Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, Oxford University Press Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association
Climate Change, Agriculture, and Poverty

Author(s): Thomas W. Hertel and Stephanie D. Rosch
Source: Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Autumn 2010), pp. 355-
385
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Agricultural & Applied Economics
Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40864569
Accessed: 30-10-2017 18:09 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40864569?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, Oxford University Press are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Applied Economic Perspectives and
Policy
This content downloaded from 103.26.198.246 on Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:09:26 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (2010) volume 32, number 3, pp. 355-385.
doi:10.1093/aepp/ppq016
Featured Article

Thomas W. Hertel*, and Stephanie D. Rosch
Thomas W. Hertel, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural

Economics, Purdue University, Indiana; Stephanie D. Rosch, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, Indiana.
*Correspondence to be sent to: E-mail: hertel@purdue.edu.
Submitted January 2009; accepted June 2010.
Abstract Even though much has been written about climate change and
poverty as distinct and complex problems, the link between them has received
little attention. Understanding this link is vital for the formulation of effective
policy responses to climate change. In this article the authors focus on agriculture
as a primary means by which the impacts of climate change are transmitted to the
poor and as a sector at the forefront of climate change mitigation efforts in devel-
oping countries. In so doing, they offer some important insights that may help
shape future policies as well as ongoing research in this area.
JEL codes: Q24, Q27, Q54, Q56, O13, O15.
Climate change is a "wicked problem." We use this terminology in the

spirit of Sandra Batie's recent Agricultural and Applied Economics
Association (AAEA) Fellows Address (Batie 2008). In her paper, "wicked"
problems contrast with "tame" ones for which the definition is clear and
the outcome is definitive. Tame problems may be readily identified as
either solved or not solved. However, in the case of climate change, there
is little agreement on an appropriate definition of the problem - let alone
the appropriate solution. And, while economics has played an important
role in assessing climate impacts and alternative mitigation strategies, suc-
cessful involvement by economists in the analysis of climate change
requires broad engagement with other disciplines and with society at
large (Toman 2006) - hence the complexity of this problem.
To date, most economic analyses of climate change impacts and mitiga-
tion have focused on aggregate costs and benefits. Many of those nations
most likely to be severely affected by climate change are characterized by
extreme poverty. Fortunately they are also located in regions of the world
with some of the greatest potential to contribute to mitigation- particu-
larly for forest carbon sequestration, but also through agricultural prac-
tices. This leads us to wonder: what are the potential consequences of
climate change for the poor? This is a question that has received relatively
© The Author(s) 2010. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of Agricultural and Applied
Economics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email:
journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.
355
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy
little attention in the literature to date. Our article seeks to shed light on
this important problem, focusing specifically on the links from climate
change, through agriculture, to poverty.
As Fischer, Shah, and van Velthuizen point out, nearly 800 million
people in the world are chronically undernourished and poor - a large
portion of them children under the age of five. In sub-Saharan Africa -
one of the regions deemed most vulnerable to climate change - poverty
rates reach a staggering 40 percent of the entire population (Fischer, Shah,
and van Velthuizen 2002). The majority of the poor live in rural areas
where agriculture is the predominant form of economic activity; their fate
is thus inextricably interwoven with that of farming. Agricultural (GDP)
growth is 2.2 times as effective at reducing poverty, compared to growth
in non-agricultural GDP (Christiaensen, Demery, and Kühl 2006).
However, agriculture - particularly in the tropics - is one of the sectors
that is most vulnerable to climate change (WDR, p. 5). The poor are also
extremely vulnerable to increases in food prices, as demonstrated by the
poverty consequences of the recent food price spike (De Hoyos and
Medvedev 2009; Ivanic and Martin 2008).
We readily acknowledge that agriculture is not the only means by
which climate change can impact on the poor. Potential damage to infra-
structure such as roads, public and commercial buildings, and housing
due to natural disasters may have localized, adverse impacts for the popu-
lation as a whole. Likewise, disease, conflicts over scarce natural resources,
or ethnic strife exacerbated by migration away from vulnerable, low-lying
areas may have a profound and adverse impact on the poor (Barnett 2001;
Heltberg, Jorgensen, and Siegel 2008; Morton 2007; Raleigh, Jordan, and
Salehyan 2008; Reuveny 2007). By focusing exclusively on agriculture, our
treatment of the poverty impacts of climate change necessarily understates
their true extent. However, analysis of the climate change- agriculture -
poverty nexus yields valuable insights for climate change mitigation
efforts and development policy, which are best understood when exam-
ined in a focused manner.
How will future changes in climate affect these low income households?
What is the likely impact on the price for food - the single largest budget
item for most of the poor? In order to answer these questions, we knit
together research from a variety of disciplines and different perspectives.
While there is much more work to be done in this area, sufficient research
is already available to allow us to reach some preliminary conclusions
about the potential impacts of climate change and associated policies on
agriculture and hence on poverty. First we touch on the likely changes in
climate caused by increased concentration of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
in the atmosphere. Here we will be brief, as current knowledge is well
summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
(Parry et al. 2007). We then move on to the question of how such changes
in climate are likely to affect agricultural productivity. This is a rapidly
growing literature, which is grudgingly yielding some consensus. There
remain large differences, however, in the various scientific approaches to
the problem, each with its own strengths and limitations. Accordingly we
provide readers with a critical evaluation of this literature.
Having assessed the likely impact of climate change on agricultural pro-
ductivity, we face the challenge of understanding how such productivity
shocks are likely to affect poverty and vulnerability of low income
356
households. We draw on prior research examining the impacts of historical

climate events - including droughts, floods, etc. - on poverty. This rich lit-
erature offers some important insights into the kinds of policies which
might limit the adverse impacts of climate change and climate shocks on
the poor. This literature also naturally leads into the broader question of
adaptation and dynamics: Given the inevitability of increased GHG con-
centrations in the atmosphere and the consequent changes in climate, what
policy measures can be taken to ensure resiliency throughout the economic
system and attenuate the damaging impacts on the poor in particular?
Despite the lack of immediate action flowing out of the recent climate
change summit in Copenhagen, there is already significant spending
underway, aimed at the mitigation of GHG emissions, with much more
effort likely to follow. Thus it is important to explore the potential conse-
quences of such mitigation policies - particularly those that impinge on
land use - for agriculture, food prices, and poverty. Finally we conclude
with a discussion of the overarching policy implications.
Climate Change: What is the Evidence?

There is now little doubt that the climate is changing; carbon dioxide
(CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere are rising, as are temperatures
(IPCC). Yet detection of climate change and the attribution of its causes
are distinct problems. Without the capacity to conduct repeated exper-
iments with the earth's climate, researchers resort to models as a means to
illuminate the link between these changes to human (anthropogenic) for-
cings. The IPCC has done so by running the community of climate models
over the last century, first with only natural forcings, and then with both
natural and human forcings. The resulting confidence intervals for pre-
dicted temperatures over the past two decades show significant differ-
ences between the evolution of climate under the baseline and the (natural
forcings only) counterf actual (IPCC). Based on this link, it is then possible
to project future changes in climate as GHG concentrations in the atmos-
phere grow over time. Under its baseline projection, the IPCC projects
further global warming of 1.1 to 6.2°C by the end of this century (IPCC).
The models also consistently show that increases in GHG concentrations
cause increases in both the frequency and the intensity of temperature and
precipitation extremes (Ahmed, Diffenbaugh, and Hertel 2009; Easterling
et al. 2000). These changes in climate volatility are likely to be particularly
important for agricultural systems, which can be quite sensitive to such
extremes (White et al. 2006).
For this survey, we are less concerned with the attribution aspect of the
climate debate and more concerned with the implications of detected
changes - whatever their cause. What are the likely impacts of rising temp-
eratures and changing rainfall patterns on agriculture and poverty? Of
these changes, can we deduce which effects will have the largest impli-
cations for poverty?
Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change

Tubiello and Rosenzweig (2008) survey the rather extensive literature on
the agricultural impacts of climate change and offer a useful synthesis
357
(p. 167). They conclude that moderate warming (up to 2°C) in the first
part of this century may benefit crop and pasture yields in the temperate
regions, while reducing crop yields in the semi-arid and tropical regions.
However, the further warming that is expected for the second part of the
century will likely reduce crop yields in all regions.
Taking a user's perspective on what is now a vast literature on the
potential agricultural impacts of climate change, it is important to under-
stand the different approaches that have been taken to estimate these
effects as they reflect sharply different "views of the world." We group the
approaches into three categories: crop growth simulation models, statisti-
cal studies, and hedonic (or Ricardian) approaches. Each approach embo-
dies rather different strengths and weaknesses as measured by the
following criteria (Rowhani and Ramankutty 2009):
• How onerous are the data requirements?
• What is the spatial extent of the methodology - i.e. can it be used to
predict global impacts? Is it portable across regions?
• Spatial resolution- i.e. can the predictions be related to specific grid
cells on the earth's surface?
• Is this methodology process based?
• What is the potential for capturing threshold effects?
• Can it capture adaptation responses to climate change?
• Can the model's validity be tested via out of sample validation?
Crop growth simulation models
The predominant tool for assessing the impacts of climate change on

agricultural productivity is the biophysical crop growth simulation model.
The most widely used variant for climate change analysis is the Crop
Environment Resource Synthesis model, as implemented through the
Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT). DSSAT
underpins a number of important studies of the impact of climate change
on global food availability and malnutrition, including (most recently)
Nelson et al. (2009). Those authors find climate-induced changes in 2050
developing country yields ranging from 1 percent in the case of rainfed
rice and wheat to 19 percent for irrigated rice and 34 percent for irrigated
wheat (Nelson et al. 2009, table 2).
DSSAT covers six major field crops. It is a process-based model with
extensive data requirements and explicit spatial resolution, simulating
crop growth as a function of soils, water availability, temperature, and soil
nitrogen dynamics at the level of an individual field. Crop growth is
broken into six phenological stages and leaf and stem growth rates are cal-
culated for each stage. Management factors are also considered, including
choice of variety, planting date, row spacing, and irrigation and nitrogen
fertilizer application amounts and timing. By varying temperature and
precipitation inputs, users can simulate the impact of climate change on
agricultural productivity.
Important strengths of crop simulation modeling include: (a) the simu-
lation of growth by stage so that daily temperature data can be utilized
and the impact of extreme events on yields can be assessed, and (b) the
ability of users to specify crop varieties and fertilizer applications, as well
as irrigation availability, all of which are critical elements in any climate
adaptation strategy. However, despite its use in global studies, the DSSAT
358
approach remains fundamentally a highly calibrated, field-based approach

which has not yet been validated on a global basis.
This limitation has stimulated new work by Deryng, Sacks and
Ramankutty (2009) who have developed a simpler, less highly calibrated
variant of the crop simulation model, nicknamed Agro-PEGASUS. It has
been designed to operate at a global scale and simulates growth as a func-
tion of light use efficiency, daily average absorbed photo synthetically
active radiation, temperature, soil moisture, and fertilizer availability. It
has also been validated at that scale.
Agro-PEGASUS model predictions for planting and harvest dates for
global maize area agree with observed ranges in about three-quarters of
all grid cells where maize is grown. Predicted global maize yields also
compare reasonably well to actual yields. For a 2°C rise in global tempera-
tures, the authors find that average maize and soybean yields rise in high
income countries, while falling slightly for wheat (Deryng, Sacks and
Ramankutty 2009). The lowest income countries experience the sharpest
yield losses, ranging from -13 percent for spring wheat to -22 percent for
soybeans and -27 percent for maize. From the point of view of poverty,
this is not a good outcome. It suggests lower farm incomes in the poorest
countries (due to the sharper productivity reductions there) where
extreme poverty tends to be predominantly rural, with somewhat higher
world prices overall, thereby hurting low income consumers worldwide.
While Agro-PEGASUS is not yet available to the broader research commu-
nity, it is a tool worth keeping an eye on for future research.
Statistical approaches
An alternative to the crop simulation approach is to estimate statistical

