1985and 1999. There is likely to be a need for bothpublic and private insurance schemes. In thecase of climate variability impacts, withrelatively lower probability of occurrence andlimited risks, private schemes should besufficient. However, the increased incidence ofclimate-related economic losses is likely toreduce the profitability of insurance companies,translating to increases in consumer prices andpremiums, withdrawal of coverage, and increasein publicly funded compensation and reliefprograms. This could not only impose severebudgetary burdens on government, but there isalso the risk that government provision wouldresult in similar perverse effects as an indirectsubsidy on loss coverage.

In a recent article, however, Skees and others(2002) announce that developments in financialinstruments could make climate-relatedinsurance in developing countries morefavorable than previous programs by makinginsurance more affordable and accessible.62 Theintroduction of tradable financial assets such ascatastrophic bonds, insurance contracts, andother weather markets in Mexico are examples ofrecent innovations. The authors highlight alsothe recent effort commenced by the InternationalFinance Corporation (IFC) in helping severalcountries, including Ethiopia, Morocco,Nicaragua, and Tunisia gain access to weathermarkets as an example of the growing interest inthe private provision of weather insurance. Atthe same time, while insurance and disaster

assistance is important to address short-termvulnerability, it is also clear that incentives needto be introduced to ensure that any cycle ofdependency on coverage of losses is graduallyeliminated. Innovative schemes must beintroduced to ensure that adaptations tominimize vulnerability are encouraged to ensurelong-run sustainability.

4.2 Long-Term Adaptations

While farmers must withstand and minimize theadverse impacts of short term climatevariability, a different set of measures will benecessary to reduce vulnerability to anticipatedfuture impacts of climate change. A range ofadaptation options at both the farm and policylevel are seen as highly relevant in this regard(see discussion below).

Prior to examining these options, an importantissue that has tended to lack clarity in theliterature concerns the timing of long termadaptations. Some attribute the lack of initiativesin numerous countries to developing a long termapproach to climate change to a variety ofreasons, ranging from a general apathy(complacency) to difficulty of dealing with ainsufficient information (e.g. Bryant and others200l; Smit and others 2000). It is not thatscientists and policy makers have ignored theimportance of climate change but ratheruncertainty of whether and where impacts willmaterialize and/or their magnitude (Barnett2001). The latter in particular, it is argued, makesthe design of an effective response strategydifficult. In addition, short term and non-climatic events such as agriculture price supportschemes continue to drive local agricultureoperations and policy (Lorenzoni and others2001). The result is a tendency for variousinstitutions responsible for planning adaptationstrategies— often local Ministries and other



government agencies, to “muddle-through” (adhoc) responses, a potentially more costlyapproach than designing and implementing alonger term strategy (World Bank 2000). Forexample, in the case of semi-arid Africa, which isprone to drought, the creation of food reservesand other costly relief efforts are continuouslyundertaken (often involuntarily) with limited, ifany, long-term development plans to improveproductivity and management in climatesensitive areas (FAO 2000).

However, given that warming is largely aconcern of the future, long term adaptation mustalso be in the future63. The absence of long termadaptation plans has more to do with the factthat warming has been minimal to date than to aflaw of government. Adapting prematurely toclimate change is not in the interests of countriesand there are few examples of climate changethat warrant a response today. In contrast, thesame is not true with variation. It could be thatshort term variation will remain the same overtime and it is in the interest of countries torespond to variation today. Addressing climatechange— a long term phenomena, should entaila comprehensive long term response strategy atthe national or local level (World Bank 2000) butwill require a dynamic approach. The remainderof this section outlines numerous options thathave emerged in the literature that can meetlong term concerns about climate change.

4.2.1 Changing Crop Type and Location

As future climatic conditions unfold and farmerslearn how to implement adaptive strategies(which in turn will depend on the form of tenure,incomes, etc.), farmers could make long termadjustments such as changing crop varieties thatare grown as well as where they are grown (i.e.location). Potential options include switching tomore robust varieties that are better suited to the

new environment. For instance, Matarira (1996)highlights that in Zimbabwe farmers haveswitched successfully to the use of more droughttolerant crop in areas where the frequentrecurrence of droughts has made agricultureproduction difficult using the traditional cropvarieties. In the extreme case, where agricultureis no longer viable, farmers have converted landuse from crop production to game ranching.Agricultural analyses of future climates indicatealso that crops will move poleward withwarming (Mendelsohn and Neumann 1999;Mendelsohn 2001). The extent of this migrationdepends upon the severity of the warming.

Such types of long term adaptation howeverdemand that a number of underlyingprerequisites are in place. Clearly, the scope forshifting production to new lands, particularly indeveloping countries, is likely to be limited givenpopulation pressures and the availability ofcultivable land. It is also likely to be constrainedby other considerations such as farmers’willingness and ability to move. Moreover, land-use regulations or regulations on agriculturalproduction can hinder adaptation of this type.Under such circumstances, crop rotations thatmay not be optimal in a changed environmentcan be persisted with, resulting in severe losses inthe long term (Lewandrowski and Brazee (1993).Appropriate land reform that establish orstrengthen property rights as well as measuresthat enhance their financial ability to undertakethe necessary adaptation (for example, byimproving access to credit and banking facilitiesin rural areas) is necessary. In addition,investment in, and diffusion of access toirrigation, together with institutional support topromote the dissemination of knowledgethrough extension is important.

Shifting crop location, for example, depends on anumber of factors such as the extent of resources



and mobility of the affected person(s) and on theavailability of suitable conditions (for example,soil structure and other environmentalcharacteristics). Changing crop types requiressubstantial investment in knowledge and skills.There is no guarantee that farmers will have thenecessary information of possible optionswithout an effective network of extensionservices that can filter knowledge gainedthrough science to grass roots. In addition, it isnecessary that farmers possess the necessaryskills to implement an alternative productiontechnique. There is thus a clear and distinct rolefor strengthening extension services inagriculture in vulnerable countries to enhancefarmer awareness of potential adaptationresponse options.

There remain additional complications that needto be overcome. Institutional failures inagriculture can discourage farm managementadaptation strategies such as changing the cropmix. Rigid agricultural and economic programs,with subsidies for certain crops in certain areas,can constrain change and reduce the flexibility ofland-use changes. At the policy level, the supportof certain crop prices can be disruptive whenclimate change can render such cropsinappropriate in a changed environment.Similarly, food importation policies maydiscourage better national adaptation to theexpected long-term climate changes. As stressedin Rosenzweig and Hillel (1995), adaptations ofthis type are not likely to be costless, and somemay even cause disruptions to farmers as well asothers in rural areas. For example, Alexandrovand Hoogenboom (2000), in a study onadaptations to climatic impacts in agriculture inBulgaria, note that while changing sowing datesis relatively costless at the farm level, it is likelyto interfere with the management of other cropsgrown at other periods in the year. There is also

concern that changing crop types will notautomatically maintain previous levels of foodproduction or nutritional quality levels.

Moreover, there can be conflicts between publicand private objectives. While the nationalobjective may be to grow crops that are lesswater-dependent, it does not necessarily implythat the new crops are equally (if not, more)profitable to the farmer. For example, You (2001)examines agricultural adaptations to climatechange through a land-use change strategy (thatis, switching drop types from rice to corn) toaddress the issue of water shortages in northernChina. The author finds that there areinsignificant disparities in expected yields fromcorn compared to rice to warrant concerns aboutswitching. However, income from rice is moreprofitable than other crops (estimated to benearly double the value). There is thus a conflictbetween a public or national objective of savingwater and the private producer’s objective. Anincentive scheme, such as a government tax onincomes from rice cultivation (You 2001), couldinduce farmers to switch. However, thegovernment will need to take care to make arange of concurrent changes (such asappropriate agricultural marketing policies andinvestments, pricing policies, review ofagricultural credit schemes, and subsidizationprograms— in short, an integrated andcomprehensive plan that takes into account allkey stakeholders. Without a complete adaptationstrategy, the success of policies in addressingclimate impacts is likely to be compromised.

Moreover, while more than one adaptationoption remains possible, the best option may notbe chosen given established preference for, oraversion to, certain options (Smit and Pilifosova2001). In places where local subsistence farmersare conservative by nature, the acceptance of



change is likely to be gradual. Limited knowledgeof the options in addition to other priorities,limited resources, or economic or institutionalconstraints (such as bureaucratic inefficiencies),are likely to make the requisite decisionmakingprocess challenging (Eele, 1996; Bryant andothers 2000; de Loë and Kreutzwiser 2000).

4.2.2 Development of New Technologies andModernization

Research and technological innovation in cropand animal productivity have enabled farmers tocope with various climatic conditions and havebeen fundamental to the growth anddevelopment of agriculture in both industrialand developing countries64 (Hayami and Ruttan1985; Houghton and others 1990; Rosenberg1992; Reilly and Fuglie 1998; Evenson 1999; Gopo2001). Smithers and Blay-Palmer (2001) identifytwo basic types of technological options,mechanical and biological, that are important foragriculture. Mechanical innovations includeirrigation, conservation tillage, and integrateddrainage systems— all of which havecontributed significantly to the intensification ofagricultural activity and permitted a widerrange of agricultural activities than localresources would have otherwise permitted. Onthe other hand, biological options also have animportant role in enabling cropping systems toadapt to a wide range of climatic conditions.Investment in crop breeding, the promotion ofclimate-resistant varieties that offer improvedresistance to changing diseases and insects,breeding of heat- and drought-resistant cropvarieties, the use of traditional varieties bred forstorm and drought resistance, and investment inseed banks are necessary for success inovercoming vulnerability to climate impacts(Crosson,1983).65 Evenson (1999) and Smithersand Blay-Palmer (2001) cite numerous studiesthat illustrate that agricultural innovations have

been imperative to sustaining food productionand adaptations to climate change.66 A history ofinvestments in technological innovations inagriculture is attributed to enabling the UnitedStates and other industrial countries to adaptmuch better to the expected climatic changerelative to most countries (Crosson 1983). InSouth67 and Southeast Asia the benefits of thegreen revolution are also well known68, evenwhen concerns regarding distributionalinequities and health concerns that have beenraised are taken into account (Evenson andGollin 2000). At the same time, there is concernthat there is yet an unfulfilled potential fortechnology in the agricultural sector indeveloping countries. For example, in placessuch as Africa, there is unease that poorertechnologies and insufficient innovationstrategies, compounded by other resource andinstitutional constraints, have contributed toworsening vulnerability to climate variability. Insuch places there is a need for the continuationand increased support of research ontechnological options for agriculturaldevelopment in addition to the need forcorrecting institutional shortcomings.

Smithers and Blay-Palmer (2001), however, pointout that climate change alone is unlikely toinduce the relevant technological changes. Theauthors state that besides the challenges posedby knowledge for scientific discovery,innovations are also deeply rooted in legal,institutional, and economic circumstances thatshape and direct their path of development, allof which vary from place to place. In this regard,government policy,69 macroeconomic conditions,consumer demands and preferences, and science,each with its own set of driving forces, areimportant determinants of the rate at whichtechnological innovations are made. Investmentlevels in public sector research, policies



governing the granting of and use of intellectualproperty rights, and the role of private-sectormultinationals and contemporary researchinterests will constitute additional factors thatneed to addressed with respect to how, where,what type, and rate of, technological innovations.

Finally, although advances in science andbiotechnology offer powerful tools that holdmuch promise to overcome the many challengesposed by scarcity of resources and threats posedby pests and crop disease to the agriculturalsector, there has been a debate over the advocacyof biotechnology— be it for climate or otherreasons—in both industrial and developingcountries. The role of multinationals andrestrictive patenting practices; lack of diffusionof technologies in developing counties and therelated issue of affordability of technology topoorer farmers; uncertainties about long-termimplications of biotechnology on health due touse of pesticides and herbicides and resultantcontamination of the ecosystem have been thefocus in recent debates. McAfee (1999), forexample, argues that there is evidence to doubtmany of the perceived benefits of transgenicproducts. In particular, McAfee states (amongother reasons) that the profitability criterionoften dictates research goals which in turn cancompromise the availability and diffusion ofbiotechnologies that the poor need most. Whilethere is little doubt that concerns need to beaddressed directly, the call for moratoriums ontransgenic research is considered to hurtdeveloping countries the most (Anderson 1999).Similarly, Pardey (2001) finds that claims thatpatents and intellectual property rights stifleresearch in developing countries are speculative.Instead, it is argued the more serious issue, basedon current research, is that developing countriesoften lack the necessary funding and scientificand technical resources to access the benefits ofbiotechnology.

4.2.3 Improving Water Management

Improved water resource management will bevital to sustaining crop productivity levels in theface of both climate variability and longer-termchange. In areas that are currently dependentprimarily on rain-fed agriculture, theconjunctive use of surface and ground waterresources will play an increasingly importantrole in enabling farmers to adapt to fast-changing climatic conditions. However, it is alsoclear that in the face of rising domestic andindustrial demand, additional efforts arenecessary to ensure efficient management ofwater resources. With climate change andvariability increasing pressure on availablewater resources (and especially, net irrigationrequirements), improved water management isone of the most important long-term adaptationoptions that countries must pursue.

According to recent estimates, irrigationefficiency in developing countries is extremelylow. Rosegrant and others (2002) suggest thataverage irrigation efficiency70 ranged from 25–40 percent for the Philippines, Thailand, India,Pakistan, and Mexico, to 40–45 percent inMalaysia and Morocco. In contrast, in Taiwan,Israel, and Japan, irrigation efficiencies averageat 50–60 percent. At the same time, Döll (2002)finds that climate change impacts are likely toincrease the net irrigation requirements in areasserviced by irrigation (as of 1995) byapproximately 60 percent by the 2020s (and the2070s). Simulations of irrigation requirementsunder two climate change scenarios in Döll’sstudy suggest a likely shift in the optimalgrowing periods, by a month or more into thewinter season, as well as a change in croppingpatterns. In addition, results indicate that thenegative impacts of climate change are likely tobe more severe than those of climate variability.In particular, increased per hectare irrigation



requirements may be yet another factor limitingirrigation. Döll therefore recommends that itmay be necessary to shift irrigated agriculture toregions where climate change will decrease perhectare irrigation requirements.

Stakhiv (1998) asserts that the principles oftraditional policies71 aimed at effective watermanagement by various international agencies(including FAO, World Bank, United NationsEnvironment Programme) will promote “noregrets” adaptation to climate change. A widerange of adaptation measures have beenhighlighted in this regard, including improvingwater distribution strategies; changing crop andirrigation schedules to use rainfall moreeffectively; water recycling and the conjunctiveuse of groundwater; rehabilitation andmodernization; and improving andstrengthening farm-level managerial capacity.Kundzewicz (2002) proposes that non-structuralmeasures including source control (watershed/landscape structure management), laws andregulations (including zoning), economicinstruments, an efficient flood forecast-warningsystem, a system of flood risk assessment,awareness raising, flood-related data bases, andso forth are vital. A site-specific mix of structuraland non-structural measures is therefore in linewith adapting to climate change and promotingsustainable development.

From among these options, irrigation isespecially important to agricultural productionin arid and semiarid regions where inadequaterainfall, high temperatures, and evapotranspira-tion rates limit crop growth. Impendingpressures from climate change will only intensifythe importance of improved irrigation efficiencyas an adaptation tool (World Bank 2000). Even inother humid areas, irrigation has become theprimary tool to increase and stabilize

agricultural production in the face ofuncertainties associated with rainfall frequencyand drought (Smith and others 1996, Brklacichand others 1997; Klassen and Gilpen, 1998). Forexample, Jolly and others (1995) find thatagricultural production in Senegal must be betterplanned in order to avoid shortages inproduction below subsistence levels from climatechange impacts. In particular, it is recommendedthat farmers need to adapt by shifting from acash crop system to a more stable system (forexample, maize), requiring long-terminvestments in irrigation. Chiotti and Johnston(1995) recommend altering the scheduling ofexisting irrigation options72 to avoid theincidence of salinization, and to foster anincrease in moisture retention in the face ofdecreasing precipitation and increasingevaporation. An alternatively strategy includesimproved irrigation practices through betterwater management plans and usage oftechnological innovations. Current technologicaladvances in irrigation, such as the use of centerpivot irrigation, dormant season irrigation, dripirrigation, gravity irrigation, and pipe andsprinkler irrigation, make this possible (see alsoLewandrowski and Brazee 1993; Reilly 1995;Benioff and others 1996; Reilly and others 1996;Downing and others 1997; Parry and others2000). For example, Bullock and others (1996)state that when water is in short supply,improved irrigation practices (for example, dripirrigation, underground irrigation) can conserve50 percent of water compared with conventionalapproaches.

Demand-side response strategies that havereceived considerable attention include thereform of water pricing for irrigation (see Dinar(2000) for a collection of case studies on waterpricing reforms, and Guerra and others (1998),who review the literature on irrigation efficiency



and on the potential for increasing productivityof water in rice-based systems). Specific policyprescriptions are suggested for the elimination ofsubsidies in irrigation as well as incentives forincreasing irrigation efficiency.

Pricing water at its social cost (through theintroduction of a water surcharge) is anotherpossibility, although these options then raise aplethora of political-economy issues concerningwater property rights that need to be addressed.Alternative policy measures, includingestablishing well-defined, transferable propertyrights in water. Once current users have wellestablished permits to use the water, allowingthe permits to be traded, creates conditions forwater banks and other institutions that wouldfacilitate voluntary water transfers (Tobo 2000).In industrial countries, the removal of barriers toopen water markets is seen as an importantmeasure to facilitate improved adaptation.Economists argue that the development of watermarkets (for example, in North America) wouldpromote the allocation of water from federalprojects to those with the highest-valued use. Atthe heart of the argument is the notion of movingaway from pricing water below its market value.In addition, the development of water markets,with accompanying reform of water laws, wouldencourage investment in (among other things)water-efficient irrigation systems. Thus, whereirrigation is subsidized and water has alternativeuses, social benefits of reducing the agriculturalsector’s use of water may justify governmentprograms to help farmers acquire more water-efficient technologies.

