[雙語翻譯]外文翻譯--氣候變化與農(nóng)業(yè)貿(mào)易（英文）

1、Climate change and trade in agriculture q,qqHsin Huang, Martin von Lampe, Frank van Tongeren ?2, rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, CEDEX 16, France1a r t i c l e i n f oKeywords:Climate changeTrade policyMitigationAdap

2、tationCarbon leakageCarbon pricinga b s t r a c tAgricultural productivity in both developing and developed countries will have to improve to achievesubstantial increases in food production by 2050 while land and water r

3、esources become less abundantand the effects of climate change introduce much uncertainty. Already less resilient production areas willsuffer the most, as temperatures will rise further in tropical and semi-tropical lati

4、tudes and water-scarceregions will face even drier conditions. International trade plays an important role in compensating,albeit partially, for regional changes in productivity that are induced by climate change. While

5、a well-functioning international trade system can support the adaptation to climate change-related challenges,trade policies as such are imperfect instruments to induce less emissions globally. A well-functioninginternat

6、ional trading system can support the adaptation to climate change-related challenges. Hencewelfare gains from reforms to trade policies may be greater than normally measured if they also reduceGHG emissions globally.? 20

7、10 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. Published byElsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Driving forces in agricultural markets: where does climate change come in?According to some estimates global food production will h

8、ave to increase by 70% until 2050 (relative to 2007), to meet the de- mands of a growing population (OECD, 2009, based on FAO, 2006, and Bruinsma, 2009). Agricultural productivity in both developing and developed countri

9、es will have to improve to achieve this, while land and water resources become less abundant and the effects of climate change introduce much uncertainty. International trade will become increasingly important in connect

10、- ing food surplus with food deficit areas. Climate change potentially affects key drivers of international trade in agricultural products. Trade theory has traditionally emphasized differences in technology (Ricardo) an

11、d differences in endowments of production factors (Heckscher–Ohlin–Samuel- son) as determinants of international trade. According to this body of literature, countries will tend to specialize in exports of those goods th

12、at use intensively the relatively abundant factor of production.Through its effects on productivity and yields, climate change impacts on the technology dimension behind trade patterns. Through its impact on the amounts

13、of arable land and water, it im- pacts on the endowments dimension. Changes in the returns to factors of production employed in agriculture are driving the po- tential changes in patterns of geographical specialisation o

14、f pro- duction. While climate change has a direct bearing on those relative returns, international trade will tend to reinforce those changes, as trade in goods is ultimately an exchange of the services of those producti

15、on factors incorporated in the traded goods. If a production factor is specific to the production of one good, such as land being (almost) specific to agriculture, the specific factor model (Ricardo–Viner) shows that tra

16、de will increase the returns of the specific factor used in the export good. On the input side to agricultural production a number of major factors have a direct link to climate change. (for a more compre- hensive review

17、 see e.g. FAO (2003, 2006), This particularly con- cerns developments in energy markets, the availability and use of water and land resources, and agriculture’s potential to both emit and sequester GHGs. Energy prices ha

18、ve long been an important factor in agricultural production costs. Both fuel and other energy-rich inputs to agricul- ture represent considerable shares in variable costs differing across agricultural commodities and pro

19、duction regions. Increasingly, su- gar and grain crops are also used for transport fuel production, while other forms of bioenergy use biomass are competing with food and feed production for land and other resources, hen

20、ce strengthening the link between energy markets and agricultural markets. While most of the biofuel and bioenergy chains depend0306-9192/$ - see front matter ? 2010 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. Published byEl

21、sevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.008q The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect theofficial view of the OECD or of the governments of its member countries.

22、 qq Disclaimer: While the Government Office for Science commissioned this review,the views are those of the author(s), are independent of Government, and do notconstitute Government policy. ? Corresponding author.E-mail

23、address: frank.vantongeren@oecd.org (F. van Tongeren).1 The authors are with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment (OECD), Trade and Agriculture Directorate.Food Policy 36 (2011) S9–S13Contents list

24、s available at ScienceDirectFood Policyjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpolchange increases, other factors having a negative impact on yield are likely to dominate. The body of literature on the wider econom

25、ic impacts of climate change, particularly those including quantitative estimates span- ning most sectors, is relatively small. Tol (2009) finds that only 14 estimates of the total damage cost of climate change have been

26、 published (includes all sectors), but notes that ‘‘the number of authors is lower and can be grouped into a UCL group and a Yale one’’. Generally, the studies find that the impacts of a doubling of atmospheric concentra

27、tion of GHG on the current economy are rel- atively small. He also notes that more recent studies tend to come up with smaller estimates, due in part because earlier studies ex- cluded reaction by farmers, thereby overst

28、ating some of the costs. The recognition that economic agents would adapt to climate change in ways that reduce negative impacts and take advantage of positive impacts is one of the most important advances in newer studi

29、es. However, as Antle (2008) points out, while aggregate im- pacts are often estimated to be relatively small, important local im- pacts may be expected, particularly in the poorest and most vulnerable regions of the tro

