Climate change

Abstract: Globally, food systems are at the center of an ecological, social, and health crisis. In the Global South, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the reorganization of food systems is crucial to achieving economic development while addressing the various crises. Raising agricultural productivity is important, within a broader development strategy, if it does not imply the destitution of millions of peasants. Agroecology, with its focus on labor-driven intensification, represents an opportunity to transform food systems and achieve sustainability. National policies play a significant role in promoting or hindering agroecological transitions (AETs). In this article we analyze the contents of agricultural policies in Senegal, to determine to what extent the official texts promote AETs. Senegal, a Western African country in the Sahel region, faces important challenges in terms of providing sufficient food for its inhabitants, within a context of worsening climate and persistent demographic growth. Agroecology could provide an opportunity to promote nation-focused agricultural development while preserving peasants. We draw on the categories of critical political economy to clarify the meaning of AETs, in terms of changes in the prevailing mode of production. Subsequently, we deploy social multi-criteria evaluation to analyze the most important agricultural policies since 2014 and assess to what extent the official policy documents are in line with AETs. The results indicate that the policies are still anchored to a narrative of agricultural modernization and are not particularly transformative. Nevertheless, we also note some improvements, particularly with respect to the gender issue, and to a lesser extent with respect to the management of soil fertility and pest control. We note how the emergence of social movements supporting AETs in Senegal may help to promote public policies that are more transformative. The results contribute to the wider debate on the role of public policies in supporting AETs.

Abstract: Context: In sub-Saharan Africa, where most farmers rely on rain-fed agriculture, climate change poses serious threats. Agroforestry offers a promising adaptation strategy, with well-documented ecological and economic benefits. Yet, evidence on its role in enhancing household-level resilience to adverse weather events, such as drought, remains limited. Objective: We assess how decreases in rainfall affect cocoa yield among agroforestry adopters and non-adopters in Ghana and examine whether these effects vary by regional climatic suitability. Methods: We combine a two-wave panel data set of 365 cocoa-producing households with satellite-based climate data. We use a correlated random effects model to estimate the differential effects of reduced rainfall on yield by agroforestry status. To test for heterogeneity, we re-estimate the model for two subsamples located in climatically suitable and less suitable cocoa-growing regions. Results and conclusions: We find that on average, agroforestry adopters are less severely affected by reduced rainfall. A one-millimeter decrease in rainfall significantly reduces yield by 2.17 kg/ha for adopters and 2.84 kg/ha for non-adopters. However, when disaggregating between regions, this effect only holds in climatically suitable regions. In less suitable, drier regions, we do not find any significant effects. Our findings suggest that agroforestry could be used as a strategy for adapting to climate change, although more research is needed to understand the conditions under which it would be most effective. Significance: We are among the first to use household panel data to econometrically assess the effects of reduced rainfall on yield based on agroforestry adoption in the cocoa sector.

Abstract: The global context has shifted dramatically since publication of the first EAT–Lancet Commission in 2019, with increased geopolitical instability, soaring food prices, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbating existing vulnerabilities and creating new challenges. However, food systems remain squarely centred at the nexus of food security, human health, environmental sustainability, social justice, and the resilience of nations. Actions on food systems strongly impact the lives and wellbeing of all and are necessary to progress towards goals highlighted in the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement, and the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Although current food systems have largely kept pace with population growth, ensuring sufficient caloric intake for many, they are the single most influential driver of planetary boundary transgression. More than half of the world's population struggles to access healthy diets, leading to devastating consequences for public health, social equity, and the environment. Although hunger has declined in some regions, recent increases linked to expanding conflicts and emergent climate change impacts have reversed this positive trend. Obesity rates continue to rise globally, and the pressure exerted by food systems on planetary boundaries shows no signs of abating. In this moment of increasing instability, food systems still offer an unprecedented opportunity to build the resilience of environmental, health, economic, and social systems, and are uniquely placed to enhance human wellbeing while also contributing to Earth-system stability. This updated analysis builds upon the 2019 EAT–Lancet Commission, expanding its scope and strengthening its evidence base. The first Commission defined food group ranges for a healthy diet and identified the food systems' share of planetary boundaries. In this Commission, we add an analysis of the social foundations for a just food system, and incorporate new data and perspectives on distributive, representational, and recognitional justice, providing a global overview on equity in food systems. Substantial improvements in modelling capacity and data analysis allow for the use of a multimodel ensemble to project potential outcomes of a transition to healthy and sustainable food systems.