O’Brien (2000) identifies other adaptationmeasures to promote the conservation of waterthrough development of sustainable waterprojects. These include, for example, theconstruction of small dams for water storage and

flood control and measures to capture rainwaterduring the monsoon seasons (in some parts of thetropics). O’Brien also stresses the need forfacilitating (through technology) improvementin water distribution systems in agriculture, withgreater responsibilities for operations resting onthe farmers themselves. raditional practices,with stakeholder participation, can also be ofimmense value. An example is communitymanagement in rice farming in Sri Lanka. Underthe Irrigation Ordinance of Sri Lanka, theAdministrative Head of District Public Service (agovernment agent) is empowered to hold watermanagement meetings prior to each season.During the meeting, farmers discuss the type ofcrop to be grown during the season and thetiming of the first release of water and the finalrelease of water. The final decisions reflect theextent of water in the main reservoir, and theprobability of further rains as the seasonproceeds.

Traditional adaptation techniques will also beeffective to deal with shortages in water. Forexample, evidence from agricultural areas in SriLanka suggests that during times of drought andwhen water supplies from reservoirs are limited,the farming community temporarily ignores theindividual boundaries of the farms and jointlycultivates land close to the irrigation outlet inorder to minimize losses from evaporation andmovement of water. Each farmer cultivates anamount of the cultivable land that is inproportion to the amount owned. Similarly,when fragmentation of land makes ituneconomical to cultivate in small units, analternative cooperative farming technique isadopted. A farmer with a very small unit of landcan opt to forego the cultivation of his unit andgive the opportunity to another to cultivate alarger unit including his own. This makes theoperational unit more viable (U.N Economic and



Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific2002).

It is clear, however, that there are challengeswith regard to water use and availability thatalso need to be overcome. Increased demand forwater by competing municipal and industrialsectors can limit the viability of irrigation tocounter the adverse impacts of rainfall variation.Expanded irrigation can lead to groundwaterdepletion, soil salinization and water-logging. Insome regions, these limits have already beenrealized, such as in China, where historicaladaptations in agriculture such as relocatingproductions or employing irrigation are nolonger options in some areas, as populationpressures have increased on land and waterresources (Fang and Liu 1992; Cai and Smit1996). Numerous challenges need to be overcomein order to increase water supply. As emphasizedby Dinar (2000), these challenges includefinancial crises; low-cost recovery of theinvestment in the water system; the role ofpolitical parties, electoral systems, and the role ofpolitical parties, electoral systems and interestgroups.

Stakhiv argues knowledge exists of policies ormanagement measures necessary to adapt waterresource management to climate change.However, this knowledge is difficult to apply apriori, in advance of the climate change. Stakhivargues that it is necessary to bring forward thetiming of the implementation of the measures inanticipation of the projected climate impacts.73

He argues for improved forecasting procedures,simulation models, and improved datamonitoring systems. Other necessarypreconditions include overcoming economicconstraints (for example, irrigation and otherhigh-efficiency water conservation technologyrequire major, long-term, costly investments)

and undertaking requisite institutional reformsthat hinder the pursuit of effective waterresource management strategies. However, giventhe uncertainty surrounding forecasts of regionalchanges in precipitation, it has not yet beenproven that making water adaptations inadvance of climate changes is in fact prudent.

4.2.4 Permanent Migration of Labor

The second form of migration that Locke (2000)outlines is referred to as “frontier agriculturemigration.” This encompasses permanentmigration in the form of the movement ofmigrants into new economic areas, possibly dueto government policies or permanent changes intheir previous environment. For example,frontier agriculture migration can encapsulatethe movement of migrants from pooreragricultural lowlands in one region to lowlandsin other regions or even other resource highlands(that is, forced change). Westing (1992) findsapproximately 3 percent of the Africanpopulation have been permanently displaceddue to (primarily) environmental degradation(where climate impacts are part of the range ofcausalities).

As Desanker (2002) stresses, long-lasting climatepressures, such as prolonged drought, whichincrease the vulnerability of migratory groups toclimate change (by limiting the scope of areas tomove to), can be disastrous. Short-term migrantscan be forced into becoming more permanentmigrants, resulting in dire consequences such aspressures on land and resources. Many of theadaptations outlined in the previous section toaddress concerns with short term climatevariability will not be adequate in the face ofnew and long lasting climate conditions. Forexample, even insurance programs will not besufficient if productivity of land becomesunviable and may in fact act as a deterrent to



change despite market signals that indicateotherwise (Reilly 2003)) Evidence suggests that,if unmanaged or uncontrolled, large-scalemigration of this type can result in significantimpacts on the environmental resource bases aswell as indigenous societies.74

In this context, a clearly defined system ofproperty rights and enforcement becomenecessary to avert potential stress. For example,in the case of nomadic movements that canresult in permanent migration if climate impactspersist, then “tragedy of commons” kinds ofproblems need to be avoided. The establishmentof an appropriate system of property rights (atthe individual or community level) is part of thelikely solution (re-training and extension servicesare other solutions that would be needed). Inpractical terms, however, an appropriate policyresponse should be dynamic, evolving as themigration flow changes.

4.3 Adaptations Irrespective of theTemporal Dimension of Climate Impacts

Alternatively, policy makers have focused on theagriculture sector but on more immediate issuessuch as making agriculture productionsustainable given a host of non-climatic impacts(including, for example, declining state support,rising cost of inputs, provision of infrastructureand irrigation, etc). Policies aimed at increasingthe resiliency of the sector to other, includingnon-climatic, factors are necessary and will helpin improving capacity to cope with both climatevariability and climate change.

It is important that solving immediate concernsfacing domestic agriculture sectors do not delaythe formulation and implementation of efficientresponses to promote long term sustainabilityissues (Smit and Pilifosova 2001). In particular,effective adaptation will also depend

considerably on underlying local environmental,institutional, and socio-economic conditions.Domestic, as well as regional cooperation inscience, resource management, and developmentare extremely important. Some of the maineconomic and institutional issues are likely to bebeneficial irrespective of the nature of theclimate change.

4.3.1 Investment and Accumulation of Capital

One of the main impediments to adjustment toclimate change is poverty itself. the absence ofresources constrains the ability of farmers tomake the necessary adaptations. In a study onTanzania, O’Brien and others (2000) report thatdespite numerous adaptation options thatfarmers are aware of, and willing to apply, thelack of sufficient financial resources andshortage of farmland were among the significantconstraints to adaptation.75 In a similar study onthe effect of climate forecasts in Namibia,O’Brien and others (2000) find that seriousstructural or economic constraints are among theprimary reasons for lack of farmer response tothe anticipated climate impacts. The report notesthat subsistence farmers are heavily dependenton the availability of credit to meet the costs ofagricultural activity76. They are either not able toobtain the necessary credit to purchase thenecessary inputs77 or chose not to for variousreasons.

Emphasis is therefore placed on providingadditional resources to be allocated to increasethe ability and flexibility of farmers to alterproduction strategies in response to theforecasted climate conditions. Brklacich andothers (2000) suggest that capital (and labor)adjustments can help reduce risks from climatechange in farm production. They argue that botha public and private injection of financialresources is necessary to facilitate the



transformation of marginalized farmers wholack sufficient access to credit. Additionalmeasures (such as education) are required toovercome social practices that have traditionallybeen wary of, or constrained, borrowing. Inaddition, it will be necessary to design publicpolicy to ensure that investment in the right typeof capital is made to increase resiliency toclimate change. However, there is a bigdifference between making capital available atworld interest rates and subsidizing capital.Improving access to capital is surely going toincrease overall efficiency but subsidies may onlycreate new problems in the absence of climatechange.

4.3.2 Reform of Pricing Schemes, Developmentof Open Markets, and other Reforms

The reform of agricultural policy may also benecessary not only to address climatic impacts,but also to encourage efficient resource use andpromote growth of the sector—which in turnwill themselves foster greater adaptability andresiliency to climate change. Examples of suchreforms include the encouragement of flexibleland use—which could necessitate the removalof subsidies that otherwise slow land-usechange—as well as long-term price stabilizationmeasures. Other options include the design offinancial programs that promote greater accessto credit/loans (through insurance or microcredit schemes), developing agriculturalmarketing systems and training, and assistingfarms with gaining access to irrigation.

The reform of agricultural markets has beenpromoted to induce greater efficiency. Smit andSkinner (2002) suggest that the review ofagricultural subsidy and support schemes,private insurance, and resource managementpractices can help reduce the risk of climate-related losses and spread exposure to climate-

related risks. In a recent study, Mizina andothers (1999) evaluate the appropriateness ofvarious adaptation measures for agriculture inKazakhstan. The paper discusses the decisiontheory behind a choice of a core adaptationstrategy and problems that are likely to beencountered in such an exercise. The results oftheir decision analysis suggest that the followingsteps (in order of importance) need to be taken:the promotion of free market reform, theestablishment of regional consultation centersthat would impart knowledge on adaptationalternatives to farms, the enforcement ofmeasures to control soil erosion, and theimprovement of forecasting mechanisms.

In another recent publication, Kherallah andothers (2002) review agricultural reformsimplemented across Africa. While the findingsdo not directly or specifically relate toadaptations to climate change, the impact of thereforms on agricultural production and prices,and the net effect on the well-being of Africanhouseholds does have an important influence onthe potential to adapt to climate change.78 AsCarter (1996), and Frederick (1997), and otherssuch as Stakhiv (1998) comment, some measuresshould be implemented because they not onlyhelp to remove constraints to growth but mayalso be beneficial to encourage adaptation toclimate change.

According to the findings of Kherallah andothers (2002), while food markets have beendramatically transformed79 in some countries inAfrica (such as Ethiopia, Madagascar, andTanzania), in others the transformation of foodmarkets has been limited (such as Malawi,Zambia, and Zimbabwe). The authors note thatin places where domestic markets have beenliberalized, the outcome has been greatercompetition and reduced marketing margins.



However, Kherallah and others maintain thatscale of operations by traders is limited due tothe nominal investments that are made. Whilepoor transport infrastructure increasesmarketing costs and uncertainty, the authorsnote that export marketing has generally becomemore efficient, allowing farmers to keep a largershare of the export price. The authors alsocontend that liberalized export markets may bevulnerable to collusion by the small number ofexporters, particularly given the significant rolethat political connections play in gaining accessto markets. Another problem highlighted is thereluctance of agricultural traders to offerfarmers inputs on credit because the farmers cansell to a competitor and avoid repayment.

There are several dangers these reforms canintroduce (Kherallah and others 2002). Theremoval of price controls (through thecurtailment of public support) can hurt someclusters of rural farmers (as experience inTanzania and Zambia have shown). A similarfinding is noted in O’Brien et al (2002). Thesefarmers are not necessarily the poor. Benefitsfrom lower marketing margins and lower foodprices, particularly in eastern and southernAfrica are cited as examples. Exchange rateadjustments have been beneficial to export cropproducers and crops that compete with imports(such as rice). The costs associated witheliminating fertilizer subsidies have beenproportional to the quantities of fertilizer used,so larger, commercial farmers were moreadversely affected than marginal farmers.

4.3.3 Adoption of New Technologies

The improvement of total factor productivitythrough the adoption of new and improvedtechnologies has been an important means ofincreasing agricultural yields. Gabre-Madhinand others (2002) state that technological change

can bring about improvement in total factorproductivity in two ways: reducing average fixedcosts by increasing yields per fixed factor orreducing variable costs by reducing the cost of thetechnology itself. Most technological advanceshave elements of both types of change. In thisrespect, public and private investment inagricultural research, and, in particular, researchand extension and innovations, are importantsources of productivity growth.

Reilly and Hohmann (1993) highlight that theeffectiveness of technological and institutionalagricultural adaptations are bound bysocioeconomic capacity. The issue of who adoptsnew technologies, how quickly, and at what costis addressed in a recent paper by Gabre-Madhinand others (2002). The authors highlight that oneof the limitations on the adoption of newtechnologies (especially in Africa) has been theremoval of government support for agriculturalinputs. (see also Kherallah and others 2002). Theother has been increasing production (such as ineastern Africa), which has led to lower producerprices and and creation of disincentives to adoptnew and costly technologies by producers

Constraints to the adoption of new technologiesin the context of climate change can be extremelydamaging. Such constraints can be natural, asMeertens and others (1995) warn that theadoption of new technologies may be limited inareas where there is abundant land and marketaccess is poor. Adoption of technologies can alsobe constrained due to farmers’ lacking thenecessary financial strength. For example, De laCourt and Verolme (1995) state that the non-affordability of organic relative to chemicalinputs is one of the main reasons for nutrientdepletion in soils on farms in dryland savannahsin India. In contrast, others have also argued thathigher production in industrial countries could



lead to increased worldwide production, therebylowering world food prices, making things evenworse for developing countries (Mendelsohn andDinar 1999).

4.3.4 Promotion of Trade

That trade plays an important role duringperiods of variable climatic conditions is alreadyestablished in the literature. For example,Rosenzweig and others (1993) stress shortfalls incrop production due to insufficient rains in thelate 1980s in South Asia as one of the mainreasons for the import of wheat into the regionduring that period. Similarly, research hasshown that trade will play an important role inenabling countries moderate the impacts ofclimate change on crop. Reilly and others (1994)suggest that agricultural trade will moderateimpacts by enabling farmers in regions lessadversely affected to sell their produce in areasmore severely affected by climate change.Rosenzweig and Hillel (1995) suggest that tradeadjustments should shift commodity productionto regions where comparative advantageimproves. Darwin and others (1995) argue thatthe competitiveness of U.S. grain producers inglobal markets depends on world agriculture’sability to expand into areas where temperaturesnow limit crop production.

Trade policy is expected to have importantrepercussions on the prospects for adaptation.The general consensus to emerge is that bothregional and international trade can lead toimprovements in access to international markets,which in turn can help a country diversify andreduce of risk of food shortages from climatechange.80 That is, the trading system is a risk-spreading mechanism through the geographicrelocation of world food supplies according tochanging comparative advantage and spatialdiversification of climatic risks (Randir andHertel 1999).

High tariffs on imported goods, and trade-restrictive policies reduce the effectiveness oftrade. The IPCC (2001) also stresses thatrestrictive policies can impede the entry ofefficient technologies into new markets.81

Continuation of restrictive policies will result indiminished global welfare. Results of Randir andHertel (1999) has shown that liberalizationfacilitates economic adjustment to climatechange. They propose the need for reductions inagricultural tariffs and subsidies under futuretrade deliberations. Their results suggest that theremoval of distortions in global agriculturalactivities is likely to improve allocativeefficiency in agriculture and improve aggregatewelfare provided that it is accompanied by theremoval of farm support mechanisms.

While numerous studies show that trade has thepotential to mitigate the effects of adverseclimatic impacts, one area of research remainsconspicuously absent. As highlighted byHorowitz,82 there is little research on the impactof trade if climate change risks are positivelycorrelated in major agricultural areas (such as,for example, the United States and Europe).Although countries at similar latitudes areexpected to experience similar outcomes fromwarming, countries at different latitudes areexpected to have very different impacts(Mendelsohn et al 2000). It is widely expectedthat warming will benefit agriculture in highlatitude countries and damage farming in lowlatitude countries. Further, there is every reasonto believe that the changes in precipitation willvary across regions (IPCC 2001).

4.3.5 Extension Services

Extension services have played a key role inpromoting agricultural productivity indeveloping countries, and their role in promotingvarious adaptations to climate change is no less



important. For example, Mizina and others(1999) state that given regional differences inclimatic impacts, local experiments, as well asensuring information flows, need to beencouraged. Traditionally, extension serviceshave generally been in the purview of servicesprovided by government, given that agriculturalresearch is typically a public good.83 However,private and non-governmental agencies (or theformation of research cooperatives) do play asignificant role in some countries. According toEvenson (1997), numerous studies, for example,in India, Kenya, and Burkino Faso have shownthat there is strong evidence to link extensionservices with awareness and knowledge ofagricultural practices. Other studies haveestablished a link between extension andadoption of farm practices, although farm sizeand levels of education also have a significantinfluence. Evenson also states that there is astrong link between the extent of extensionservices (in terms of number of extension agentsper region) and membership in extensionorganizations to be a significant contributingfactor to productivity.

Crucially, as Evenson (1997) notes, the economiccontribution of extension services is governed bylocation-specific factors. In this regard,numerous programs have been found to beineffective given the underperformance ofagents, design limitations, and managementfailures. Collier and Gunning (1999) find similarproblems through their study of Africa. Theauthors maintain that extension services ingeneral in Africa have traditionally been weak.The authors state that extension services in EastAfrica have tended to discount traditionalpractices such as inter-cropping, which researchhas proved to be an effective buffer againstclimatic impacts. Poor incentives for extensionworkers and organizational failures are cited as

likely reasons for poor productivity. Evenson(1997), in fact, stresses that where extensionprograms have been well designed, researchershave been effective, and farmers have adequateschooling, the rewards can be very encouraging.

4.3.6 Diversification of Income-Earning andEmployment Opportunities

Seasonal effects and climatic uncertainty thatcharacterize the agricultural sector effectivelymean that diversification of income andemployment opportunities is an importantadaptation strategy for households in the sector.In dryland areas, traditional practices to helpcope with drought include the accrual of asurplus in a superior year, in the form of cash orassets (for example, cattle) for use in pooreryears (Burton 2001). While measures such ascrop storage, sales, and household savings84 canand do offer relief from temporary (orseasonality) effects, risk and marketimperfections that abound in rural settingsrender diversification into off-farmopportunities necessary to reduce incomeinstability (Alderman and Paxson 1992).

Consequently, policies that provide theopportunities to pursue alternative livelihoodoptions need to be encouraged. Ellis (1998)indicates that diversification into non-farmincome ensures low-risk correlations betweenlivelihood components. It can be both a transientphenomenon (Saith 1992) as well as a means ofensuring long-term livelihood security.85 Forexample, in Kenya, effective smallholderresponse to drought has been to shift fromtraditional planting strategies to employmentdiversification (Downing and others 1997.

Income diversification in agriculture is notrestricted to poor developing economies. Skinnerand others (2001) stress that household income



diversification strategies were an importantadaptation option among farmers in Canada (seealso Brklacich and others (1997); Smithers andSmit (1997); de Loe and others 1999). Frequently,income diversification among farmers involvedlivestock ownership, but also off-farm activities,such as trading home-produced goods orproviding services (Bryant, 1989). Diversificationof household incomes is likely to be undertakenin response to a number of factors (such asavailability of alternative employmentopportunities and prospects for seeking andobtaining new opportunities) as opposed toclimatic perturbations alone (IPCC 2001).

