james neumann principal february 24, 2011
DESCRIPTION
Responding to Climate Change in ECA Agriculture: Impact Assessments and Menu of Adaptation Options for Albania and Uzbekistan. James Neumann Principal February 24, 2011. Overview. Objectives of the study and consulting team Study process and timing Modeling approach – impacts and adaptation - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
IEc
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Responding to Climate Change in ECA Agriculture:
Impact Assessments and Menu of Adaptation Options for Albania and Uzbekistan
James NeumannPrincipal
February 24, 2011
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 2
Overview
• Objectives of the study and consulting team
• Study process and timing
• Modeling approach – impacts and adaptation
• Stakeholder/farmer consultations
• Summary of results – Albania and Uzbekistan
• Overall recommendations – Albania and Uzbekistan
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 3
Objectives of the Study
“Enhance the ability of four countries in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) to mainstream climate change adaptation into agricultural policies, programs, and investments.”
• The four countries are:• Albania• Moldova• Macedonia• Uzbekistan
• Strategies used:• raising awareness of the threat• analyzing potential impacts and adaptation responses• building capacity among national and local stakeholders
• A key product of the work is a menu of adaptation measures for the agriculture sector – including crops, water resources, and livestock.
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Study Components and Work Flow
4
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 5
Key Consulting Team Members
• James Neumann, IEc, Project Manager• Kenneth Strzepek, Univ. Colorado and MIT,
Technical Director• Ana Iglesias, Univ. of Madrid, Agronomist and Crop
Modeler• Peter Droogers, FutureWater, Crop and Water
Resources Modeler• Janusz Kindler, Warsaw University of Technology,
Water Resources Expert• Richard Adams, Oregon State Univ. and Brent
Boehlert, IEc, Agricultural Economists• Samuel Fankhauser, Grantham Research Institute
on Climate Change and the Environment, Economist & Expert Reviewer
• Andrew Schwarz, IEc, Participatory Process Expert
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Modeling Approach
6
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Modeling Approach – Climate Scenarios
7
This Study’s
Scenario Global General Circulation Model Basis for the
Scenario Relevant IPCC SRES Scenario
High Impact Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Model EH
(US) A1B Medium Impact
Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis, Coupled GCM 3.1 (Canada) A1B
Low Impact Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization, Mk 3.0 (Australia) B1
• Select three scenarios from among 56 IPCC AR4 options, intent is to capture relevant range for agricultural yield
• Selection based on Climate Moisture Index, combines temperature and precipitation forecast
• “Medium Impact” is roughly the mean; “High Impact” is driest, “Low Impact” is wettest.
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 8
Modeling Approach – Crop Yield and Water Resources
• Crop Modeling – Process-based models (e.g., AquaCrop) for up to 7 select crops – country nominates crops for focus
• Water Resource Availability “Screening Tool” – CliRun – projects runoff for all key basins in country
• Basin-level Water Balance Modeling – WEAP for all large basins in each country
• Agricultural water demand from crop model• M&I water demand projections from EACC study• Climate-induced water supply changes from CliRun
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 9
Other Dimensions of the Impact Assessment
• Geographic Scope: Agro-ecological zone, with representative crop modeling for each region.
• Time: Decadal averages from 2010 to 2050 (i.e., 2010s, 2020s, 2030s, 2040s)
• Economic Baseline: current conditions/markets, also IFPRI projections of market prices through 2050.
• NOTE: Goal of quantitative analysis is to estimate marginal effect of adaptation measures on farm-level net income, so it includes two components:
• Effect of measure on closing adaptation deficit to current climate
• Effect of measure in responding to forecast changes in climate
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 10
Capacity Building Workshop
• Conducted a formal training workshop at a central location for a specific impact assessment technique.
• In Albania and Uzbekistan, training focus was:
• Process-based crop modeling (e.g., AquaCrop)
• Also touched on how to integrate with basin-level water resources modeling (e.g., WEAP)
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 11
Farmer Engagement - Stakeholder Consultations
• Conducted in each AEZ, two sets of meetings
• First meeting, present draft impact results, and ask:• Experts/analysts: Do the crop, livestock, water
modeling results look reasonable to you?• Farmers: What options would you employ in response
to these outcomes? What other ideas do you have?
