The Global Futures and Strategic Foresight (GFSF) team met in Rome from May 25-28, 2015 to review progress towards current work plans, discuss model improvements and technical parameters, and consider possible contributions by the GFSF program to the CRP Phase II planning process. All 15 CGIAR Centers were represented at the meeting.

1. International Center for Agricultural Research in
the Dry Areas - ICARDA
IFPRI, Rome,
26 May, 2015
Global Futures and Strategic Foresight
Extended Team Meeting
Hotel Abitart, Rome, 25 – 28 May 2015
Aden Aw-Hassan
Roberto Telleria
Prakash Dixit
Aymen Frija

2. Country-level bio-economic modeling of improved
agricultural practices on wheat-based agricultural
systems of the dry areas
Justification
• Key crop for food security (some MENA countries
highest wheat consumption per capita);
• Last 50 years  Decline per-capita wheat production;
• MENA largest wheat importer in the world;
• Governments are determined to increase wheat
production;
• Wheat  Anyways dominate rainfall production in
MENA;
• Crop employs most people than any other crop in
MENA;

3. • Yet, some countries current wheat production brings
declining soil productivity (less organic matter),
erosion, etc.;
• Future climate change can further lower wheat
production?
• Promising technologies (including CA) in other arid
regions (e.g. arid parts of Australia);
• Technologies  capacity to enhance and sustain yield,
increase farmer income, protection against land
degradation, environmental services (carbon
sequestration), mitigation of climate change.
• Public investment in technologies is convenient?

4. Country-level bio-economic modeling of
improved technologies on wheat-based
agricultural systems of the dry areas
Crop model
(APSIM)
Policy
making
IMPACT
model

5. Wheat technologies
1) Conventional tillage: Normal practice  includes removal of
residues by tillage operations (two before sowing). Traditional
wheat variety.
2) Zero-tillage: Complete residue retention without any tillage
operation (grain harvested and the entire residue left in the field).
Improved wheat variety Sham 3;
3) Mulching: Complete residue retention and 6,000 kg/ha wheat
residue mulch added at sowing. Sham 3 wheat variety;
4) Raised bed: 15% increase in water holding capacity of 0-0.45
layer and 25% residue removal at harvest. Sham 3 wheat variety.

6. Biophysical data collection for crop
simulation
- All these technologies tested with management practices: 1)
Sowing time (two beginning of October and November); and 2)
Fertilizer application (N).
- 50 year daily weather data (maximum and minimum
temperatures, solar radiation and rainfall)  generated using Long
Ashton Research Station Weather Generator (LARS-WG)-version
5.5. Two wheat growing areas: Tel Hadya and Breda;
- Crop simulations  Agricultural Production Systems Simulator -
APSIM (v. 7.5)  Capable of simulating crop yields for different
environments and soil types;

7. Key messages
 All technologies
provide benefit over
conventional tillage
except No-till at Tel
Hadya with no N
application
 Benefits are more
pronounced with
higher rates of N
application
 Mulching seems to
produce best results
 Yield effects of No-
till, Mulching and
Raised-based depend
on the location

8. Planting time
Early Late
Fertilizer rates (kg N/ha) Fertilizer rates (kg N/ha)
0 30 60 0 30 60
Tel Hadya
Zero-tillage -19.6 -2.6 24.7 -13.0 11.3 49.8
Mulching 20.3 17.8 38.8 3.1 31.9 65.3
Raised-bed -4.6 5.9 28.3 5.3 26.4 51.0
Breda
Zero-tillage 33.9 120.2 188.2 88.0 151.4 213.6
Mulching 90.4 163.7 225.4 131.5 187.5 258.7
Raised-bed 53.3 114.4 166.8 62.8 118.6 114.8
Percentage change in wheat yield in relation to different
planting time, fertilizer rates and cropping technologies in Tel
Hadya and Breda sites in Northern Syria.

9. IMPACT modeling
Scenarios (Tel Hadya):
Assumptions:
Socioeconomic: SSP3 (or “Fragmentation’’),  economic growth is assumed
to be much slower as a combination of multiple causes: slow technological
progress, low education levels, lack of international cooperation.
Climate: Climate dataset chosen  GFDL (rcp8p5 - representative
concentration pathway).
Adoption: Each TP  35% of cultivated areas following a logistic function of
scale 6 and median the year 2028.
Timeframe: 2015-2040 (25 years).
Name
Technolog
y simulated
Fertilizers
dose (Kg
N/ha)
Planting date
% change in yield
compared to
conventional wheat
TP1 Zero-Till 30 Late planting 11.3
TP2 Mulching 30 Early planting 17.8
TP3 Mulching 30 Late planting 31.9
TP4 Raised bed 30 Early planting 5.9
TP5 Raised bed 30 Late planting 26.4

10. Improved technologies
Technical adoption:
P1: First period of 5 years: Some difference in wheat yield is observed
between conventional and improved technologies.
P2: Second period of 7 years: Yield gap between conventional and
improved technologies becomes more evident.
P3: Third period of 13 years: Yield difference between enhanced
technologies and conventional farming is relatively stable.
Time
Yields under enhanced
technologies
Yields under conventional
wheat farming
Yields
P1 P2 P3

