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. CIP progress report
Athanasios Petsakos
Guy Hareau
International Potato Center (CIP)
25-28 May 2015
Rome, Italy
Global Futures & Strategic Foresight extended team meeting

2. Training
• IMPACT training (January – Moscow)
• Gridded crop modeling training (April – ICRISAT)
• DSSAT training (May – University of Georgia, Griffin)

3. Activities since the last meeting
• Use of IMPACT for the assessment of new technologies:
– Comparison with RTB priority setting exercise
• IPR review for (sweet-) potatoes
– Analyze past growth rates and estimate future ones
– Focus on South Asia (focus changed after the latest discussions…)
• Introducing biotic stresses in IMPACT
– Still exploring…

4. IMPACT3 FOR PRIORITY ASSESSMENT
Alternative model uses

5. Priority assessment at CIP
Some background:
In 2014, CIP conducted a priority assessment study for RTB on potato
(and sweetpotato) technologies:
Hareau, G., Kleinwechter, U., Pradel, W., Suarez, V., Okello, J., Vikraman, S. (2014). Strategic Assessment
of Research Priorities for Potato. CGIAR Research program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). RTB
Working Paper 2014-8. Lima, Peru. Available online at: www.rtb.cgiar.org
• Strong interest from the RTB independent evaluation team on how
the results of ex-ante priority setting work are used to define the
RTB research portfolio.
• Final publication of RTB priority setting working papers will
acknowledge cross-CRP collaboration (PIM, CCAFS).

6. IMPACT for priority assessment
Questions asked:
• What changes are needed to IMPACT if we want to use it
for priority assessment?
• What changes are needed to IMPACT and CIP’s surplus
model to create a common framework for comparison?
• How do IMPACT results compare with those from the
surplus model?

7. Comparison challenges
• IMPACT FPUs do not correspond to the FPUs of the surplus
model
• Yield shifters can be defined only for 5-year periods
– Solution 1: Use Ricky’s modeling system (DSSAT)**
– Solution 2: Rewrite the code
– Solution 3: Who needs year-specific shifters anyway…?
• Dissemination costs not modeled in IMPACT
– Solution 1: Rewrite the code
– Solution 2: Export results and perform analysis outside of IMPACT

8. Comparison challenges
• IMPACT FPUs do not correspond to the FPUs of the surplus
model
• Yield shifters can be defined only for 5-year periods
– Solution 1: Use Ricky’s modeling system (DSSAT)**
– Solution 2: Rewrite the code
– Solution 3: Who needs year-specific shifters anyway…?
• Dissemination costs not modeled in IMPACT
– Solution 1: Rewrite the code
– Solution 2: Export results and perform analysis outside of IMPACT

9. Comparison challenges
• IMPACT FPUs do not correspond to the FPUs of the surplus
model
• Yield shifters can be defined only for 5-year periods
– Solution 1: Use Ricky’s modeling system (DSSAT)**
– Solution 2: Rewrite the code
– Solution 3: Who needs year-specific shifters anyway…?
• Dissemination costs not modeled in IMPACT
– Solution 1: Rewrite the code
– Solution 2: Export results and perform analysis outside of IMPACT

10. IPR VALIDATION AND CALIBRATION
The example of China

11. The basics…
Rationale:
• IMPACT base year is 2005 but we are in 2015…
• Before projecting to 2050, we must establish a valid initial
point !!!
Question :
Is adjusting yield growth rates sufficient?

12. China: Potato yields
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Yields(t/ha)
Years
Reference (FAO)

13. China: Potato yields
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Yields(t/ha)
Years
Reference (FAO)

14. China: Potato yields
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Yields(t/ha)
Years
IMPACT3 Default

15. China: Potato yields
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
15.5
16.0
16.5
17.0
17.5
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Yields(t/ha)
Years
Reference (FAO) IMPACT3 Default

16. China: Total production
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Production(Mt)
Years
Reference (FAO) IMPACT3 Default

17. China: Potato harvested area
4000
4200
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
5400
5600
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
HarvestedArea(.000ha)
Years
Reference (FAO) IMPACT3 Default

18. BIOTIC CROP STRESS IN IMPACT
A preliminary skirmish

19. Thoughts on pests and diseases modeling
• Discussed in Florida (Feb2014)
• CIP’s pest modeling team focuses on the tomato leaf miner
Tuta absoluta
• Discussions to understand what is being modeled and
what outputs are available:
– We need to understand what “technologies” are available
– Who is the end user of the technologies
– How much does it cost
– How all this translates in yield shifts

20. Next steps and discussion
• Must work with the IMPACT team to “standardize” a
calibration procedure
– Exogenous land growth rates important
• Scheduled:
– Complete the activities described
• Not in workplan but interesting…:
– Conduct regional impact assessments to obtain better adoption
thresholds for some countries (also discussed in ReMIP/AgMIP)

21. Literature on potato IPRs
1. Scott, G. J., Rosegrant, M. W., & Ringler, C. (2000). Global projections for root and
tuber crops to the year 2020. Food Policy, 25(5), 561–597.
2. Scott, G. J. & Suarez, V. (2011). Growth rates for potato in India and their
implications for industry. Potato Journal, 38(2), 100–112.
3. Scott, G. J. (2011). Growth Rates for Potatoes in Latin America in Comparative
Perspective: 1961-07. American Journal of Potato Research, 88, 143–152.
4. Scott, G. J. & Suarez, V. (2012a). Limits to Growth or Growth to the Limits? Trends
and Projections for Potatoes in China and Their Implications for Industry. Potato
Research, 55, 135–156.
5. Scott, G. J. & Suarez, V. (2012b). The Rise of Asia as the Center of Global Potato
Production and Some Implications for Industry. Potato Journal, 39(1), 1–22.
6. Scott, G. J., Labarta, R., & Suarez, V. (2013). Booms, Busts, and Emerging Markets
for Potatoes in East and Central Africa1961-2010. Potato Research, 56, 205–236.
7. Article from Ulrich and G. Scott on LAC… Under revision

22. THANK YOU