• Second meeting, present draft adaptation recommendations, and ask:
• Which of the recommended options do you favor?• What barriers do you see to implementing the
recommendations (economic, institutional, policy)?• What options are missing from our list?
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 12
Develop Initial Menu of Adaptation Options
Consider results of stakeholder consultations and quantitative modeling, six step process:
1. Generate farm-level estimates of net benefits of adaptation options, using readily available data
2. Rank initial set of adaptation options based on net benefit criteria
3. Add a second, qualitative ranking based on the recommendations of our expert team
4. Assess whether there is “win-win” aspect to measure
5. Add a third ranking based on stakeholder consultations
6. Consider other, country-level policy options (e.g., changes to water allocation scheme) qualitatively based on assessment of existing adaptive capacity
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Results – Albania
13
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 14
Baseline
2040s Low Scenario
2040s Medium Scenario
2040s High Scenario
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 15
2040s Low Scenario
2040s Medium Scenario
2040s High Scenario
Baseline
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 16
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Crop Yield Effects – No Adaptation
17
Crop Coastal
Lowlands Interme-
diate Northern
Mountains Southern Highlands
Alfalfa irrigated 2% 2% 4% 8%
Alfalfa non irrigated -1% -1% 4% 0%
Grapes -8% -10% -6% -10%
Grassland -2% 1% 3% 1%
Maize -1% -2% -4% 7%
Olives -1% -8% -5% -5%
Tomatoes 0% -2% -3% -1%
Watermelons -1%
Wheat 4% 3% 11% 8%
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Range of Crop Yield Effects Across Scenarios
18
Crop Coastal
Lowlands Interme-
diate Northern
Mountains Southern Highlands
Alfalfa irrigated 1% 0 to 2% 2% 6 to 8%
Alfalfa non irrigated -9 to 7% -9 to 11% -5 to 9% 0 to 4%
Grapes -14 to 3% -14 to 5% -11 to 4% -12 to -5%
Grassland -10 to 7% -9 to 13% -9 to 10% 1 to 7%
Maize -1 to -2% -7 to 4% -8 to 0% 5 to 10%
Olives -4 to 0% -12 to 3% -11 to 2% - 6 to -2%
Tomatoes -1 to 0% -3 to -1% -6 to -1% -1%
Watermelons -2 to 0%
Wheat 2 to 3% 1 to 2% 3 to 6% 3 to 9 %
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Albanian Crop Water Demands – Percent Increase
19
Scenario Crop Interme-
diate Coastal
Lowlands Northern
Mountains Southern Highlands
HIGH
Alfalfa irrigated 5% 4% 0% -6%
Maize 25% 11% 11% 6%
Tomatoes 44% 18% 8% 29%
Watermelons 15%
MEDIAN
Alfalfa irrigated -3% -2% -6% -6%
Maize 11% 7% 6% 9%
Tomatoes 25% 14% 4% 24%
Watermelons 9%
LOW
Alfalfa irrigated -11% -5% -5% -8%
Maize -1% -4% -2% 0%
Tomatoes 2% 1% -10% 17%
Watermelons -4%
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Albania Monthly Runoff Estimates
20
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Forecast Monthly Water Balance in 2040s
21
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
BCA for Rehabilitating Drainage in Lowlands AEZ
22
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Farmer Consultation Results
Responses differed in each AEZ, but in general top three ranked adaptations were:
• Rehabilitate infrastructure: Depending on the specific climate related risk faced by each AEZ, the priority infrastructure was for either irrigation or drainage.
• Increase institutional capacity: Increase the reach of extension services, focus on technical training, seed and crop selection knowledge transfer, and increasing the availability of hydro-meteorological information.
• Improve market structure: Farmers emphasized that overall market effectiveness would assist in making farms more productive and provide a “win-win” adaptive response. Need for processing and storage facilities.
