1. Scenario Development for International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Mark W. Rosegrant IFPRI Washington DC, USA

2. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 2 Overview of the Talk  What is IAASTD?  What are scenarios and why use them?  Proposed approach for IAASTD scenarios  Overview of IMPACT global food and water model  Knowledge, Science and Technology (KST) in scenario modeling

3. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 3 IAASTD: Overarching Question “How to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development through access to, and use of agricultural knowledge, science and technology”?

4. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 4 IAASTD: Four Broad Questions  What are the challenges that can be addressed through agricultural KST?  What are the likely positive and negative consequences of agricultural KST?  What are the enabling conditions required to optimize the uptake and diffusion of agricultural KST?  What investments are needed to help realize the potential of agricultural KST?

5. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 5 IAASTD Characteristics Structural features:  Intergovernmental process, with a multi-stakeholder Bureau  Co-sponsored by seven international agencies – FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, World Bank, and WHO  Based on an international consultative process and well- defined user needs  Prepared and peer-reviewed by hundreds of experts from all stakeholder groups Substance features  Multi-thematic (nutritional security, livelihoods, human health, environmental sustainability)  Multi-spatial using a consistent framework  Multi-temporal (now to 2050) employing plausible futures  Integrates indigenous and institutional knowledge  Assesses scientific knowledge and the effectiveness of institutions and policies

6. IAASTD Conceptual Framework Human Impacts on: Incomes and employment Hunger Human health Resilience and vulnerability Social and Gender Equality Economic diversification Rural livelihoods Quality of natural environment Social Stability Indirect change drivers Economic Demographic (urbanization, migration) Socio-political (policies and institutions) Cultural and ethical (values) Global KST Agricultural KST New knowledge (including policies) New technologies (biological and non-biological) Harnessing/Maintenance/adaptation of indigenous knowledge Effective knowledge exchange systems KST system responsiveness & adaptability KST system accountability Direct change drivers Biodiversity loss Volume and pattern of demand Consumption patterns Labor availability Land and water availability Agricultural policy and regulatory environment GHG emissions and Climate change Farmers decisions Agricultural goods and Services Food production Fiber, oils, material Biomass/energy Medicines Landscape and environmental management Carbon sequestration Agro-ecosystem function

7. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 7 What are Scenarios and Why Use Them?  Scenarios are stories about the future with a logical plot and narrative governing the manner in which events unfold  Purpose of scenarios: Information dissemination Scientific exploration Decision-making tool  Types of scenarios Exploratory vs. anticipatory scenarios Baseline vs. policy scenarios Qualitative vs. quantitative scenarios, or a combination

8. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 8 IAASTD Approach to Scenarios  Structured accounts of possible futures  Describe futures that could be, rather than futures that will be  Alternative, dynamic stories that capture key ingredients of our uncertainty about the future of our study system  Constructed to provide insight into drivers of change, reveal the implications of current trajectories, and illuminate options for action  Encompass quantitative models and realistic projections, but much of their value lies in incorporating both qualitative and quantitative understandings of the system and in forcing people to evaluate and reassess their beliefs and assumptions about the system  What are the consequences of plausible changes in development paths for hunger, poverty alleviation, human health, and the environment?

9. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 9 Scenario Development Process for IAASTD  Procedure builds from MA approach and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology  Integrates qualitative and quantitative scenarios Qualitative – understandable way to communicate complex information, considerable depth, comprehensive feedback effects and incorporate a wide range of views about the future Quantitative – check the consistency of qualitative scenarios, provide relevant numerical information and “enrich” qualitative scenarios by trends and dynamics

10. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 10 Scenario Development Framework  Two essential activities Formulation of alternative scenario storylines –facilitates internal consistency of different assumptions –takes into account broad range of elements and feedback effects Quantification –helps provide insights into those processes where sufficient knowledge exists to allow modeling –takes into account interactions among various drivers and services

11. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 11 Phase I: Organizational steps 1.Establish a scenario team. 2.Establish a scenario panel. 3.Conduct interviews and workshops with scenario end users (broad stakeholder consultation). 4.Determine the objectives and focus of the scenarios. 5.Clarify the focal questions of the scenarios. Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Scenarios – Three Phases

12. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 12 Phase II: Scenario writing and quantification 1.Construct a zero-order draft of scenario storylines. 2.Organize modeling analyses and begin quantification. 3.Revise zero-order storylines and construct first-order storylines 4.Quantify scenarios. 5.Augment/revise storylines based on results of quantifications. 6.Derive new driving forces and re-run the models. Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Scenarios – Three Phases

13. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 13 Phase III: Synthesis, review and dissemination 1.Distribute draft scenarios for general review. 2.Develop final version of the scenarios. 3.Publish and disseminate the scenarios. Proposed IAASTD Procedure for Developing Scenarios – Three Phases

14. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 14 Drivers and Outputs  Population development – total population and age distribution in different regions  Economic development – assumed growth of GDP per region and changes in economic structure  Technology development – covers many model inputs such as rate of improvement in the efficiency of domestic water use, or the rate of increase in crop yields  Demand—dietary preferences and dynamics of change  Human behavior –willingness of people to invest time or money in energy conservation or water conservation  Institutional factors – existence and strength of local, national, and global institutions to promote education, international trade and international technology transfer International technology transfer – represented directly (e.g. trade barriers, import tariffs) or indirectly (e.g. income elasticity for education)

15. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 15 Four Forward-looking Scenarios globalized fragmented Environmentally reactive Environmentally pro-active Adapting Mosaic Order from Strength Techno Garden Global Orchestration

16. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 16 Global Orchestration Dominant Approach for Sustainability Economic Approach Social Policy Foci Create demand for environmental protection via economic growth and social improvements; public goods Redefinition of the public and private sector roles; improving market performance; trade liberalization; focus on global public good Increase global equity; public health; global education Focus on macro-scale policy reform for environmental sustainability

17. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 17 Order from Strength Dominant Approach for Sustainability Economic Approach Social Policy Foci Reactive problem- solving by individual nations; sectoral approaches, creation of parks and protected reserves Regional trade blocs, mercantilism, self- sufficiency Security and protection Retreat from global institutions, focus on national regulation and protectionism

18. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 18 Adapting Mosaic Dominant Approach for Sustainability Economic Approach Social Policy Foci Learning via management and monitoring, shared management responsibility, adjustment of governance structures to resource users, common-property institutions Focus on local development; trade rules allow local flexibility/interpretati on; local non- market rights Local communities linked to global communities; local equity Retreat from global institutions, focus on strengthened local institutions and local learning

19. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 19 Techno Garden Dominant Approach for Sustainability Economic Approach Social Policy Foci Green technology, eco- efficiency, tradeable ecological property rights Global reduction of tariff boundaries, fairly free movement of goods, capital and people, global markets in ecological property Improving individual and community technical expertise; policies follow opportunities; competition Emphasis on development of technologies to substitute for ecosystem services

20. Modeling to Quantify Parts of the MA scenarios Storylines Global Orchestration, Techno Garden, etc. IMPACT World food production IMAGE 2 Global change WaterGAP World water resources Model Inputs Demographic Economic Technological AIM Global change Model Outputs Provisioning Services - Food (meat, fish, grain production) - Fiber (timber) - Freshwater (renewable water resources & withdrawals) - Fuel wood (biofuels) Regulating - Climate regulation (C flux) - Air quality (NOx, S emissions) Supporting primary production

21. Population Growth Population in Millions Region Global OrchestrationTechno Garden Adapting MosaicOrder from Strength 1995202020502100202020502100202020502100202020502100 Former Soviet Union 285290282245292281252288273246287257216 Latin America4776377426816728319507089331,1557109441,309 Middle East/North Africa 312478603597509692788537765924539774972 OECD 1,0201,1361,2551,1531,1171,1541,0771,0791,0689781,076998856 Asia 3,0493,8614,1043,0064,0394,5353,9924,2014,9924,7534,2105,0235,173 Sub-Saharan Africa 5588581,1091,1329071,3291,5169511,4921,7759561,5701,988 World 5,7017,2608,0956,8147,5378,8218,5757,7649,5229,8307,7779,56710,514