In order to ensure that diversification of income-earning and employment opportunities is arealistic alternative for rural farmers, certainprerequisites need to be fulfilled. In someinstances, private initiatives and expectationswill suffice, but other cases will require publicsupport. In particular, training, informationdissemination, and support services will requiresome public organization, resources, andinstitutional support.

4.3.7 Dissemination of Climate Data

A reason frequently cited for not adapting intime to climatic impacts is the lack of reliableclimate monitoring and forecasting data. In apaper that investigates the effect of scientificuncertainty on planning for climate change,Barnett (2001) argues that an increase in theavailability of information to understand thebiophysical and social environment is necessary.The timely dissemination of climate forecastinginformation and early warning to farmers(including information on risks) can strengthenthe ability of farmers to cope and optimize themanagement of hydrological variability andchange.86 Monitoring data and indicators ofchange are also necessary across all sectors in

society, not just policy makers. A key role forstate, society, and media is envisioned throughboth horizontal and vertical exchanges ofinformation through regular meetings with keystakeholders.

While some countries do have resourceconstraints on collecting and disseminatingreliable data, evidence suggests that lack of datamay not be the only problem. With both scienceand technology making vast contributions toimproving water use efficiency and drought-tolerant cultivars, the real problem, it is argued,is the lack of application of existing knowledge(Burton 2001). This is due to poor distribution ofknowledge or, when it is available, theinformation is not in a form that is usable.Burton identifies the failure to apply knowledgethat conflicts with traditional practices, socialand legal conventions, and the existing powerstructures within communities and nations.Skepticism toward seasonal forecast informationhas, in some instances, led to inaction on theinformation provided.

4.3.8 Institutional Planning andImplementation

Insufficient institutional and decisionmakingstructures to support long-term planning incentral governments in developing countries haslong been recognized to be a problem in pursuinggeneral development objectives (see for exampleHernes and others 1995; O’Riordan and Jordan1999). A recent World Bank report underscoredthe finding that in some countries, such asBangladesh, planning for climate change is noteven mandatory, an outcome of planningagencies’ being “formed not by law but byadministrative resolution” (World Bank 2000).Under such extreme circumstances, notuncommon in many other developing countrysettings, it makes little sense to discuss



adaptation options to reduce long-termvulnerability until the necessary underlyingconditions, such as institutional support, are firstmet. Further, Rosenzweig and Hillel (1995) drawattention to the fact that some agriculturalinstitutions and policies can discourage farmmanagement adaptation strategies, such aschanging crop mix. Weak and underdevelopedland-use control and physical planning functionsincrease vulnerability, and bureaucraticinefficiencies can restrict the effectiveness ofinstitutional systems that do exist, renderingeven the most basic attempts to plan andimplement a major problem.

Institutional reforms, with the participation ofkey stakeholders, is therefore essential toenhance adaptations to both short- and long-term climate impacts. The relative success inadapting to possible changes will depend on thetype of institutional changes that occur, wherethey occur, and on timely and appropriateinvestments in adequate adaptation strategies.For example, Stakhiv (1998) asserts, withreference to the management of water, that notonly are well-functioning institutions in sectorssuch as hydrology and meteorology essential, butthey need to be supported by equally well-functioning institutions in other sectors thatprovide information on the changingsocioeconomic structure, demographics,technology, and public preferences.

Previous studies (Smith 1997; World Bank 2000)have highlighted that in some cases, it isnecessary to first assess whether current growthpolicies and programs can facilitate adaptation.It may be necessary to formulate a newinstitutional framework to deal with climatechange. For example, improvements ininstitutional capacity to administer and regulateenvironmental issues, including more resources

to support existing policies, would reapsubstantial benefits. Other factors that will assistadaptation, and which may not require newframeworks, include improving organizationalcapacity, responsibility, and operationaleffectiveness of current institutions; integratingnational, regional, and local actions; andtechnology and infrastructure development andadoption.

IPCC (2001) underline that strengtheningadaptive capacity requires integratedmanagement practices to be in places wheremanagement institutions are weak, and theyneed to fit specific institutional settings.Adaptation must also be addressed on a country-by-country basis, taking into account localenvironmental, political, economic, and socialconditions. Coordination failures betweencentral and local governments need to berectified, and sectoral management plans need tobe overhauled by multisectoral managementplans so that linkages with other major sectors inthe economy affected by or enabling adaptationare taken into account.87 The preparation of suchcomprehensive development plans, as well as thereview and upgrading of current physicalplanning laws and regulations,88 will be animportant step toward catalyzing the requisiteinstitutional change to facilitate adaptations. Inshort, climate change management plans need toincorporate the participation of all tiers ofgovernment, as well as private and civil society.

Additional considerations need to be taken intoaccount. Smith and Lenhart (1996) declare thatadaptation must be resilient to meet statedobjectives given a range of future climatescenarios with potential to produce benefits thatoutweigh costs (including financial, physical,human terms or otherwise). Similarly, O’Brien(2000) argues that adaptation needs to satisfy



multiple criteria, including flexibility to suit arange of likely impacts; feasibility given politicaland socioeconomic and institutional realities;and economic affordability. Mizina and others(1999) stress that adaptation measures should beassessed in terms of their cost-effectivenessrather than cost-benefit ratios.89 According toMizina and others, this would enable anevaluation of the various measures for their (a)effectiveness in reducing risks of damage fromclimate change; and (b) social, technical, andinstitutional feasibility. Finally, adaptationmeasures to climate change cannot be consideredin isolation, but relative to the impacts of otherexogenous sectoral changes. In short, the keylesson to emerge is that the prioritization ofappropriate adaptation measures needs to becontextual and fit the capacity of localinstitutional and legal frameworks.90

For example, in the case of water, agriculture,and adaptations to climate change, Benioff(1996) in Smith and others (1996) outlinesseveral measures, including the development ofcomprehensive river basin, lake, or reservoirmanagement plans, as well as theimplementation of water conservation plans. Thelatter include demand-side managementmeasures such as pricing incentives (forexample, adjusting water prices to reflect the fullcost of recovery), and improving regulations andtechnology standards. Other options includedeveloping new water supplies, encouraging thecombined use of ground and surface water inaddition to rainwater, recycling, increasingcapacity to transfer water between and withinriver basins, improving flood protectionschemes, developing storage capacity, enhancingand executing drought response planningprograms,91 and, in general, public educationprograms focusing on adapting to climatechange in agriculture.

O’Brien and others (2000) outline, with respect toadaptation to climate change in Antigua andBarbuda, that a comprehensive coastal areamanagement plan is required. The plan, theauthors contend, should cover items that rangefrom improving the employing technologyoptions to reduce vulnerability to weatherextremes, to the development of technicalcapabilities in agriculture and fisheriesmanagement,92 to concurrent public healthprograms on controlling dengue and othervector-borne diseases.

In many countries resolving socioeconomic andenvironmental issues is an important means ofaddressing climate change impacts.93 A stablemacroeconomic environment, progress in tamingcorruption, and stronger legal infrastructure forstimulating domestic and internationalinvestment, including that in the agriculturalsector, have been highlighted as necessary(Kherallah and others 2002). In addition,changes in international and domesticcompetition laws need to be implemented toensure viable competitive technology markets,improvements in the flow of technologicalinformation, and technical capacity building.

Moreover, the necessary institutional reformsneed to be supported by appropriate socialpolicies. For example, many countries haveexperienced difficulty in adjusting water prices,or subsidies that support various agriculturalinputs that are aimed at improving allocative oruse efficiency. While many reasons havecontributed (including the pursuit of short-termobjectives, persistence with the continuation oftraditional practices) the existence of suchperverse incentives has continued long enoughthat they are now institutionalized. Citizensoften view free water and affordable agriculturalinputs as an inalienable right. Although



arguments can be made both ways, it is also clearthat the current economic realities of manydeveloping countries rarely allow such supportschemes without aggravating other economicproblems such as inefficiency (due to thecontinual dependency on state support, oftenworsening national deficits). There is no doubtthat some difficult choices need to be made tohelp countries overcome past social norms andexpectations. Adjustments need to reflect lessonsthat have emerged from previous structuraladjustment policies. Changes need to be dynamicand complementary; social programs need to be

devised to provide a credible safety net forhouseholds adversely affected by the reforms. AsKherallah and others (2002) argue, governmentsneed to reverse declining investments in otherareas, such as agricultural research andextension; improve transport infrastructure;promote the sustainable use of natural resources;and develop public services such as marketinformation, plant protection, and diseasecontrol. Such programs are justifiable on theirown terms as well as for the politicalsustainability of the necessary reforms.


Matrix of Adaptations

Adaptations Options in Agriculture to Climate Change and Variability

Adaptation option: Purpose

Necessary

supporting policies Other prerequisites Limitations

Short term

Crop Insurance

Private/public programs Enabling improved

risk coverage

Improving access Synergies between govt.

and private sector in

bearing risks

Risk averse communities/

insufficient collateral

Formal/informal schemes Risk management through

risk reduction and risk

sharing

Minimizing information

asymmetries

High opportunity costs of

public funds

Improving supervisory

capacity

Establishing enforcement

mechanisms

High monitoring costs

(institutional limitations)

Revising pricing incentives Introducing measures for

the correct estimation of

premiums

Adverse selection/moral

hazard

Improving affordability/

availability of coverage for

catastrophes

Innovative schemes should

be pursued (e.g. tradable

financial assets;

catastrophic bonds;

weather markets

Need to establish well-

functioning producer

organizations

Portfolio

(Crop/Livestock)

Diversification

Replacement of plant

types, cultivars, hybrids

and animal breeds with

new varieties

Risk-spreading/

promoting farm-level

risk management

Availability of extension

services

Tenure reform to ensure

property rights are

established

Traditions, lack of awareness,

and other limitations (high

opportunity costs) may

dampen willingness to diversify

Alternative production

techniques (adjustment of

capital and labor inputs)

Increasing

productivity

Financial support/

alternatives should be

provided by private and

public sector

Land-use regulations need

to be reviewed to enable

diversification

Over-dependence on

government support

mechanisms needs to be

reduced

Multi-cropping Defending against

disease, pest

Enable mobility of

activities

Education/training/

extension services need to

be provided

Need alternatives that

maintain quantity and income

from production

Mixed farming systems of

crops and livestock

Remove subsidies on

certain crops/livestock

production not conducive

to changed climatic and

resource conditions

Adjusting Timing of Farm

Operations

Adjusting cropping

sequence

Reducing risks of

crop damage/

maximizing output in

light of new

conditions

Extension services/training

is necessary

Mechanisms for the

dissemination of

agronomic and climate

information

Investment in collection of

climate data and disseminating

information required

Adjusting timing of

irrigation

Pricing policies have to be

reviewed

Institutional support must

be strengthened

Limitations of existing

infrastructure

5




Necessary


Changing Cropping

Intensity

Adjusting fertilizer and

other inputs

Improving moisture

and nutrient

retention

Extension services must

be improved

Location-specific solutions

should be sought

Availability of cultivable land;

availability of alternative lands

Changing land use

practices

Reducing soil erosion Pricing policy adjustments

for incentives to making

adjustments

Socioeconomic (financial)

Changing location of

crop/livestock production

Adjusting to changing

length of growing

season

Conflicts with other farm

operations at other times of

the year

Rotating or shifting

production between

crops and livestock

Increasing plant

protection

Traditions, lack of awareness,




Abandonment of land Concerns regarding

maintaining similar production

levels

Changing the timing of

activities (of sowing,

planting, spraying and

harvesting)

Changing the timing of

irrigation

Livestock Management

Change in biological

diversity, species

Spreading risks;

increasing

productivity

Provision of extension

services

Promoting investment in

livestock management

Tradition s, lack of awareness




Altering the breeding

management program

(i.e., changing

composition, or species

distribution)

Adjusting to new

climate conditions

Institutional support

Change in grazing

management (timing,

duration, and location)

Changing the location of

watering points

Changes in rangeland

management practices

Modifying operation

production strategies

Changing market

strategies

Implementing feed

conservation techniques/

varying supplemental

feeding




Necessary


Changes in Tillage

Practices (Conservation

Tillage)

x

Land contouring and

terracing

Conserving soil

moisture and organic

carbon contents and

increased soil

erosion maintain soil

fertility and prevent

erosion (nutrient

management)

Extension services need to

support activities

Investment

Maintaining crop residues Maintaining soil

quality/provide

protection against

wind erosion

Pricing incentives to

promote conservation

Land tenure reform

Fallow and tillage

practices

Increasing

production per unit

of evapotranspiration

Indigenous knowledge

Planting of hedges Reducing water run-

off/improving water

uptake

Alternative drainage

methods

Recharging water

supply

Construction of

diversions and reservoirs

and water storage

Reducing runoff and

erosion

Irrigation Nutrient restocking

Reducing water use in

land preparation

Conserving water

Temporary Migration Risk diversification

strategy to withstand

climate shocks and

seasonal effects

Employment

training/opportunities

Institutional support Availability of employment

opportunities in urban areas;

growth elsewhere in economy

Skills and earnings potential

High population density in

cities

Short-Term Forecasts Improve preparation

for medium-term

climatic impacts

Institutional support for

collection and

dissemination,

Infrastructure for

monitoring

Financial resources constraints

information dissemination

Food Reserves and

Storage

Temporary relief Delivery mechanisms Expensive/complacency



Changing Crop Mix

Adopting new crops Spreading risk of

damage

Revising pricing; food

importation policy

Promoting investment Institutional failures

Planting in different part

of farm

Move away from

unstable cash crop

systems

Tenure; extension; pricing

incentives

Institutional support to

administer

Acceptance of change gradual

Converting land use Improving access and

affordability

Agricultural marketing

policies

Economic failures (maintaining

incomes)

Need viable alternatives

(incomes)

Review of agricultural

credit schemes

Knowledge

Irrigation

Increase

productivity;

withstand rainwater

shortages

Investment by public and

private sectors

Clear water management

policy

Institutional support and

enforcement mechanisms

Modernization of Farm

Operations

Increase productivity Promoting the adoption of

technological innovations

Establishment of

intellectual property rights

Conflicts between

national/private objectives

Research and

development (biological

and mechanical options)

Withstanding climate

effects

Role of private

multinationals

Maintaining similar production

levels

Adoption of technology

(e.g., use of sprinklers)

Subsidization programs may

create perverse incentives

Permanent Migration

Diversify income-

earning opportunities

Education and training for

alternative opportunities

Institutional support

(property rights)

Impacts on resource base

To overcome long

lasting climate

impacts

Retraining Land pressure

Defining Landuse and

Tenure Rights

Incentives to make

necessary

investments in

agricultural land to

withstand climatic

impacts

Legal reform and

enforcement


Necessary




Efficient Water Use

Improving water

distribution

Water conservation Pricing reforms for water Sustainable water projects

Promoting irrigation

efficiency

Avoid salinization;

increase in moisture

retention

Clearly defined property

rights

Diffusion of technological

advances in water

management

Cost

Changing crop and

irrigation schedules

Water storage and

flood control

Develop open markets Institutional reforms Competing demands

Water recycling and the

conjunctive use of

groundwater

Strengthening farm level

managerial capacity

Financial crises

Rehabilitation and

modernization

Low-cost recovery of the

investment in the water

system

Political economy issues

Both short and long term

Investment Promotion

Overcome financial

limitations to adapt

Property rights; designing

innovating financial tools

Social constraints against

capital accumulation

Injection of initial capital Reluctance of agricultural

traders to offer inputs on

credit

Develop Market

Efficiency

Pricing reform Promote more

efficient use of

resources

Remove barriers Institutional support

Develop open markets Property rights; pricing

policy

The establishment of

regional consultation

centers

Poor transport infrastructure

Reform of agricultural

markets

Adjustment of agriculture

input subsidies that

constrain adaptation

Impart knowledge on

adaptation alternatives

Land use regulations Legislative reform

Adoption of

Technological and Other

Adaptation Measures

Increasing

agricultural yields

Pricing incentives/ tax

reform

Community management

and cooperation programs

Natural constraints- if land is

available

Reducing average

fixed costs

Extension services for

training

Socioeconomic capacity to

adapt

Reducing variable

costs

Finance schemes Complete removal of

government support

Lower producer prices

Lower world food prices

Attitudes towards risk

Level of uncertainty of the

future

Availability of funds for

investment

Access to assets, capital, and

credit

High tariffs in export markets


Necessary




Promoting Trade Promoting economic

growth

Strengthening long-

term food supply and

production

limitations

Pricing and exchange rate

reform and stabilization

Social policy Subsidies in developed

markets

Reducing risks of

food shortages

Adjustment of agricultural

subsidies and tariffs

Developing Extension

Services

Improve agricultural

productivity

Role of private, non-

governmental and

cooperative agencies

Ensure agents are

productive through

adequate incentives

Improve awareness

and knowledge of

measures

Ensuring sufficient agents

per farmer/region

Limit/remove

management failures

Public organization,

resources, and institutional

support

Utilize indigenous

knowledge

Improving Forecasting

Mechanisms

Assist planning Extension Information needs to be

distributed across all

sectors

Financial

Strengthen ability of

to cope

Institutional support (e.g.

establishment of farmer

cooperatives to spread

knowledge)

Horizontal and vertical

exchanges of information

Conflicts with traditional

practices/

social conventions

Ensure information is in a

usable form

Skepticism

Institutional

Strengthening and

Decision-making

Structures

To support long

term planning

Reform existing

institutions that support

agricultural sector

Participation of key

stakeholders

Reduce vulnerability Pricing incentives;

improving regulations and

technology standards

Requires integrated

management practices;

need to fit specific

institutional settings

Planning agencies formed by

administrative resolution as

opposed to being mandatory

Provide information

on the changing

socioeconomic

structure,

demographics,

technology, and

public preferences

Legal infrastructure

(reform) for stimulating

domestic and international

investment

Comprehensive multi-

sectoral management

plans

Improving

organization

capacity,

responsibility and

operational

effectiveness

Changes in international

and domestic competition

Resilience; flexibility;

public education program

Social policies Remove bureaucratic

inefficiencies


Necessary




Upgrading of current

physical planning laws and

regulations

Equally well functioning

institutions in other

sectors

Improve coordination

between central and local

government


Necessary



Conclusions andthe Way Forward

A growing literature suggests that while climatemitigation strategies are necessary, that alone isunlikely to be sufficient as a climate policy.Because global mitigation measures are unlikelyto keep climate constant, every country must alsoexamine how they will adapt to the changes thatwill occur. Each country must examine how theycan reduce their vulnerability to climate changeand increase desirable outcomes. Some degree ofclimate change will have to be confronted by theagriculture sectors across developing countriesthereby rendering adaptation imperative.