relationships between crop yields on the one hand and temperature and
precipitation on the other. The advantages of this approach are that it
requires relatively less data and can be readily implemented for large geo-
graphic areas (e.g. nations or continents). However, it is not process based,
and so it relies on predicting future responses based on past relationships.
Thus changes in varieties grown, and other agro-ecological choices, such
as planting and harvesting dates, etc., are not taken into account. Recent
examples of this approach are offered by Schlenker and Roberts (2006),
Lobell et al. (2008), and Schlenker and Lobell (2010).
Statistical studies can be based on cross-sectional data or time series
data. The former naturally correspond to longer run adaptations to
climate. The problem with cross-section analysis, however, is the potential
for omitted variables to bias parameter estimates. An excellent example of
this is offered by Schlenker, Hanemann, and Fisher (2005) who show that,
if irrigation is not explicitly taken into account and irrigation tends to take
place in hotter regions, then yields (economic returns) might appear to be
positively related to temperature when in fact this is not the case.
Time series approaches analyze the impact of year-to-year changes in
climate on yield variation at a given site. This technique estimates the
short-run impact of climate change on yields assuming the climate change
was not fully anticipated (e.g. the climate realization occurs after planting
decisions are already made). Recently, McCarl, Villavicencio, and Wu
(2008) have used time series methods to examine the impact of climate
variability on crop yields. Those authors find that, for the United States,
359
higher variances in climate conditions tend to lead to lower average crop

yields and also greater yield variability (p. 1247). However, in most
regions of the world, time series on yields and climate are limited in
length, thereby resulting in large standard errors and significant uncer-
tainty about the likely impacts of temperate and precipitation on yields.
As a consequence, Schlenker advocates panel data approaches in which a
cross-section of yields is followed over time, using fixed effects to account
for location-specific determinants of yields.
Generally these crop response studies show that maize and other coarse
grains have the greatest potential to be adversely affected by climate
change. This is due to the low responsiveness of C4 crops to increased CO2
concentrations (Ainsworth et al. 2008; Long et al. 2006) and their relatively
high sensitivity to extreme heat (Schlenker and Lobell 2009; Schlenker and
Roberts 2006). Indeed, in their study of maize response to temperature in
the northeastern United States, Schlenker and Roberts identify a clear
threshold at 30°C, after which additional increments to temperature result
in a sharp reduction in yields. This type of nonlinearity can have important
consequences in the case where climate change leads to an increase in the
intensity and frequency of extreme heat events, as suggested by Easterling
et al. (2000). This predicted sensitivity of maize to high temperatures is also
consistent with the finding of Lobell and Field (2007) that maize yields
since 1980 have been adversely affected by global warming. On the other
hand, the impacts of climate change on yields of wheat and rice (C3 crops)
varies more widely, with the possibility of large yield gains in northern lati-
tudes under global warming. In a recent panel study of the impacts of
climate change in 2050 on sub-Saharan Africa, Schlenker and Lobell (2010)
find that maize is most severely affected and millet the least affected by
climate change. Nearly all countries in the region experience yield losses in
the expected scenario, with overall losses for cereals and oilseeds in the
range of 10 percent; in the worst case outcome (5 percent probability), yield
losses for most cereals and oilseeds in Southern Africa exceed 50 percent.
The foremost advantages of statistical approaches to analyzing climate
impacts on agriculture (see also table 1) are that: the data requirements are
much lighter; they can be applied at a national or global spatial resolution;
measures of goodness of fit can provide confidence that the model is faith-
fully capturing historical changes; and out-of -sample prediction can test the
model's validity. The greatest limitation of these studies focusing on yield
changes is the absence of adaptation responses. One approach is to embed
these yield "shocks" in an economic model which then allows for adaptation
in the context of profit maximizing responses on the part of representative
farmers (e.g. Hertel, Burke, and Lobell 2009). However, it would be attractive
to obtain estimates of adaptation alongside the climate impact analysis. This
is leads us to the so-called Ricardian, or hedonic, analysis of climate change.
Hedonic approaches
All the yield based studies of agricultural response to climate change

assume that the crops continue to be grown in the same locations, thereby
1 Plants are classified as C3 or C4 based on the biochemical process by which they convert carbon
dioxide into sugar during photosynthesis. Common C4 plants important to agricultural production
include maize, sugar cane, millet, and sorghum. Common C3 agricultural crops include wheat, barley,
potatoes, and sugar beet.
360
Table 1 Alternative methods for assessing agricultural impacts of climate change

compared
Methodology
Crop growth Statistical Ricardian

Characteristics models models models
Data requirements Intensive Modest Medium

Spatial extent/ portability Local Global Regional
Spatial resolution? Yes No No
Process based? Yes No No
Threshold effects? Possible Yes No
Captures adaptation? No No Yes
Out of sample validation? No Yes Yes
Source: Adapted from Rowhani and Ramankutty (2009).
failing to account for potential adjustments in th

activities at any given location. The hedonic appro
as the "Ricardian" approach, and spearheaded
Nordhaus, and Shaw (1994), recognizes that farmers w
activities to choose the one yielding the highest retur
of land. As a consequence, they focus on the impa
values, not yields.2 By associating climatic variation i
data with variation in land values, researchers aim
run economic value of climate and hence the impact
once adaptation to the new climate has taken place.
The Ricardian approach has been applied in a wi
stances, including developed and developing co
(2009) offers a summary of the findings with individu
district-level data. His studies of Brazil and India sugg
both countries is sensitive to even modest warming.
countries, there is great heterogeneity in the estimate
he finds that "the wet eastern region of India would
warming whereas the dry western region of India
damages. The southeastern region of Brazil would
Amazonian and northeastern region of Brazil would b
Mendelsohn, Nordhaus, and Shaw (1994) and Men
have also examined the impact of increased int
climate on land values. They find that the impact dep
of these climatic shocks. If the increased varianc
summer, it tends to reduce land values, as farmers ca
ging planting decisions. However, they find that h
matic variance can actually boost the economic valu
can take advantage of these changes by planting
adjusting the growing season.
Analysis at the farm level in Africa shows that war
farming, but benefits irrigated agriculture. These stu
2The use of land values has the additional advantage of embodying the
normal year, whereas annual net returns will be influenced to annu
duction. However, in many developing countries land markets are insu
this approach, and so net returns are used.
361
temperature affects the choice of cropping vs livestock. Higher tempera-

tures tend to encourage small farmers to shift from cropping to livestock;
the returns to both activities fall, but the decline is greater for crops. On
the other hand, large livestock producers, who are typically more special-
ized in beef cattle which are less well adapted to warmer climates, experi-
ence sharper losses at higher temperatures.
In wrapping up this survey of a decade of Ricardian analysis in devel-
oping countries, Mendelsohn (2009, pp. 16 -17) concludes that:
The studies generally confirm the hypothesis that tropical and subtropical agriculture
in developing countries is more climate sensitive than temperate agriculture. Even
marginal warming causes damages in Africa and Latin America to crops. Crops are
also sensitive to changes in precipitation. In semi-arid locations, increased rainfall is
beneficial. However, in very wet places, increased rainfall can be harmful. If climate
scenarios turn out to be relatively hot and dry, they will cause a lot of damage to
farms in low latitude countries. However, if climate scenarios turn out to be relatively
mild and wet, there will be only modest damages and maybe even beneficial effects.
The magnitude of the damage depends greatly on the climate scenario.
The hedonic approach relies on two key assumptions. First, there is a long
run equilibrium in factor markets (especially land). Second, there are no
adjustment costs such that land rents fully reflect the value of climate at
any given location. Given these assumptions, the hedonic approach typi-
cally utilizes cross-section data to estimate long-run relationships, which
are thus sensitive to omitted variable bias. Schlenker, Hanemann, and
Fisher (2005) examine this issue in considerable detail in the context of the
Mendelsohn, Nordhaus, and Shaw (1994) findings of warmer tempera-
tures leading to higher economic returns in the United States. These
authors show that this finding is a consequence of the omission of a vari-
able indicating whether or not the land is irrigated. Since irrigated land
tends to be very productive, and the value of pre-existing water rights
(and low prices for water) tend to be capitalized into land values, these
high value land rents - typically in high temperature zones - tend to dom-
inate the regression results. Once Schlenker, Hanemann, and Fisher (2005)
control for irrigation (by focusing on the non-irrigated lands alone), this
relationship disappears and they conclude that U.S. agriculture is likely to
lose from climate change.
Quiggin and Horowitz (1999) offer a different critique of the Ricardian
approach- focusing on the comparative static nature of the results. They
push the Mendelsohn model (Mendelsohn, Nordhaus, and Shaw 1994;
Mendelsohn and Nordhaus 1999) to its logical extreme by evaluating the
climatic optimum implied by the returns function- i.e. what is the temp-
erature which maximizes agricultural returns in a given location? They
find that the optimal values for some of the climate variables are either
implausible or nonexistent, leading them to conclude that, while the
Ricardian models fit the data reasonably well, they are not well behaved
for points lying outside the range of the observed data.3 Of course, such
criticisms could also be applied to many of the statistical analyses of crop
yields as well. Once pushed outside the range of observed climate data,
they often "fall apart." Users of these estimated yield and return functions
need to be aware of these potential limitations which are not inherent in
the approach, but rather are determined by the particular empirical
3In contrast, Darwin critiques the implied agronomic properties of the estimated functions.
362
implementation. This type of problem is likely to be most pronounced in

cases where one is considering non-marginal changes in temperature and
precipitation- either due to short run inter-annual variation in these vari-
ables-or due to very long run analyses of climate change.
A further, important critique of the Ricardian approach pertains to its
comparative static nature. The dynamics of adjustment from one climate
regime to another are ignored- indeed the resulting estimates of climate
impacts assume such adjustment costs to be zero. In the words of Quiggin
and Horowitz (1999, p. 1044): "The question addressed by Mendelsohn,
Nordhaus, and Shaw may be stated as, 'If temperatures were and always
had been 5°F higher, what difference would it make to the net social surplus
arising from US agriculture?' But the effect of a 5°F change would be very
different if the climate were 5°F warmer next year, than if mean temperatures
rose by 0.01°F per year over 500 years." Before we probe more deeply into
the dynamics of adaptation, it is helpful to establish the linkage between
agricultural productivity shocks from climate change and poverty.
Linking Climate Change, Agriculture, and Poverty