Abstract: Coherence in policy approaches across countries is crucial for achieving common GHG emission reduction goals at lower costs. Agro-economic models like Aglink-Cosimo, including global fertiliser markets, are useful for analyzing the anticipated effects of GHG reduction policies on food commodity markets. These policies can significantly affect domestic industry competitiveness, either positively or negatively. Such assessment tools can enhance evidence-based policy discussions and formation. We include in the baseline a EU ETS carbon price on fertiliser production in the EU as of 2026, without free allowances at 100 USD/tonne of CO2-eq emitted. Carbon pricing is assumed to be applied by the EU, Canada and the USA to fertiliser production from 2026 onwards. The results of the analysis presented in this article indicate that a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) significantly impacts fertiliser trade. A unilateral CBAM tariff affects EU fertiliser trade more than a common CBAM tariff adopted by a coalition of countries. These effects depend heavily on the volume of bilateral trade within club countries. Fertiliser markets influence commodity production and prices modestly due to the price inelasticity of fertiliser demand by farmers and the buffering role of trade in response to price shocks. In terms of GHG emissions, a climate club scenario results in lower total world emissions compared to a unilateral CBAM scenario.

Abstract: The European Climate Law mandates the European Union’s climate neutrality objectives by 2050, aligning with the European Green Deal and interim greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. The Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sectors play a crucial role due to their dual function in sequestering carbon and emitting GHGs. This report assesses the potential contribution of the AFOLU sectors to the EU's 2050 targets using CAPRI model scenarios. Recent model enhancements enable a more integrated analysis of GHG emissions and carbon removals, allowing for a detailed assessment of land-based mitigation options. The scenarios assess increased afforestation, sustainable forest management, protection of peatlands, and pricing of AFOLU GHG emissions and removals. Results indicate that reversing GHG emission trends requires significant action, particularly enhanced soil carbon sequestration and climate-smart agricultural practices. The protection of histosols and land conversion towards grassland and forest areas significantly increase carbon dioxide removals, while lower livestock and crop production reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Policies strengthening forest protection and afforestation further enhance the carbon sink capacity of the AFOLU sectors, potentially achieving negative net emissions by 2050. However, it is important to note that emission leakage (i.e., increases in emissions outside the EU) could limit global net reductions.

Abstract: This article explores the impact of extreme weather on food availability and how yield gap reductions in developing countries could make them less vulnerable to the imported effects of extreme weather shocks. Our extreme weather scenario results show that simultaneous weather-related shocks to crop yields in main exporting countries could lead to substantial increases in world food prices, threatening food security in countries strongly reliant on food imports. Maize and wheat prices increase by 40% and 50% due to extreme weather, increasing food expenditure in import-dependent countries (by up to 5%). Countering this effect, closing yield gaps in developing countries would substantially lower international prices and food expenditures, especially in developing countries. If the yield gap is reduced by 20% relative to economic potential over a 6-year period (yield gap scenario), maize and world prices decrease by 20% and 15%, decreasing food expenditure per capita in import-dependent countries. Finally, a combined scenario shows that the yield improvements only partially offset the impact of imported shocks on import-dependent countries, and these effects vary by country, depending on their production capability and their net-trade position. World maize and wheat prices increase by only 9% and 26% and still raise food expenditure in import-dependent countries.

Abstract: As one of the world's largest players in global trade, the EU pursues an open, sustainable and assertive trade strategy. The recent conclusions and ongoing negotiations of 10 European Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Australia, Chile, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Mercosur bloc (comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand are expected to diversify the EU's agri-food trade and enhance the resilience of its food supply chain. This resilience hinges on diversifying import sources and market outlets, which can be achieved through a robust trade policy that ensures access to a sufficient supply of affordable food for citizens. A two-step modelling approach was employed to assess ex-ante the cumulative economic impact of these FTAs on food commodity trade, production, consumption and prices in 2032. The analysis reveals that both EU imports and exports increase in value in the simulated scenarios, with notable sectoral variations. On the one hand, exports of dairy products and pig meat exhibit significant growth. On the other hand, potential vulnerabilities of the EU beef, poultry meat, sugar and rice sectors are identified. The study also examines the impact of the United Kingdom's trade agenda on the EU agri-food sector, quantifying the impact of the recent agreements between the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the UK's future accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement on the EU agri-food sector.