11. 2025 2030 2039
Average
Yield T/ha
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
Average
Yield T/ha
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
Average
Yield T/ha
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
No CC, no
TP
Irrigated 5.94 2.45 6.29 3.20 6.77 4.29
Rainfed 1.51 3.44 1.58 4.54 1.65 6.45
CC, no TP
(baseline)
Irrigated 5.79 -- 6.10 -- 6.50 --
Rainfed 1.46 -- 1.51 -- 1.55 --
TP1
Irrigated 5.82 0.38 6.17 1.26 6.75 3.91
Rainfed 1.47 0.38 1.53 1.25 1.61 3.90
TP2
Irrigated 5.83 0.61 6.22 2.03 6.91 6.38
Rainfed 1.47 0.61 1.55 2.01 1.65 6.36
TP3
Irrigated 5.86 1.11 6.33 3.74 7.28 12.15
Rainfed 1.48 1.10 1.57 3.71 1.73 12.09
TP4
Irrigated 5.81 0.20 6.14 0.64 6.62 1.95
Rainfed 1.47 0.19 1.52 0.63 1.58 1.94
TP5
Irrigated 5.85 0.92 6.28 3.07 7.13 9.85
Rainfed 1.48 0.91 1.56 3.05 1.70 9.80
Results
Impact of different TPs on the average wheat yield in Syria (% of change
against baseline scenario: climate change without any technology adoption)

12. Tot
Supply
(000 mt)
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
Tot
Supply
(000 mt)
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
Tot
Supply
(000 mt)
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
No CC 6194.78 3.16 6624.67 4.15 7185.7 5.81
GFDL 6004.88 0 6360.67 0 6790.88 0
TP1 6027.82 0.38 6440.81 1.26 7055.89 3.9
TP2 6041.44 0.61 6489.31 2.02 7222.96 6.36
TP3 6071.17 1.1 6597.69 3.73 7613.31 12.11
TP4 6016.54 0.19 6401.16 0.64 6922.97 1.95
TP5 6059.67 0.91 6555.29 3.06 7457.59 9.82
2025 2030 2039
Impact of different TPs on the total wheat supply in Syria (% of change against
baseline scenario: climate change without any technology adoption)

13. Net trade
balance
(000 mt)
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
Net trade
balance
(000 mt)
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
Net trade
balance
(000 mt)
% change
compared
to CC
scenario
GFDL -124.02 0 -425 0 -1133.6 0
TP1 -101.14 -22.63 -345.07 -23.16 -869.39 -30.39
TP2 -87.55 -41.65 -296.71 -43.23 -702.82 -61.29
TP3 -57.91 -114.18 -188.63 -125.3 -313.66 -261.4
TP4 -112.39 -10.35 -384.62 -10.5 -1001.9 -13.14
TP5 -69.37 -78.77 -230.91 -84.05 -468.91 -141.75
2025 2030 2039
Effect of different TPs on the long term trade balance of wheat in Syria
Note: Negative percent value indicates reduction in trade balance deficit.

14. Initial implications:
• Genetic improvement of wheat should be carefully
undertaken and adapted to different countries of the region;
• Investments in high yield varieties seem to be profitable;
• Adapted improved packages should be developed by the
research organizations.

15. Mean change in grain yield (%)
without CO2 (carbon
fertilization) response
Mean change in grain yield
considering CO2 response (%)
Year RCP4.5 RCP8.5 RCP4.5 RCP8.5
2025 -2.45 -2.20 1.50 2.65
2035 -4.25 -3.85 3.80 7.00
2045 -5.35 -8.50 6.75 7.75
2055 -8.05 -11.20 7.00 11.15
2065 -9.15 -16.35 8.29 11.20
2075 -10.20 -22.25 8.40 8.45
2085 -13.40 -25.80 4.35 8.55
2095 -14.10 -30.50 4.05 5.10
Mean change in wheat yield (%) taking 2015 as base (i.e., decade of 2010-2020) based on RCP4.5
and RCP8.5 climate change scenarios in Jordan
 APSIM was used for
Analysis
 Results based on two soil
types: Heavy clay at
Maru and clay loam at
Mushaqar
 Water holding capacity of
Maru soil = 194 mm and,
Mushaqar soil =117 mm
for a depth of 1.5 m
KEY MESSAGES
• Impact of ONLY temperature and rainfall due to CC is negative on wheat yield;
• Elevated CO2 in atmosphere improved yield due to increased photosynthesis;
• OVERALL: There is no negative impact of climate change rather small gains in yield.
Will future climate change be favorable for wheat production in Jordan? A decadal analysis

16. Steps ahead
1. Country level bio-economic modelling of conservation
agriculture practices on wheat-based agricultural systems in
Jordan/Tunisia (In collaboration with ministries of agriculture
of Tunisia and Jordan):
• Improved food security from groundwater, conjunctive use,
and better management of water storage capacities:
Application in selected dry areas (in collaboration with IWMI)
• Workshop on 16-17 June in Amman-Jordan;
2. Adaptation of different wheat crops varieties to the climate
change in the MENA region: a comparative analysis (in
collaboration with CIMMYT).

17. Thank you

18. Collaborators/Partners
- NCARE, Jordan (Amal Al-Khatib, Siham Allouzi)
- INRAT, Tunisia (Mohammad Annabi)