Climate change can be either beneficial to agricultural production or
adverse in its productivity impacts. For purposes of discussion here, we
focus on the adverse shocks. (Positive productivity impacts will have the
opposite sign of those discussed below.) The impacts on household well-
being depend importantly on the degree to which the household is inte-
grated into product and factor markets. In the most extreme case, wherein
the household is entirely self-sufficient and simply consumes what it pro-
duces, a 10 percent productivity reduction will translate into a 10 percent
reduction in consumption. However, in most cases, households will be at
least partially exposed to markets - either through off -farm work (or the
hiring of off-farm labor) or through the sale, or purchase, of produce. In
this context we can decompose the impacts of climate change on poverty
into several parts: impacts on household consumption, impacts on produ-
cer income, indirect impacts through factor markets, and impacts through
non-priced goods.4 We discuss each of these in turn, followed by a variety
of related issues.
Consumption impacts
To date, most of the discussion about poverty impacts of adverse

climate change and agriculture has focused on food availability and/ or
food prices (e.g. Fischer 2009; Nelson et al. 2009). Reduced food avail-
ability and higher food prices stemming from adverse climate change hurt
consumers everywhere. All households expend money on food, and
higher prices for food unambiguously reduce the level of well-being
which they can attain, at a given level of income.
To a first approximation, the household's current food budget share
offers a good estimate of the impact of a food price increase on real
income. If a family spends half its income on food, and food prices rise by
50 percent, then their real income will fall by about 25 percent (0.5 * 50%),
4 For the interested reader, a mathematical appendix is available from the authors which formally speci-
fies the assertions about household impacts discussed verbally in this section.
363
abstracting from second-order effects stemming from price-induced

changes in their consumption bundle. Since the poor tend to spend the
highest share of their income on food, adverse climate change is expected
to have a disproportionately adverse impact on them. Further, these price
increases stemming from a decline in agricultural productivity will be felt
by all low income households- not just those in agriculture.
Impacts on farm household earnings
In the absence of commodity price changes, adverse impacts on pro-

ductivity due to climate change will reduce farm earnings (lower output
per unit input generates lower profits). These losses are likely to be magni-
fied if farmer-owned inputs are not the only factors of production. For
example, if farm-owned inputs account for half of total costs and the
prices of purchased inputs are exogenous to agriculture, then, in the
absence of a commodity price rise, a 1 percent decline in agricultural pro-
ductivity will result in a 2 percent decline in farm income. This magnifi-
cation effect arises because farmers cannot share the burden of the
adverse productivity change with the suppliers of non-farm inputs. Of
course, if the non-farm inputs are not in perfectly elastic supply, then
some of the losses will be shared with suppliers of inputs (e.g. fertilizer
producers) in the form of lower prices. Because poor households are likely
to be less commercialized, this magnification effect will typically be less
pronounced for them.
However, the assumption that farm prices will be unchanged in the face
of global climate change is unlikely to be valid and is inconsistent with
the emergence of regional food deficits. Widespread reductions in agricul-
tural productivity (relative to their baseline realization) will surely result
in reduced output and therefore higher prices (again, relative to baseline).
The extent of the price rise will depend on the relative price elasticities of
commodity supply and farm level demand - and the latter will depend on
the scope of the climate shock. If the adverse climate shock is only for one
plot of land, then the farm level demand elasticity is likely to be very high
indeed - approaching the case of fixed commodity prices as just discussed.
On the other hand, if the climate shock affects the entire region, then the
farm level demand elasticity will approach the consumer demand elas-
ticity for food, which may be quite small. If the farm level demand elas-
ticity for agricultural products is inelastic (less than one in absolute value,
such that a 1 percent rise in prices results in a less than 1 percent decline
in demand), then farm producer returns will actually rise in the wake of
an adverse productivity shock. This makes intuitive sense, since inelastic
demands translate into price rises that exceed the proportionate decline in
quantity supplied such their product (producer revenue) rises.
Furthermore, the size of the ensuing price rise will be larger, the smaller
is the farm supply elasticity with respect to price.
So putting the spending and earnings sides together, adverse climate
change will hurt farm households unambiguously when they are subsistence
producers, when the climate change is localized, or when the farm level
demand for their produce is elastic. The welfare loss will be greater, the
more important are food expenditures (both purchases and the imputed
value of own-consumption) in farm household income, and the more impor-
tant are commercial inputs in production. Conversely, it is entirely possible
364
for farm households to benefit from adverse climate developments if the

adverse shock is widespread, if farm level demand for their product is quite
inelastic, if there are few sources of off -farm income, if food is a small share
of expenditures, and if supply response is relatively low.5
In their survey, Adams et al. (1998, p. 28) emphasize the potential for
agricultural producer gains from adverse climate shocks, noting that,
while consumers are expected to lose from higher agricultural prices, pro-
ducers are projected to gain, due to inelastic demand for their products.
These authors also draw attention to the fact that the consequences of
climate change for local and regional factor markets have been "largely
unexplored, but are potentially important" (p. 29). Thus it is worth our
while to explore these effects more carefully.
Factor markets and the impacts on nonfarm households
The key difference between farm and non-farm households is that the
latter group's earnings are not directly affected by the adverse change in
on-farm productivity, since, by definition, they do not receive farm
income. The earnings of these non-farm households will only be affected
indirectly, for example through a change in wage rates.6 In cases where
agriculture is a major employer in the economy - particularly for unskilled
workers - it is possible that the earnings of poor, nonfarm households
might be significantly affected through changes in market wages when
there is a significant shock to agricultural productivity and/ or prices.
Ravallion (1990) considers the welfare impact of an exogenous rise in
the price of rice on the rural poor in Bangladesh. The analytical frame-
work which he develops is quite instructive and sheds light on the likely
indirect impacts of higher agricultural prices on rural non-farm house-
holds employed in farming as separate from the direct effect of climate
change on labor demand. He decomposes the welfare impact into a spend-
ing effect, which simply depends on the household's net expenditure
share on food grains, and an earnings effect. The earnings effect is the
product of the household's income share from agricultural wages and the
economy- wide wage-price elasticity. In the short run, Ravallion' s estimates
suggest that the impact of a food price increase will be negative, since the
adverse spending effect dominates the favorable, but small, earnings
effect. However, in the long run (about five years in this case), the wage-
price elasticity (which increases with time) provides the potential for a
rise in real income for these landless agricultural households in
Bangladesh. So the time frame matters - particularly when considering
indirect earnings effects.
In regions where climate change affects the local demand for labor as
well as prices, the impact on wages is more complex. The competing
effects at work are well illustrated in Banerjee (2007), who focuses on the
impact of flooding on agricultural wages in Bangladeshi labor markets.
Depending on the timing of the floods, this natural disaster can depress or
5 A formal set of conditions for farm households to gain from an adverse climate shock is given in the
appendix available from the authors.
6Of course there will also be households in the economy whose earnings are not affected - either
directly or indirectly - by the climate change impacts in agriculture. For these households, the spend-
ing side effect is the only relevant one, so they will be unambiguously hurt by higher food prices fol-
lowing an adverse climate event.
365
boost unskilled wages. For example, if the flood requires replanting of the
fields, the demand for labor may rise as a consequence. On the other
hand, massive flooding has a dampening effect on wages as the demand
for labor is reduced. Overall, he finds that the impact of floods on agricul-
tural wages in Bangladesh varies depending on the timing of the event, its
severity, and the length of run considered.
The aggregate national poverty impact of an adverse climate change
event will depend on the cumulative effect across all low income house-
holds in the economy. While we generally expect an adverse climate event
to increase poverty, because of the spending effect which hits all house-
holds, the preceding analysis suggests that this is not a foregone con-
clusion. There are circumstances under which the national poverty head
count could actually fall. Such an eventuality is most likely when the fol-
lowing four conditions hold jointly. First, the adverse climate change is
not localized and farm level demand and supply are inelastic, so that agri-
cultural prices and farm factor returns rise sharply, dominating the
adverse spending effect for farm households. Second, poverty is concen-
trated in agriculture so that the majority of the poor are favorably affected
due to the first condition. Third, the adverse climate shocks result in a sus-
tained increase in labor demand. Lastly, if the farm sector represents a
large share of the unskilled labor demand in the economy, the net result
of all these conditions can give rise to significant indirect wage effects
such that the non-farm poor might benefit from higher wages.
The poverty impacts of climate change, both direct and indirect effects,
are complex and cannot be fully anticipated based on theoretical argu-
ments and econometric studies alone. Thus, as with the issue of climate
change attribution, a simulation model is required. Only this time, rather
than a General Circulation Model of global climate, such studies rely on
Computational General Equilibrium models of the global economy.
Hertel, Burke, and Lobell (2009) use the poverty-extended version of the
Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to explore the impacts of
adverse climate change on different segments of population living on $1/
day across a sample of 15 developing countries. Under their adverse
climate scenario for 2030 (an occurrence with only 5 percent probability),
global staple grain prices rise by 10-60 percent, and agricultural returns
rise sharply in most regions. Average poverty rates fall in the agricultural
specialized households (95 percent or more of earnings from the family's
farming enterprise), as well as the diversified households (also receiving
significant farm earnings), while the average poverty headcount rises for
rural and urban wage labor households, non-farm, self-employed and
transfer payment dependent households. National poverty rates fall in
about half the countries - these are nations in which poverty is concen-
trated in agriculture and overall climate productivity shocks are not as
severe (e.g. Chile and Thailand). Countries in sub-Saharan Africa stand
out as showing the most severe yield impacts from this adverse climate
change scenario; none of the population groups in these countries experi-
ence significant poverty reductions and the national poverty headcount
rises in all of the African countries in their sample.
Hertel, Burke, and Lobell also consider a "high productivity" scenario
for 2030 (again just 5 percent probability of this occurring) in which world
prices fall as a result of climate change. Here, the results are largely
reversed, with poverty falling amongst urban and wage earning
366
households, and rising amongst those households earning their living in

farming. The authors' most likely climate change scenario for 2030 (the
mean outcome from this uncertain distribution of climate shocks) suggests
little change in world prices due to modest productivity effects and offset-
ting impacts in northern (higher yields) and tropical (lower yields) lati-
tudes. Consequently the poverty impacts are muted.
However, as previously noted, gradual climate change may be less
onerous for the poor than the occurrence of extreme climate events such as
flooding, drought, and heat waves. The poor tend to be more vulnerable to
extreme events since they live in more exposed locations, spend more of
their income on food, and rely heavily on farming for their incomes. Ahmed,
Diffenbaugh, and Hertel (2009) use the same basic modeling framework as
Hertel, Burke, and Lobell (2009) to explore the impacts of extreme (1 in 30
chance) adverse climate events in the current (1970-2000) climate as well as
in the future (2070-2100) climate. These authors find that current climate
volatility has a particularly severe impact on poverty in Bangladesh,
Southern Africa, and Mexico, with urban wage-earning households experi-
encing the sharpest increase in poverty. In attempting to predict the impact
of increasingly intense extreme climate events in the future, the authors
focus on the impact of drought (measured as the longest period of consecu-
tive dry days) which increases in 11 of the 16 countries under examination.
They find the largest rises in national poverty headcount in Zambia
(4.6 percent of the national population) and Mexico (1.8 percent of the popu-
lation) as a result of these increased climate extremes.
Impacts on non-priced goods
Climate change can also affect the poor through its impacts on the avail-
ability of non-priced goods and services from renewable natural resource
endowments. Examples of natural resource goods which are relevant to
household consumption, production, and asset accumulation include:
wild foods, medicines, consumption/ production goods (gum, soap, salt,
resins, dyes, etc.), construction materials, energy sources, furnishings,
tools and utensils, fertilizer, grazing and fodder, clay for pottery, timber,
and mineral resources. "Two characteristics aside from their renewability
make environmental resources different from other economic activities:
their spontaneous occurrence, and the fact they are so often held under
communal tenure" (Cavendish 2000, p. 1980) It is also common for these
types of goods to be non-traded, even in local markets. For example, only
19 percent of surveyed villages bordering the Sariska Tiger Reserve in
India had local markets for firewood even though it constitutes 59 percent
of the total biomass energy consumed (Heltberg 2001; Heltberg, Arndt,
and Sekhar 2000).
In aggregate, natural resources also provide services for soil conserva-
tion, water availability and quality, biodiversity conservation, carbon
sequestration, and air quality (Duraiappah 1998). For example, wetlands
can filter pollutants from water sources and improve the quality of irriga-
tion and drinking water; forest cover on steep slopes can prevent erosion
and loss of top soil for low-land fields; and natural habitats support polli-
nator and pest predator species which reduce the costs of inputs for culti-
vation (Kevan 1999; Sunderlin et al. 2005). These ecosystem services affect
the quality of life for households as well as the profitability of agricultural
367
technologies. To illustrate, increased erosion from deforestation may

