IRLAEM WORKING PAPER SERIES

A Global Perspective of the Nexus between Climate Change and

Agriculture

Achille Dargaud Fofack

Derick Asu Enow

Working Paper 19/02

August 2019

Achille Dargaud Fofack Derick Asu Enow

Department of Business Administration Department of Plant Production

Cyprus International University Cyprus International University

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

adfofack.irlaem@gmail.com daenow.irlaem@gmail.com

1
 A Global Perspective of the Nexus between Climate Change and
Agriculture
Achille Dargaud Fofack Derick Asu Enow

Abstract

Understanding the complex and dynamic nexus between climate change and
agriculture has become crucial for our civilization. Thus, this paper aims at estimating the
impact of those two concepts on one another using world data spanning from 1980 to 2018.
On the one hand, the results show that the rising sea level inherent to climate change has a
positive and significant impact on arable land and a negative and significant impact on
livestock production. It is also found that rising sea level and global temperature constitute
significant obstacles to crop production while a surge in greenhouse gas emissions
significantly boosts it. On the other hand, the paper reveals that livestock production
significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions while agricultural activities –crop
production, livestock production and arable land– are found to have a negative and significant
impact on global temperature. Finally, agriculture being a cause and a victim of climate
change, some adaptation (shift in farming timing, intercropping) and mitigation (carbon
sequestration, organic farming) strategies are recommended.

Keywords: Climate change, agriculture, global warming, greenhouse gas, adaptation,

mitigation

2
1. Introduction

The Earth is warmer than it should be due to a natural greenhouse effect taking place
within its atmosphere [1]. Over time, the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) –like carbon
dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4)– resulting from human activity have
reinforced that greenhouse effect and triggered a global dynamic environmental threat known
as climate change. The scientific literature abounds with robust evidence proving the
existence of human-induced climate change [2]. In line with that literature, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [3] estimates that on average, human
activities have led to an increase in global temperature equivalent to 1.0oC above pre-
industrial levels. Furthermore, the panel argues that global warming could reach 1.5oC
between 2030 and 2052 if GHG emissions keep on increasing at the current pace.

Climate change and agriculture are intrinsically connected because agricultural

activities are contingent on climatic conditions [4, 5]. Thus, number of studies [2, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10] argue and/or prove that by altering temperature, precipitation, sea level and the volume of
CO2 in the atmosphere among others, climate change negatively affects agricultural activities.
Changes in precipitation patterns for instance, have substantial repercussions on water
resources, irrigation mechanisms, droughts, insect outbreaks and forest fires. Meanwhile,
changes in atmospheric CO2 affect the expansion of the flora through its impact on
photosynthesis.

As highlighted in the literature [6, 7, 8], the effects of climate change on agriculture
are not uniform across regions. Indeed, it is argued that upsurges in temperature slightly
improve yields in mid to high latitudes and depress them in tropical and sub-tropical regions.
Thus, in sub-Saharan Africa, South-East Asia and Latin America, climate change increases
the exposure and vulnerability of farmers to environmental disasters. For instance, it is
projected that by 2080, Africa will host up to 75% of the world population exposed to food
insecurity; while, a country like Guinea-Bissau is expected to lose almost a third (32.7%) of
its agricultural production. Overall, it is estimated that the developing world needs some
additional $7 billion worth of annual investment in rural infrastructure, research, and
irrigation to offset the adverse effects of climate change on living conditions.

The nexus between climate change and agriculture becomes even more complex when
taking into consideration the feedback effect of agriculture on climate change. Indeed,

3
agriculture substantially contributes to climate change as enteric fermentation, forest
conversion, rice cultivation, agrochemicals, livestock, and manure management are associated
with GHG emissions, water, air and soil pollution [4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Rosegrant et al. [6]
reveal that agriculture accounted for 13% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2000
while the OECD [10] estimates that agriculture directly accounted for 17% of those emissions
in 2015. Moreover, the OECD [10] reveals that agriculture was also indirectly responsible for
an additional 7 to 14% of global GHG emissions through land use changes.

It should be noted that agriculture mainly releases N2O and CH4 in the atmosphere and
that it accounts for more than half of the global emission of those non-CO2 gases [6]. The fact
that the global warming potential of those two gases is significantly higher than that of CO2
[10] highlights the feedback effect of agriculture on climate change. The ITC [15] estimates
the GHG emissions associated with some agricultural activities and reveals that the
production of a kg of beef is associated with more than 10000 g of CO2 equivalent emissions.
It is followed by pork, poultry and egg production (2000 - 3000 g of CO2 equivalents), milk
production (1000 of CO2 equivalents) and plant production (500 g of CO2 equivalents).