Diverse and location-specific impacts onagricultural production are anticipated. Whilethe global agricultural supply is likely to be robustin the face of moderate climate change, severeregional variation is expected. While temperateand polar regions stand to gain relatively in termsof agricultural productivity, developing countriesin tropical regions are expected to be the worst-affected from climate change, sufferingsignificant agricultural production losses. Manyof these countries are also currently under severeeconomic and ecological stress. Climate change isexpected to push the agricultural sectors in thesecountries into further hardship. In particular, thestress is likely to be over and beyond that causedby the traditional economic, political, social, andinstitutional imperfections that currently affectthe agricultural sector. Moreover, it will increasethe incidence of poverty in rural areas given thehigh dependency on the agricultural sector forrural livelihood opportunities.

It is thus essential that there is increasedrecognition by governments in developingcountries of the impeding threats of climatechange on their agricultural sector. Results fromscientific and economic studies of likely impactson agriculture in developing countries must bedisseminated with increased urgency, andpolitical awareness must be raised to confrontthe main issues. It is essential that steps be takento support farmers and households engaged inthe agricultural sector to cope with both thethreat of climate variability as well as thechallenges that climate change will pose onfuture livelihood opportunities. Consequently,simultaneous to international efforts to mitigateemissions of greenhouse gases, pursuing acomplementary strategy at the national and locallevels of enabling the agriculture sector to adaptto climate variability and change and negatemany of the expected adverse impacts is equally,if not more, urgent.

A host of recent impact studies show thatreducing vulnerability to climate change bystrengthening the adaptive capacity of theagricultural sector can reap substantial benefits.Several key themes emerge from the review.• Given the range of current vulnerability and

diversity of expected impacts, there is nosingle recommended formula for adaptation.Instead, increasing adaptive capacity of theagricultural sector will require a host ofcomplementary measures. Suitable strategies

6



will have to be specific to local conditions,including economic, political, and socialrealities, and reflect institutional and legalcapacity and national development goals.

• Policies to promote adaptation to climatevariability need to be undertaken today. Ifsociety is to deal with climate changeeffectively, the necessary policies to adapt toclimate change should be implemented in adynamic way as climate change unfolds.

• Distinction must also be made betweenadapting to extreme events to preventdisaster versus adapting to persistentchanges. That is, a different set of solutionswill be necessary to address climatevariability and climate change concernsrespectively. While in some cases, measureswill reinforce each other, more often theywill not. Many policies aimed at reducingvulnerability to short-term climate variationwill not reduce vulnerability to long-termclimate change. At the same time,adaptations that help reduce long-termsusceptibility to climate change impacts willnot alleviate short-term vulnerabilities.

• Responsibility for adaptations will be in thehands of private individuals as well asgovernment. Private agents motivated byself-interest and underlying welfare-maximizing objectives will undertake sometypes of adaptations. That is, adaptationmeasures will be undertaken for private gainand these will be undertaken by the marketwithout new public policy. Someadaptations will require coordinatedresponses across many agents. In light ofhigh information requirements, equityconsiderations, and other externalitiesassociated with adaptation, government-sponsored adaptive measures will benecessary.

• Policymakers need to acknowledge thatlimiting non-climate-change stress on theagricultural sector will also increase theresilience of key stakeholders to climatevariability and change. Successfuladaptation is unlikely without alsoaddressing wide-ranging problems thatmake the agricultural sectors vulnerable inthe first place.

• While the poor can adapt, it will not becostless given that as a group, more effortand a considerable proportion of per capitaincome will be required to adapt. There istherefore a need to simultaneously addressunderlying causes of poverty, vulnerability,development, and to tackle displacement,division, and degradation issues (Kates2000).

This paper has revealed that there is a wealth ofknowledge of a range of measures that can helpthe agricultural sector in developing countriesbecome more resilient to climate vulnerabilities.Some measures, implemented at the farm level,are aimed at reducing vulnerabilities to climatevariability. These include, essentially, riskdiversification strategies such as cropdiversification, changes in intensity ofproduction, nutrient and pest managementprograms, insurance schemes, food storage,forecasting and disseminating climateinformation, and temporary migration in searchof off-farm employment opportunities. However,while effective in the short term, they are likelyto be insufficient for coping with the threats ofclimate change in the longer term. Accordingly,there is also a need to pursue a different set ofstrategies aimed at reducing long-termvulnerability. The range of options in this regardincludes changing the crop mix, improvingwater management, adopting and utilizing newtechnologies (that is, modernization of the



agricultural sector), and migrating permanentlyaway from unviable agricultural areas.

The literature also suggests that it is necessary toovercome factors that contribute to vulnerabilityregardless of the temporal dimension of climatechange. In particular, low per capita income,high dependency on subsistence agriculture andnatural resources, weak governmental andinstitutional capacity, prevalence of preventableand non-preventable diseases, high incidence ofarmed conflict, and dependence on aid havebeen identified as issues that make economicdevelopment and growth challenging (Desanker,2002). These, as well as other reasons, such asinsufficient investment in infrastructure andsocial capital (relative to growth potential), lackof openness to trade, deficient public services,and inconsistent government policies (Collierand Gunning 1999), are also likely to increasethe agricultural sector’s vulnerability to climatechange. This paper highlighted that, in response,a suite of strategies, preferably throughgovernment intervention, should be adoptedregardless of the temporal dimension of climatechange. In this regard, research has shown thateconomic, institutional, political, and socialfactors are likely to play an important role inenabling the agricultural sector to adapt toclimate change. In particular, institutionalstrengthening through improved organization,managerial capacity, and development ofadequate legal frameworks are imperative.Macro level measures will be necessary not onlyto promote the accumulation of capital but alsoto direct investment in areas that reducevulnerability to climate impacts. In addition,agricultural price reform (such as the removal ofdistortionary subsidies in industrial countries aswell as elsewhere) and the development of openmarkets, promotion of increased trade, andimprovement in institutional planning and

structures are imperative. Other measures willnecessitate micro level approaches to encouragethe adoption of new technologies, developextension services, and improve access to creditin agriculture in rural areas; to increaseopportunities to diversify income-earning andemployment opportunities; and the effectivedissemination of climate data and developmentof early warning systems. In some cases thesepolicies will reinforce each other. In other cases,there will be competition, and the success ofpolicy will depend on their design and theexistence of institutions to support theirimplementation.The adoption of many of these measures is ofimportance for reasons other than climate. Thatis, they are necessary for the pursuit ofsustainable development. The pursuit of such“no-regrets” options through an interdiscipli-nary approach is fundamental to strengtheningthe capacity of the agricultural sector to adapt toclimate change.

While the menu of adaptation options presentedin this review is extensive, it need not necessarilybe overwhelming to policymakers. In the shortrun, adaptation options need to reflect what isknown currently about climate conditions. Incontrast, in the long term, national and sectoralpolicy and assistance provided by internationalagencies to developing countries should reflectexpected impacts from climate change. Theattention of policymakers should then be onprioritizing, formulating, and implementingpolicies that promote adaptation based on site-specific conditions. In this respect, three keylessons emerge. First, incentives need to beformulated and incorporated into projectdesigns. Second, it is also clear that dynamicadaptation needs to be promoted, as it is unlikelythat there will be one solution to address climateconcerns. Finally, it is not necessary that an



entirely new and alternative suite of policies bedesigned to address climate concerns. Evidenceis abound of the numerous measures that canaddress various climate concerns. It is important,however, that incentives that promote

adaptation policies are appropriatelyincorporated into poverty reduction and othersustainable development policies in order toenhance the resiliency of the poor.


Notes

1. P. Kurukulasuriya and S. Rosenthal aredoctoral students at the Yale University’sSchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

2. Downing (1993); Mendelsohn, Dinar andSanghi (1998); Mendelsohn and Neumann(1998); Mendelsohn and Schlesinger (1999);Mendelsohn and others (1999); Cline andRosegrant (2002).

3. Darwin and others (1995) links agriculturalproductivity of land to a CGE model of theworld economy to arrive at this estimate.

4. Comment made by Sachs at a invitationallecture on “Mobilizing Science for SustainableEnergy Systems” at the School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Yale University, onJanuary 29, 2003.

5. GSM Models (GFDL, GISS, UKMO) tested threeclimate change scenarios, including incrementsof 4, 4.3, and 5.2 degree Celsius respectively,and change in global precipitation of 8, 11, and15 percent respectively.

6. According to WRI (1998) estimates cited inIPCC (2001), countries in the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development(OECD) depend on agriculture for about 2-3percent of annual GDP while African countriesgenerate 5-58 percent (similar evidence is citedin World Bank 1994).

7. Different adaptation strategies can lead todifferent levels of greenhouse gas emissionsand therefore mitigation options will also beaffected.

8. Burton (1996) outlines six reasons including (i)climate change cannot be entirely avoided; (ii)anticipatory adaptation is less costly thanforced adaptations after impacts are realized;(iii) unexpected events are possible given thatclimate change can be more rapid thanexpected; (iv) immediate benefits fromadapting to extreme events and variability ofclimate; (v) there can be substantial gains from

removing maladaptive policies and other ad hocpractices that otherwise increase vulnerability;and (vi) must grasp the opportunities thatclimate change will bring.

9. It has been estimated that a doubling of CO2(relative to 1880 levels) will force an increase inglobal average surface temperature of 1.5-4.5degrees C by 2060 (IPCC, 1990). More recently,estimates have ranged from 1.0-3.5 degrees Cby 2100 (IPCC, 1996).

10. In addition to the usual operational decisionsthat have to be made regarding inputs,outputs, and technologies, farmers also need toalso consider when they will make changes,contingent on uncertain climate effects.

11. See Rosenzweig and Liverman (1992) whodiscuss the biophysical response of agriculturecrops in light of interactions with thermalregimes, changes in hydrological regimes,physiological effects (CO2), soils, and pests.See also, Rosenzweig and Hillel (1995).

12. This includes primarily changes in the length oftime that soil temperature and moistureconditions are most appropriate for cropgrowth (Darwin 2001).

13. Warmer temperatures are likely to adverselyaffect soil nutrients and organic matter throughmicrobial decomposition.

14. Plants are classified as C3, C4, or CAM accordingto the products formed in the initial phases ofphotosynthesis. C3 species respond more toincreased CO2; C4 species respond better thanC3 plants to higher temperature, and theirwater-use efficiency increases more than for C3plants. C3 plants: cotton, rice, wheat, barley,soybeans, sunflower, potatoes, most leguminousand woody plants, most horticultural crops andmany weeds. C4 plants: maize, sorghum,sugarcane, millets, halophytes (that is, salt-tolerant plants) and many tall tropical grasses,pasture, forage, and weed species. CAM plants



(Crassulacean Acid Metabolism, an optional C3or C4 pathway of photosynthesis, depending onconditions): cassava, pineapple, onions, castor(from Sombroek and Gommes, 1996).

15. Moreover, other fossil fuel emissions such assulfur dioxide and ozone are likely to negatesome of the beneficial impacts of carbondioxide effects.

16. Personal communication during review ofpaper.

17. Oceanic-atmospheric interactions in the IndianOcean and southern Atlantic are also seen asimportant influences on rainfall patterns insouthern Africa.

18. The models effectively held farmer behaviorconstant despite the different simulatedenvironment that they operated in.

19. That is, estimates have been based on resultsfrom carefully controlled agronomicexperiments that assumed hypotheticalresponses Adams and others (1989; 1990; 1993;1999); Easterling and others (1993); Kaiser andothers (1993a; 1993b); Rosenzweig and Parry(1994); Kumar and Parikh (1998).

20. The argument is that rising temperatures, andchanges in the frequency and extent ofprecipitation are likely to make agriculturalareas in these marginal areas in developingcountries unsurprisingly even less productive.

21. That is, in terms of total costs and total revenueof agriculture production.

22. The case studies cited are adapted from http://www.ccasia.teri.res.in/country/india/impacts.

23. Government of Zimbabwe (1998) InitialCommunication on Climate Change, prepared inaccordance with the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change.

24. Results for Zimbabwe are based on an analysisof the suitability of various agro-ecologicalzones for maize production, using the sameCERES-Maize model that is widely usedamong African counties (referred to inpublications by Makadho (1996) and Muchena(1994)).

25. The report, however, notes that the researchdoes not take account of the effects of CO2enrichment.

26. The research builds on work reported inStrzepek and others (1996) using amathematical model of Egypt’s agriculturalsector together with an earlier study of the

country’s macro-economy, agronomy, waterresources and land resources.

27. Not only is the Nile a source for most water, buta large proportion of the arable land(predominantly in the deltaic region) isvulnerable to sea level rise.

28. Holdridge (1947) formulated a life zoneclassification to capture the complexities oftropical vegetation. Zones are definedaccording to “biotemperature”—that is, alltemperatures above freezing, with alltemperatures below freezing adjusted to 0° C.The assumption, based on plant physiology, isthat there is no real difference between 0° Cand temperatures less than zero, as within thisrange, plants are dormant. The life zones arethus defined based on a climatic variable—degrees mean annual biotemperature and notaccording to degrees latitude or meters ofelevation (Woodward, 1996).

29. Based on two different GCMs (the HadleyCentre (HadCM2) and the Canadian ClimateCenter) models.

30. The prediction of precipitation changes areinherently more difficult than predictions offuture temperature.

31. In their model, Mendelsohn and others, (1994)include the economic effects of farm-leveladaptation without having to enumeratespecific adjustments.

32. See Lewandrowski and Schimmelpfenning(1999) for an excellent summary of the findingsof climate change impacts on U.S. agriculture.

33. Etterson and Shaw (2001) discuss constraints toadaptive evolution in response to globalwarming with respect to plant migration andadaptation.

34. In line with IPCC (1996; 2001), as well as Carterand others (1994), UNEP (1998), Smit andothers (2000) and Smit and Pilifosova (2001)adaptations in this paper also refers toadjustments that are intentionally made inagriculture systems in response to expectedclimatic conditions and impacts.

35. See Hay (2002) for study on Pacific Islands andDeeb (2002), who focuses on the Caribbean,and Huq, (2002) who looks at Bangladesh forcase studies on adaptations to climate change.

36. Based on new research using the Ricardianapproach. The analysis is undertaken at thecounty level in the United States, district levelin India, and municipal level in Brazil.


References

37. Based on personal communication fromHorowitz regarding recent (unpublished)research by Horowitz and Quiggin (2003).

38. Climate variability could also be the forerunnerof longer term changes in climate means(Qunying and Lin 1999).

39. For example, although major infrastructureworks are expected to last a substantial period,not including the possibility of climate impactsin the design stages could undermine theiroverall performance and cast doubt on theeffectiveness of long-term investment decisions(Klein and Tol (1997).

40. For example, changing the adaptive capacity ofan agriculture system or facilitating particularadaptations to climate change.

41. Public adaptation has the characteristics of a“public good” as defined by Samuelson (1954).

42. For example, poor and landless households areoften constrained in their ability to adapt, whichin turn can be costly (in terms of increasinglytheir vulnerability to displacement, morbidity,mortality, and deprivation). Moreover, incontrast to commercial farmers, subsistencefarmers do not have as wide a portfolio ofadaptation options, which can be due to avariety of reasons; perhaps the most importantis access to financing.

43. For example, multiple users of water willnecessitate any water supply adaptations toinvolve landowners, private traders, localauthorities, water dependent businesses,national governments, and internationalorganizations.

44. For instance, if there are high information coststo undertake forecasting and identifyingpatterns on impacts across diverse regions, orinequitable distribution of wealth and access tocredit, private adaptation may not only beinefficient but may not be just (Esty andMendelsohn,1998).

45. However, given political influences ongovernment policy, it is not obvious that evenefficient levels of public adaptation will beundertaken.

46. There have been numerous attempts to presenta typology of adaptation measures to climatechange in agriculture, but few have focused ondeveloping countries. For example, Skinnerand others. (2001) and Dolan and others (2001)present reviews of adaptation options inCanadian agriculture. Abildtrup and Gylling

(2001) provide the results of a survey of theliterature on the experiences of agriculture inthe European Union. Schimmelpfenning andothers (1996) similarly review the implicationsof adaptations in the United States. Clearly, theinventory presented here is meant as anoverview of the spectrum of primary responsestrategies that have been highlighted.

47. Dolan and others (2001) indicate that adaptationoptions can be categorized by their timing(reactive, concurrent, or anticipatory), ortemporal scope (short- versus long-term).

48. See also Reilly (1995); Erda (1996); Iglesias andothers (1996); Reilly and others (1996);Downing and others (1997); Parry and others(2000).

49. That is, by ensuring that that irregular damagesto one crop/livestock can be buffered by theproduction of other crops/livestock not affectedby the same problems.

50. Morgan (1995) provides a review of the use ofconservation techniques to mitigate soilerosion.

51. Rosenberg (1981); Dumanski and others (1986);Lewandrowski and Brazee (1993); Reilly (1995);Rosenzweig and Hillel (1995); Benioff andothers (1996); Downing and others (1997); Erda(1996); Easterling, (1996); Reilly and others(1996); Parry and others (1998); Adams andothers (1999); Metz and others (2000); Parry andothers (2000).

52. See section 4.2.4.

53. For example, excessive population growth,education and training, employmentopportunities, income differentials, politicaland other freedoms, communication andtransportation, urbanization, and climateconditions.

54. In economics research, the classic migrationmodel is that introduced by Todaro (1969) andHarris and Todaro (1970); see Bardhan andUdry (1999).

55. The climate relationship between equatorialAfrica and subtropical southern Africa is foundto be inverse.

56. For example, Meze-Hausken (2000) suggeststhat the treatment of the environment-migration relationship has often been based onMalthusian arguments.

57. Goria (1999) discusses direct effects, such asthe availability and access to natural resources,



and indirect effects, where climate factors havea significant influence on income, as factorswhich can induce migration.

58. Examples from Canada include the DairySubsidization Program, the AgriculturalIncome Disaster Assistance Program, and theNet Income Stabilization Account.

59. Insurance cover is provided for the sum insuredor the market value of the animal at the time ofdeath, whichever is less (GOI 1997).

60. Studies by Skees and others (1999), Skees(1999); and Skees (2001) are cited in support ofthe finding that there are few crop insuranceprograms without government subsidization.

