You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators.
This form is used for the policy intervention part of a model component. The infobox from the introduction page will be displayed here, with exception of the references. The page starts with a description of the baseline plus figure, followed by a table with policy interventions. The page ends with examples of policy interventions, text plus figures. The 'policy interventions' themselves must be entered separately via the Form:PolicyInterventionForm.
Description. Baseline and Policy intervention examples:
<div class="page_standard"> ==Baseline developments== In the SSP scenarios, agricultural crop and livestock production increases rapidly driven by population increase and dietary changes ([[Doelman et al., 2018]]; [[Van Meijl et al., 2020b]]). As a consequence of production increases, the total area of cropland and pasture is projected to increase, although this is less certain. Depending on scenario and region, some scenarios may also show decreasing land areas, certainly after 2050 when the population starts to decline in several regions. Variations between SSP scenarios are substantial dependent on key drivers such as GDP, population, consumption, land use protection, trade and productivity assumptions. A decomposition of these effects was analyzed in a multi-model decomposition analysis as part of the AgMIP project ([[Stehfest et al., 2019]]). {{DisplayPolicyInterventionFigureTemplate|{{#titleparts: {{PAGENAME}}|1}}|Baseline figure}} ==Policy interventions== Numerous policy interventions can be studied: * Biofuel policies: Partly as an autonomous process under high oil prices but mainly driven by biofuel policies, the proportion of biofuels (so far, only first generation) in the transport sector is projected to increase ([[Banse et al., 2008]]). The model can be used to estimate direct and indirect land-use change and associated emissions. * REDD policies: Forest protection leads to a reduction in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from land-use change. The related opportunity costs can be used to estimate cost curves for the emission abatement that results from REDD policies ([[Overmars et al., 2014]]). * Afforestation policies: Greenhouse gas pricing can make afforestation for carbon storage in biomass profitable. Cost-optimal levels of afforestation can be estimated in IMAGE and implemented as reductions in agricultural land in MAGNET to assess food system and security impacts ([[Doelman et al., 2020]]). * Agricultural and trade policies can be assessed for their effects on land use, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity ([[Verburg et al., 2009]]). * Measures to reduce biodiversity loss by increasing protected areas, increasing agricultural productivity, dietary changes, and reducing waste ([[PBL, 2010]]; [[Leclere et al., 2020]]). Several biodiversity options, in a stepwise introduction, affect land and commodity prices as well as land-use change (see figure below). * Consumption changes, dietary preferences, and their effect on global land use, prices and emissions can be studied ([[PBL, 2011]]; [[Stehfest et al., 2013]]; [[Van Meijl et al., 2020b]]). * Taxation of non-CO<sub>2</sub> greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture resulting in changes in production, consumption and trade patterns ([[Frank et al., 2019]]). {{DisplayPolicyInterventionFigureTemplate|{{#titleparts: {{PAGENAME}}|1}}|Policy intervention figure}} {{PIEffectOnComponentTemplate }} </div>
Save page Cancel