increase silt levels in irrigation water, thereby decreasing the efficiency of
irrigation canals. Likewise, removal of mangroves and wetlands along
coastal areas can increase saltwater incursions into groundwater sources,
increasing salt levels in irrigation water and decreasing agricultural yields.
In many cases these ecosystem goods and services may be quite sensitive
to climate change. Under most climate change scenarios, changes in rainfall
and temperature are predicted to alter the mix of local plant species. Using
23 different climate change scenarios, Battisti and Naylor (2009) found a
greater than 90 percent probability that, by 2100, the average summer temp-
eratures in the tropics and subtropics will exceed the recorded high tempera-
tures from 1900-2006. As average and maximum temperatures increase, the
productivity and viability of plant species change, particularly above the
threshold temperature of 35°C (Schlenker and Lobell 2009; Schlenker and
Roberts 2006). Thus climate change is likely to cause species loss as well as
altering the types of fauna supported by an ecosystem (McCarty 2001;
Walther et al. 2002). Further, climate change is likely to introduce new pest
and predator species and reduce beneficial species- factors which are
particularly critical for agriculture (Kevan 1999).
Reductions in natural resource goods and services are likely to have a
significant impact on the poor. Empirical evidence from household
surveys in Zimbabwe estimate that poor households derive as much as 40
percent or more of their incomes from environmental goods (Cavendish
2000), and 24 percent of incomes in Peru (Takasaki, Barham, and Coomes
2004). An estimated 31 percent of household production income derives
from bush meat in the Democratic Republic of Congo (de Merode,
Homewood, and Cowlishaw 2004) and 75 percent of surveyed households
in Brazil devoted time to collecting non-timber forest products
(Pattanayak and Sills 2001). Natural resource goods also represent a sig-
nificant fraction of cash incomes (Cavendish 2000; de Merode,
Homewood, and Cowlishaw 2004). De Merode, Homewood, and
Cowlishaw found that, in Congo, 90 percent of bush meat and fish caught,
as well as 25 percent of harvested wild plants, were sold in urban
markets. On the whole, the contribution to poor incomes from environ-
mental goods can approach the levels of income from cash crop pro-
duction, unskilled labor wages, and small businesses and crafts
(Cavendish 2000).
Many factors come into play in determining how much households rely
on environmental goods. Proximity to accessible resources is important
(Heltberg, Arndt, and Sekhar 2000; Pattanayak and Sills 2001; Takasaki,
Barham, and Coomes 2004). Households that receive remittance incomes
(Eriksen, Brown, and Kelly 2005; Cavendish 2000) or have children living
away from the village (Pattanayak and Sills 2001) tend to devote less time
to collecting natural resource goods. In their research on Malawi, Fisher
and Shively (2005) noted that younger and male-headed households relied
more heavily on environmental resources. Cavendish saw similar findings
for households headed by divorced and widowed men in Zimbabwe. He
hypothesized that male-headed households relied more heavily on
environmental goods for cash income in order to hire women for female-
specialized tasks. Heltberg, Arndt, and Sekhar (2000) noted that lower
caste villagers in India spent more time on firewood collection and con-
sumed more firewood than higher caste households. Cavendish (2000,
368
p. 1990) concludes: "Lower income households clearly depend proportion-

ately more on the consumption of wild foods than do higher income
households, evidence perhaps that these households are unable to allocate
as high a share of cash income to purchased foods as better-off
households."
Natural resource goods often have limited substitutes, further complicat-
ing the adjustment of households to potential reductions in the availability
of these goods in the wake of climate change. Analyzing eight developing
countries, Heltberg (2004) found that higher incomes are associated with
greater adoption of modern fuels, but that households in many countries
preferred to use multiple fuel sources including biomass. He also found that
households in Ghana and Nepal showed very little tendency to switch away
from biomass energy in the wake of relative price changes.
To summarize, the link between natural resources and poverty is complex
and highly contingent on local endowments and cultural norms. Climate
change is expected to alter the goods and services that natural resources can
provide in developing countries, which will disproportionately affect con-
sumption, production, and asset accumulation of the rural poor.
Dynamics of Adaptation
With the framework in place connecting the impacts of climate change
to agricultural production and then to poverty, we return to the question
of adaptation. As previously discussed, the impact of climate change on
poverty depends critically on the time frame over which it occurs.
Households are better able to adapt to gradual changes; short run climate
shocks do not allow sufficient time for adaptation, generally speaking.
Adaptation is an inherently dynamic process and occurs in the context
of other endogenous dynamic processes including population growth,
migration, technological change, economic growth, and structural trans-
formation. Adaptation can take place at different decision-making scales
(household, organization, national) and at different geographical scales
(Risbey et al. 1999). It can be shaped by environmental factors such as
proximity to town/ market, proximity to year-round water sources, and
adequate precipitation for agriculture and livestock (Ziervogel, Bharwani,
and Downing 2006, p. 295). Adaptation decisions are also shaped by the
policy environment in which decision-makers operate, i.e. social safety
nets, trade policies, market price support and stockholding, land tenure
and water rights, and the ability of stakeholders to participate in political
processes (Adger et al. 2007; Kelly and Adger 2000; Smit et al. 2001; Smit
and Wandel 2006). The net result of these complicating factors makes it
challenging to observe adaptation empirically and to forecast the potential
for such adaptation to mitigate adverse impacts from future climate
change. However, the historical record of adaptation to climate events can
give us some bounds on expectations.
Several recent and comprehensive surveys of the adaptation literature
exist, including the second working group's contribution to the IPCC
report Climate Change 2007 (Adger et al. 2007), Smit and Wandel's (2006)
review of adaptation and vulnerability, Adger' s (2003) synthesis of the lit-
erature on social capital and adaption, Agrawal's (2008) report on insti-
tutional adaptation, and the work by Raleigh, Jordan, and Salehyan (2008)
369
on migration and conflict induced by climate change. For this article, we

focus solely on climate change adaptation strategies which bear on agricul-
ture and natural resources, examining their potential impacts on rural
household wealth and economic growth. This allows us to tease out the
factors that constrain these adaptation strategies and the potential for
policy to address these constraints.
Climate risk and on-fartn decision-making
Climate risks are an important determinant of fluctuations in farm

household income. Dercon (2006) found that drought was the predominant
source of serious shocks leading to loss of assets, income, and consumption
for rural households in Ethiopia. Sampled households which experienced
drought in the last two years showed an average consumption reduction of
16 percent relative to households which did not experience drought; house-
holds which experienced a drought two years before that still showed a 14
percent consumption reduction; and the overall poverty headcount in the
sample would have been one-third lower in the absence of drought. Even
modest climate events can have sharp effects on rural incomes. A delay in
the onset of the monsoons in rural villages in India by just one standard
deviation can reduce agricultural profits for the poorest households by
more than one-third (Rosenzweig and Binswanger 1993).
It takes farm households ten years, on average, to rebuild livestock hold-
ings in the wake of drought (Dercon 2006). Given this slow response, it is
important whether the adverse climate shock occurs only once every 30
years - thereby allowing time for recovery - or whether it is repeated in
two (or more) successive years. This is a particular concern in light of the
evidence cited above of the likelihood of increased frequency and intensity
of extreme climate events in the future. Successive droughts can have a
devastating impact on low income households from which it will be hard
to recover - even in the long run.
Farm households adopt a variety of risk minimization techniques - such
as planting a variety of cultivars, planting multiple crops, or staggering
planting dates - in order to diversify against climate risks. However, these
strategies can result in reduced long run expected profits. Farmers in
Andhra Pradesh who plant a mix of crops that hedge climate risks saw
reduced variability of agricultural revenue but also saw lower average
incomes (Gine, Townsend, and Vickery 2007). In a study of resettled
households in Zimbabwe, Elbers, Gunning, and Kinsey (2007) found that
households that face both idiosyncratic (household-specific) risks as well
as covariate (region-wide) risk from erratic annual rainfall saw a 46
percent reduction in long run expected capital stock. In this particular
case, which is somewhat peculiar due to various restrictions placed on the
households in the resettlement scheme, they found that the expectations of
such shocks (ex ante risk) was more damaging than the climate shocks (ex
post risk), accounting for two-thirds of the risk-induced reduction in asset
accumulation. In other words, it is not the adverse shocks themselves, but
rather the expectation of these extreme events which curtailed growth and
the accumulation of assets (measured in livestock units).
The choice strategy pursued by rural households to minimize climate
risk depends on household wealth (Gine, Townsend, and Vickery 2008;
Lybbert et al. 2004; Rosenzweig and Binswanger 1993; Ziervogel, Bharwani,
370
and Downing 2006). In a case study of South African farmers, Ziervogel,

