Get documents about "Scenario Development for International Assessment of Agricultural
Document Sample
Scenario Development for International
Assessment of Agricultural Science and
Technology for Development (IAASTD)
Mark W. Rosegrant
IFPRI
Washington DC, USA
Overview of the Talk
What is IAASTD?
What are scenarios and why use
them?
Proposed approach for IAASTD
scenarios
Overview of IMPACT global food and
water model
Knowledge, Science and Technology
(KST) in scenario modeling
Page 2
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD: Overarching Question
―How to reduce hunger and poverty,
improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate
equitable, environmentally, socially and
economically sustainable development
through access to, and use of
agricultural knowledge, science and
technology‖?
Page 3
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD: Four Broad Questions
What are the challenges that can be
addressed through agricultural KST?
What are the likely positive and negative
consequences of agricultural KST?
What are the enabling conditions required
to optimize the uptake and diffusion of
agricultural KST?
What investments are needed to help
realize the potential of agricultural KST?
Page 4
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD Characteristics
Structural features:
Intergovernmental process, with a multi-stakeholder Bureau
Co-sponsored by seven international agencies – FAO, GEF,
UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, World Bank, and WHO
Based on an international consultative process and well-
defined user needs
Prepared and peer-reviewed by hundreds of experts from all
stakeholder groups
Substance features
Multi-thematic (nutritional security, livelihoods, human health,
environmental sustainability)
Multi-spatial using a consistent framework
Multi-temporal (now to 2050) employing plausible futures
Integrates indigenous and institutional knowledge
Assesses scientific knowledge and the effectiveness of
institutions and policies
Page 5
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD Conceptual Framework
Human Impacts on: Indirect change drivers
•Incomes and employment Economic
•Hunger •Demographic (urbanization, migration)
•Human health •Socio-political (policies and institutions)
•Resilience and vulnerability •Cultural and ethical (values)
•Social and Gender Equality •Global KST
•Economic diversification
•Rural livelihoods Direct change drivers
•Quality of natural environment
•Biodiversity loss
•Social Stability
•Volume and pattern of demand
•Consumption patterns
•Labor availability
•Land and water availability
Agricultural goods and Services
•Agricultural policy and regulatory
•Food production
environment
•Fiber, oils, material
•GHG emissions and Climate change
•Biomass/energy
•Farmers decisions
•Medicines
•Landscape and environmental
management
Agricultural KST
•Carbon sequestration
•New knowledge (including policies)
•Agro-ecosystem function
•New technologies (biological and non-biological)
•Harnessing/Maintenance/adaptation
of indigenous knowledge
•Effective knowledge exchange systems
•KST system responsiveness & adaptability
•KST system accountability
What are Scenarios and Why Use Them?
Scenarios are stories about the future with
a logical plot and narrative governing the
manner in which events unfold
Purpose of scenarios:
• Information dissemination
• Scientific exploration
• Decision-making tool
Types of scenarios
• Exploratory vs. anticipatory scenarios
• Baseline vs. policy scenarios
• Qualitative vs. quantitative scenarios, or a
combination
Page 7
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IAASTD Approach to Scenarios
Structured accounts of possible futures
Describe futures that could be, rather than futures that will be
Alternative, dynamic stories that capture key ingredients of our
uncertainty about the future of our study system
Constructed to provide insight into drivers of change, reveal
the implications of current trajectories, and illuminate options
for action
Encompass quantitative models and realistic projections, but
much of their value lies in incorporating both qualitative and
quantitative understandings of the system and in forcing
people to evaluate and reassess their beliefs and assumptions
about the system
What are the consequences of plausible changes in
development paths for hunger, poverty alleviation, human
health, and the environment?
Page 8
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Scenario Development Process for
IAASTD
Procedure builds from MA approach and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) methodology
Integrates qualitative and quantitative
scenarios
• Qualitative – understandable way to
communicate complex information,
considerable depth, comprehensive feedback
effects and incorporate a wide range of views
about the future
• Quantitative – check the consistency of
qualitative scenarios, provide relevant
numerical information and ―enrich‖ qualitative
scenarios by trends and dynamics
Page 9
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Scenario Development Framework
Two essential activities
• Formulation of alternative scenario
storylines
– facilitates internal consistency of different
assumptions
– takes into account broad range of
elements and feedback effects
• Quantification
– helps provide insights into those
processes where sufficient knowledge
exists to allow modeling
– takes into account interactions among
various drivers and services
Page 10
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing
Scenarios – Three Phases
Phase I: Organizational steps
1. Establish a scenario team.
2. Establish a scenario panel.
3. Conduct interviews and workshops with
scenario end users (broad stakeholder
consultation).
4. Determine the objectives and focus of the
scenarios.