61. Issues concerning adverse selection and moralhazard are well recognized in the case ofinsurance.

62. Studies by Gautum and others (1994); Sakuraiand Reardon (1997); Skees, Hazell and Miranda(1999); and Skees (2000).

63. In contrast, existing climate variation and severeevents warrant a response today.

64. A concurrent crucial measure is the developmentof seed banks (Benioff and others (1996);Easterling (1996); Mizina and others (1999) andpromotion of extension services to diffuse newknowledge among local farmers.

65. See also Kaiser and others (1993); Reilly (1995);Iglesias and others (1996); Benioff and others(1996); El-Shaer and others (1996); Erda, (1996);Easterling (1996); Reilly and others (1996);Schimmelpfenning and others (1996); Downingand others (1997); Parry and others (2000);Mortimore and Williams (2000).

66. The literature makes a distinction betweentechnological innovations available currentlyand those that are necessary but should bemade available in the future to address climatechange.

67. In a recent article in Science, it was highlightedthat field experiments in India found thatgenetically modified cotton crops designed toresist insects have produced dramaticallyincreased yields (Quaim and Zilberman (2003).

68. Especially with reference to enabling countriesto achieve self-sufficiency in cereal grains inthe face of rapid population growth.

69. Given the public good nature of research of thistype and the need to disseminate resultswidely, government intervention is also likelyto be necessary. In addition, private research

initiatives are unlikely to be attractive giventhat the timeframe for realizing benefits is oftentoo long.

70. Based on irrigation system efficiency and fieldapplication efficiency.

71. See World Bank (1993) Policy Paper, WaterResources Management.

72. Including deciding which fields to irrigate andwhen and how much irrigation is necessarygiven that over-irrigation can have negativeeffects on quantitative and qualitative yield.

73. Based on the review of publications, includingintegrated regional and national economicimpacts studies of climate change (Rosenberg(1993), Frederick and Rosenberg (1994) andYates and Strzepek (1996)) and river basin andurban areas studies (Kaczmarek andNapiorkowski (1996), Stakhiv (1996), Boland(1997), Hobbs and others (1997), Georgakakosand others (1998), Lettenmaier and others(1999)).

74. For example, compromising indigenousmanagement practices in those areas with aninflux of migrants.

75. Other factors, such as gender bias in the abilityto make a decision to change a farming practicecan also be a limitation.

76. For example, purchasing seeds, transportation,draft power (animals), hiring temporaryworkers, and expanding land undercultivation.

77. The underdeveloped state of formal ruralcredit markets in Africa has been highlightedin numerous studies such as Collier andGunning (1999).

78. Since the 1980s, reform programs across anumber of African countries have aimed toeliminate price controls on agriculturalcommodities, privatize state farms and state-owned enterprises, reduce taxation ofagricultural exports, phase out subsidies onfertilizer and other inputs, and allow greatercompetition in agricultural markets. Resultsoverall have been mixed. The authors suggestthat evidence exists of improvements in marketefficiency, reduction in budget deficits,increments in exports, and higher farmgateprices. At the same time, there is also evidenceof agriculture price instability, widening of theincome distribution gap, and impediments thatplague access to inputs.


References

79. Albeit the pace and extent of market reformshave varied across countries in the continent.

80. There are additional benefits. As You (2001)states with reference to China, imports can helpmeet shortages in local supply of food, butalso implicitly will help overcome shortages inthe local supply of water.

81. The report draws attention to the example ofgovernment regulation through high importduties imposed on Compact FluorescentLamps (CFLs) in Pakistan. According to theauthors, the reduction of the duty from 125percent to 25 percent in 1990 led to thereduction in price and increase in sales ofCFLs, which would have contributed toimproved energy efficiency (IPCC 2001).

82. Communication during review of this paper.

83. Given also the issue of “free riding,” researchand development and dissemination of resultsmay be necessary by a public authority.

84. Paxson (1993) found in a study that Thaihouseholds engaged in agriculture activitiesused savings to buffer consumption fromincome fluctuations, caused by, among otherfactors, changes in climate.

85. Ellis (1998) reviews the recent literature ondiversification as a livelihood strategy forhouseholds in developing countries.

86. See, for example, Molua (2002) who suggestsmany of these policies as crucial to assistingfarm households in Southwestern Cameroon tocope with climate variability.

87. In the case of water, all sectors and agenciesdependent on fresh water hydrology

(agriculture, forestry, urban, energy,ecosystems, and so forth).

88. While admittedly these recommendations aremade with reference to adaptation in Antiguaand Barbuda, it is easy to see that they areequally applicable in places with similarinstitutional frameworks to address climatechange.

89. Thereby avoiding the well known problems ofdiscounting damages that occur in the future.

90. Smith and others (1996) advocate that theprimary tools for determining theappropriateness of response policies includebenefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis,and adaptation decision matrix and index ofchanges in vulnerability.

91. Such as encouraging efficient water use ordeveloping efficient irrigation systems.

92. Potential adaptations include modifyingfarming practices through the use of dripirrigation technologies, improved fielddrainage, selection of drought tolerant species,improved shelter or housing for livestock. Forfisheries, modernization and upgrading of on-shore moorings and storage facilities as well asmeasures to promote greater sea-worthinessand safety of fishing vessels.

93. Burton (2001) argues that poverty in drylandareas is intensifying due to a combination offactors. These include a reduction in the valueof agriculture commodities, an intensificationof competition, an increase in the cost ofinputs, limited access to markets and a largeburden of debt.


References

Abildtrup, Jens, and Morten Gylling. 2001.“Climate Change and Regulation ofAgricultural Land Use: A literature survey onadaptation options and policy measures.”Danish Institute of Agricultural and FisheriesEconomics Farm Management andProduction Systems Division.

Achanta, A. N. 1993. “An assessment of thepotential impact of global warming on Indianrice production.” In A. N. Achanta, ed., TheClimate Change Agenda: An Indian Perspective.New Delhi: Tata Energy Research Institute.

Adams, Richard M., and B. H. Hurd. 1999.“Graphically Speaking: Climate Change andAgriculture: Some Regional Implications.”Choices 14 (1): 22-23.

Adams, Richard M., D. Glyer, and Bruce A.McCarl. 1989. “The Economic Effects ofClimate Change in U.S. Agriculture: APreliminary Assessment.” In D. Tirpak and J.Smith, eds., The Potential Effects of GlobalClimate Change on the United States: Report toCongress. EPA 230-05-89-050. Washington,D.C: United States Environmental ProtectionAgency.

Adams, Richard M., C. Rosenzweig, and others.1990. “Global Climate Change and U.S.Agriculture.” Nature 345: 219-24.

Adams, Richard M., R. A. Fleming, and others.1993. “A Reassessment of the EconomicEffects of Global Climate Change in U.S.Agriculture.” Washington, D.C.: UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency.

Adams, R. M., B. A. McCarl, and others. 1998.“Climate Change and U.S. Agriculture: somefurther evidence.” Report prepared for theElectric Power Research Institute as part ofthe Agricultural Impacts Project of theClimate Change Impacts Program (CCIP).

Adams, Richard M., Bruce A. McCarl, and others.1999. “The Economic Effects of ClimateChange on U.S. Agriculture.” In RobertMendelsohn and James Neumann, eds., TheImpact of Climate Change on the United StatesEconomy. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Adesina, Akinwumi A. and Jonas Chianu.2002“Determinants of Farmers’ Adoptionand Adaptation of Alley FarmingTechnology in Nigeria.” AgroforestrySystems 55: 99-112.

Adger, W. N., P. M. Kelly, A. Winkels, L. Q. Huy,and C. Locke. 2002. “Migration, Remittances,Livelihood Trajectories, and SocialResilience.” Ambio 31(4): 358-66.

Agarwal, Bina. 1990. “Social Security and theFamily: Coping with Seasonality andCalamity in Rural India.” Journal of PeasantStudies 17 (3): 341-412.

Aggarawal, P. K., and S. K. Sinha. 1993. “Effect ofProbable Increase in Carbon Dioxide andTemperature on Wheat Yields in India.” Journalof Agricultural Meteorology 48(5): 811-814.

Alderman, Harold, and C. H. Paxson. 1992. “Dothe Poor Insure? A Synthesis of theLiterature on Risk and Consumption in



Developing Countries.” World Bank PolicyResearch Working Paper1008. Washington,D.C.

Alderwish, Ahmed, and Mohamed Al-Eryani.1999. “An Approach for Assessing theVulnerability of the Water Resources ofYemen to Climate Change.” Climate Research12:85-89.

Alexandrov, Vesselin. 1999. “Vulnerability andAdaptation of Agronomic Systems inBulgaria.” Climate Research 12: 161-173.

Alexandrov, V. A., and Gerrit Hoogenboom.2000. “The Impact of Climate Variabilityand Change on Crop Yield in Bulgaria.”Agricultural and Forest Meteorology104: 315-327.

Antle, John M., Susan M. Capalbo, Edward T.Elliott, and Keith H. Paustian. (2002).“Adaptation, Spatial Heterogeneity, and theVulnerability of Agricultural Systems toClimate Change: An Integrated AssessmentApproach.” Working Paper, Department ofAgricultural Economics and EconomicsMontana State University.

Ausubel, Jesse H. 1991. “Does Climate StillMatter?” Nature 350: 649-652.

Baker, Barry, and E. F. Viglizzo. 1998.“Rangeland and Livestock.” In J. F. Feenstra,Ian Burton, Joel B. Smith, Richard S. J. Tol,eds., Handbook on methods for climate changeimpact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies.Amsterdam: UNEP.

Bardhan, Pranab, and Christopher Udry. (1999).Development Microeconomics. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Barnett, Jon. 2001. “Adapting to Climate Changein Pacific Island Countries: the Problem ofUncertainty.” World Development 29(6): 977-993.

Basher, R. E. 1999. “Data Requirements forDeveloping Adaptations to ClimateVariability and Change.” Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4:227-237.

Benioff, Ron. 1996. Steps in Preparing ClimateChange Action Plans: A Handbook.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Country StudiesProgram.

Benioff Ron, Sandra Guill, and Jeffrey Lee, eds.(1996). Vulnerability and AdaptationAssessment: An International Guidebook.Dordrecht, the Netherlands: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Benson, Charlotte, and E. Clay. 1998. “TheImpact of Drought on Sub-SaharanEconomies.” World Bank Technical Paper401. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Berry, S. L., and M. L. Roderick. 2002. “CO2 andLand-Use Effects on Australian Vegetationover the Last Two Centuries.”, AustralianJournal of Botany 50 (4): 511-531.

Bindi, M. and J. E. Olesen. (2000). “Agriculture.”In M. L. Parry ed. Assessment of PotentialEffects and Adaptations for Climate Change inEurope: The Europe ACACIA Project. Norwich,United Kingdom: Jackson EnvironmentInstitute, University of East Anglia.

Boland, J. J. 1997. “Assessing urban water useand the role of water conservation measuresunder climate uncertainty.” Climatic Change37: 157–176.

Brklacich, Michael, C. Bryant, B. Veenhof, and A.Beauchesne. 1997. “Implications of GlobalClimatic Change for Canadian Agriculture:a review and appraisal of research from1984-1997.” In G. Koshida and W. Avis, eds.Canada Country Study: Climate Impacts andAdaptation. Toronto: Environment Canada.

Brklacich, Michael, P. Curran, D. Brunt, and D.McNabb. 1997. “CO2 Induced ClimaticChange and Agricultural Potential in theMackenzie Basin Case.” In S. J. Cohen, ed.Mackenzie Basin Impact Study (MBIS). FinalReport. Toronto: Environment Canada.


References

Brklacich, Michael, C. Bryant, B. Veenhof and A.Beauchesne. 2000. “Agricultural Adaptationto Climatic Change: A comparativeassessment of two types of farming incentral Canada.” In H. Millward, K. Beesley,B. Ilbery and L. Harrington, eds. Agriculturaland Environmental Sustainability in the NewCountryside. Winnipeg: Hignell PrintingLimited.

Brumbelow, Kelly and Aris Georgakakos. 2001.“An Assessment of Irrigation Needs andCrop Yield for the United States underPotential Climate Changes.” Journal ofGeophysical Research - Atmospheres 106(D21):27383-405.

Bryant, C. R. 1989. “Entrepreneurs in the RuralEnvironment.” Journal of Rural Studies 5(4):337-348.

Bryant, C. R., Barry Smit, and others, 2001.“Adaptation in Canadian Agriculture toClimatic Variability and Change.” ClimaticChange 45:181 - 201.

Bullock, P., E. Le Houérou, M. T. Hoffman, M. D.A. Rounsevell, J. Sehgal, and G. Várallay.1996. “Land Degradation andDesertification.” In R. T. Watson, M. C.Zinyowera, and R. H. Moss, eds. ClimateChange 1995: Impacts, Adaptations andMitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Cambridge, UnitedKingdom and New York, N.Y.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Burton, Ian. 1996. “The Growth of AdaptationCapacity: Practice and Policy.” In Joel B.Smith, and Sandra Guill, eds. Adapting toClimate Change: An International Perspective.New York: Springer.

Burton, Ian, Smith, J. B., Lenhart, S. 1998.“Adaptation to Climate Change: Theory andAssessment.” In J. F. Feenstra, Ian Burton,Joel B. Smith, Richard S. J. Tol, eds., Handbookon methods for climate change impact

Assessment and Adaptation Strategies.Amsterdam: UNEP (United NationsEnvironment Program) and the Institute forEnvironmental Studies, University ofAmsterdam.

Burton, Ian. 1997. “Vulnerability and adaptiveresponse in the context of climate andclimate change.” Climatic Change 36: 185-196.

Burton, Ian. 2000. “Adaptation to ClimateChange: Advancing the Agenda forCollective Global Benefit.” BRIDGES-BetweenTrade and Sustainable Development 4(8): 9.

Burton, Ian. 2001. Vulnerability and Adaptation toClimate Change in the Drylands, The GlobalDrylands Partnership, Washington, D.C..

Cai, Y., and Barry Smit. 1996. “Sensitivity andAdaptation of Chinese Agriculture underGlobal Climate Change.” Acta GeographicaSinica 51(3): 202-212.

Carter, M. R., ed. 1993. Conservation Tillage inTemperate Agroecosystems: Development andAdaptation to Soil, Climatic, and BiologicalConstraints. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Carter, T. R. 1996. “Assessing Climate ChangeAdaptations: the IPCC Guidelines.” In J.Smith, N. Bhatti, G. Menzhulin, R. Benioff,M. I. Budyko, M. Campos, B. Jallow, and F.Rijsberman, eds. Adapting to Climate Change:An International Perspective. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Carter, T. R., M. L. Parry, H. Harasawa, and S.Nishioka. 1994. IPCC Technical Guidelines forAssessing Climate Change Impacts andAdaptations Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change, Department of Geography,University College London, UK and Centrefor Global Environmental Research,Tsukuba, Japan.

Chang, C.C. (2003). “The Potential Impact ofClimate Change on Taiwan’s Agriculture.”Agricultural Economics, 27(1): 51–64.



Chen, C., and B. A. McCarl. 2001. “Aninvestigation of the relationship betweenpesticide usage and climate change.”Climatic Change 50: 475-487.

Chiotti, Quentin, and Tom Johnston. 1995.“Extending the Boundaries of ClimateChange Research: Modelling the Farm-levelDecision-making Complex,” The Journal ofRural Studies 11(3): 335-350.

Chiotti, Quentin, Tom Johnston, Barry Smit, B.Ebel. 1997. “Agricultural Response toClimate Change: A preliminaryInvestigation of Farm-level Adaptation inSouthern Alberta.” In B. Ilbery, Q. Chiotti, T.Rickard, eds. Agricultural Restructuring andSustainability: A Geographical Perspective.CAB International.

Choudhury, Dhrupad, and R. C. Sundriyal. 2003.“Factors Contributing to the Marginali-zation of Shifting Cultivation in North-EastIndia: Micro-Scale Issues.” OutlookAgriculture 32(1): 17-28.

Climatic Change Editorial. 2000 “Agriculturalimpacts of climate change: if adaptation isthe answer, what is the question?” ClimaticChange 45: 529-539.

Cline, Sarah, and Mark W. Rosegrant. 2002.Climate Change and Agriculture: Review ofEvidence. Draft Paper. International FoodPolicy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

Cline, William R. 1996“The Impact of GlobalWarming on Agriculture: Comment.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics86(5): 1309-1312.

Collier, Paul, and Jan Willem Gunning. 1999.“Explaining African EconomicPerformance,” Journal of Economic Literature37(1): 64-111.

Connell, John, and Dennis Conway. 2000.“Migration and Remittances in IslandMicrostates: a Comparative Perspective onthe South Pacific and the Caribbean.”

International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch 24(1): 52-78.

Conway, Dennis, and Cohen, J. F. 1998.“Consequences of Migration andRemittances for Mexican TransnationalCommunities.” Economic Geography 74: 26-44.

Crane, Laurence M. 2001. Agricultural RiskManagement in South Africa: An Insurance-Based Solution. A National Crop InsuranceServices Publication. <<https://www.ag-risk.org/NCISPUBS/LAIPPUB/2001/Art0111-4.htm>>.

Crosson., P. R., and N. J. Rosenberg. 1989.“Strategies for Agriculture.” ScientificAmerican 261(3): 128-35.

Crosson, Pierre. 1997. Impacts of Climate Changeon Agriculture. Climate Issues Brief 4.Resources For the Future, Washington, D.C.

Crosson, Pierre. 1983. “A Schematic View ofResources, Technology and Environment inAgricultural Development.” Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 9: 339-357.

Darwin, Roy. 2001. “Climate Change and FoodSecurity.” Agriculture Information Bulletin765-8: 1-2.

Darwin, R. F., J. Lewandrowski, B. McDonald,and M. Tsigas. 1994. “Global ClimateChange: Analyzing Environmental Issuesand Agricultural Trade within a GlobalContext.” In John Sullivan, ed. EnvironmentalPolicies: Implications for Agricultural Trade.Foreign Agricultural Economic Report 252,U.S. Department of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service, Washington, D.C.

Darwin, Roy, Marinos Tsigas, Jan Lewandrowski,and Anton Raneses. 1995. World Agricultureand Climate Change: Economic Adaptations.Agricultural Economic Report 703. U.S.Department of Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service, Washington, D.C.

