Post on 13-Dec-2015
The Future of Food Security in Global Change Scenarios
Thomas E. DowningGina Ziervogel
Stockholm Environment Institute
• Why scenarios?
• Three methodological challenges
• Toward a research agenda
Why scenarios?
• The nature of the system is beyond our understanding:– Complexity: behaviour emerges from the interaction
of many agents– Time scale of concern is decades to a century (and
beyond)
• Prediction is impossible• Policy options are many and at multiple scales
that preclude simple decision support systems
What is a scenario anyway?
• Narrative of internally consistent processes, actors and linkages
• Quantitative input to global change models
• Path analysis linking present with scenario future
• Vision of desirable worlds (or nightmare of avoidable futures)
From the IPCC
Who frames scenarios?
• Participation is limited by scenario process
• Scenarios are framed for specific purposes
• Vulnerable are rarely directly involved
• Insight qualified by top-down scenarios
• IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
• Global Scenario Groups Great Transitions
SRES Scenario Families
Purpose:Global GHG profilesConstraint:Government approvalBias:Poorest developing country in 2080s is as rich as OECD is now
SRES:Link GHG emissionsto global concentrationsto global climate change
Global Scenario GroupConventional
WorldsBarbarization Great
Transitions
policy reform
market forces
breakdown
fortress world
new sustainability
eco-communalism
How are local and global linked?
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
Drought Flood Cyclone
Profiles
• Multiple dimensions of rural food insecurity in India
4
6
8
10
12
14
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Food Availability
Fo
od
Ac
ces
s
Orissa
Bihar
HimachalPradesh
Gujarat
Punjab
WestBengal
TamilNadu
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
Haryana
Karmataka
UttarPradesh
Assam
AndhraPradesh Kerala
MadhyaPradesh
Size of circle isrelated tonutritional status
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Food availability
Food production deficit
Cereal instability
Environmental sustainability
Storm hazard
Drought hazard
Very low food consumption
Inadequate food consumption
Wastelands
Food access and livelihoods
Poverty
Dependence on labour
Rural infrastructure
Female sex ratio
Female literacy
Scheduled peoples
Life expectancy
Illiteracy
Roads
Electricity
Agricultural labourers
Food absorption and nutrition
Chronic energy deficiency
Stunted children
Underw eight children
Infant mortality
Health infrastructure
Hospital beds
Safe drinking w ater
How is a close coupled system represented?
Two approaches Compared
Aggregate demand series scaled so 1973=100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
J-73
J-74
J-75
J-76
J-77
J-78
J-79
J-80
J-81
J-82
J-83
J-84
J-85
J-86
J-87
J-88
J-89
J-90
J-91
J-92
J-93
J-94
J-95
J-96
J-97
Simulation Date
Rel
ativ
e D
eman
d
Climate change impacts
0
50
100
150
200
2502
01
5
20
17
20
19
20
21
20
23
20
25
20
27
20
29
20
31
20
33
20
35
20
37
20
39
20
41
AlphaMH
BetaMH
GammaMH
DeltaMH
Agent based:DiscontinuitiesLarge range of results
Dynamic simulation:Smooth scenariosModest range
Toward a research agenda
• Formal comparison of scenario processes
• Experiments with large group scenario development
• Peer review and methodological critique
• Reconnecting theory and practice