Time filter

Source Type

Davis S.C.,University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign | House J.I.,University of Bristol | Diaz-Chavez R.A.,Imperial College London | Molnar A.,Research Institute for Agricultural Economics | And 3 more authors.
Interface Focus | Year: 2011

Targets for bioenergy have been set worldwide to mitigate climate change. Although feedstock sources are often ambiguous, pledges in European nations, the United States and Brazil amount to more than 100 Mtoe of biorenewable fuel production by 2020. As a consequence, the biofuel sector is developing rapidly, and it is increasingly important to distinguish bioenergy options that can address energy security and greenhouse gas mitigation from those that cannot. This paper evaluates how bioenergy production affects land-use change (LUC), and to what extent land-use modelling can inform sound decision-making. We identified local and global internalities and externalities of biofuel development scenarios, reviewed relevant data sources and modelling approaches, identified sources of controversy about indirect LUC (iLUC) and then suggested a framework for comprehensive assessments of bioenergy. Ultimately, plant biomass must be managed to produce energy in a way that is consistent with the management of food, feed, fibre, timber and environmental services. Bioenergy production provides opportunities for improved energy security, climate mitigation and rural development, but the environmental and social consequences depend on feedstock choices and geographical location. The most desirable solutions for bioenergy production will include policies that incentivize regionally integrated management of diverse resources with low inputs, high yields, co-products, multiple benefits and minimal risks of iLUC. Many integrated assessment models include energy resources, trade, technological development and regional environmental conditions, but do not account for biodiversity and lack detailed data on the location of degraded and underproductive lands that would be ideal for bioenergy production. Specific practices that would maximize the benefits of bioenergy production regionally need to be identified before a global analysis of bioenergy-related LUC can be accomplished. © 2011 The Royal Society.

Popp J.,Research Institute for Agricultural Economics | Peto K.,Debrecen University | Nagy J.,Debrecen University
Agronomy for Sustainable Development | Year: 2013

The 7 billion global population is projected to grow by 70 million per annum, increasing by 30 % to 9.2 billion by 2050. This increased population density is projected to increase demand for food production by 70 % notably due to changes in dietary habits in developing countries towards high quality food, e.g. greater consumption of meat and milk products and to the increasing use of grains for livestock feed. The availability of additional agricultural land is limited. Any expansion will happen mostly at the expense of forests and the natural habitats containing wildlife, wild relatives of crops and natural enemies of crop pests. Furthermore, more agricultural land will be used to produce bio-based commodities such as biofuel or fibre instead of food. Thus, we need to grow food on even less land, with less water, using less energy, fertiliser and pesticide than we use today. Given these limitations, sustainable production at elevated levels is urgently needed. The reduction of current yield losses caused by pests is a major challenge to agricultural production. This review presents (1) worldwide crop losses due to pests, (2) estimates of pesticide-related productivity, and costs and benefits of pesticide use, (3) approaches to reduce yield losses by chemical, as well as biological and recombinant methods of pest control and (4) the challenges of the crop-protection industry. The general public has a critical function in determining the future role of pesticides in agriculture. However, as long as there is a demand for pesticide-based solutions to pest control problems and food security concerns, the externality problems associated with the human and environmental health effects of pesticides need also to be addressed. © 2012 The Author(s).

Mahrous H.M.,National Research Center of Egypt | Mostafa Y.S.,Research Institute for Agricultural Economics
International Journal of ChemTech Research | Year: 2016

The current research has targeted to identify some of the economic indicators, geographical distribution and locate Egypt for the competition, as well as the Egyptian competitiveness indicators and identify the most important importer of grape and orange crops, through the study of external demand by major global markets. The research has adopted a goal of descriptive and quantitative statistical analysis, in addition to assess economic indicators such as percentages and averages. The study shown, a significant increase in the total productive area, the productivity of the acre and crop production of oranges and grapes, as well as a high proportion of world production of oranges and grapes. The most important foreign markets for Egyptian Orange crop are KSA, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, UAE, and UK markets. While, for grape was UK, The Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and UAE. The Saudi market, showed a direct correlation between national income and the amount of Saudi exports of oranges, while showing an inverse relationship between the total quantity of imports to Saudi Arabia from Orange and the quantity of exports from Egypt. The most important factors affecting the amount of Orange exports to the Russian market is the exchange rate of the pound against the dollar and the price of exportation of Egypt, and the rest of moral agents. The most important factors affecting the amount of exports from the UK market are grape export price Egypt to UK. The UK import price of grapes showing an inverse relationship between the price of exportation of Egypt and UK export quantity of grapes. While, showing an inverse relationship between the price of grapes and UK import quantity of exports from Egypt. © 2016, Sphinx Knowledge House. All rights reserved.

Popp J.,Research Institute for Agricultural Economics
Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit | Year: 2011

Reducing pesticide use can provide growers with direct economic benefits by decreasing the cost of inputs and increasing net returns. Chemical pesticides will continue to play a role in pest management for the future. In many situations, the benefits of pesticide use are high relative to the risks or there are no practical alternatives. The number and diversity of biological sources will increase, and products that originate in chemistry laboratories will be designed for particular target sites. Innovations in pesticide delivery systems in plants promise to reduce adverse environmental impacts even further. The correct use of pesticides can deliver significant socio-economic and environmental benefits in the form of safe, healthy, affordable food; and enable sustainable farm management by improving the efficiency with which we use natural resources such as soil, water and overall land use. Some alternative methods may be more costly than conventional chemical-intensive agricultural practices, but often these comparisons fail to account for the high environmental and social costs of pesticide use. Genetically engineered organisms that reduce pest pressure constitute a "new generation" of pest management tools. The use of transgenic crops will probably maintain or even increase the need for effective resistance management programmes. However, there remains a need for new chemicals that are compatible with ecologically based pest management and applicator and worker safety. Evaluation of the effectiveness of biocontrol agents should involve consideration of long-term impacts rather than only short-term yield, as is typically done for conventional practices. The justifications of government intervention in the management of pest control include the need to address the externality problems associated with the human and environmental health effects of pesticides. © 2011 Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL).

Loading Research Institute for Agricultural Economics collaborators
Loading Research Institute for Agricultural Economics collaborators