Food security AS

The food adaptation strategy is not very effective in terms of satisfying environmental needs. The water quality will remain at the same level as under business as usual, though the outflow to the Aral Sea would increase similarly to that under environmental AS, i.e. to 10.1 X 106 km3 under the A2 scenario and to 12.2 X 106 km3 under

Wheat production 2070-2099 (mn t)

Cotton production 2070-2099 (mn t)

iiriii-julu*

Fig. 5.7. Wheat and cotton production for the four adaptation strategies under CC scenarios A2 and B2. (Baseline period: 1961-1990; NA, business as usual; E, environmental strategy; F, food security strategy; I, industry strategy; and M, mixed strategy.

Fig. 5.8. Changes in average farm income under CC scenarios A2 (light grey) and B2 (dark grey).

the B2 scenario (Fig. 5.7). This strategy would make natural ecosystems less vulnerable to desertification. The food adaptation strategy is expected to provide the most essential increase of crop production, particularly of crops less dependent on irrigation, such as wheat and potatoes. Meat and milk production would increase, and expected average farm income is the highest under this strategy compared to other strategies: US$4060 for the A2 scenario and US$4690 for the B2 scenario, which is approximately 1.5 higher than under business as usual (Fig. 5.8). The strategy is apparently the most effective in coping with the risks of not meeting demands for irrigation. WEAP outputs indicate that number of years with unmet agricultural demands would drop from 18 to 5 under the A2 scenario, and from 12 to 3 under the B2 scenario. Hydropower production under this adaptation strategy would remain at the same level as under business as usual. The food adaptation strategy would also be more effective under the B2 climate change scenario, compared to the A2 scenario. The relative costs of Food AS are 9-15, i.e. this strategy requires investment comparable to Environmental AS and nearly half that for Industrial AS and Mixed AS.

0 0

Post a comment