Bharwani, and Downing found that wealthier households made planting
decisions that were less diversified for climate risks than poor ones in order
better to target market demand and maximize profits: "Better-off entrepre-
neurial farmers tend to block plant their whole plot with a single market
crop, thereby producing a good income in a good year or potentially sig-
nificant losses in a bad year." The different climate risk strategies pursued
by wealthier households can result in profoundly different average profit
outcomes. Rosenzweig and Binswanger found that increasing the coeffi-
cient of variation of rainfall by one standard deviation reduced estimated
farm profits for the poorest wealth quartile by 35 percent, while the richest
quartile was virtually unaffected by more uncertain rainfall.
A similar division exists for wealthy and poor cattle herders in Ethiopia.
Lybbert et al. (2004) found a threshold level of cattle ownership above
which pastoralists can engage in more "opportunistic, spatially flexible
herding" strategies and realize lower herd mortality rates. Households
below this threshold have less flexibility given adverse climate shocks and
draw more intensively on the remaining herd for nutrition, thereby boost-
ing herd mortality rates and resulting in smaller equilibrium herd sizes.
Poorer pastoralists with smaller herds must supplant their food supplies
with purchased, harvested, or donated food, constraining their ability to
migrate to better grazing lands. Their ability to maintain depleted herds is
further eroded by policy efforts to establish clear land tenure and push for
permanent settlement of these pastoralists, undermining the traditional
resiliency of herding against climate variability.
Impact of policy for on-farm decision-making
Because sensitivity to climate risks decreases with increasing wealth,

policies to reduce the effective level of climate risk, such as investing in
more accurate climate forecasts and/ or providing insurance to allow for
smoothing of consumption and investment, should be particularly ben-
eficial for poor farmers. Empirical studies, however, offer conflicting
assessments of the potential for either policy to impact on the decision-
making process of the poor.
Gine, Townsend, and Vickery (2007) found that farmers in India with
fewer risk-coping mechanisms invested more effort in acquiring accurate
weather prediction information. This was because:
farmers who believe the monsoon will start later are also more likely to plant later.
Likewise, they are less likely to replant, have purchased a lower share of total pro-
duction inputs before the onset of the monsoon and are more likely to buy weather
insurance, since according to their beliefs, the probability of a payout is higher. All of
these findings provide strong evidence that individuals make decisions according to
their prior expectations, even when controlling for self-reported proxies of risk aver-
sion, discount rates and the actual start of the monsoon, (p. 5)
Other studies, however, have concluded that farmers give relatively little
weight to climate forecasts when making planting decisions due to poor
spatial and temporal resolution, and lack of trust for the institution
issuing the forecast. In a case study of 200 farmers in Argentina, Letson
et al. (2001) found that farmers rely on price expectations (33 percent),
crop rotation patterns (22 percent), and climate projections (16 percent) in
making planting decisions. Older farmers relied less on climate
371
projections, but experience of farming during the 1997-98 El Niño event

shifted farmers toward a greater confidence in climate projections. This
suggests that farmers may increase their demand for accurate climate fore-
casts as climate change renders their traditional information sources and
experience less reliable.
Herders in southern Ethiopia and northern Kenya also made little use of
modern forecasts, even when they had confidence in the forecast, because
of the inherent flexibility of herding and an abundance of grazing lands
(Luseno et al. 2003). Those herders who did rely on forecasts preferred to
use traditional methods, e.g. animal intestines, clouds, birds, etc., over
modern forecasts. Herders had confidence in these methods because they
were spatially detailed, transmitted in local languages by trusted local
experts, and focused on the onset of the rains rather than total precipitation.
Increasing the usefulness of modern climate forecasts depends on
"developing focused knowledge about which forecast information is
potentially useful for which recipients, about how these recipients process
the information, and about the characteristics of effective- information
delivery systems and messages for meeting the needs of particular types
of recipients" (Stern and Easterling 1999, p. 94). The majority of herders
studied by Luseno et al. had no access to modern forecasts transmitted
through radio and newspapers. This suggests an opportunity for an exten-
sion of services from agricultural ministries, NGOs, or donor agencies to
work with local farmer groups to develop and deliver effective forecasts
targeted at the poorest groups.
Insurance is the canonical solution for managing risks such as changing
climate conditions. Yet poor people rarely include insurance as one of
their strategies for diversifying risks. This lack of insurance can be par-
tially explained by undeveloped insurance markets in many rural areas.
Even when insurance markets exist, however, the poor do not always
choose to purchase insurance (Kiviat 2009).
Dercon found that, due to the covariate nature of shocks from droughts,
households were unable to insure against them using traditional risk
sharing mechanisms such as local credit, asset markets, transfers from
local households, and networks. Unlike idiosyncratic shocks, such as
illness or accidental death, which can be insured through informal net-
works of families in the community or through the sale of livestock,
droughts affect the entire community and depress the prices for livestock,
as all families are pressed to maintain consumption levels.
Improving insurance against climate risks, in addition to helping house-
holds smooth consumption after climate shocks, also has the potential to
increase child schooling and thereby their lifetime expected earnings
(Jacoby and Skoufias 1997). In a study of 10 villages in India, unanticipated
income shocks affected child school attendance; idiosyncratic risk had the
smallest impact on school attendance in those villages with the most con-
sistent rainfall and most developed financial markets. When incomes
declined, and local financial markets were incomplete, families withdrew
children from school in order to add to household labor income or partici-
pate in home production. Credit market constraints between villages
affected schooling decisions for both large and small households, although
only smallholders tended to be inadequately insured on an exante basis.
One method of increasing insurance coverage for the poor is to provide
public weather index insurance (also referred to as parametric insurance).
372
Index insurance pays out when certain trigger events occur, such as rain-
fall levels measured by local rain gauges fail to meet an established
threshold. Weather insurance is often provided as a public good because
the risks from weather events are highly correlated across households.
Further, publicly provided insurance has low transactions costs, can be
more transparent than private insurance, has low administrative burdens,
can provide rapid payouts, and minimizes asymmetric information pro-
blems (Gine, Townsend, and Vickery 2008). Pilot programs are currently
underway in Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Guatemala to intro-
duce index insurance into existing insurance markets (Arce 2008).
Few studies exist yet of the adoption of index insurance by poor
farmers. In one such study, farmers in Andhra Pradesh who devoted a
large share of their cultivation to castor and groundnuts - both highly
profitable and highly sensitive to drought- were more likely to purchase
rainfall insurance from a microfinance institution (Gine, Townsend, and
Vickery 2008). Wealthier households were also more likely to purchase
weather insurance as credit constraints were a significant barrier for the
poor. Reputation of the microfinance institution played a large role in
household decisions to purchase insurance; insurance purchases increased
with household familiarity with the microfinance institution and with
increasing participation from other members of the household's social
networks.
Gine, Townsend, and Vickery (2008) offer criteria for a well-designed

index insurance mechanism. Firstly, it should be transparent and verifiable
to policyholders. It should be based on a measure which can be deter-
mined cheaply and quickly, whose calculation is not vulnerable to tamper-
ing or manipulation, and whose ex-post measures are highly correlated
with household incomes and consumption risks. Index insurance also
requires an underlying probability distribution which can be estimated
with some accuracy. Such distributions, however, are likely to be highly
sensitive to climate change. Finally, they note the importance of offering
credit for the poorest households seeking such insurance, as the timing of
the premium payments can present a real obstacle to the purchase of
insurance by the poor.
Although there is not yet enough evidence to draw definitive policy pre-
scriptions, the potential exists for index-based insurance to compensate for
covariate climate shocks. This may give impetus for poor farmers to adopt
less diversified but more profitable crop choices, provided the insurance
payments are administered by a trusted, credible party. However, shifting
the agricultural sector toward less climate risk diversification increases the
national burden on public and private insurers. Even with the wealth,
capacity, and developed insurance markets in the United States, private
insurers have been less able to cope with extreme weather risks and gov-
ernment programs have reduced their coverage levels (Mills 2005). Thus
the net poverty benefits of establishing index-based insurance in any
developing country must be carefully weighed against potential future
public liabilities.
In addition to index insurance and more effective climate forecasting,
policies which improve development in general - investing in human
capital and infrastructure, facilitating seasonal and permanent migration -
also have potential to support the rural poor in adapting to climate
change. Investment in water storage and irrigation is particularly import
373
for rural incomes. Changes in the pattern and timing of precipitation under
future climate scenarios have the potential to disrupt seriously water avail-
ability around the world (Molle and Mollinga 2003). Case studies in Asia
and the Middle East have shown that farmers react to water scarcity by
challenging the water allocation environment, including tampering with
infrastructure, colluding with water officials, organizing protests, and lobby-
ing political connections (Molle et al. 2009). Water scarcity can be countered
by a range of policy options, from low capital techniques, such as promot-
ing strategic fallowing and shifting planting calendars in order to capitalize
on residual soil moisture, to high capital techniques aimed at augmenting
water supplies. Institutional changes have also been observed to improve
conservation efficiency and equity of water allocation, including setting up
rotation irrigation, creating water user associations to negotiate during
times of water scarcity, collective pumping operations, and policies to
improve river-basin management (Molle et al. 2009). Given the wide
range of costs and technological capacity required for the various policy
alternatives, dialogues between stakeholders may be helpful in identifying
the combination of policies with the most potential at the local level to
address water scarcity for the rural poor.
Adaptation and economic growth
Over longer time periods, the cumulative impact of climate change and
associated adaptation can alter the path of economic growth and poverty.
Thurlow, Zhu, and Diao (2008) estimate that the impact of climate variabil-
ity on crop yields over the past three decades has reduced the rate of GDP
growth in Zambia by 0.4 percentage points per year. This translates into a
US$4.3 billion loss over a 10-year period, and is estimated to keep an
additional 300,000 individuals below the poverty line by 2016. "While
most of these people live in rural areas, climate variability also greatly
increases urban poverty due to higher food prices and lower real urban
incomes . . . Indeed, the national poverty rate may rise by as much as eight
percentage points in particularly severe drought years" (Thurlow, Zhu,
and Diao 2008, pp. 48-9).
Three case studies of historical adaptation to climate and population
stresses described by Kates (2000) offer a pessimistic view of the potential
for the interplay of adaptation and economic growth. Although adap-
tations to nearly 30 years of drought conditions in the Sahel have led to
many positive policy innovations such as improved early warning net-
works, better coordinated and funded food aid programs, increased crisis
planning and reaction capabilities by local governments, and improved
transportation and marketing services for agriculture, they have not trans-
lated into economic growth or reduced poverty levels. "Thus, over time,
there is an improving capability to respond to drought as an extreme
event, to prevent famine, and to save lives. There is little success however
in adjusting livelihood systems to the persistent drought and the stress
placed on the ecological systems supporting agriculture and pastoralism"
(Kates 2000, p. 10).
Several historical case studies discussed by Fraser (2007) offer a pessi-
mistic view of adaptation to climate change. He examined adaptation
during the Irish potato famine, El Niño-induced droughts in the
Philippines and Indonesia in the 1870s, and the Ethiopian famines of the
374
20th century. All three instances were characterized by high rural popu-
lation densities, specialized crop production (as opposed to a diversity of
crop species), and a few non-farm income-generating alternatives. These
three factors, combined with institutional responses, tended to exacerbate
the crises.
The second case study also highlights the perverse consequences of trade
(both international and intra-national) during a crisis: "when the droughts
struck, instead of allowing food to be imported, rail and telegraph networks
meant that locals were competing with much wealthier consumers from
elsewhere" (Fraser 2007, p. 8). The latter finding contrasts sharply with the
results of Donaldson (2008) who estimates the impact of railroad access on
the volatility of local food prices and real incomes in 19th-century India. He
finds that, when railroads were extended to new rural districts in India, real
agricultural incomes in that district rose by 18 percent, while commodity
price volatility and real income volatility were reduced.
What overarching conclusions can we draw from this body of empirical
research on adaptation and rural poverty? Farm households' strategic
decisions are influenced by many factors including risk aversion, wealth
levels, climate variability, and the surrounding policy and institutional
environment. They may make use of adaptation strategies such as insur-
ance, migration, technological change, investment in human capital, and
reliance on natural resources, depending on how these strategies are sup-
ported by institutions and policy environments. In many areas today,
farmers prefer to rely on traditional knowledge and methods of forecast-
ing climate for their planting decisions, although this may not persist as
climate signals become noisier. As noted by Quiggin and Horowitz:
Another way of looking at this is that the information held by economic actors about
the climate becomes more diffuse, and hence less valuable in the presence of a new
source of uncertainty. Thus climate change may be regarded as destroying infor-
mation. This information may in some cases be represented by formal probability
distributions over temperature and rainfall derived from historical records. More fre-
quently, it is the informal knowledge of particular local climates that is acquired by
attentive individuals over a long period. (2003, p. 444)
Access to credit, assets, social networks, and safety nets all shape the
decision environment, and the opportunity to migrate (if only seasonally)
provides a crucial coping mechanism when local capacity is overwhelmed
by disasters. Yet "the same resource - whether cattle, land, or education -
will not be equally important for adaptation in all contexts" (Eakin 2005,
p. 1934). Policy choices which can improve livelihoods today - such as
improving insurance markets, investing in relevant climate forecasting
capabilities, establishing water management institutions, and facilitating
migration- also have the potential to aid farmers in adapting to climate
change but may not raise the general population above a new subsistence
equilibrium. Lastly, the poverty impacts of climate events can be severe
and may persist for generations.
Climate Change Mitigation and Poverty