Darwin, Roy, Marinos Tsigas, Jan Lewandrowskiand Anton Raneses. 1996"Land Use and


References

Land Cover in Ecological Economics.”Ecological Economics 17(3): 157-181.

Deeb, Alejandro. 2002. Lessons learned from theCaribbean: Planning for adaptation to globalclimate change. Prepared for the ClimateChange Team/ENV, World Bank.

De Haan, Arjan. 1999. “Livelihoods and Poverty:the role of migration—A critical review ofthe migration literature.” Journal ofDevelopment Studies 36(2): 1-47.

De la Court, T., and H. Verolme. 1995.“Environmental education: entry point forchange.” ILEIA Newsletter 11(4): 26.

de Loë, R. C. and R. D. Kreutzwiser. 2000.“Climate Variability, Climate Change andWater Resource Management in the GreatLakes.” Climatic Change 45(1): 163-79.

de Loë, R. C., R. Kreutzwiser and L. Mararu.1999. Climate Change and the Canadian WaterSector: Impacts and Adaptation. Guelph:Natural Resources Canada.

Delcourt, G. and G. C. van Kooten. 1995. “Howresilient is grain production to climaticchange? Sustainable agriculture in a drylandcropping region of western Canada.” Journalof Sustainable Agriculture 5: 37-57.

Denevan, William M. 1983. “Adaptation,Variation, and Cultural Geography.”Professional Geographer 35(4): 399-407.

Desanker, Paul V. 2002. Impact of climate changeon Africa. Center for African DevelopmentSolutions, Johannesburg, South Africa, andUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville,Virginia, U.S.A.

Dinar. Ariel. 2000. The Political Economy of WaterPricing Reforms. Washington, D.C.: WorldBank.

Dinar, A.and H. Beach (1998). “Measuring theImpact of and the Adaptation to ClimateChange in Agriculture and Other Sectors –Literature Review.” In Dinar, Ariel, RobertMendelsohn, R. E. Evenson, Jyoti Parikh,

Apurva Sanghi, K. Kumar, James McKinsey,and S. Lonergan, eds.. 1998. Measuring theImpact of Climate Change on IndianAgriculture. World Bank Technical Paper402. Washington, D.C.

Dixon, R. K, O. N. Krankina, and K. I. Kobak.1996. “Global Climate Change Adaptation:Examples from Russian Boreal Forests.” In J.Smith, N. Bhatti, G. Menzhulin, R. Benioff,M.I. Budyko, M. Campos, B. Jallow, and F.Rijsberman, eds. Adapting to Climate Change:Assessments and Issues. New York, N.Y.:Springer-Verlag.

Dolan, A. Holly, Barry Smit, Mark W. Skinner,Ben Bradshaw, and Chris R. Bryant.2001.Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture:Evaluation of Options. Occasional Paper 26.University of Guelph.

Döll, Petra. (2002). “Impact of climate changeand variability on irrigation requirements: Aglobal perspective.” Climate Change 54(3):269-93.

Downing, T.E. 1992. Climate Change andVulnerable Places: Global Food Security andCountry Studies in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Senegal,and Chile. Research Paper 1, EnvironmentalChange Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford,United Kingdom.

Downing, T. E. (1993). “The Effects of ClimateChange on Agriculture and Food Security.”Renewable Energy 3(4/5): 491-97.

Downing, T. E., L. Ringius, M. Hulme, and D.Waughray. (1997). “Adapting to ClimateChange in Africa.” Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change 2(1): 19-44.

Dumanski, J., D. R. Coote, G. Luciuk, and C. Lok.(1986). “Soil Conservation in Canada.”Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41: 204-210.

Easterling, W. E. 1996. “Adapting NorthAmerican Agriculture to Climate Change inReview.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology80: 1-53.



Easterling, W.E., P.R. Crosson, N.J. Rosenberg,M.S. McKenney, L.A. Katz and K.M. Lemon(1993). Agricultural Impacts of andResponses to Climate Change in theMissouri-Iowa-Nebraska-Kansas Region.Climatic Change, 24(1-2), 23-62.

Easterling, William E., Pierre R. Crosson,Norman J. Rosenberg, Mary S. McKenney,Laura A. Katz, and Kathleen M. Lemon.(1993) “Agriculture Impacts of andResponses to Climate Change in theMissouri-Iowa-Nebraska-Kansas (MINK)Region.” Climatic Change 24: 23-61.

Eele, Graham. 1996. “Policy Lessons fromCommunities under Pressure.” In Thomas E.Downing, ed., Climate Change and World FoodSecurity. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Eeley, H. A. C., M. J. Lawes, and S. E. Piper. 1999.“The influence of climate change on thedistribution of indigenous forest inKwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.” Journal ofBiogeography 26: 595-617.

Eid, H. M. 1994. “Impact of climate change onsimulated wheat and maize yields in Egypt.”In C. Rosenzweig, and A. Iglesias, eds.Implications of Climate Change forInternational Agriculture: Crop ModelingStudy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Ellis, Frank. 1998. “Household Strategies andRural Livelihood Diversification.” TheJournal of Development Studies 35(1):1-38.

El-Shaer, M.H., H.M. Eid, C. Rosenzweig, A.Iglesias, and D. Hillel. 1996. “AgriculturalAdaptation to Climate Change in Egypt.” InJ. Smith, N. Bhatti, G. Menzhulin, R. Benioff,M.I. Budyko, M. Campos, B. Jallow, and F.Rijsberman, eds. Adapting to Climate Change:An International Perspective. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Erda, Lin. 1996. “Agricultural Vulnerability andAdaptation to Global Warming in China.”Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 92(1-2): 63-73.

Esty, Daniel C., and Robert Mendelsohn. 1998.“Moving from National to InternationalEnvironmental Policy.” Policy Sciences 31(3):225-235.

Eswaran, Hari, E. van den Berg, and P. Reich .1993. “Organic carbon in soils of the world.”Soil Science Society of America Journal 57: 192-194.

Etsia, Nabil-Balti, Slim Zekri and Alberto Etsia.2002. Economic impacts of climate change onthe Tunisian agriculture sector. Paperpresented at the Workshop on RegionalClimate, Water Agriculture: Impacts on andAdaptations of the Agro-ecological systemsin Africa. Cape Town, South Africa.

Etterson, Julie R., and Ruth G. Shaw (2001).“Constraint to Adaptive Evolution inResponse to Global Warming.” Science 294:151–154.

Evenson, Robert. 1997. “Rice VarietalImprovement and International Exchange ofRice Germplasm,” In Prabhu L. Pingali, andMahabub Hossain, eds. Impact of RiceResearch. Manila: International RiceResearch Institute.

Evenson, Robert. 1999“Global and LocalImplications of Biotechnology and ClimateChange for Future Food Supplies.”Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 96: 5921–5928.

Evenson, Robert. 2000. The EconomicContributions of Agricultural Extension toAgricultural and Rural Development. in BurtonE. Swanson, Robert P. Bentz, and Andrew J.Sofranko, eds. 1997. Improving AgriculturalExtension: A Reference Manual, SustainableDevelopment Department, Food andAgriculture Organization, Rome. .

Evenson, Robert, and Gollin, D. 2000. The GreenRevolution: An End of Century Perspective.Paper prepared for the Standing Project onImpact Assessment of the TechnicalAdvisory Committee of the Consultative


References

Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR). New Haven,Connecticut, U.S.A.: Economic GrowthCenter, Yale University.

Fafchamps, Marcel. 1999. Rural Poverty, Risk, andDevelopment. Report submitted to the Foodand Agriculture Organization. Centre forthe Study of African Economies, OxfordUniversity.

Fang, J. Q., and G. Liu. 1992. “Relationshipbetween Climatic Change and the NomadicSouthward Migrations in Eastern AsiaDuring Historical Times.” Climatic Change22: 151-169.

Fankhauser, Samuel, Joel B. Smith, and RichardS. J. Tol. 1999. “Weathering Climate Change:Some Simple Rules to Guide AdaptationDecisions.” Ecological Economics 30(1): 67-78.

Fankhauser, Samuel. 1996. “The Potential Costsof Climate Change Adaptation.” In J.B.Smith, N. Bhatti, G. Menzhulin, R. Bennioff,M. Budyko, M. Campos, B. Jallow and F.Rijsberman, eds. Adapting to Climate Change:An International Perspective. New York, N.Y.:Springer.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations). 2000. The State Of Food andAgriculture 2000. Rome.

Feenstra, Jan F., Ian Burton, Joel B. Smith, andRichard S. J. Tol, eds. 1998. Handbook onMethods for Climate Change ImpactAssessment and Adaptation Strategies.Amsterdam: UNEP.

Fischer, G., K. Frohberg, M. L. Parry and C.Rosenzweig. 1993. “Climate Change andWorld Food Supply, Demand and Trade.” InY. Kaya, N. Nakicenovic, W. D. Nordhausand F. L. Toth, eds. Costs, Impacts and Benefitsof CO 2 Mitigation. Laxenburg, Austria:International Institute for Applied SystemsAnalysis.

Fischer, G., and H.T. Van Velthuizen. 1996.Climate Change and Global Agricultural

Potential Project: A Case Study of Kenya.Laxenburg, Austria: International Institutefor Applied Systems Analysis.

Frederick, K. 1997. Water Resources and ClimateChange. Climate Issues Brief 3. Resources forthe Future, Washington, D.C.

Frederick, K. D., and N. J. Rosenberg, eds. 1994.Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change onNatural Resource Systems. The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gautum, M.P. Hazell and H. Alderman. 1994.“Rural Demand for Drought Insurance.” PolicyResearch Working Paper no. 1383 (November),The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Gabre-Madhin, Eleni, Christopher B. Barrett, andPaul Dorosh. 2002. Technological Change andPrice Effects in Agriculture: Conceptual andComparative Perspectives. Washington, D.C.:International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI).

Georgakakos, A. P., H. Yao, M. G. Mullusky, andK.P. Georgakakos. 1998. “Impacts of ClimateVariability on the Operational Forecast andManagement of the Upper Des Moines RiverBasin.” Water Resources Research 34(4): 799-821.

Georges, Eugenia, and Elaine Georges. 1990. TheMaking of a Transnational Community:Migration, Development, and Cultural Changein the Dominican Republic. New York, N.Y.:Columbia University Press.

Glantz, M. H., ed. 1988. Societal Responses toRegional Climatic Change: Forecasting byAnalogy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Gopo, Joseph. 2001. Biosafety and Trade Issues forDeveloping Countries. Paper presented at theICTSO Workshop on Biotechnology,Biosafety and Trade: Issues for DevelopingCountries, 18-20 July 2001. Bellevue,Switzerland.

Goria, A. 1999. Desertification and Migration inthe Mediterranean- An Analytical Framework.Milan, Italy: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.



Government of India. 1998. Economic Survey1998-1999. Ministry of Finance Publication.

Government of the Republic of Senegal. 1997.Senegalese Government’s InitialCommunication on Climate Change.

Guerra, L.C., S. I. Bhuiyan, T. P. Tuong, and R.Barker. 1998. Producing More Rice with LessWater from Irrigated Systems. SWIM (System-Wide Initiative on Water Management)Paper 5. Colombo, Sri Lanka: InternationalWater Management Institute.

Hardesty, Donald. (1983). “Rethinking CulturalAdaptation.” Professional Geographer 35:399-406.

Hay, John. 2002. Pacific Islands: Adapting toClimate Change. Prepared for the ClimateChange Team/ENV, The World Bank.

Harris, John R., and Michael P. Todaro. 1970.“Migration, Unemployment andDevelopment: A Two-Sector Analysis.” TheAmerican Economic Review 60(1): 126-42.

Hayami, Yujiro, and Vernon W. Ruttan. 1985.Agricultural Development: An InternationalPerspective. Baltimore, Maryland: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Hernes, Helga, Arne Dalfelt, Terje Berntsen, BjartHoltsmark, Lars Otto Næss, Rolf Selrod, andH. Asbjørn Aaheim. 1995. Climate Strategyfor Africa. Report 1995-03. Center forInternational Climate and EnvironmentalResearch, University of Oslo.

Hillel, D., and C. Rosenzweig. 1989. TheGreenhouse Effect and Its ImplicationsRegarding Global Agriculture. In . Res. Bull.No. 724. Univ. Massachusetts, AgriculturalExperiment Station. Amherst, MA.

Hobbs, P. V., J. S. Reid, J. D. Herring, J. D. Nance,R. E. Weiss, J. L. Ross, D. A. Hegg, R. D.Ottmar and C. A. Liousse. 1997. “Particleand Trace-Gas Measurements in the Smokefrom Prescribed Burns of Forest Products inthe Pacific Northwest.” In J. S. Levine, ed.

Biomass Burning and Global Change.Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Holdridge L. R. 1947. “Determination of worldplant formations from simple climatic data.”Science, 105:-368.

Houghton, J. T., G. J. Jenkins, and J. J. Ephraums,eds. 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC ScientificAssessment. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hulme, Mike, ed. 1996. Climate Change andSouthern Africa. Norwich, United Kingdom:Climatic Research Unit, University of EastAnglia.

Hulme, M. Ruth Doherty, Todd Ngara, MarkNew, David Lister. 1999. “African ClimateChange: 1900-2100.”, Climate Research,17:145-168.

Huygen, J., Van den Broek, B. J., and Kabat, P.1995. Hydra Model Trigger, a soil waterbalance and crop growth simulation system forirrigation water management purposes. Papersubmitted to the International Commissionon Irrigation and Drainage/Food andAgriculture Association Workshop, Sept.1995, Rome. Later published in M. Smith, L.S. Pereira, J. Berengena, B. Itier, J. Goussard,R. Ragab, L. Tollefson, and P. Van Hofwegen,eds. 1997. Irrigation Scheduling: From Theoryto Practice. Rome: FAO.

Huq, Saleelmul. 2002. Lessons Learned fromAdaptation to Climate Change in Bangladesh.Prepared for the Climate Change Team/ENV, The World Bank, Washington, D.C..

Iglesias, Ana, and M. I. Minguez. 1997.“Modeling Crop-Climate Interactions inSpain: Vulnerability and Adaptation ofDifferent Agricultural Systems to ClimateChange.” Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change 1: 273–88.

Iglesias, Ana, Lin Erda,C. Rosenzweig. (1996).“Climate Change in Asia: A Review of theVulnerability and Adaptation of Crop


References

Production.” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 92:13-27.

ILEIA (Center for Information on Low ExternalInput and Sustainable Agriculture) EditorialComment. 1995. “Coping with Change inDryland Savannah.” ILEIA Newsletter 11(4):4. <<http://www.ileia.org/2/11-4/11-4-4.htm>>.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange). 1990. Strategies for Adaption to SeaLevel Rise. Report of the CoastalManagement Subgroup, November. <<http://www.epa.gov/oppeoee1/globalwarming/publications/impacts/sealevel/adaption.pdf>>.

IPCC. 1996. Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigationof Climate Change: Scientific-TechnicalAnalyses - Contribution of Working Group II tothe IPCC Second Assessment Report.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress.

IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability”, TechnicalSummary, IPCC Publication. <<http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg2TARtechsum.pdf>>;Full document: <<http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg2/index.htm>>.

IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation,IPCC Publication. <<http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg3/index.htm>>.

IPCC Working Group III. 2000. Methodologicaland Technological issues in TechnologyTransfer. IPCC Special Report. <<http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/tectran/206.htm>>.

Jin, Z., D. Ge, H. Chen, and J. Fang. 1994. “Effectsof Climate Change on Rice Production andStrategies for Adaptation in SouthernChina.” In C. Rosenzweig, and A. Iglesias,eds. Implications of Climate Change forInternational Agriculture: Crop ModellingStudy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Jolly, C. M., T. Kusumastanto, M. M. Sissoko, andS. Olowolayemo. 1995. “The Effects ofClimate Change on Senegal’s AgriculturalSector.” Cooperative Agreement, U.S.Department of Agriculture, EconomicsResearch Service, Washington, DC.

Joshi, Sharad. 2001. “Crop Insurance: A SeriousBusiness.” The Hindu Financial Daily,Wednesday, July 18, 2001. <<http://www.blonnet.com/businessline/2001/07/18/stories/041841ju.htm>>.

Jokisch, B. D. 2002. “Migration and AgriculturalChange: The Case of SmallholderAgriculture in Highland Ecuador.” HumanEcology, 30(4): 523-50.

Kaczmarek Zdzislaw., Jaroslaw Napiórkowski.1996. “Water Resources Adaptation Strategyin an Uncertain Environment.” In Joel B.Smith, and Sandra Guill, eds. Adapting toClimate Change: An International Perspective.New York: Springer.

Kaiser, H. M., S. J. Riha, D. S. Wilks, and R. K.Sampath. 1993. “Adaptation to GlobalClimate Change at the Farm Level.” In H.Kaiser and T. Drennen, eds. AgriculturalDimensions of Global Climate Change. DelrayBeach, Florida: St. Lucie Press.

Kaiser, H. M., S. J. Riha, D. S. Wilks, D. G.Rossiter, and R. Sampath. (1993). “A FarmLevel Analysis of Economic and AgronomicImpacts of Gradual Warming.” AmericanJournal of Agricultural Economics 75(2): 387-398.

Kaiser, H. M., S. J. Riha, D. S. Wilks, and R.Sampath. 1995. Potential Implications ofClimate Change for U.S. Agriculture: AnAnalysis of Farm-Level Adaptations. U.S.Department of Agriculture, EconomicsResearch Service, Staff Paper No. AGES9522., Washington, D.C.

Kapetanaki, Georgia, and C. Rosenzweig. (1997).“Impact of climate change on maize yield in



central and northern Greece: A simulationstudy with CERES-Maize.” Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change 1:251-271.

Kates, R. W. (2000). “Cautionary tales:Adaptation and the global poor.” ClimaticChange 45(1): 5-17.

Kelly, P., and W. N. Adger. 1999. AssessingVulnerability to Climate Change andFacilitating Adaptation. Working Paper GEC99-07, Centre for Social and EconomicResearch on the Global Environment,University of East Anglia, Norwich, UnitedKingdom.

Kern, J. S., and M. G. Johnson. 1991.“Conservation Tillage Impacts on NationalSoil and Atmospheric Carbon Levels.” SoilScience Society of America Journal 57: 200-210.

Kherallah, Mylène, Christopher Delgado, EleniGabre-Madhin, Nicholas Minot, and MichaelJohnson. 2002. Reforming AgriculturalMarkets in Africa. Baltimore, Maryland: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Klassen, Stan, and John Gilpen. (1998). “AlbertaIrrigation in the Old and New Millennium.”Canadian Water Resources Journal 24(1): 61-70.