5. Clarify the focal questions of the scenarios.
Page 11
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing
Scenarios – Three Phases
Phase II: Scenario writing and quantification
1. Construct a zero-order draft of scenario
storylines.
2. Organize modeling analyses and begin
quantification.
3. Revise zero-order storylines and construct
first-order storylines
4. Quantify scenarios.
5. Augment/revise storylines based on results of
quantifications.
6. Derive new driving forces and re-run the
models.
Page 12
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing
Scenarios – Three Phases
Phase III: Synthesis, review and
dissemination
1.Distribute draft scenarios for general review.
2.Develop final version of the scenarios.
3.Publish and disseminate the scenarios.
Page 13
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Drivers and Outputs
Population development – total population and age
distribution in different regions
Economic development – assumed growth of GDP per
region and changes in economic structure
Technology development – covers many model inputs such
as rate of improvement in the efficiency of domestic water
use, or the rate of increase in crop yields
Demand—dietary preferences and dynamics of change
Human behavior –willingness of people to invest time or
money in energy conservation or water conservation
Institutional factors – existence and strength of local,
national, and global institutions to promote education,
international trade and international technology transfer
• International technology transfer – represented directly
(e.g. trade barriers, import tariffs) or indirectly (e.g.
income elasticity for education) Page 14
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Four Forward-looking Scenarios
Environmentally
reactive
Global Order from
Orchestration Strength
globalized fragmented
Techno Adapting
Garden Mosaic
Environmentally
pro-active Page 15
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Global Orchestration
Focus on macro-scale policy reform for
environmental sustainability
Dominant Approach Economic Social Policy
for Sustainability Approach Foci
Create demand for Redefinition of the Increase
environmental protection public and private global equity;
via economic growth and sector roles; public health;
social improvements; improving market global
public goods performance; trade education
liberalization; focus
on global public
good
Page 16
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Order from Strength
Retreat from global institutions, focus on national
regulation and protectionism
Dominant Approach Economic Social Policy
for Sustainability Approach Foci
Reactive problem- Regional trade blocs, Security and
solving by individual mercantilism, self- protection
nations; sectoral sufficiency
approaches, creation of
parks and protected
reserves
Page 17
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Adapting Mosaic
Retreat from global institutions, focus on
strengthened local institutions and local learning
Dominant Approach Economic Social Policy
for Sustainability Approach Foci
Learning via Focus on local Local
management and development; trade communities
monitoring, shared rules allow local linked to global
management flexibility/interpretati communities;
responsibility, on; local non- local equity
adjustment of market rights
governance structures
to resource users,
common-property
institutions
Page 18
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Techno Garden
Emphasis on development of technologies to
substitute for ecosystem services
Dominant Approach Economic Social Policy
for Sustainability Approach Foci
Green technology, eco- Global reduction of Improving
efficiency, tradeable tariff boundaries, individual and
ecological property fairly free movement community
rights of goods, capital and technical
people, global expertise;
markets in policies follow
ecological property opportunities;
competition
Page 19
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Modeling to Quantify Parts of
the MA scenarios
Model Outputs
IMPACT Provisioning Services
World food
production - Food (meat, fish, grain
production)
Model Inputs - Fiber (timber)
- Freshwater (renewable
Demographic AIM water resources &
Economic withdrawals)
Global change
Technological - Fuel wood (biofuels)
Regulating
IMAGE 2 - Climate regulation (C flux)
- Air quality (NOx, S
Global change emissions)
Supporting
Storylines primary production
WaterGAP
Global World water
Orchestration, resources
Techno Garden, etc.