Thus far we have focused our attention on the poverty impacts of
climate change, potential adaptation strategies which the poor may adopt,
and the ways in which the policy environment shapes the adaptation
375
process. However, as the global community focuses increased attention on

climate change mitigation, the potential for such mitigation efforts to have
an impact on poverty increases. We argue here that the poverty conse-
quences of policies to mitigate climate change could potentially rival in
importance the poverty impacts of the climate change itself.
Forestry and agriculture account for roughly one-third of global GHG
emissions (IPCC, figure 2.1) thus offering tremendous potential to contrib-
ute to climate change mitigation programs. Furthermore, at a carbon price
of $100 per ton CO2 equivalent, the combined mitigation potential of agri-
culture and forestry is greater than that of any other individual sector in
the economy (WDR, p. 25). Golub et al. (2009) estimate that, in the next
two decades, these sectors could account for as much global abatement as
would be attained from reduced fossil fuel consumption based on a global
carbon tax of $28 per ton CO2 equivalent.
Much of this low cost abatement is due to avoided deforestation in the
tropics. This has focused considerable international attention on programs
for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). Indeed,
a handful of wealthy nations committed a $3.5 billion down payment for
REDD- with much more to follow- at the recent climate summit in
Copenhagen (The Economist, December 17, 2009). As it happens, much defor-
estation occurs in areas with relatively high poverty rates- namely at the
frontier in developing countries. This opens the possibility of significant
interactions between climate change mitigation efforts and poverty.
There are two channels through which mitigation policies can affect
poverty. The first of these is through payments for environmental services.
When the poor are involved in efforts to sequester carbon, the payments
to these households may directly serve to alleviate poverty. One such
project is currently underway in the 1.2 million acre Juma Sustainable
Development Reserve of the Brazilian Amazon. In this Reserve, carbon
offset funds from wealthy countries have been made available and are
used to pay local households to protect the forest. Each family gets about
$28 per month placed on a debit card, provided regular inspections show
that deforestation is not progressing. Additional offset funds are used to
support investments in schools, hospitals, and local infrastructure (The
Economist, September 24, 2009). While such projects appear to have great
appeal, only time will tell if they are up to the task of preventing defores-
tation of the Amazon in the face of very significant outside economic
pressures, and if they can be scaled up fast enough to match the global
mitigation agenda.
REDD is a relatively new initiative. The Kyoto Protocol, which has gov-
erned international mitigation since its signing in 1997, did not target
avoided deforestation. Instead, it offered incentives for reforestation in
developing countries under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).
Gong, Bull, and Baylis (2010) offer a comprehensive review of the success
of the very first CDM project undertaken in the Guangxi Province of China.
It bundled 4,000 hectares of degraded lands, assembled from 27 separate
villages in order to attain the scale economies necessary to attract investors.
Local households were assigned shares in this project and three local forest
products companies were involved in the enterprise. Indeed, sales of
timber and pine resin were expected to generate more revenue overall than
the carbon credits. The credits amounted to an estimated $4.5 per ton CO2
equivalent and were provided by the World Bank BioCarbon Fund.
376
Gong, Bull, and Baylis (2010) find some evidence of success in this
project. Of the targeted area 55 percent has been reforested and payments
have been flowing to the local households. They find that even in the
absence of clearly defined property rights in this region, strong social
capital was able to facilitate success. However, they predict that the refor-
estation will not go much beyond this level due to (a) the high costs of
reforestation on the more remote, highly degraded land, and (b) insuffi-
cient contract flexibility to differentiate effort by land type and location.
The authors do not explicitly address the poverty impacts of the project,
but clearly the pooling approach offers an important opportunity for
small scale, low income households to participate, with potentially favor-
able impacts on poverty rates.
Pagiola, Arcenas, and Platais (2005) focus on the poverty impacts of
payments for environmental services (PES) in Latin America - of which
carbon offsets are one example. They conclude: "PES programs are not a
magic bullet for poverty reduction, but there can be important synergies
when program design is well thought out and local conditions are favor-
able" (p. 248). Because such payments are tied to land, their distributional
impacts are inherently tied to the distribution of land ownership in the
target region. Since rural land ownership is highly correlated with income,
this immediately biases the programs toward the wealthier households.
Also, transactions costs for the program (e.g. contracting costs, manage-
ment plans) are largely independent of farm size and therefore most
onerous for small farms. These fixed costs also create an incentive for
those administering the program to work with larger entities - a classic
adverse selection problem that reduces the poverty-reduction potential of
PES. Pooling land - as in the case of the Guangxi CDM project discussed
above - or for working with local collectives raises the net payoffs for all
participants, including poor households.
In the frontier areas where deforestation is most active, land tenure is
often insecure. When coupled with credit constraints, this makes it very
difficult for low income households to participate in such programs. On
the other hand, by minimizing transactions costs, front-loading payments,
and working to ensure title to the land, it is possible to increase the par-
ticipation of the poor in such programs. Yet in the end, Pagiola, Arcenas,
and Platais offer some sobering evidence on the potential for PES to
reduce poverty. They point out that even those -programs which are explicitly
designed to reduce poverty in developing countries have limited success.
Citing Coady, Grosh, and Hoddinott (2004), they note that the median tar-
geting rate for poverty reduction programs across a large sample of
countries is only 1.33 (i.e. the median program transfers only 33 percent
more income to the bottom decline than would a uniform transfer
program to all households in the economy). Any program with the
primary objective of reducing carbon emissions cannot hope to do much
better than this, and will likely do worse.
The second channel by which mitigation policies impact poverty is
through indirect impacts on commodity and factor markets (in much the
same way as the climate change impacts discussed above). This potential
for indirect effects is illustrated by the contribution of biofuels programs -
motivated themselves in part by GHG mitigation objectives - to the recent
run-up of world food prices. Mitchell (2008, p. 17) attributes as much as
three-quarters of the rise in food commodity prices over the 2002-08
377
period to biofuels and the related consequences of low grain stocks, specu-
lative activity, and export bans. Others suggest that the contribution of
biofuels to this price spike was much more modest. However, any
program which contributes to the majority of global growth in cereals
demand, as did the U.S. ethanol program over the 2005/6-2007/8 period,
must be viewed as a significant development (Westhoff 2010, pp. 14 -15).
The poverty impacts of higher commodity prices induced by mitigation
efforts are unclear for the same reasons identified earlier - namely higher
prices have the potential to benefit rural agricultural households where
many of the world's poor reside. In an attempt to resolve this ambiguity,
Hertel and Taheripour (2009) analyze the impact of combined EU and U.S.
biofuel mandates on world markets and on poverty in a sample of 18
developing countries. Their results show that these policies consistently
reduce poverty headcount rates for agriculture specialized households,
while boosting them for both wage labor and non-agricultural, self-
employed households. National poverty headcount changes depend on
the composition of poverty; Asian countries show poverty reductions due
to the predominance of rural poverty in those sample countries; while
poverty rises in most of the Latin American countries is due to the urban
concentration of poverty on that continent. Impacts on countries in Africa
were limited due to their modest integration in world markets. De Hoyos
and Medvedev (2009) estimate the impact of the growth in biofuel pro-
duction from 2004-10 and find that it boosts the global poverty headcount
by about 30 million people - mostly in South Asia.
The recent push for biofuels has, to date, been heavily concentrated in
the United States and the EU, which has limited the global price impacts.
However, a major, global initiative to reduce GHG emissions from agricul-
ture and forestry- with much of the spending in the tropics - could have
even more significant commodity price impacts in agriculture. The reason
is that most of the abatement strategies serve to increase the global demand
for land. Carbon forest sequestration is most obvious in this regard, but pol-
icies to reduce nitrogen fertilizer applications (an important source of
nitrous oxide emissions), to sequester agricultural soil carbon, and to
reduce methane emissions from paddy rice production and/ or livestock all
have the potential to require more land for a given amount of agricultural
output. This in turn can have important impacts on commodity prices. For
example, Golub et al. estimate that a global agricultural carbon tax/forest
sequestration subsidy of $28 per ton CO2 equivalent could boost world
average prices by 31 percent for rice, 28 percent for ruminants, and 11-13
percent for other crops. In the context of the proposed U.S. climate change
legislation (the so-called Waxman-Markey bill), McCarl (2009) estimates
that mitigation efforts could result in the diversion of nearly 50 million
acres from cropland to forest cover in the United States, causing corn prices
to be twice as high as they would otherwise be in 2050.
In summary, the linkages between climate change, agriculture, and
poverty are not merely restricted to climate change impacts affecting agri-
culture and hence poverty. Many of the policies aimed at mitigating
climate change have the potential to affect the poor, either directly
through payments for environmental services rendered by low income
households, or indirectly through commodity and factor markets. And, as
shown here, there is potential for these effects to be quite significant; they
should not be overlooked.
378
Synthesis and Policy Implications

