• Like
Targeting capacity building for quantitative foresight modeling - G.Nelson - GCARD Uruguay
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Targeting capacity building for quantitative foresight modeling - G.Nelson - GCARD Uruguay

  • 979 views
Published

Targeting capacity building for quantitative foresight modeling, presentation held by Gerald Nelson, former scientist at the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security …

Targeting capacity building for quantitative foresight modeling, presentation held by Gerald Nelson, former scientist at the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and current researcher at IFPRI, during the conference GCARD in Uruguay 2012. Read more about Nelson's presentation here: http://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/Climate-models-make-sense-farmers

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
979
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6

Actions

Shares
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Two GCMs and two SRES scenarios, chosen for wide range of global average precipitation outcomes. MIROC has higher temperatures and more precipitation on average but greater variation across the globe. Data from 4th IPCC assessment. Perfect mitigation is extremely unlikely. It would mean an immediate stop to all GHG emissions AND the momentum given the existing GHGs in the atmosphere.
  • Maize price mean increase is 101 % higher; max is 131, min is 83Rice price mean increase is 55; max is 57, min is 53Wheat price mean increase is 54; max is 66, min is 45All these are for the baseline overall scenario
  • Key messagesWith income per capita growth rates in the optimistic scenario, average kcals per day growth very rapidly in the developing countries. Climate change reduces calorie availability, partially offsetting the benefits from income growthThe kink around 2025 is due to our assumptions of a switch to celluosic ethanol, reducing biofuels use of food.

Transcript

  • 1. Targeting capacity building for quantitative foresight modeling Gerald Nelson Senior Research Fellow IFPRIINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • 2. Who is the user? Policy users • High level policy makers • Policy staff [advisor to policy maker] • Technical staff Research users • Foresight modelers • Researchers and research funders Range of end users • Civil society organizations • Private sector [includes farmers, input suppliers, downstream and upstream businesses, etc.)
  • 3. What is the question? For the Global Futures project….If an investor provides an additional $x million to the CGIAR, how should it be spent to provide the greatest return on investment? • Financial ROI • Reduction in poverty • Improvements in sustainability Global Futures project develops methods, tools, and a consistent system to help the CGIAR answer this question. Plausible scenarios are key
  • 4. Overall scenarios: Plausible futures for population and GDP growth Optimistic • High GDP and low population growth Baseline • Medium GDP and medium population growth Pessimistic • Low GDP and high population growth
  • 5. Five climate scenarios Climate scientists “All scenarios have equal probability.” Our modeling approach, for each overall scenario, use climate scenarios from… • Two GCMs – MIROC (Japanese) and CSIRO (Australian) with • Two SRES scenarios – A1B and B1 • Perfect mitigation
  • 6. Climate change scenario effects differ (price increase (%), 2010 – 2050, Baseline economy and demography) Minimum and maximum effect from four climate scenarios
  • 7. Assessing food security and climate change outcomes 3,600 Optimistic scenario Pessimistic scenario Developed 3,400 countries 3,200 3,000 2,800 All developing Kcals/day countries Perfect 2,600 mitigation 2,400 Low-income developing 2,200 countries 2,000 1,800
  • 8. ROI, Drought Tolerant Groundnut (Proof of Concept Only)Welfare and returns on Climate change scenariosinvestment No climate MIROC MIROC CSIRO CSIRO change 369 A1B 369 B1 369 A1B 369 B1Changes in producer surplus -3,876 -4,275 -3,790 -4,540 -4,698(NPV, m US$)Changes in consumer surplus 10,443 11,338 10,082 11,997 12,507(NPV, m US$) 6,567 7,063 6,292 7,457 7,809Net welfare change (NPV, m US$)Cost (NPV, m US$) 15 15 15 15 15Benefit-cost ratio 448 482 430 509 533Net benefits (NPV, m US$) 6,553 7,048 6,277 7,443 7,795IRR (%) 54 55 53 55 56
  • 9. Welfare Effects: Drought-tolerant groundnut (Proof of concept only) D Malnourished D At Risk of Target D Kcals per $Regions children per $ Hunger per $ countries invested invested invested (million) Malawi 1.9 -1,285 -6.1 ESA Tanzania 0.6 -672 -3.6 Uganda 1.7 -1,824 0.0 Burkina Faso 3.6 -1,666 -1.8 Ghana 3.1 -904 0.0 WCA Mali 2.5 -935 0.0 Nigeria 4.4 -13,604 -4.9 Senegal 5.6 -973 0.0 India 0.9 -8,840 -32.0 Indonesia 1.2 -1,429 0.0 SSEA Myanmar 3.0 -971 -6.9 Vietnam 1.0 -511 -1.4
  • 10. Global Futures outputs Strategic foresight quantitative modeling tools for ex ante evaluation of promising technologies Outreach – Food Security Futures Conference • first scheduled tentatively April 11-12, 2013 Capacity building • To increase range of foresight tools available to users