23
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Overall Recommendations - National
24
DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED
ADAPTATION MEASURE
SPECIFIC FOCUS AREAS
RANKING
NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT:
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT: EXPERT
ASSESSMENT
“WIN-WIN” POTENTIAL
FAVORABLE
EVALUATION BY
LOCAL FARMERS
Improve Extension Capacity
Seed varieties; more efficient use of water
High High High High
Improve hydrometeorological capacity
Short-term temperature and precipitation forecasts
High (based on “break-
even” analyses)
High High High
Improve agricultural information for policy support
Soils (types and drainage qualities), General crop suitability
Not evaluated High High Not mentioned
Provide incentives to consolidate farm holdings
None identified Not evaluated Not mentioned
Potentially High
High
Encourage private sector adaptation
Seeds, livestock breeds, particularly on international market
Not evaluated Potentially High
High Not mentioned
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Recommendations – AEZ Level
25
RELEVANT AEZS FOR MEASURE
DESCRIPTION OF
RECOMMENDED
ADAPTATION MEASURE
CROP AND LIVESTOCK
FOCUS
RANKING
ECONOMIC BENEFIT:
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
ECONOMIC BENEFIT: EXPERT
ASSESSMENT
“WIN-WIN” POTENTIAL
FAVORABLE EVALUATION
BY LOCAL FARMERS
Lowlands, Intermediate, Southern Highlands
Improve Drainage Infrastructure
Tomatoes, Maize, Grapes, Wheat
High High High High
Lowlands Improve irrigation water quality
Tomatoes, Maize, Watermelon
Not evaluated Not mentioned
High High
Intermediate Improve irrigation water use efficiency
Maize High Not mentioned
High Medium
Intermediate, Southern Highlands, Northern Mountains
Rehabilitate irrigation system
All irrigated crops
Low to Medium depending on
AEZ
Not mentioned
High High
Lowlands Improve access to climate-tolerant crop varieties
Tomatoes, Grapes, Wheat, Maize, Watermelon
High Medium Medium High
All Optimize fertilizer application
Tomatoes, Olives, Wheat
High Not mentioned
High Not mentioned
All Transition livestock varieties to improve high temperature tolerance
Beef cattle, Chickens
Low in short-term, Medium in long-term
Not mentioned
Low No support for changing animal types, only for new
varieties
Particular to Korca region
Adopt hail nets Orchard crops, particularly apples
High (from literature values)
Not mentioned
High High
Particular to Shkodra region
Floodplain land-use management measures
All Not evaluated High High Medium
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Uzbekistan AEZs
26
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Uzbekistan River Basins
27
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 28
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED 29
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Monthly Temperature and Precipitation for Piedmont AEZ
30
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Uzbekistan – Yield Changes
31
Desert & Steppe
Desert & Steppe Highlands
Piedmont zone
Piedmont zone
Crop East West South East SW
Alfalfa 3% 2% 3% 10% 2%
Apples -2% -2% -1% -2% -2%
Cotton -1% -2% -1% -1%
Grassland 12% 11% 14% 17% 9%
Potatoes -1% -2% -1% 0% -1%
Tomatoes -1% -2% 0% 0%
Wheat -1% -1% -1% 2% -2%
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Range of Crop Yield Results Across Climate Scenarios
32
Crop Desert &
Steppe East Desert &
Steppe West Highlands
South Piedmont Zone East
Piedmont Zone SW
Alfalfa 0 to 3% 0 to 2% 0 to 2% 9 to 9% 0 to 2%
Apples -6 to 0% -5 to -2% -6 to 0% -6 to -1% -6 to -1%
Cotton -3 to 0% -3 to -2% -3 to -2% -3 to 1%
Grassland 0 to 16% -6 to 12% -1 to 7% 8 to 9% -3 to 10%
Potatoes -3 to 1% -3 to -1% -4 to 0% -3 to -1% -4 to 1%
Tomatoes -4 to 2% -3 to -1% -2 to -1% -6 to 3%
Wheat -8 to 1% -4 to 1% -10 to -2% -1 to 2% -9 to 0%
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Crop/Irrigation Water Requirements
33
Desert & Steppe
Desert & Steppe Highlands
Piedmont zone
Piedmont zone
Scenario Crop East West South East SW
LOW
Alfalfa -3% -3% -4% -17% -2% Apples 4% 3% 2% 6% 3% Cotton 2% 4% 3% 2% Potatoes 2% 3% 1% 4% 0% Tomatoes -1% 0% -2% -2% Wheat 4% 2% 3% -17% 4%