A great deal has been written about climate change in the past two
decades. Poverty has also received increased attention, especially in the
context of the Millennium Development Goals. However, the link between
climate change and poverty has been far less thoroughly examined.
Understanding this link is vital for the formulation of intelligent, effective
policy responses to climate change. In this article, we have focused on
agriculture as the primary means by which the impacts of climate change
are transmitted to the poor, and as a sector at the forefront of climate
change mitigation efforts in developing countries. In so doing, we have
been able to offer some important insights that may help shape future pol-
icies as well as ongoing research in this area.
A first point is the key role of potential earnings effects precipitated by
market responses to climate change. To date, most studies have focused
solely on food availability and prices, yet higher food prices in the wake
of adverse climate change can also translate into higher incomes for pro-
ducers. In some regions, this could lead to poverty reductions, particularly
in those areas (i) which are less severely affected by climate change, (ii)
where poverty is concentrated in rural, agricultural areas, and (iii) where
adverse climate shocks boost the demand for unskilled labor (e.g. through
the need to replant fields). A further complication arises due to the preva-
lence of non-priced goods in the consumption and earnings bundles of
poor households. Adverse climate impacts on publicly accessible forests
and wildlife resources could have a significant adverse impact on the poor
who rely on them for firewood, food, and other consumption items. In
short, the poverty consequences of climate change are much more
nuanced than has been suggested in most discussions to date. It is not
simply a question of how food price impacts on low income consumers.
With the proliferation of studies assessing the likely agricultural pro-
ductivity impacts of climate change, policymakers are in desperate need
of guidance regarding the comparability and reliability of such reports.
We have evaluated the three main approaches to assessing these impacts
and conclude that each has its own limitations and should not be used
in isolation. Decision makers must press those doing crop simulation
analysis for more regional and national scale validation of their work,
while the statistical studies (including the Ricardian) analyses need to be
carefully evaluated for robustness. In general, too little attention has
been paid to the potential for climate variables exceeding key thresholds
which might give rise to sharp drops in the productivity for some crop-
ping activities.
While the effects of adverse climate shocks on the poor have received
relatively more attention in the literature, it is entirely possible that the
poverty impacts of attempts to mitigate climate change could have a much
greater effect on the poor in some developing countries. Here, preliminary
evidence suggests that both the direct effects of payments to sequester
carbon, as well as the indirect effects of mitigation activities on wages and
food prices, could have important poverty impacts. Of course, realizing
potential poverty benefits of mitigation programs depends on both the
extent that agriculture and forestry offer low cost mitigation opportunities
and the extent to which governments are able to mobilize effectively
resources to slow the rate of GHG emissions.
379
Because there has only been modest progress to date for mitigation
efforts, policymakers should also consider ways to support the poor in
adapting to climate change. As pointed out by Adger (2003, p. 388), adap-
tation is not a new phenomenon: "It is clear that individuals and societies
have adapted to climate change over the course of human history and will
continue to do so." We can learn a great deal from examining studies of
the poverty impacts of historical climate events, which highlight these
events as one of the most important reasons for households falling into or
remaining trapped in poverty in rural areas. Because these events hit the
entire population at once, traditional methods of risk sharing which work
well for idiosyncratic events are no longer adequate. As a consequence,
poor farming households are prone to modifying behavior in anticipation
of such shocks, and these ex ante behavioral changes can cost them quite
a bit in terms of future earnings.
Economists' traditional response to this problem is to offer weather
insurance, and we now have a number of valuable studies which look at
this potential solution. What is most surprising is the modest uptake of
such insurance. Poor households are often distrustful of such schemes.
They are also hard pressed to front the costs of even modest premiums,
and, when disaster hits, they cannot afford to wait for the resulting
payment. Much can be done to improve the value of weather insurance
schemes to low income households. However, these schemes also carry
with them the potential to increase aggregate risk by encouraging exces-
sive crop specialization.
In the end, policymakers concerned about the impact of climate change
on agriculture and poverty cannot wait for the academic community to
resolve all the uncertainty that presently exists. As noted at the outset of
this article, climate change is a "wicked problem," and wicked problems
do not have clear-cut solutions. There is little to be gained by waiting
another year or two before taking concrete steps to deal with this issue -
particularly in countries where extreme climate events are already impos-
ing severe burdens on the poor. Fortunately, many of the policies that are
good for economic development in general also offer effective strategies
for lessening the impact of climate change on the poor. Such strategies
include improvements in (i) governance of common-pool natural
resources, (ii) transportation and communication infrastructure as well as
international trade facilitation to lessen the price impacts of regional
climate shocks, (iii) irrigation and/ or improved water management to
deal with extreme precipitation events, (iv) credit and insurance markets,
(v) investment in adaptive agricultural research, (vi) human capital to
increase alternative employment opportunities of the poor, and (vii) facili-
tation of migration to allow poor households to take full advantage of
changes in the economic landscape. These measures all serve to promote
economic development while increasing the resilience of low income
households to adverse climate events.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the World Bank's Trust Fund for
Environmentally Sustainable Development. The authors thank Amer Ahmed,
Hans Binswanger, Noah Diffenbaugh, Rasmus Heltberg, Will Martin, Navin
380
Ramankutty, Pedram Rowhani, Ian Sheldon, Michael Toman, Carlos Arce, Hanan
Jacoby, Anne Kuriakose, Nick Perrin, Winston Yu, Wilhelm Janssen, and an
anonymous reviewer for valuable feedback and discussions on this topic.
Adams, R.M., B.H. Hurd, S. Lenhart, and N. Leary. 1998. Effects of Global Climate
Change on Agriculture: An Interpretative Review. Climate Research 11, no. 1:
19-30.
Adger, W.N. 2003. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate
Change. Economic Geography: 387-404.
Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O'Brien, J. Pulhin, R.
Pulwarty, and B. Smit, and K. Takahashi. 2007. Assessment of Adaptation
Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability, ed. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, C.E.
HansonP.J. van der Linden, 717-43, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Agrawal, A. 2008. The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change.
In Social Dimensions of Climate Change Workshop, March 5-6, 2008, Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Ahmed, S.A., N.S. Diffenbaugh, and T.W. Hertel. 2009. Climate Volatility Deepens
Poverty Vulnerability in Developing Countries. Environmental Research Letters 4,
no. 3: 034004.
Ainsworth, E.A., A.D.B Leakey, D.R. Ort, and S.P. Long. 2008. FACE-ing the Facts:
Inconsistencies and Interdependence among Field, Chamber and Modeling
Studies of Elevated CO2 Impacts on Crop Yield and Food Supply. New
Phvtolovist 179, no. 1: 5-9.
Arce, C. 2008. The Weather Insurance Market and its Role in the Natural Catastrophic
Agenda in Latin America. Washington, DC: World Bank Commodity Risk
Management Group, August.
Banerjee, L. 2007. Effect of Flood on Agricultural Wages in Bangladesh: An
Empirical Analysis. World Development 35, no. 11: 1989-2009.
Barnett, J. 2001. Security and Climate Change. Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research.
Batie, S.S. 2008. Greatest Contributions to Our Profession by Agricultural and
Resource Economists. In 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida:
Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
Battisti, D., and R.L. Naylor. 2009. Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity
with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat. Science 323, no. 5911: 240.
Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical Regularities in the Poverty -environment
Relationship of Rural Households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development
28, no. 11: 1979-2003.
Christiaensen, L., L. Demery, and J. Kühl. 2006. The Role of Agriculture in Poverty
Reduction: An Empirical Perspective. World Bank Policy Research Working
Pape 4013 (September):! -49.
Coady, D., M. Grosh, and J. Hoddinott. 2004. Targeting Outcomes Redux. The
World Bank Research Observer 19, no. 1: 61.
Darwin, R. 1999. The Impact of Global Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian
Analysis: Comment. The American Economic Review 89, no. 4 (September):
1049-52.
De Hoyos, R.E., and D. Medvedev. 2009. Poverty Effects Of Higher Food Prices.
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4887: 1-34.
Dercon, S. 2006. Vulnerability: A Micro Perspective. In Annual World Bank
Conference on Development Economics Europe: Securing Development in an Unstable
World (Bourguignon, Pleskovic, and van der Gaag, eds). Amsterdam: World Bank.
381
Deryng, D., W.J. Sacks, and N. Ramankutty. 2009. Simulating the Effects of
Climate and Agricultural Management Practices on Global Crop Yield. Working
paper. Montreal, Canada: McGill University
Donaldson, D. 2008. Railroads of the Raj: Estimating the Impact of Transportation
Infrastructure. Working paper. London, UK: London School of Economics.
Duraiappah, A.K. 1998. Poverty and Environmental Degradation: A Review and
Analysis of the Nexus. World Development 26, no. 12: 2169-79.
Eakin, H. 2005. Institutional Change, Climate Risk, and Rural Vulnerability: Cases
from Central Mexico. World Development 33, no. 11: 1923-38.
Easterling, D.R., G.A. Meehl, C. Parmesan, S.A. Changnon, T.R. Karl, and L.O.
Mearns. 2000. Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts. Science
289, no. 5487: 2068-74.
Elbers, C, J.W. Gunning, and B. Kinsey. 2007. Growth and Risk: Methodology and
Micro Evidence. The World Bank Economic Review, 21, 1-20.
Eriksen, S.H., K. Brown, and P.M. Kelly. 2005. The Dynamics of Vulnerability:
Locating Coping Strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Geographical Journal 171,
no. 4: 287-305.
Fischer, G. 2009. World Food and Agriculture to 2030/50: How Do Climate
Change and Bioenergy Alter the Long-term Outlook for Food, Agriculture and
Resource Availability? In Session 2: The Resource Base to 2050: Will There Be
Enough Land, Water and Genetic Potential to Meet Future Food and Biofuel Demands?
Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, June 24.
Fischer, G., M. Shah, and H. van Velthuizen. 2002. Climate Change and Agricultural
Vulnerability. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis.
Fisher, M., and G. Shively. 2005. Can Income Programs Reduce Tropical Forest
Pressure? Income Shocks and Forest Use in Malawi. World Development 33, no. 7:
1115-28.
Fraser, E.D.G. 2007. Travelling in Antique Lands: Using Past Famines to Develop
an Adaptability/ Resilience Framework to Identify Food Systems Vulnerable to
Climate Change. Climatic Change 83, no. 4: 495-514.
Gine, X., R.M. Townsend, and J. Vickery. 2007. Rational Expectations? Evidence
from Planting Decisions in Semi-arid India. Working Paper, The World Bank
(DECRG), University of Chicago and Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Gine, X., R. Townsend, and J. Vickery. 2008. Patterns of Rainfall Insurance
Participation in Rural India. The World Bank Economic Review 22, no. 3: 539.
Golub, A., T. Hertel, H.L. Lee, S. Rose, and B. Sohngen. 2009. The Opportunity
Cost of Land Use and the Global Potential for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in
Agriculture and Forestry. Resource and Energy Economics 31, no. 4: 299-319.
Gong, Y., G. Bull, and K. Baylis. 2010. Participation in the World's l^irst Clean
Development Mechanism Forest Project: The Role of Property Rights, Social
Capital, and Contractual Rules. Ecological Economics, 69, no. 6: 1292-1302.
Heltberg, R. 2001. Determinants and Impact of Local Institutions for Common
Resource Management. Environment and Development Economics 6, no. 2: 183-208.
Economics 26, no. 5: 869-87.