Klein, R. J. T., R. J. Nicholls, and N. Mimura(1999). “Coastal Adaptation to ClimateChange: Can the IPCC Technical Guidelinesbe Applied?” Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change 4(3-4): 51–64.

Klein, R.J.T. and R.S.J. Tol. 1997. “Adaptation toClimate Change: Options and Technologies,An Overview Paper.” Technical Paper FCCC/TP/1997/3, United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change Secretariat,Bonn, Germany, 33 pp.

Kritz, Mary M. 1990. Climate Change andMigration Adaptations, Working Paper 2.16,Department of Rural Sociology, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, N.Y.

Kumar, K. S .Kavi, and Jyoti Parikh. 1998.“Climate Change Impacts on IndianAgriculture: The Ricardian Approach.” InDinar, Ariel, Robert Mendelsohn, R. E.Evenson, Jyoti Parikh, Apurva Sanghi, K.Kumar, James McKinsey, and S. Lonergan,eds.. 1998. Measuring the Impact of ClimateChange on Indian Agriculture. World BankTechnical Paper 402. Washington, D.C.

Kundzewicz Z. W. 2002. ”Non-Structural FloodProtection and Sustainability.” WaterInternational 27(1): 3-13.

Lansigan, F. P., W. L. de los Santos, and J. O.Coladilla. 2000. “Agronomic Impacts ofClimate Variability on Rice Production in thePhilippines.” Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment 82(1-3): 129-37.

Leary, N. A. 1999. “A framework for Benefit-CostAnalysis of Adaptation to Climate Changeand Climate Variability.” Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change 4(3-4):307-318.

Lettenmaier, D. P., A. W. Wood, R. N. Palmer, E.F. Wood, and E. Z. Stakhiv. 1999. “WaterResources Implications of Global Warming:A U.S. Regional Perspective.” ClimaticChange 43(3): 537–579.

Lewandrowski, J. K., and R. J. Brazee. 1993.“Farm Programs and Climate Change.”Climatic Change 23(1): 1-20.

Lewandrowski, J. K., and D. E. Schimmelp-fenning. 1999.”Economic Implications ofClimate Change for U.S. Agriculture:Assessing Recent Evidence.” Land Economics75(1): 39-57.

Lobell, David B. and Gregory P. Asner. 2003.Climate and Management Contributions toRecent Trends in U.S.Agricultural Yields,Science, 299, 14 February 2003.

Locke, Catherine. (2000). “Changing Places- theenvironmental impact of migration.”Environment, September Issue.


References

Lorenzoni, I., A. Jordan, D. T. Favis-Mortlock, D.Viner, and J. Hall. 2001. “DevelopingSustainable Practices to Adapt to theImpacts of Climate Change: a Case Study ofAgricultural Systems in Eastern England(UK).” Regional Environmental Change 2: 106-117.

Lutze J. L., J. S. Roden, C. J. Holly, J. Wolfe, J. J. G.Egerton, and M. C. Ball (1999). “Elevatedatmospheric CO2 promotes frost damage inevergreen tree seedlings.” Plant Cell andEnvironment 21(6): 631-635.

Maddison, David. (2000). “A Hedonic Analysisof Agricultural Land Prices in England andWales.” European Review of AgriculturalEconomics 27(4): 519-532.

Magalhaes, Antonio. 2002. “Climate Affairs inLatin America: Climate Issues and PolicyResponses.” Paper presented at the Instituteof Latin American Studies, ColumbiaUniversity, January 31-February 2, NewYork, N.Y.

Mahboubi A. A., R. Lal, and N. R. Faussey. 1993.“Twenty-Eight Years of Tillage Effects onTwo Soils in Ohio.” Soil Science Society ofAmerica Journal 57(2): 506-12.

Mahul, Olivier, and D. Vermersch. 2000.“Hedging Crop Risk With Yield InsuranceFutures and Options. European Review ofAgricultural Economics 27(2): 109-126.

Makadho, J.M. 1996. “Potential effects of climatechange on corn production in Zimbabwe.”Climate Research 6:147-151.

Matarira, C. H., W. Kamukondiwa, F. C.Mwamuka, J. M. Makadho, and L. S.Unganai. 1996. “Vulnerability andAdaptation Assessment for Zimbabwe.” In S.Lenhart, S. Huq, L. J. Mata, I. Nemesova, S.Toure, J. B. Smith, eds. Vulnerability andAdaptation to Climate Change: a Synthesis ofResults from the U.S. Country Studies.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Country StudiesProgram.

Matarira, C. H., and F. C. Mwamuka (1996).“Vulnerability of Zimbabwe forests to globalclimate change.” Climate Research 6(2): 135-6. <<http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crSpecial3.html>>.

McAfee, Katherine. (1999) “Social and ecologicaldimensions of precaution.” Viewpoints,Science, Technology and Innovation webpage, Center for International Development(CID), Harvard University, Cambridge,Massachusetts. <<http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/comments/comments81.htm>>.

McCarthy, James J., Osvaldo F. Canziani, Neil A.Leary, David J. Dokken, and Kasey S. White.2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge,U.K.: Cambridge University Press. <<http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg2TARtechsum. pdf>>;Full document: <<http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm>>.

McKinsey, J. and Evenson, R. 1998. “Technology-Climate Interactions: Was the GreenRevolution in India Climate Friendly?” InAriel Dinar, Robert Mendelsohn, RobertEvenson, Jyoti Parikh, Apurva Sanghi, KaviKumar, James McKinsey, and StephenLonergan, eds. Measuring the Impact ofClimate Change on Indian Agriculture. WorldBank Technical Paper 402, Washington, D.C.

Mearns, L. O., R. W. Katz, and S. H. Schneider.1997. “Extreme High Temperature Events:Changes in Their Probability with Changesin Mean Temperature.” Journal of Climate andApplied Meteorology 23: 1601-1613.

Meertens, H. C. C., L. J. Ndege, H. J. Enserink.1995. Dynamics in farming systems: changes intime and space in Sukumaland, Tanzania.Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.

Mendelsohn, Robert. 1999. “Efficient Adaptationto Climate Change.” Climatic Change 45: 583-600.



Mendelsohn, Robert. 1999. Measuring the effect ofclimate change on developing countryagriculture. Paper prepared for FAO.

Mendelsohn, Robert. 2000. “Efficient Adaptationto Climate Change.” Climatic Change 45: 583-600.

Mendelsohn, Robert, and Ariel Dinar. 1999.“Climate Change, Agriculture, andDeveloping Countries: Does AdaptationMatter?” The World Bank Research Observer14(2): 277-93.

Mendelsohn, Robert and J. E. Neumann, eds.1999. The Economic Impact of Climate Changeon the Economy of the United States.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Mendelsohn, Robert, and William Nordhaus.1999. “The Impact of Global Warming onAgriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: Reply.”American Economic Review 89(4): 1046-48.

Mendelsohn, Robert, and M. Schlesinger.(1999)“Climate Response Functions.” Ambio28(4): 362-366.

Mendelsohn, Robert, and Ariel Dinar “Climate,Water, and Agriculture.” This paper hasbeen accepted to appear in Land Economics in2003.

Mendelsohn, Robert, William D. Nordhaus, andDaigee Shaw. 1994. “The Impact of GlobalWarming on Agriculture: A RicardianAnalysis.” American Economic Review 84(4):753-771.

Mendelsohn, Robert, William D. Nordhaus, andDaigee Shaw. 1996. “Climate Impacts onAggregate Farm Value: Accounting forAdaptation.” Agricultural and ForestMeteorology 80(1): 55-66.

Mendelsohn, Robert, Ariel Dinar, and A. Sanghi.1998. “The Effect of Development on theClimate Sensitivity of Agriculture.”Environment and Development Economics 6:85-101.

Mendelsohn, Robert, W. Morrison, M.Schlesinger, and N. Andronova. 2000.“Country-Specific Market Impacts OnClimate Change.” Climatic Change 45(3): 553-569.

Metz, Bert, Ogunlade Davidson, Rob Swart, andJiahua Pan. 2001. Climate Change 2001:Mitigation. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press. <<http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm>>.

Meze-Hausken, Elisabeth. 2000. “MigrationCaused by Climate Change: How Vulnerableare People in Dryland Areas?” Mitigationand Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,5(4): 379-406.

Ministry of Mines, Environment and Tourism.1998. Zimbabwe’s Initia: NationalCommunication on Climate Change, Preparedfor the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change.

Mirza, Qader., M. Monirul, R. A. Warrick, andN. J. Ericksen. 2003. “The Implications ofClimate Change on Floods of the Ganges,Brahmaputra and Meghna Rivers inBangladesh.“ Climatic Change 57 (3): 287-318.

Mizina, S. V. and others. 1997. “Development ofWheat Management Strategy Taking intoAccount Possible Climate Change inKazakhstan.” Hydrometeorology and Ecology3: 64-72.

Mizina, S.V., J.B. Smith, E. Gossen, K.F. Spiecker,and S.L. Witkowski. 1999.“An Evaluation ofAdaptation Options for Climate ChangeImpacts on Agriculture in Kazakhstan.”Mitigation and Adaptation strategies for GlobalChange 4: 25-41.

Mohamed, A. Ben, N. Van Duivenbooden, and S.Abdoussallam. 2002. “Impact of ClimateChange on Agricultural Production in theSahel - Part 1. MethodologicalApproach andCase Study for Millet in Niger.” ClimateChange 54(3): 327-48.


References

Molua, Ernest L. 2002. “Climate Variability,Vulnerability and Effectiveness of Farm-Level Adaptation Options: the Challengesand Implications for Food Security inSouthwestern Cameroon.” Environment andDevelopment Economics 7 (3, 2002): 529–545.

Moreddu, Catherine. 2000. “Overview of FarmHousehold Strategies and GovernmentIntervention.” In OECD (Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development),Income Risk Management in Agriculture. Paris.

Morgan, M. G. 1995. “Integrated Assessment ofClimate Change.” Presentation at the FirstOpen Meeting of the Human Dimensions ofGlobal Change, Duke University, June 1-3,1995.

Morse, Stephen, Nora McNamara, and MosesAcholo. 2002. “Agricultural Sustainability:Comparing External and InternalPerspectives.” Journal of SustainableAgriculture 20(4): 29-59.

Mortimore, Michael J., and William M. Adams.2000. “Farmer Adaptation, Change andCrisis in the Sahel.” Global EnvironmentalChange 11: 49-57.

Mount, T and Li, Z. 1994. “Estimating the Effectsof Climate Change on Grain Yield andProduction in the U.S.” CooperativeAgreement, U.S. Department of Agriculture,Economic Research Services, Washington,D.C.

Muchena, P. 1994. “Implications of ClimateChange for Maize Yields in Zimbabwe.” InC. Rosenzweig and A. Iglesias, eds.,Implications of Climate Change forInternational Agriculture: Crop ModelingStudy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.

Murdiyarso, Daniel. 2000. “Adaptation toClimatic Variability and Change: AsianPerspectives on Agriculture and Food

Security.” Environmental Monitoring andAssessment 61(1): 123-131.

Myers, Norman. 1993. “Environmental Refugeesin a Globally Warmed World.” BioScience43(11): 752-60. <<http://www.gcrio.org/ASPEN/science/eoc94/EOC2/EOC2-10.html>>.

Naylor, R. L., W. P. Falcon, D. Rochberg, and N.Wada. 2001. “Using El Nino/SouthernOscillation Climate Data to Predict RiceProduction in Indonesia.” Climatic Change50(3): 255-65.

Newman, J. E. (1980). Climate change impacts onthe growing season of the North AmericanCorn Belt. Biometeorology, 7 (2), 128-142.Supplement to International Journal ofBiometeorology, 24 (December, 1980).

O’Brien, Karen, ed. 2000. Developing strategies forclimate change: The UNEP country studies onclimate change impacts and adaptationsassessment. Report 2000:2, Center forInternational Climate and EnvironmentalResearch (CICERO)., Oslo.

O’Brien, Karen, Linda Sygna, Lars Otto Næss,Robert Kingamkono, and Ben Hochobeb.2000. Is information enough? User responses toseasonal climate forecasts in Southern Africa.Report 2000:3, Center for InternationalClimate and Environmental Research(CICERO)., Oslo.

O’Riordan, Timothy, and Andrew Jordan. 1999.“Institutions, Climate Change and CulturalTheory: Towards a Common AnalyticalFramework.” Global Environmental Change9(2): 81-93.

Onyeji, S. C., and G. Fischer 1994. “An EconomicAnalysis of Potential Impacts of ClimateChange in Egypt.” Global EnvironmentalChange and Policy Dimensions 4(4): 281-299.

Pardey, P.G., ed. 2001. The Future of Food-Biotechnology Markets and Policies in an



International Setting. Baltimore, Maryland:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Parry, M. and T. Carter.1998. Climate impact andadaptation assessment: A guide to the IPCCapproach. Earthscan Publications Ltd,London.

Parry, M. L., T. R. Carter, and N. T. Konijn. 1988.The Impact of Climate Variations onAgriculture. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Parry, M. L., ed. 2000. Assessment of PotentialEffects and Adaptations for Climate Change inEurope. The Europe Acacia Project.University of East Anglia, UK.

Paxson, C. H. 1993. “Consumption and IncomeSeasonality in Thailand.” Journal of PoliticalEconomy 101(1): 39-72.

Phillips, Jennifer, and Beverly McIntyre.2000.”ENSO and interannual rainfallvariability in Uganda: Implications foragricultural management.” InternationalJournal of Climatology 20(2): 171-182.

Pielke R. A. 1998. “Rethinking the Role ofAdaptation in Climate Policy.” GlobalEnvironmental Change 8(2): 159-170.

Pinstrup-Andersen, Per. 1999. “The DevelopingWorld Simply Can’t Afford To Do WithoutAgricultural Biotechnology.” InternationalHerald Tribune, October 28, 1999: Opinion/letters section.

Platteau, J. P., and A. Abraham. 1987. “AnInquiry into the Quasi-Credit Contracts: theRole of Reciprocal Credit and InterlinkedDeals in Small Scale Fishing Communities.”Journal of Development Studies 23(4): 461-90.

Polsky Colin, and William E. Easterling III. 2001.“Adaptation to Climate Variability andChange in the U.S. Great Plains: A Multi-Scale Analysis of Ricardian ClimateSensitivities“, Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment 85(1-3): 133-144.

Quaim, Matin, and David Zilberman. 2003.“Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Cropsin Developing Countries.” Science299(February 7, 2003): 900-2.

Quiggin, John, and John K. Horowitz. 1999. “TheImpact of Global Warming on Agriculture: ARicardian Analysis: A Comment.” AmericanEconomic Review 89(4): 1044-1045.

Qunying, Luo and E. Lin. 1999. “AgriculturalVulnerability and Adaptation in DevelopingCountries: the Asia-Pacific region.” ClimateChange 43(4): 729-743.

Randhir, Timothy O., and T. W. Hertel. 1999.Trade Liberalization as a Vehicle for Adaptingto Global Warming. GTAP Working Paper398, Center for Global Trade Analysis,Purdue University. Early versions of thepaper were presented at the InternationalAgricultural Trade Research ConsortiumMeetings, San Diego, CA, December 14-16(1997) and at the First Annual Conference inGlobal Economic Analysis, PurdueUniversity, June 1996.

Rao D. G., and S. K. Sinha. 1994. “Impact ofClimate Change on Simulated WheatProduction in India.” In C. Rosenzweig, A.Iglesias, eds., Implications of Climate Changefor International Agriculture: Crop ModellingStudy. Washington, D.C.: United StatesEnvironment Protection Agency.

Reilly, John. 1995. “Climate Change andAgriculture - Research Findings and PolicyConsiderations.” In Nurul Islam, ed.,Population and food in the early twenty-firstcentury: Meeting future food demand of anincreasing population, Washington, D.C.:IFPRI (International Food Policy ResearchInstitute).

Reilly, John. 1995. “Climate Change and GlobalAgriculture: Recent Findings and Issues.”American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77:727-733.


References

Reilly, John. 1999. “Climate Change: CanAgriculture Adapt?” Choices 14(1): 4-8.

Reilly, John. 1999. “What Does Climate ChangeMean for Agriculture in DevelopingCountries? A Comment on Mendelsohn andDinar.” The World Bank Research Observer14(2): 295-305.

Reiily, John. 2002. “Farming forecast: rainy andwarm; farmers confronted with an uncertainclimate future will need to adapt quickly tochanging conditions”, Forum for AppliedResearch and Public Policy, Summer 2002,16(4): 64-70.

Reilly, John, and K. O. Fuglie. 1998. “Future YieldGrowth in Field Crops: What EvidenceExists?” Soil and Tillage Research 47: 275-290.

Reilly, John, and Neil Hohmann. 1993. “ClimateChange and Agriculture: The Role ofInternational Trade.” American EconomicReview 83(2): 306-12.

Reilly, John, Neil Hohmann, and Sally Kane.1994. “Climate Change and AgriculturalTrade: who benefits, who loses?” GlobalEnvironmental Change 4(1): 24-36.

Reilly, J., and others. 2001. Agriculture: ThePotential Consequences of Climate Variabilityand Change forthe United States, US NationalAssessment of the Potential Consequences ofClimate Variability and Change, US GlobalChange Research Program. CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, NY, 136 pp.

Reilly, John, W. Baethgen, F. E. Chege, S. C. vande Geijn, Lin Erda, A. Iglesias, G. Kenny, D.Patterson, J. Rogasik, R. Rötter, C.Rosenzweig, W. Sombroek, and J. Westbrook.1996. “Agriculture in a Changing Climate:Impacts and Adaptation.” In R. T. Watson,M. C. Zinyowera, and R. H. Moss, eds.,Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations,and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of WorkingGroup II to the Second Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Cambridge, United Kingdom andNew York, N.Y.: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Reilly, John, F. Tubiello, B. McCarl, D. Abler, R.Darwin, K. Fuglie, S. Hollinger, C.Izaurralde, S. Jagtap, J. Jones, L. Mearns, D.Ojima, E. Paul, K. Paustian, S. Riha, N.Rosenberg, and C. Rosenzweig. 2003. “U.S.Agriculture And Climate Change: NewResults.” Climatic Change 57:43–69.