Understanding the complex and dynamic nexus between climate change and
agriculture has become crucial for our civilization. Thus, this paper aims at estimating the
impact of those two concepts on one another using world data spanning from 1980 to 2018.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: the methodology is presented in the next
section; the main findings are reported and discussed in section 3 and section 4 respectively;
and section 5 concludes the study with some recommendations.

2. Material and Methods

Global data related to climate change and agriculture were obtained from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the World Bank. The data set covers each
year from 1980 to 2018 and is composed of seven variables. As reported in table 1, arable
land, crop production index, and livestock production index account for agricultural activities
while total GHG emissions, land-ocean temperature index, global mean sea level, and sea ice
extent account for climate change.
The data are analyzed using the estimation method developed by [16]. This
generalized least squares method is suitable for the estimation of parameters in a linear
regression model in which errors are assumed to follow a first-order autoregressive process.

4
The model is transformed using the consistent estimates proposed by [17] and a search is
performed for the value of the autoregressive parameter minimizing the sum of squared errors
in the transformed model. Finally, robust standard errors are obtained using the approach
developed by [18].

Table 1. Description of variables

Variables Definition Source
Arable Arable land expressed as percentage of total land area World Bank
Agriculture

Crop Crop production index (2004-06 = 100) World Bank

Livestock Livestock production index (2004-06 = 100) World Bank

Ghg Total greenhouse gas emissions (in Kt of CO2 equivalent) World Bank
Climate Change

Temperature Land-ocean temperature index (1951-1980 base period) NASA

Sea Global mean sea level variations NASA
Ice Sea ice extent measures the area of ocean containing some NASA
sea ice (in millions of square Km)

Table 2 reports some descriptive statistics related to the data set while equation 1 and
equation 2 represent the models used to estimate the impact of climate change on agriculture
and the impact of agriculture on climate change respectively.

Table 2. Characteristics of the variables

Variables Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Arable 39 10.755 0.145 10.313 10.991
Crop 39 88.653 24.689 52.133 129.447
Livestock 39 88.563 23.131 53.845 127.035
Sea 39 -13.263 35.308 -69.509 51.890
Temperature 39 0.490 0.232 0.110 1.01
Ghg 39 4.30 x 107 7,280,291 3.24 x 107 5.48 x 107
Ice 39 6,107,627 1,141,376 3,404,543 7,862,303

5
Agriculturet = αt + β1t Ghg t + β2t Seat + β3t Temperaturet + β4t Icet + Trend𝑡 + εt (1)
Where Agriculture stands for arable land, crop production or livestock production; t
and Trend stand for time and time trend respectively; α and βi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) are parameters to
be estimated; and ε is the error term.
Climatet = γt + δ1t Arablet + δ2t 𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑝t + δ3t 𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘t + Trend𝑡 + μt (2)
Where Climate stands for total GHG emissions and land-ocean temperature index; γ
and δj (j = 1, 2, 3) are parameters to be estimated; and μ is the error term.
3. Results

Table 3. Unit root tests

ADF PP Ng-Perron
Variables I TI I TI I TI
Level
Ghg -0.163 -3.780** 0.901 -3.164 1.173 -12.032
Sea -3.959** -5.249** -6.849** -13.502** 1.025 -0.001
Ice -0.243 -5.007** -1.913 -5.004** -2.284 -18.480**
Temperature -1.560 -1.696 -1.856 -5.005** -0.690 -1.519
Land -3.117** -2.618 -3.117** -2.618 -0.284 -3.026
Crop -1.176 -2.993 -1.298 -3.128 -1.560 -13.069
Livestock -1.802 -0.415 -1.827 -0.415 -4.260 1.941