Population Growth
Population in Millions
Region Global Orchestration Techno Garden Adapting Mosaic Order from Strength
1995 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100
Former Soviet
285 290 282 245 292 281 252 288 273 246 287 257 216
Union
Latin America 477 637 742 681 672 831 950 708 933 1,155 710 944 1,309
Middle
East/North 312 478 603 597 509 692 788 537 765 924 539 774 972
Africa
OECD
1,020 1,136 1,255 1,153 1,117 1,154 1,077 1,079 1,068 978 1,076 998 856
Asia
3,049 3,861 4,104 3,006 4,039 4,535 3,992 4,201 4,992 4,753 4,210 5,023 5,173
Sub-Saharan
558 858 1,109 1,132 907 1,329 1,516 951 1,492 1,775 956 1,570 1,988
Africa
World
5,701 7,260 8,095 6,814 7,537 8,821 8,575 7,764 9,522 9,830 7,777 9,567 10,514
Income Growth (GDP/cap/year)
Economic Growth Rates (percent per year)
Historic Global Orchestration Techno Garden Adapting Mosaic Order from Strength
Region
1971- 1995- 2020- 2050- 1995- 2020- 2050- 1995- 2020- 2050- 1995- 2020- 2050-
2000 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100
Former Soviet
0.4 3.50 4.91 3.14 2.94 4.49 3.14 2.60 4.03 3.08 2.24 2.64 2.72
Union
Latin America 1.2 2.80 4.28 2.24 2.36 3.93 2.24 2.06 2.99 2.23 1.78 2.29 1.77
Middle
East/North 0.7 1.96 3.42 2.50 1.74 3.27 2.50 1.61 2.43 2.40 1.51 1.75 1.93
Africa
OECD
2.1 2.45 1.93 1.34 2.22 1.74 1.35 2.00 1.56 1.19 2.06 1.31 0.86
Asia
5.0 5.06 5.28 3.08 4.24 4.70 3.13 3.76 4.12 2.52 3.22 2.43 2.07
Sub-Saharan
-0.4 1.69 3.97 4.08 1.44 3.80 4.08 1.21 2.85 3.31 1.02 2.12 2.16
Africa
World
1.4 2.38 3.00 2.26 1.90 2.46 2.25 1.46 1.91 1.88 1.39 1.04 1.26
Sample Qualitative Scenarios for IAASTD
Intensive agriculture – emphasis on
• Intensive agriculture
• Economic growth
• Public goods
Low input agriculture
• Low-input agricultural technology
Adaptive ecosystem targeting
• Agricultural science and technology targeted to
ecosystems
• Indigenous technology and participatory breeding
Rates of change in dietary preferences
• Convergence to Western diets, decline in Western
meat demand, acceptance of biofortication
Page 23
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
KST within a Policy Modeling Framework
―K‖ - different from ―S‖ and ―T‖ - latent
and not easily measured
KST - hard to separate due to obvious
feedbacks
Observing ―S‖ & ―T‖
• in cross-section can be used to
construct a ―possibility frontier‖ –
additional models
• observe over time to identify trends
and underlying drivers
Page 24
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
How to Account for Knowledge
Knowledge - embodied in
• education (for the general population)
• agricultural extension
• Indigenous knowledge
Agricultural extension - has direct
effects on crop productivity and yields
Education –
• enhance overall labor productivity (not
only in agriculture)
• positive effects in nutrition outcomes
(through malnutrition work)
Page 25
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Should we Endogenize Science and
Technology ?
Keeping ST exogenous - allows one to
look at clear counter-factual comparisons
and scenarios
Endogenizing ST – may restrict the range
of investment scenarios that can be
examined
Not clear if necessary length of data over
time is available to properly specify an
endogenous relationship for Science and
Technology
Page 26
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Science and Technology in
Scenarios
SUPPLY SIDE
Changes in rainfed and irrigated area
growth for crops
Changes in rainfed and irrigated yield
growth for crops
Changes in numbers and yield growth
for livestock
Changes in production growth for 4
types of fisheries commodities (high
value vs. low value)
Page 27
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Science and Technology in
Scenarios
DEMAND SIDE
Changes in dietary preferences over
time (leading to changes in kilocalorie
composition) – disaggregation to the
potential impact of micronutrient
breeding
Page 28
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Science and Technology in
Scenarios
ALSO
Estimation of the impact of
• biosafety and biotechnology
regulations and phyto-sanitary
restrictions
• changes in supply and demand on
child malnutrition
• crop yields from climate change
Subsidies, taxes, tariffs and other trade
restrictions
Page 29
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Spatially Disaggregating
Impact of KST-related investments on
productivity growth, can be better captured
with the following disaggregations:
Greater spatial resolution for production of
food and water allocations
Disaggregation of crop categories to explicitly
model dryland crops
Differentiation between high and low-input
rain-fed agriculture
Disaggregation among GMO and non-GMO
options
Page 30
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The Education-Nutrition
Relationship in IMPACT-WATER
Malnourished children are projected as follows:
– %MALt= - 25.24 * ln (PCKCALt) - 71.76 LFEXPRATt
– - 0.22 SCHt - 0.08 WATERt
NMALt = %MALt x POP5t
%MAL = Percent of malnourished children
PCKCAL = Per capita calorie consumption
SCH = Total female enrollment in secondary education
as a % of the female age-group
LFEXPRAT = Ratio of female to male life exp. at birth
WATER = Percent of people with access to clean water
NMAL = Number of malnourished children, and
POP5 = Number of children 0 to 5 years old
Page 31
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
How to Account for Investments
Current model framework examines the impact of
investments made in
• Roads
• Irrigation
• Schools
• Safe water
• Agricultural technology
Can further disaggregate agricultural technology
investments to account for GMO and non-GMO
technologies, drought/salt tolerant variety
breeding, etc.
Page 32
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Related docs