MEDIAN
Alfalfa -4% -3% -3% -16% -2% Apples 1% 3% 1% 6% 1% Cotton -1% 3% 4% -2% Potatoes -1% 2% 0% 7% -3% Tomatoes -4% -2% 0% -5% Wheat 2% 0% 4% -19% 2%
HIGH
Alfalfa 1% 0% 1% -15% 1% Apples 9% 7% 10% 29% 9% Cotton 5% 5% 7% 6% Potatoes 6% 6% 8% 23% 6% Tomatoes 3% 3% 6% 5% Wheat 12% 6% 14% -7% 12%
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Mean Monthly Runoff and Irrigation Demand – 2040s
34
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Projected Unmet Water Demand for Irrigation
35
BASIN
CLIMATE SCENARIO
BASE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
IRRIGATION
Syr Darya East1,087,90
6 (19.2%) 615,927 (11.6%) 940,601 (17.5%)3,627,99
1 (51.6%)
Syr Darya West 0 (0.0%) 122,023 (1.9%) 325,942 (4.7%)2,817,03
1 (34.4%)
Amu Darya 424,655 (1.8%)2,174,06
9 (8.7%)4,807,84
8 (17.8%)8,405,24
3 (28.9%)
Aral Sea East 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Aral Sea West 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Subtotal1,512,56
0 (4.2%)2,912,01
9 (8.0%)6,074,39
1 (15.4%)14,850,2
65 (33.5%)
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Farmer’s Preferred Adaptation Options
• Increase farmer know-how and skills through capacity building
• Improve extension services to small farmers. • Improve farmers’ skills in countering the increased
incidence of pests, especially for wheat and apples• Improved training for pest-resistant, and/or heat-
stress-tolerant seed and crop variety selection from both international and national markets
• Provide information on improving on-farm water use efficiency.
• Invest in on-farm irrigation infrastructure• Improve the availability/affordability of crop
insurance
36
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Recommendations – National Level
37
DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED
ADAPTATION MEASURE
SPECIFIC FOCUS AREAS
RANKING
NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT:
QUANTITATIVE
ANALYSIS
NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT: EXPERT
ASSESSMENT
“WIN-WIN”
POTENTIAL
FAVORABLE
EVALUATION BY
LOCAL FARMERS
Improve extension capacity
Seed varieties; more efficient use of water
High High High High
Improve crop insurance affordability and streamline implementation
Drought damage; pest damage
Not evaluated High High High
Encourage private sector adaptation
Seeds, from international marketExport options for vegetable crops
Not evaluated Potentially High
High Not yet mentioned
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Recommendations – AEZ Level
38
RELEVANT AEZS FOR MEASURE
DESCRIPTION OF
RECOMMENDED
ADAPTATION
MEASURE
CROP AND
LIVESTOCK FOCUS
RANKING
ECONOMIC BENEFIT:
QUANTITATIVE
ANALYSIS
ECONOMIC
BENEFIT: EXPERT
ASSESSMENT
“WIN-WIN”
POTENTIAL
FAVORABLE
EVALUATION BY LOCAL
FARMERSAll Improve
irrigation water use efficiency
Tomatoes (all but Highlands)PotatoesWheatApples
High High High High
Piedmont – Syr Darya Basin
Rehabilitate irrigation system
All irrigated crops
High but dependent on AEZ and basin water availability
High High Medium
All Improve access to climate- and pest-tolerant crop varieties
Tomatoes, Potatoes,Apples,Grapes, Wheat, Cotton
High Medium High High
All Optimize fertilizer application
Tomatoes, Olives, Wheat
High, but incomplete
analysis
High High Medium
All Transition livestock varieties to improve high temperature tolerance
Beef cattle, Chickens
Not evaluated
Not mentioned
Low Medium; some
support for new
varieties
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Final Thoughts
• All countries have been receptive to the concept, and generally supportive of our work
• Cooperation from local governments was initially good, but data was very sparse – needed to use global data in many instances
• Farmer workshops were more productive and engaging than expected – more could be done with that format in follow-up
• Major challenge in separating current adaptation deficit from needs to adapt to changing climate – but perhaps we can do some work in that direction in regional report
39
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
Detailed BCA Results – Sensitivity Analyses
40
IEcINDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
617.354.0074