First difference
Ghg -5.908** -5.819** -10.788** -10.477** -17.695** -18.216**
Sea -13.386** -13.502** -14.233** -16.259** 0.402 0.036
Ice -6.643** -6.532** -16.077** -15.846** -0.733 -1.979
Temperature -6.636** -6.833** -11.294** -10.956** -27.723** -0.135
Land -5.190** -5.558** -5.316** -5.653** -17.567** -17.906**
Crop -7.847** -7.869** -8.200** -8.365** -18.175** -17.343**
Livestock -5.626** -6.150** -5.669** -6.152** -18.321** -18.301**
Notes: ** denotes significance at the 5 percent level; I stands for intercept and TI stands for
trend and intercept.
To avoid spurious regressions or misleading statistical evidence describing the
relationship between climate change and agriculture, the stationarity of the data is tested using

6
the augmented Dickey-Fuller, Phillips-Perron and Ng-Perron unit root tests. The outputs of
those tests reported in table 3 reveal that the data are all stationary at first difference. Thus,
equation 1 is estimated on the first difference of the data using Prais-Winsten regressions with
Cochrane-Orcutt consistent estimates, minimization of the sum of squared errors in the
transformed models and robust standard errors.

Table 4. Estimated impact of climate change on agriculture

Variables Arable Crop Livestock
Ghg 0.001 (0.021) 0.131 (0.068)* 0.033 (0.074)
Sea 0.031 (0.010)*** -0.060 (0.020)*** -0.038 (0.017)**
Ice -0.007 (0.005) 0.028 (0.021) -0.005 (0.016)
Temperature -0.001 (0.002) -0.049 (0.008)*** -0.018 (0.012)
Trend 0.001 (0.001) -0.001 (0.001) -0.001 (0.000)***
Constant -0.002 (0.002) 0.041 (0.009)*** 0.039 (0.006)***

Observations 37 37 37
R-squared 0.381 0.517 0.419
F-statistic 4.05** 7.40** 5.51**
Notes: * denotes significance at the 10 percent level; ** denotes significance at the 5 percent
level; *** denotes significance at the 1 percent level.
Table 4 reporting the estimated impact of climate change on agriculture reveals that
GHG emissions and sea level both have a positive impact on arable land. The impact of GHG
emissions is insignificant while that of sea level is significant. Furthermore, it is found that
land-ocean temperature and sea ice extent both have a negative and insignificant impact on
arable land.
Table 4 also shows that land-ocean temperature and sea level both have a negative and
significant impact on crop production while GHG emissions and sea ice extent both have a
positive impact on crop production. The impact of GHG emissions is found to be significant
while that of sea ice extent is insignificant. Besides, it is found that sea level, land-ocean
temperature and sea ice extent negatively affect livestock production; with the impact of sea
level being significant. Finally, it is found that GHG emissions have a positive and
insignificant impact on livestock production.

7
Table 5. Estimated impact of agriculture on climate change
Variables GHG Temperature
Crop -0.028 (0.212) -8.351 (1.834)***
Arable 0.495 (1.028) -16.555 (7.546)**
Livestock 0.548 (0.239)** -9.239 (3.534)**
Trend - -0.005 (0.003)
Constant - 0.574 (0.154)***

Observations 37 37
R-squared 0.140 0.458
F-statistic 3.61** 10.09**
Notes: * denotes significance at the 10 percent level; ** denotes significance at the 5 percent
level; *** denotes significance at the 1 percent level.
Table 5 reporting the estimated impact of agricultural activities on climate change
shows that arable land and crop production do not significantly affect global GHG emissions.
Contrarily, livestock production significantly contributes to global GHG emissions. The table
also reveals that livestock production, arable land and crop production significantly reduce
land-ocean temperature.

4. Discussions

The results reported in table 4 shows that sea level is the only climate change
parameter having a significant impact on arable land. It is found that an increase in sea level
induces an increase in arable land as higher sea level could irrigate more lands and make them
more conducive for agriculture.

It is also found that GHG emissions are positively and significantly associated with
crop production. Indeed, as argued by [7], the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is a
fundamental input for photosynthesis affecting the growth of crop plants. Thus, an increase in
GHG emissions leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere could well boost crop production. As
for sea level and temperature, they are found to be associated with a fall in crop production.
Indeed, the former could flood cultures while the latter could lead to droughts, forest fires,
insects and diseases outbreaks [7, 15]. Moreover, these findings are in line with [19] and [2]

8
who argue that climate change will lead to a fall in the yield of cereal and horticultural crops
respectively.

Focusing on livestock production, it is found that sea level is the only climate change
parameter exhibiting a significant impact. Indeed, a rising sea level is associated with a fall in
livestock production. This could be due to the fact that an increase in sea level could inundate
farms and create an environment suitable for insect and disease outbreaks. Everything being
equal, the proliferation of pathogens and parasites will negatively affect livestock production.