30、pics. He argues that to the extent change is gradual, farmers with access to resources (i.e. in devel- oped countries) will be able to adapt through changes in crop man- agement/selection and appropriate capital investme

31、nts. In developing countries on the other hand there is a compelling case for increased investment in public research, outreach and infrastructure.Wreford et al. (2010) review the recently growing body of liter- ature on

32、 the costs of adaptation to climate change. They also note that many of the large-scale global cost estimates ‘‘mask the distri- butional impacts of adaptation and do not provide sufficient infor- mation for decision-mak

33、ing at a local or national level’’. In summary, existing studies seem to be in general consensus that the economic impacts of climate change on agriculture are modest in the aggregate. However, the analysis so far has be

34、en strongly influenced by rather simplistic assumptions about future crop yields, and therefore do not provide a satisfying answer and are surrounded by much uncertainty. Most analytical frameworks also completely ignore

35、 the potentially very important impacts of increasing frequency of extreme events. Significant additional re- search will be required in many other areas, not least to recognize the location specific impacts of climate c

36、hange at more disaggre- gated levels. Thus the impact of climate changes on the global dis- tribution of agriculture production, and therefore on trade patterns, remains uncertain.Carbon balances: agriculture is part of

37、the problem and solution to GHG emissionsIn 2004 agriculture directly contributed about 14% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions according to IPCC. Land use, land use change and forestry account for a f

38、urther 17%, much of which is deforestation to convert into agricultural land. Thus globally agriculture contributes approximately one third of total anthropogenic emissions. In addition to the emissions consequences of l

39、and use change, changes in land cover can also be important contributors to climate change and variability, particularly at the local level. There is a growing body of literature on the complex relationships between chan

40、ges in land cover and local climate (Pielke, 2005; Stone, 2009). These links include the radiation (both solar and longwave) balance of the land surface, the exchange of sensible heat between the land surface and the atm

41、osphere, and the roughness of the land surface and its uptake of momentum from the atmosphere. In contrast to other sectors, agricultural activities not only pro- duce greenhouse gas emissions, but can also remove carbon

42、 fromthe atmosphere. This is achieved through management practices that increase soil organic carbon, which according to Smith et al. (2007), accounts for most of the technical potential (89%). The eco- nomic potential w

43、ill be lower; however agricultural mitigation op- tions are found to be cost competitive with a number of non- agricultural options in achieving long-term (i.e., 2100) climate objectives. Given the significant potential

44、contribution it will be important to develop an appropriate framework that provides incentives for these activities. A comprehensive framework for a full accounting of terrestrial carbon continues to be the subject of in

45、tense multilat- eral negotiations at the UNFCCC.Linkages between climate change, agriculture and tradeClimate change affects the supply side of agriculture primarily through its impacts on productivity, yields, and the a

46、vailability of arable land and water. These changes in technology and endow- ments in turn alter the returns to factors of production employed in agriculture and are driving the potential changes in patterns of geographi

47、cal specialisation of production. Climate change is expected to lead to important changes in the geographical distribution of agricultural production potential, with increases in mid- to high-latitudes and a decrease in

48、low latitudes. This shift in production potential will have to coincide with higher trade flows of mid- to high-latitude products such as cereals and livestock to low latitudes. For example, Fischer et al. (2002) esti- m

49、ate that by 2080 cereal imports by developing countries would rise by 10–40%. Policy actions that countries take to mitigate the effects of cli-mate change also have an impact on trade flows in agriculture. Golub et al.

50、(2010) show that given higher emission intensities of livestock industries in many developing compared to developed countries and of ruminant meat compared to other livestock sec- tors, and given large differences in aba

51、tement costs across live- stock sectors and regions, a global carbon tax, together with a sequestration subsidy in forestry, would hurt livestock production in developing countries particularly strongly, resulting in inc

52、reased net imports to Sub-Saharan Africa and reduced exports from South America. Such a scenario, however, may not be very likely, given food security considerations in developing countries. Sparing developing (non-Annex

53、 1) countries from the carbon tax would re- duce those pressures, even though much of the reduced crop and livestock output in South America is found to be linked to reduced deforestation and increased re-forestation due

54、 to the sequestration subsidy. The production and use of biofuels, such as ethanol and biodie- sel, are also supported by public policies in many countries, with the aim of mitigating climate change as one of the main ar

55、guments. Studies, including recent work by OECD (2008), have shown that the actual GHG savings from most biofuels along the whole life cy- cle are relatively small and come at high public costs. The implica- tions of bio

56、fuel policies for agricultural commodity and food prices are subject to intense debate. Cereal and oilseed prices are in- creased through the induced additional use of these crops in the ethanol and biodiesel chains, and

57、 the OECD (2008) estimates that international grain prices are increased by between 5% and 7% in the medium term (i.e. around 2015) through the policies in place in 2007 – the more recent changes in US and EU legislation

58、s are likely to further increase this effect. Among the existing policies fostering northern hemisphere bio- fuel markets, tariffs on ethanol imports appear to be particularly problematic. Their removal would result in a