Abstract: Depuis maintenant une quinzaine d’années, le Sénégal a mis en place un programme de subvention d’intrants agricoles à destination de ses producteurs agricoles visant à leur fournir engrais, semences et matériel agricole. Cependant, très peu d’études ont été réalisées pour en évaluer les impacts. Ce rapport présente les résultats détaillés d’une étude visant à évaluer les effets de ce programme dans deux régions, la vallée du fleuve Sénégal et le bassin arachidier, au travers de plusieurs dispositifs de collecte de données, et notamment d’une enquête auprès des producteurs agricoles. Les résultats mettent en lumière plusieurs faiblesses du programme. La mise en œuvre du programme diffère d’une région à l’autre et les critères de sélection des bénéficiaires souffrent d’un certain flou. Les bénéficiaires du programme tendent à être sélectionnés parmi les producteurs les plus grands, mieux éduqués et bénéficiant d’un capital social plus important. L’estimation des effets du programme en prenant en compte ce biais de sélection montre bien un effet positif sur l’utilisation d’engrais inorganique, et dans le cas du bassin arachidier, également sur le recours aux semence certifiées. Cependant, aucun effet ni sur les rendements des principales cultures ni sur les performances économiques des bénéficiaires n’est observé dans les deux régions de l’étude. Cela s’explique notamment par les dysfonctionnements du programme, tels que les retards de livraison des intrants ou leur mauvaise qualité, mais aussi par un effet d’éviction sur les achats d’engrais commerciaux, notamment dans la vallée du fleuve Sénégal, qui résulte d’un ciblage inefficace des bénéficiaires. Au final, le programme de subvention des intrants agricoles ne permet pas d’augmenter la production ou le revenu des producteurs bénéficiaires. Le rapport conclut sur des recommandations pour améliorer l’efficacité de cet outil essentiel de la politique agricole Sénégalaise. [For the past fifteen years, Senegal has implemented a program to subsidize agricultural inputs for its producers with the aim of providing them with fertilizers, seeds, and agricultural equipment. However, very few studies have been conducted to evaluate its impacts. This report presents detailed results of a study aimed at assessing the effects of this program in the Senegal River Valley and the Bassin Arachidier, using several data collection mechanisms, including a survey of agricultural producers. The results highlight several weaknesses of the program. The implementation of the program varies from one region to another, and the selection criteria lack clarity. Program beneficiaries tend to be selected among the larger producers who are better educated and have greater social capital. Estimating the effects of the program while accounting for this selection bias does show a positive effect on the use of inorganic fertilizer and, in the case of the Bassin Arachidier, also on the use of certified seeds. However, no effect on the yields of the main crops nor on economic performance of farms is observed in either region. This can be explained by the program's deficiences, such as delays in input delivery or input poor quality, but also by a crowding-out effect on the purchases of commercial fertilizers, particularly in the Senegal River Valley, resulting from inefficient targeting of beneficiaries. In the end, the agricultural input subsidy program does not increase production nor the income of beneficiary producers.]

Abstract: The Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plans (CSPs) of the EU Member States (MSs) introduce a new CAP delivery model for the programming period 2023-2027, establishing a common framework for CAP payments, while granting MSs the flexibility to design interventions for direct payments, sectoral interventions, and rural development tailored to the needs of their agricultural sector. This report serves a dual purpose: Firstly, it provides an overview of the CSPs Master file, which consolidates all 28 CSPs to facilitate a structured analysis of the new CAP, along with essential concepts characteristic to the CSPs. Secondly, the report presents a comparative analysis of the initially approved CSPs, focusing on the financial aspects and specifics of their implementation across MSs, as well as some insights into the contributions to organic farming. The analysis of all CSPs highlights significant diversity and heterogeneity in the interventions adopted by the MSs. The CAP is supported by 307 billion EUR, comprising 264 billion EUR from the EU Budget and 43 billion EUR from national co-financing. Direct Payments are the most dominant component, with the Basic Income Support for Sustainability remaining the most important CAP tool to support EU farmer income, accounting 51% of direct payments, followed by eco-schemes at 24%. Rural Development allocations also show considerable diversity across intervention types and MSs.

Abstract: This report analyses the farm-level data collection practices of selected public and private sustainability-related certification schemes, with the aim of providing insights into synergies and gaps for the upcoming Farm Sustainability Data Network, which will collect data on environmental and social issues. The analysis is based on online surveys, semi-semi-structured interviews and desk research carried out between June and October 2023. Out of 188 common agricultural policy (CAP) interventions associated with certification schemes within the CAP strategic plans of the Member States, 25 relevant certification schemes were pre-selected for consideration in this report. A total of 10 respondents (i.e. certification agencies and, in some cases, responsible public authorities) participated, covering 16 certification schemes, resulting in response rates of 48 % for respondents and 64 % for certification schemes. Key findings relate to the monitoring practices of operators by certification agencies, data collection methods, data sources, data management practices, data exchange and costs incurred. Respondents rated the data collection process as somewhat costly for both certification agencies and farmers. The main challenges and burdens of the data collection process identified by the respondents are also outlined. The analysis indicates that, while data on environmental and social sustainability are available, considerable efforts are required to collect quantitative data and ensure that they are consistent, digitalised and accessible. The voluntary nature of participation in certification schemes limits the representativeness of the data collected and introduces selection bias. Furthermore, increasing farmers’ understanding of the purpose and benefits of data collection is crucial for motivating farmers. Providing incentives and collaborating with organisations that have direct contact with farmers can increase farmers’ willingness to participate.