Ringius, Lasse, Tom Downing, Mike Hulme,Dominic Waughray, and Rolf Selrod. 1996.Climate change in Africa: Issues and challengesin agriculture and water for sustainabledevelopment. Report 1996:8, CICERO (Centerfor International Climate andEnvironmental Research), University ofOslo.

Robock, A., R. P. Turco, M. A. Harwell, T. P.Ackerman, R. Andressen, Hsin-shih Changand M. V. K. Sivakumar. 1993. “Use ofGeneral Circulation Model Output in theCreation of Climate Change Scenarios forImpact Analysis.” Climatic Change 23: 293-335.

Rosenberg, N. J. 1981. “The Increasing CO2Concentration in the Atmosphere and ItsImplication on Agricultural Productivity. I.Effects on Photosynthesis, Transpiration andWater Use Efficiency.” Climatic Change 21:265-279.

Rosenberg, N. J. 1992. “Adaptation ofAgriculture to Climate Change.” ClimaticChange 21(4): 385-405.

Rosenberg, N. J. (1993). “A methodology calledMINK for study of climate change impactsand responses on the regional scale - anintroductory editorial.” Climatic Change,24(1-2): 1-6.

Rosenberg, Norman J., William E. Easterling, JoelDarmstadter, and Pierre Crosson, eds. 1989.



Greenhouse Warming: Abatement andAdaptation. Washington, D.C.: Resources forthe Future.

Rosenzweig, Cynthia. 1985. “Potential CO2-Induced Effects on North American WheatProducing Regions.” Climatic Change 7: 367-389.

Rosenzweig, Cynthia. 2000. Climate change willaffect world food supply. Global ChangeElectronic Edition. <<http://www.globalchange.org/editalll/2000winter1.htm>>.

Rosenzwieg, C. and D. Liverman. 1992.“Predicted Effects of Climate Change onAgriculture: A Comparison of Temperateand Tropical Regions.” In S. K. Majumdar,ed., Global Climate Change: Implications,Challenges, and Mitigation Measures.Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Academy ofSciences.

Rosenzweig, C., M. L. Parry, G. Fischer, and K.Frohberg. 1993. Climate Change and WorldFood Supply. Research Report 3. Oxford, U.K.:University of Oxford, EnvironmentalChange Unit.

Rosenzweig, C., and M. L. Parry. 1994. “PotentialImpacts of Climate Change on World FoodSupply.” Nature 367: 133-138.

Rosenzweig, C., and D. Hillel. 1995. ClimateChange and the Global Harvest: PotentialImpacts on the Greenhouse Effect onAgriculture. New York, N.Y.: OxfordUniversity Press.

Rosenzweig, C. R., M. L. Parry, and G. Fischer.1995. “World Food Supply.” In K. M.Strzepek, and J. B. Smith,eds., As climatechanges: International impacts andimplications. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Rosenzweig, C., F. N. Tubiello, R. Goldberg, E.Mills, and J. Bloomfield. 2002. “IncreasedCrop Damage in the U.S. from Excess

Precipitation under Climate Change.” GlobalEnvironmental Change: Human Dimensions andPolicy 12(3): 197-202.

Rosegrant, M., X. Cai, and S. Cline. 2002. WorldWater and Food in 2025: Dealing with Scarcity.Washington, D.C.: IWMI (InternationalWater Management Institute) Publications.

Rounsevell, M. D. A., S. P. Evans, and P. Bullock.1999. “Climate Change and AgriculturalSoils: Impacts and Adaptation.” ClimaticChange 43: 683–709.

Ross, T.F. and J. Neal Lott. 2000. A BriefClimatology of Extreme Weather and ClimateEvents in the U.S. and Around the World.Asheville, North Carolina: National ClimaticData Center.

<<http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/special/ams-2000-pap1.pdf>>.

Sachs, Jeffery. 2003. “Mobilizing Science forSustainable Energy Systems.” Lecturetranscript available through the TropicalResearch Institute, School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Yale University.

Saith, Ashwani. 1992. The Rural Non-FarmEconomy: Processes and Policies. Geneva:International Labour Office.

Sakurai,T., and T. Reardon. 1997. “Potentialdemand for drought insurance in BurkinaFaso and its determinants.” American Journalof Agricultural Economics, 79 (4), 1193-1207.

Samuelson, Paul A. 1954. “The Pure Theory ofPublic Expenditures.” Review of Economicsand Statistics 36(4): 350-356.

Sanghi, Apurva. 1998. Global Warming andClimate Sensitivity: Brazilian and IndianAgriculture. PhD dissertation, University ofChicago, Department of Economics, Chicago.

Sanghi, Apurva, and Robert Mendelsohn. 1999.The Climate Sensitivity of Indian and BrazilianAgriculture. New Haven, Connecticut: YaleUniversity, FES.


References

Sanghi, Apurva, Robert Mendelsohn, and ArielDinar. 1998. “The Climate Sensitivity ofIndian Agriculture.” In Ariel Dinar, RobertMendelsohn, Robert Evenson, Jyoti Parikh,Apurva Sanghi, Kavi Kumar, JamesMcKinsey, and Stephen Lonergan, eds.Measuring the Impact of Climate Change onIndian Agriculture. World Bank TechnicalPaper 402, Washington, D.C.

Schimmelpfenning, David. 1995. “The OptionValue of Energy Efficiency: The Case ofClimate Change.” Energy Economics 17(4):311-317.

Schimmelpfenning, David. 1996. “Uncertainty inEconomic Models of Climate ChangeImpacts.” Climatic Change 33(2): 213-34.

Schimmelpfenning, David, Jan Lewandrowski,John Reilly, Marinos Tsigas, and Ian Parry.1996. Agricultural Adaptation to ClimateChange: Issues of Long Run Sustainability.Agricultural Economic Report Number 740,Washington, D.C.: United States Departmentof Agriculture.

Schneider, S. H., W. E. Easterling, and L. O.Mearns. 2000. “Adaptation: Sensitivity toNatural Variability, Agent Assumptions andDynamic Climate Changes.” Climatic Change45(1): 203-221.

Schulze, R. E., and R. P. Kunz. 1995. “PotentialShifts in Optimum Growth Areas of SelectedCommercial Tree Species and SubtropicalCrops in Southern Africa due to GlobalWarming.” Journal of Biogeography 22: 679-688.

Schulze, R. E., G. A. Kiker, and R. P. Kunz. 1993.“Global Climate Change and AgriculturalProductivity in Southern Africa.” GlobalEnvironmental Change 3(4): 330-349.

Schulze, R., Kiker, G. and R.P. Kunz. 1996.“Global Climate Change and AgriculturalProductivity in Southern Africa: Through forFood and food for Thought.” In Downing, T.

(ed.), Climate Change and World Food Security,North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ASISeries, Volume 137, Springer-Verlag, Berlinand Heidelberg, Germany, 421-447. Seshu,D. V., F. B. Cady. 1984. “Responses of Rice toSolar Radiation and Temperature Estimatedfrom International Yield Trials.” Crop Science24: 649-54.

Siegel, P. B., J. Alwang, and T. G. Johnson. 1995.“A Structural Decomposition of RegionalEconomic Instability: A ConceptualFramework.” Journal of Regional Science35(3): 457-70. <<http://www.abdn.ac.uk/arkleton/conf2000/papers/roberts.doc>>.

Sinha, S. K., M. S. Swaminathan. 1991.“Deforestation, climate change and sustainablenutrition security: a case study of India.”Climatic Change 19: 201-209.

Sivakumar, M. V. K. 1992. “Climate change andimplications for agriculture in Niger.”Climatic Change 20: 297-312.

Skees, J. R. 1999. “Agricultural Risk Managementor Income Enhancement?” The CATO Reviewof Business and Government 22(1st Quarter,1999): 35-43.

Skees, J.R. 2000. “Agricultural InsurancePrograms: Challenges and Lessons Learned.”In OECD, Income Risk Management inAgriculture. Proceedings of an OECDWorkshop, 15-16, May 2000. <<http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/5100121e.pdf>>.

Skees, Jerry R. 2001. “The Potential Role ofWeather Markets for US Agriculture.” TheClimate Report. Vol. 2. No 4.

Skees, J. R., P. Hazell, and M. Miranda. 1999. NewApproaches to Crop Insurance in DevelopingCountries. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 55.International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington, D.C. <<http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp55.pdf>>.



Skees, Jerry, Panos Varangis, Donald Larson, andPaul Siegel. 2002. “Can Financial Markets beTapped to Help Poor People Cope withWeather Risks?” Policy Research WorkingPaper Series, UNU/WIDER.

Skees, J. R., S. Gober, P. Varangis, R. Lester, andV. Kalavakonda. 2002. Developing Rainfall-Based Index Insurance in Morocco. WorkingPaper 2577, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Skinner, Mark W., Barry Smit, A. Holly Dolan,Ben Bradshaw, and Chris R. Bryant. 2001.Adaptation Options to Climate Change inCanadian Agriculture: an Inventory andTypology. Report. Guelph, Ontario:Department of Geography, University ofGuelph.

Smit, Barry, ed. 1993. Adaptation to ClimateVariability and Change. Guelph: EnvironmentCanada.

Smit, Barry and Olga Pilifosova. 2001.“Adaptation to Climate Change in theContext of Sustainable Development andEquity.” In J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canzianni,N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White,eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts,Adaptation, and Vulnerability - Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Third AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. Cambridge, U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Smit, Barry, and Mark Skinner. 2002.“Adaptation Options in Agriculture toClimate Change: A Typology.” Mitigationand Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7:85-114.

Smit, Barry, D. McNabb, and J. Smithers. 1996.“Agriculture Adaptations to ClimateVariation.”, Climatic Change, 33: 7-29.

Smit, Barry, Ian Burton, R. J. T. Klein, and R.Street. 1999. “The Science of Adaptation: AFramework for Assessment.” Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4:199-213.

Smit, Barry, Ian Burton, R. J. T. Klein, and J.Wandel. 2000. “An anatomy of adaptation toclimate change and variability”, ClimaticChange 45(1): 223-251.

Smith, J. B. 1997. “Setting Priorities forAdaptation to Climate Change.” GlobalEnvironmental Change 7(3): 251-264.

Smith, Joel, and S. Lenhart. 1996. “ClimateChange Adaptation Policy Options.” ClimateResearch 6: 193-201.

Smith, T.M., and others. 1995. “Global Forests.”In Strzepek, K and J.B. Smith (1995). ClimateChanges: International Impacts andImplications, Cambridge University Press.

Smith, M., L. S. Pereira, J. Berengena, J. Goussard,R. Ragab, L. Tollefson, and P. van Hofwegen,eds. 1996. Irrigation Scheduling: From Theoryto Practice – Proceedings. Proceedings of theICID (International Commission onIrrigation and Drainage)/FAO (Food andAgriculture Organization) Workshop onIrrigation Scheduling, Rome, Italy, 12-13September 1995, International Commissionon Irrigation and Drainage—Food AndAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Rome,1996. <<http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4367E/w4367e00.htm#Contents>>.

Smithers, John, and Alyson Blay-Palmer. 2001“Technology Innovation as a Strategy forClimate Adaptation in Agriculture,” AppliedGeography 21: 175-197.

Smithers, John, and Barry Smit. 1997. “HumanAdaptations to Climate Variability andChange.” Global Environmental Change 7(2):129-146.

Sohngen, Brent, and Robert Mendelsohn. 1998.“Valuing the Market Impact of Large ScaleEcological Change: the Effect of Climate


References

Change on U.S. Timber.” American EconomicReview 88: 686-710.

Sombroek, W. S. and R. Gommes. 1996. “TheClimate Change-Agriculture Conundrum.”In F. Bazzaz and W. Sombroek, eds., GlobalClimate Change and Agricultural Production.FAO and John Wiley.

Southworth, J., R. A. Pfeifer, M. Habeck, J. C.Randolph, O. C. Doering, J. J. Johnston, andD. G. Rao. 2002a. “Changes in soybean yieldsin the Midwestern United States as a resultof future changes in climate, climatevariability, and CO2 fertilization.” ClimaticChange 53(4): 447-75.

Southworth, J., R. A. Pfeifer, M. Habeck, J. C.Randolph, O. C. Doering, and D. G. Rao.2002b. “Sensitivity of Winter Wheat Yieldsin the Midwestern United States to FutureChanges in Climate, Climate Variability, andCO2 Fertilization.” Climate Research, 22(1):73-86.

Stakhiv, E. Z. 1996. “Managing Water Resourcesfor Climate Change Adaptation.” In: J.Smith, N. Bhatti, G. Menzhulin, R. Benioff,M. I. Budyko, M. Campos, B. Jallow, and F.Rijsberman, eds. Adapting to Climate Change:An International Perspective. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Stakhiv, Eugene Z. 1998. “Policy Implications ofClimate Change Impacts on Water ResourcesManagement.” Water Policy 1(2): 159-175.

Strzepek, Kenneth M., and Joel B. Smith, eds.1995. As Climate Changes: InternationalImpacts and Implications. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press.

Strzepek, K. M., D. N. Yates, and D. E. El Quosy.1996. “Vulnerability Assessment of WaterResources in Egypt to Climatic Change in theNile Basin.” Climate Research 6: 89–95.

Stuczyinski, T., G. Demidowicz, T. Deputat, T.Górski, S. Krazowicz, and J. Kus. 2000.“Adaptation Scenarios of Agriculture in

Poland to Future Climate Changes.”Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 61:133-144.

Tebo, Michael. 2000. “Water Resources andClimate Change”, RFF Issue Brief, Resourcesfor the Future.

<<http://www.rff.org/issue_briefs/summaries/ccbrf3.htm>>.

Timmins, Christopher. 2001. Endogenous LandUse and the Ricardian Valuation of ClimateChange. New Haven, Connecticut: YaleUniversity Department of Economics andEconomic Growth Center. <<http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/apmicro/am02/timmins-020219.pdf>>.

Todaro, Michael P. (1969). “A Model of Labor,Migration and Urban Unemployment in LessDeveloped Countries.” American EconomicReview 59(1): 138-48.

Tol, R. S. J., S. Fankhauser, and Joel B. Smith.1998. “The Scope for Adaptation to ClimateChange: What Can We Learn from theImpact Literature?” Global EnvironmentalChange 8(2): 109-123.

Tsigas, M. E., G. B. Frisvold and B. Kuhn. 1996.“Global Climate Change in Agriculture.” InT. W. Hertel , ed. , Global Trade Analysis:Modeling and Applications. Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press.

Tyson, P. D., J. Lee-Thorp, K. Holmgren, and J. F.Thackeray. 2002. “Changing Gradients ofClimate Change in Southern Africa duringthe Past Millennium: Implications ForPopulation Movements.” Climatic Change 52:129–135.

Udry, Christopher. 1990. “Credit Markets inNorthern Nigeria: Credit as Insurance in aRural Economy.” World Bank EconomicReview 4(3): 251-69.

UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and SocialCommision for Asia and the Pacific). 2002.Water Management through Community



Participation in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka.ESCAP Virtual Conference Paper, Bangkok.(www.unescap.org/drpad/vc/conference/ex_lk_57_wmc.htm)

Van Duivenbooden, N., S. Abdoussalam, and A.Ben Mohamed. 2002. “Impact of climatechange on agricultural production in theSahel - Part 2. Case study for groundnut andcowpea in Niger.” Climatic Change 54(3):349-68.

Vaughan, Emmett J. 1989. Fundamentals of riskand insurance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Waggoner, P. E. 1983. “Agriculture and aClimate Changed by More Carbon Dioxide.”In Changing Climate: Report of the CarbonDioxide Assessment Committee. Washington,D.C.: National Academy of Sciences Press.

Watson, R.T., J.A. Dixon, S.P. Hanburg, A.C.Janetos, and R.H. Moss, eds. 1998. ProtectingOur Planet, Securing Our Future. Washington,D.C.: United Nations Environment Program,NASA, and the World Bank.

West, J. Jason, and Hadi Dowlatabadi. 1999. “OnAssessing the Economic Impacts of Sea LevelRise on Developed Coasts.” In T. E.Downing, A. A. Olsthoorn, and R. S. J. Tol,eds., Climate Change and Risk, London:Routledge.

Westing, A H. 1992. “Environmental Refugees: AGrowing Category of Displaced Persons.”Environmental Conservation 19(3): 201-7.

White, G. F., ed. 1974. Natural Hazards — Local,National and Global. New York, N.Y.:OxfordUniversity Press.

Woodward, S. 1996. “Holdridge’s Life Zones.”<<http://www.radford.edu/~swoodwar/CLASSES/GEOG235/lifezone/holdrdge.html>>.

World Bank. 1993. Water Resources Management.World Bank Policy Paper,Washington, D.C.

———. 1994. Adjustment in Africa. Reforms,Results and the Road Ahead. New York, N.Y.:Oxford University Press.

———. 1998. Climate Change and Sub-SaharanAfrica: Issues and Opportunities. Washington,D.C.

———. 2000. Bangladesh: Climate Change &Sustainable Development, Report No. 21104BD. Washington, D.C.

———. 2002. Poverty and Climate Change-Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor.Consultation Draft.

WRI (World Resources Institute). 1998. WorldResources Report 1998-99: EnvironmentalChange and Human Health. Oxford, UnitedKingdom: Oxford University Press.

Yates, D. N., and K. M. Strzepek. 1996.“Modeling Economy-Wide Climate ChangeImpacts on Egypt: a Case for an IntegratedApproach.” Environmental Modeling andAssessment 1: 119-135.

———. 1998. “Modeling the Nile Basin underClimate Change.” Journal of HydrologicEngineering 3(2): 98-108.

Yohe, Gary, and James Neumann. 1997.“Planning for Sea-Level Rise and ShoreProtection under Uncertainty.” ClimaticChange 37(2): 243-270.

Yohe, G. W., James Neumann, P. Marshall, andH. Ameden.. 1996. “The Economic Cost ofSea-Level Rise on United States CoastalProperty.” Climatic Change 32(4): 387-410.

You, S.C. 2001. “Agricultural Adaptation toClimate Change in China.” Journal ofEnvironmental Sciences 13(2): 192-197.

Zimmerer, Karl S. 1993. “Soil Erosion and LaborShortages in the Andes with SpecialReference to Bolivia, 1953–1991:Implications for ‘Conservation-with-Development.’” World Development 21:1659–1675.

climate change and agriculture - world bank...climate change series climate change and agriculture a...

Documents