Paying attention to the impact of agriculture on climate change, table 5 reveals that
livestock production significantly increases GHG emissions. This finding is in line with the
abundant literature [6, 10, 13, 14, 15] highlighting the substantial contribution of livestock to
GHG emissions. The IPCC [11] even reveals that livestock is responsible for about a third of
global anthropogenic emissions of CH4.

Table 5 also reveals that crop production and arable land have a negative and
significant impact on temperature. This is in line with the well-known heat island effect
according to which a built up area is often significantly warmer than its surrounding rural
neighborhood because vegetation has a natural cooling effect [20]. Finally, it is found that
livestock production also has a negative and significant impact on temperature. This counter-
intuitive finding might be due to the fact that livestock production usually takes place in rural
area and is often associated with crop production for animal feed.

In sum, agriculture is both suffering from the consequences of climate change and
reinforcing climate change through GHG emissions. Thus, agriculture is both a part of the
problem and a credible solution to climate change. This inherent duality of agriculture gives
rise to two different policy responses to climate change, namely adaptation and mitigation. As
defined by the IPCC [11], adaptation recommends to adjusting ecological, social and
economic systems in order to take advantage of the positive effects of climate change on
agricultural activities and/or minimize the negative ones. As for mitigation, it consists to
reduce the impact of climate change by cutting down GHG emissions and/or by boosting
carbon sinks. These two policy approaches are those upon which are built the
recommendations formulated in this paper.

9
5. Policy recommendations

On the adaptation front, a wide range of on-farm measures could be implemented in

agriculture. For instance, farmers should choose crops and varieties that are suitable to the
shifts in growing season, temperature, and precipitation induced by climate change. They
should also adjust the timing of planting, treatment, and sowing operations to suit current
weather conditions. Finally, farmers should preserve landscapes providing shelter to animal,
improve the ventilation system of livestock shelters and invest in efficient irrigation, water
storage and recycling systems [5, 7, 9].

Dinesh [21] describes some successful on-farm adaptation strategies implemented

around the world. Among others, he talks about coffee-banana inter-cropping implemented in
Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. He reveals that this measure is effective in adapting to the
rising temperatures which negatively affect coffee production in those countries. Indeed,
compared to mono-cropping, it is found that the combination of those two crops can lead to a
50% increase in income.

In spite of the appealing nature of on-farm adaptation strategies, their effectiveness is

often limited by market failures, access to information, access to credit, and harmful
subsidies. Thus, public authorities are invited to incentivize those strategies through the
adoption of suitable policies.

On the mitigation front, the Paris Agreement reached in 2015 under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [22] dealing with GHG emissions,
mitigation, adaptation, and finance acknowledges the active role of agriculture in the
reduction of GHG emissions. Indeed, agriculture can help mitigate climate change through
carbon sequestration and on-farm GHG emissions reduction.

Carbon sequestration is a mitigation strategy that consists to boost and protect carbon
sinks [7]. Non-tillage agriculture is one method through which carbon sequestration can be
implemented. As revealed by [13], in the absence of tillage, soil carbon is not released and
agriculture helps reduce GHG emissions. Technically, in non-tillage agriculture, seeds are
often sowed into the residues of the previous crops and weeds are eliminated with herbicides.
This mitigation strategy has been implemented on a large scale (17 million hectares) in
Argentina but its environmental outcomes are dubious.

10
 As for on-farm GHG emissions reduction, organic farming appears to be the most
sustainable strategy. Indeed, as argued by [4] and [12], the global warming ability of organic
farming is substantially below that of conventional farming. The ITC [15] argues that organic
farming is a symbiosis of low external input, recycling mechanisms, and high output boosting
soil fertility and making soils less vulnerable to erosion. Thus, under weather conditions
characterized by high water stress, organic plants outperform conventional ones for each crop
area as well as for each harvested crop unit. Furthermore, it is found that by being self-
sufficient in nitrogen, organic farming releases less N2O in the atmosphere; and by focusing
on animal longevity, organic cattle husbandry is associated with less CH4 emissions.
However, as in the case of adaptation strategies, mitigation strategies and especially organic
farming have to be incentivized by public authorities.