Heltberg, R., T.C. Arndt, and N.U. Sekhar. 2000. Fu
Forest Degradation: A Household Model for Domest
Rural India. Land Economics 76, no. 2: 213-32.
Heltberg, R., S.L. Jorgensen, and P.B. Siegel. 2008
Vulnerability, and Social Risk Management. Social Dim
Washington, DC: World Bank Social Development Dep
Hertel, T.W., and F. Taheripour. 2009. Poverty Impact
sented at the Thirteenth Annual Conference on G
Santiago, Chile, https:// www.gtap.agecon.purdue.
2009/default.asp.
382
Hertel, T.W., M.B. Burke, and D.B. Lobell. 2009. The Poverty Implications of
Climate-induced Crop Yield Changes by 2030. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue
University.
IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland:
IPCC.
Ivanic, M, and W. Martin. 2008. Implications of Higher Global Food Prices for
Poverty in Low-income Countries. Agricultural Economics 39, no. 1: 405-16.
Jacoby, H.G., and E. Skoufias. 1997. Risk, Financial Markets, and Human Capital
in a Developing Country. The Review of Economic Studies 64, no. 3: 311-35.
Kates, R.W. 2000. Cautionary Tales: Adaptation and the Global Poor. Climatic
Chance 45, no. 1:5-17.
Kelly, P.M., and W.N. Adger. 2000. Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability
to Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation. Climatic Change 47, no. 4:
325-52.
Kevan, P.G. 1999. Pollinators as Bioindicators of the State of the Environment:
Species, Activity and Diversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74, no. 1:
373-93.
Kiviat, B. 2009. Whv the World's Poor Refuse Insurance. Time. September 21.
Letson, D., I. Llovet, G. Podestà, F. Royce, V. Brescia, D. Lema, and G. Parellada.
2001. User Perspectives of Climate Forecasts: Crop Producers in Pergamino,
Argentina. Climate Research 19, no. 1: 57-67.
Lobell, D.B., and C.B. Field. 2007. Global Scale Climate -crop Yield Relationships
and the Impacts of Recent Warming. Environmental Research Letters 2: 014002.
Lobell, D.B., M.B. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M.D. Mastrandrea, W.P. Falcon, and R.L.
Naylor. 2008. Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security
in 2030. Science 319, no. 5863: 607.
Long, S.P., E.A. Ainsworth, A.D.B. Leakey, J. Nosberger, and D.R. Ort. 2006. Food
for Thought: Lower-than-expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2
Concentrations. Science 312, no. 5782: 1918-21.
Luseno, W.K., J.G. McPeak, C.B. Barrett, P.D. Little, and G. Gebru. 2003. Assessing
the Value of Climate Forecast Information for Pastoralists: Evidence from
Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya. World Development 31, no. 9: 1477-94.
Lybbert, T.J., C.B. Barrett, S. Desta, and D.L. Coppock. 2004. Stochastic Wealth
Dynamics and Risk Management among a Poor Population. Economic Journal
114, no. 498:750-77.
McCarl, B.A. 2009. Carbon Cap and Trade: What Will it Do to Agriculture and
Forestry? Presented at the Farm Foundation Forum on Research Perspectives on
Carbon and Climate Issues, November 10, Washington, DC.
McCarl, B.A., X. Villavicencio, and X. Wu. 2008. Climate Change and Future
Analysis: Is Stationarity Dying? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90, no.
5:1241-7.
McCarty, J.P. 2001. Review: Ecological Consequences of Recent Climate Change.

Conservation Biology 15, no. 2: 320-31.
Mendelsohn, R. 2009. The Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture in Developing
Countries. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 1, no. 1: 5-19.
Mendelsohn, R., and W.D. Nordhaus. 1999. The Impact of Global Warming on
Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: Reply. The American Economic Review 89, no.
4: 1046-8.
Mendelsohn, R., W.D. Nordhaus, and D. Shaw. 1994. The Impact of Global
Warming on Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis. The American Economic Review
84, no. 4: 753-71.
Mendelsohn, R., A. Basist, A. Dinar, P. Kurukulasuriya, and C. Williams. 2007.
What Explains Agricultural Performance: Climate Normals or Climate Variance?
Climatic Change 81, no. 1: 85-99.
383
de Merode, E., K. Homewood, and G. Cowlishaw. 2004. The Value of Bushmeat

and Other Wild Foods to Rural Households Living in Extreme Poverty in the
Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological conservation 118, no. 5: 573-81.
Mills, E. 2005. Insurance in a Climate of Change. Science 309, no. 5737: 1040.
Mitchell, D. 2008. A Note on Rising Food Prices. Washington, DC: World
Bank Development Prospects Group, http:// papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1233058.
Molle, F., and P. Mollinga. 2003. Water Poverty Indicators: Conceptual Problems
and Policy Issues. Water Policy 5, no. 5: 529-44.
Molle, F., J.-P. Venot, M. Lannerstad, and J. Hoogesteger. 2009. Villains or Heroes?
Farmers' Adjustments to Water Scarcity. Irrigation and Drainage:
Morton, J.F. 2007. The Impact of Climate Change on Smallholder and Subsistence
Agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, no. 50:
19680-19685.
Nelson, G.C., M.W. Rosegrant, J. Koo, R. Robertson, T. Sulser, T. Zhu, and C.

Ringler, et al. 2009. Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation.
Food Policy Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute, September.
Pagiola, S., A. Arcenas, and G. Platais. 2005. Can Payments for Environmental
Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to
Date from Latin America. World Development 33, no. 2: 237-53.
Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J. Palutikof, P. Van Der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds).
2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pattanayak, S.K., and E.O. Sills. 2001. Do Tropical Forests Provide Natural
Insurance? The Microeconomics of Non-timber Forest Product Collection in the
Brazilian Amazon. Land Economics 77, no. 4: 595.
Quiggin, J., and J.K. Horowitz. 1999. The Impact of Global Warming on
Agriculture: A Ricardian Analysis: Comment. The American Economic Review 89,
no. 4: 1044-5.
Agricultural and Resource Economics 47, no. 4: 429-46.

Raleigh, C, L. Jordan, and I. Salehyan. 2008. Assessing
Change on Migration and Conflict. Social Dimensions of Cli
March 5-6, 2008, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ravallion, M. 1990. Rural Welfare Effects of Food Price Changes Under Induced
Wage Responses: Theory and Evidence for Bangladesh. Oxford Economic Papers
42: 574-85.
Reuveny, R. 2007. Climate Change-induced Migration and Violent Conflict.

Political Geography 26, no. 6: 656-73.
Kisbey, J., M. Kandlikar, H. Dowlatabadi, and u. i^raetz. vjw. scale, context, ana
Decision Making in Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4, no. 2: 137-65.
Rosenzweig, M.K., and H.K binswanger. IWô. wealth, weatner kisk ana me
Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments. The Economic Journal,
103, no. 416:56-78.
Rowhani, P., and N. Ramankutty. 2009. Crop Modeling. Paper presented at the
Workshop on Climate Change, Agricultural Variability and Poverty
Vulnerability, October. Washington, DC: The World Bank. http://go.worldbank.
org/HHBFKLDG40.
Schlenker, W. 2009. Modeling Approaches: Hedonic Analysis vs. Time Series Panel
Studies. Paper presented at the Workshop on Climate Change, Agricultural
Variability and Poverty Vulnerability, October. Washington, DC: The World
Bank. http://go.worldbank.org/HHBFKLDG40.
384
Schlenker, W., and D.B. Lobell. 2010. Robust Negative Impacts of Climate Change
on African Agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 5, no.l: 014010.
Schlenker, W., and M.J. Roberts. 2006. Nonlinear Effects of Weather on Corn
Yields. Review of Agricultural Economics 28, no. 3: 391-8.
Schlenker, W., W.M. Hanemann, and A.C. Fisher. 2005. Will U.S. Agriculture
Really Benefit from Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic
Approach. The American Economic Review 95, no. 1: 395-406.
Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability.
Global Environmental Change 16, no. 3: 282-92.
Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, B. Challenger, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein, and G. Yohe,
et al. 2001. Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development
and Equity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, P.C., and W.E. Easterling. 1999. Making Climate Forecasts Matter. Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
Sunderlin, W.D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, P. Burgers, R. Nasi, L. Santoso, and S.
Wunder. 2005. Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing Countries:
An Overview. World Development 33, no. 9: 1383-402.
Takasaki, Y., B.L. Barham, and O. T. Coomes. 2004. Risk Coping Strategies in
Tropical Forests: Floods, Illnesses, and Resource Extraction. Environment and
Development Economics 9, no. 2: 203-24.
Thurlow, J., T. Zhu, and X. Diao. 2008. The Impact of Climate Variability and
Change on Economic Growth and Poverty in Zambia. IFPRI Discussion Paper
890, Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Toman, M. 2006. Values in the Economics of Climate Change. Environmental Values
15: 365-379.
Tubiello, F.N., and C. Rosenzweig. 2008. Developing Climate Change Impact

Metrics for Agriculture. The Integrated Assessment Journal 8, no. 1: 165-184.
Walther, G.R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T.J.C. Beebee, J.M.
Fromentin, and O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological Responses
to Recent Climate Change. Nature 416, no. 6879: 389-95.
WDR (World Development Report). 2010. World Development Report 2010:
Development and Climate Change. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Westhoff, P. 2010. The Economics of Food: How Feeding and Fueling the Planet Affects
Food Prices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Press.
White, M.A., N.S. Diffenbaugh, G.V. Jones, J.S. Pal, and F. Giorgi. 2006. Extreme
Heat Reduces and Shifts United States Premium Wine Production in the 21st
Century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, no. 30: 11217-11222.
Ziervogel, G., S. Bharwani, and T.E. Downing. 2006. Adapting to Climate
Variability: Pumpkins, People and Policy. Natural Resources Forum 30: 294-305.
385

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, Oxford University Press Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationvbnm,.

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, Oxford University Press Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, Oxford University Press Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural & Applied Economics Association

Climate Change, Agriculture, and Poverty

Climate Change, Agriculture, and Poverty

Thomas W. Hertel, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural

Submitted January 2009; accepted June 2010.

JEL codes: Q24, Q27, Q54, Q56, O13, O15.

Climate change is a "wicked problem." We use this terminology in the

households. We draw on prior research examining the impacts of historical

Climate Change: What is the Evidence?

Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change

Crop growth simulation models

The predominant tool for assessing the impacts of climate change on

approach remains fundamentally a highly calibrated, field-based approach

An alternative to the crop simulation approach is to estimate statistical

higher variances in climate conditions tend to lead to lower average crop

All the yield based studies of agricultural response to climate change

Table 1 Alternative methods for assessing agricultural impacts of climate change

Crop growth Statistical Ricardian

Data requirements Intensive Modest Medium

Source: Adapted from Rowhani and Ramankutty (2009).

failing to account for potential adjustments in th

temperature affects the choice of cropping vs livestock. Higher tempera-

implementation. This type of problem is likely to be most pronounced in

Linking Climate Change, Agriculture, and Poverty

To date, most of the discussion about poverty impacts of adverse

abstracting from second-order effects stemming from price-induced

Impacts on farm household earnings

In the absence of commodity price changes, adverse impacts on pro-

for farm households to benefit from adverse climate developments if the

Factor markets and the impacts on nonfarm households

households, and rising amongst those households earning their living in

Impacts on non-priced goods

technologies. To illustrate, increased erosion from deforestation may

p. 1990) concludes: "Lower income households clearly depend proportion-

on migration and conflict induced by climate change. For this article, we

Climate risk and on-fartn decision-making

Climate risks are an important determinant of fluctuations in farm

and Downing 2006). In a case study of South African farmers, Ziervogel,

Impact of policy for on-farm decision-making

Because sensitivity to climate risks decreases with increasing wealth,

projections, but experience of farming during the 1997-98 El Niño event

Gine, Townsend, and Vickery (2008) offer criteria for a well-designed

Adaptation and economic growth

Climate Change Mitigation and Poverty

process. However, as the global community focuses increased attention on

Synthesis and Policy Implications

Economics 26, no. 5: 869-87.

McCarty, J.P. 2001. Review: Ecological Consequences of Recent Climate Change.

de Merode, E., K. Homewood, and G. Cowlishaw. 2004. The Value of Bushmeat

Nelson, G.C., M.W. Rosegrant, J. Koo, R. Robertson, T. Sulser, T. Zhu, and C.

Agricultural and Resource Economics 47, no. 4: 429-46.

Reuveny, R. 2007. Climate Change-induced Migration and Violent Conflict.

Tubiello, F.N., and C. Rosenzweig. 2008. Developing Climate Change Impact

You might also like