22. Income Growth (GDP/cap/year) Economic Growth Rates (percent per year) Region Historic Global OrchestrationTechno Garden Adapting MosaicOrder from Strength 1971- 2000 1995- 2020 2020- 2050 2050- 2100 1995- 2020 2020- 2050 2050- 2100 1995- 2020 2020- 2050 2050- 2100 1995- 2020 2020- 2050 2050- 2100 Former Soviet Union 0.43.504.913.142.944.493.142.604.033.082.242.642.72 Latin America1.22.804.282.242.363.932.242.062.992.231.782.291.77 Middle East/North Africa 0.71.963.422.501.743.272.501.612.432.401.511.751.93 OECD 2.12.451.931.342.221.741.352.001.561.192.061.310.86 Asia 5.05.065.283.084.244.703.133.764.122.523.222.432.07 Sub-Saharan Africa -0.41.693.974.081.443.804.081.212.853.311.022.122.16 World 1.42.383.002.261.902.462.251.461.911.881.391.041.26

23. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 23 Sample Qualitative Scenarios for IAASTD  Intensive agriculture – emphasis on Intensive agriculture Economic growth Public goods  Low input agriculture Low-input agricultural technology  Adaptive ecosystem targeting Agricultural science and technology targeted to ecosystems Indigenous technology and participatory breeding  Rates of change in dietary preferences Convergence to Western diets, decline in Western meat demand, acceptance of biofortication

24. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 24 KST within a Policy Modeling Framework  “K” - different from “S” and “T” - latent and not easily measured  KST - hard to separate due to obvious feedbacks  Observing “S” & “T” in cross-section can be used to construct a “possibility frontier” – additional models observe over time to identify trends and underlying drivers

25. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 25 How to Account for Knowledge  Knowledge - embodied in education (for the general population) agricultural extension Indigenous knowledge  Agricultural extension - has direct effects on crop productivity and yields  Education – enhance overall labor productivity (not only in agriculture) positive effects in nutrition outcomes (through malnutrition work)

26. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 26 Should we Endogenize Science and Technology ?  Keeping ST exogenous - allows one to look at clear counter-factual comparisons and scenarios  Endogenizing ST – may restrict the range of investment scenarios that can be examined  Not clear if necessary length of data over time is available to properly specify an endogenous relationship for Science and Technology

27. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 27 Science and Technology in Scenarios  Changes in rainfed and irrigated area growth for crops  Changes in rainfed and irrigated yield growth for crops  Changes in numbers and yield growth for livestock  Changes in production growth for 4 types of fisheries commodities (high value vs. low value) SUPPLY SIDE

28. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 28 Science and Technology in Scenarios  Changes in dietary preferences over time (leading to changes in kilocalorie composition) – disaggregation to the potential impact of micronutrient breeding DEMAND SIDE

29. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 29 Science and Technology in Scenarios  Estimation of the impact of biosafety and biotechnology regulations and phyto-sanitary restrictions changes in supply and demand on child malnutrition crop yields from climate change  Subsidies, taxes, tariffs and other trade restrictions ALSO

30. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 30 Spatially Disaggregating Impact of KST-related investments on productivity growth, can be better captured with the following disaggregations:  Greater spatial resolution for production of food and water allocations  Disaggregation of crop categories to explicitly model dryland crops  Differentiation between high and low-input rain-fed agriculture  Disaggregation among GMO and non-GMO options

31. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 31 The Education-Nutrition Relationship in IMPACT-WATER  Malnourished children are projected as follows: –%MALt= - 25.24 * ln (PCKCALt) - 71.76 LFEXPRATt –- 0.22 SCHt - 0.08 WATERt  NMALt = %MALt x POP5t  %MAL= Percent of malnourished children  PCKCAL= Per capita calorie consumption  SCH= Total female enrollment in secondary education as a % of the female age-group  LFEXPRAT= Ratio of female to male life exp. at birth  WATER = Percent of people with access to clean water  NMAL= Number of malnourished children, and  POP5= Number of children 0 to 5 years old

32. INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 32 How to Account for Investments  Current model framework examines the impact of investments made in Roads Irrigation Schools Safe water Agricultural technology  Can further disaggregate agricultural technology investments to account for GMO and non-GMO technologies, drought/salt tolerant variety breeding, etc.