6. References

[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate change: the IPCC scientific
assessment, report prepared for IPCC by Working Group 1, 1990

[2] P. Backlund, A. Janetos, D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde,

B. A. Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M. G. Ryan,
S. R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R.
Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, D. Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L.
Hansen, D. Inouye, B. P. Kelly, L. Meyerson, B. Peterson, R. Shaw, The effects of climate
change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States,
U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC., USA, 2008,
https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/SAP4_3/CCSPFinalReport.pdf (accessed June
2019)

[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Global warming of 1.5°C: an IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related
global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response
to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty,
summary for policymakers, 2018,
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf
(accessed June 2019)

11
[4] S. Ellis, The changing climate for food and agriculture: a literature review, Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2008

[5] European Commission, EU agriculture and climate change, 2015,

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/climate-change/factsheet_en.pdf
(accessed June 2019)

[6] M. W. Rosegrant, M. Ewing, G. Yohe, I. Burton, S. Huq, R. Valmonte-Santos, Climate

change and agriculture: threats and opportunities, Federal ministry of Economic Cooperation
and Development, 2008

[7] J. Keane, S. Page, A. Kergna, J. Kennan, Climate change and developing country
agriculture: an overview of expected impacts, adaptation and mitigation challenges, and
funding requirements, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, The
International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, 2 (2009)

[8] G. C. Nelson, M. W. Rosegrant, J. Koo, R. Robertson, T. Sulser, T. Zhu, C. Ringler, S.

Msangi, A. Palazzo, M. Batka, M. Magalhaes, R. Valmonte-Santos, M. Ewing, D. Lee,
Climate change: impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation, International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington D.C., 2009

[9] A. Ignaciuk, (2015-06-05), Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: A Role for Public
Policies, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 85 (2015), OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js08hwvfnr4-en

[10] OECD, Agriculture and climate change: towards sustainable, productive and climate-
friendly agricultural systems, OECD Meeting of Agriculture Ministers Background Note,
April 2016.

[11] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Chapter 8

Agriculture, 2007, https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter8.pdf
(accessed June 2019)

[12] J. Bellarby, B. Foeried, A. Hastings, P. Smith, Cool farming: climate impacts of

agriculture and mitigation potential, Greenpeace, 2008,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/cool-farming-full-report (accessed June
2019).

12
[13] H. Paul, S. Semino, A. Lorch, B. Hessellund, S. Gura, A. Ernsting, Agriculture and
climate change: Real problems, false solutions, preliminary version prepared for the Bonn
Climate Change Talks, June 2009, http://www.econexus.info/pdf/agriculture-climate-change-
june-2009.pdf (accessed June 2019)

[14] A. Wreford, D. Moran, N. Adger, Climate Change and Agriculture: Impacts, Adaptation
and Mitigation, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086876-en

[15] International Trade Center, Organic farming and climate change, Technical paper, 2008,
https://www.intracen.org/Organics/documents/Organic_Farming_and_Climate_Change.pdf
(accessed June 2019)

[16] S. J. Prais, C. B. Winsten, Trend estimators and serial correlation, Working paper 383,
Cowles Commission, 1954, http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/ccdp/st/s-0383.pdf (accessed June
2019)

[17] D. Cochrane, G. H. Orcutt, Application of Least Squares Regression to Relationships

Containing Auto-Correlated Error Terms, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44
(1949), pp. 32–61

[18] H. L. White, A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test

for heteroskedasticity, Econometrica 48 (1980), pp. 817–838

[19] G. Fischer, M. Shah, H. Velthuizen, Climate change and agricultural vulnerability, a

special report, prepared by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis under
United Nations Institutional Contract Agreement No. 1113 on “Climate Change and
Agricultural Vulnerability” as a contribution to the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, Johannesburg 2002

[20] Z. A. Rashid, S. A. Junid, S. K. Thani, Trees’ Cooling Effect on Surrounding Air

Temperature Monitoring System: Implementation and Observation, International Journal of
Simulation Systems, Science & Technology 15 (2014), pp. 70-77,
https://doi.org/10.5013/IJSSST.a.15.02.10

[21] D. Dinesh, Agricultural practices and technologies to enhance food security, resilience
and productivity in a sustainable manner, CCAFS Working Paper no. 146. Copenhagen,
Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
(CCAFS), 2016, http://hdl.handle.net/10568/71050 (accessed June 2019)
13
[22] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris Agreement, 2015,
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed June 2019).

14