10 cip rome cip

CIP progress report

Athanasios PetsakosGuy Hareau

International Potato Center (CIP)

25-28 May 2015Rome, Italy

Global Futures & Strategic Foresight extended team meeting

Training

• IMPACT training (January – Moscow)• Gridded crop modeling training (April – ICRISAT)• DSSAT training (May – University of Georgia, Griffin)

Activities since the last meeting

• Use of IMPACT for the assessment of new technologies:– Comparison with RTB priority setting exercise

• IPR review for (sweet-) potatoes – Analyze past growth rates and estimate future ones– Focus on South Asia (focus changed after the latest discussions…)

• Introducing biotic stresses in IMPACT – Still exploring…

IMPACT3 FOR PRIORITY ASSESSMENTAlternative model uses

Priority assessment at CIP

Some background:In 2014, CIP conducted a priority assessment study for RTB on potato (and sweetpotato) technologies:Hareau, G., Kleinwechter, U., Pradel, W., Suarez, V., Okello, J., Vikraman, S. (2014). Strategic Assessment of Research Priorities for Potato. CGIAR Research program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB). RTB Working Paper 2014-8. Lima, Peru. Available online at: www.rtb.cgiar.org• Strong interest from the RTB independent evaluation team on how the results of ex-ante priority setting work are used to define the RTB research portfolio.• Final publication of RTB priority setting working papers will acknowledge cross-CRP collaboration (PIM, CCAFS).

IMPACT for priority assessment

Questions asked:• What changes are needed to IMPACT if we want to use it for priority assessment?• What changes are needed to IMPACT and CIP’s surplus model to create a common framework for comparison?• How do IMPACT results compare with those from the surplus model?

Comparison challenges

• IMPACT FPUs do not correspond to the FPUs of the surplus model• Yield shifters can be defined only for 5-year periods

– Solution 1: Use Ricky’s modeling system (DSSAT)**– Solution 2: Rewrite the code– Solution 3: Who needs year-specific shifters anyway…?

• Dissemination costs not modeled in IMPACT– Solution 1: Rewrite the code – Solution 2: Export results and perform analysis outside of IMPACT

Comparison challenges

• IMPACT FPUs do not correspond to the FPUs of the surplus model• Yield shifters can be defined only for 5-year periods

– Solution 1: Use Ricky’s modeling system (DSSAT)**– Solution 2: Rewrite the code– Solution 3: Who needs year-specific shifters anyway…?

• Dissemination costs not modeled in IMPACT– Solution 1: Rewrite the code – Solution 2: Export results and perform analysis outside of IMPACT

Comparison challenges

• IMPACT FPUs do not correspond to the FPUs of the surplus model• Yield shifters can be defined only for 5-year periods

– Solution 1: Use Ricky’s modeling system (DSSAT)**– Solution 2: Rewrite the code– Solution 3: Who needs year-specific shifters anyway…?

• Dissemination costs not modeled in IMPACT– Solution 1: Rewrite the code – Solution 2: Export results and perform analysis outside of IMPACT

IPR VALIDATION AND CALIBRATIONThe example of China

The basics…

Rationale:• IMPACT base year is 2005 but we are in 2015…• Before projecting to 2050, we must establish a valid initial point !!!Question :Is adjusting yield growth rates sufficient?

China: Potato yields

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201412.513.013.514.014.515.015.516.016.517.017.5

Reference (FAO)Years

Yields (t/h

a)

China: Potato yields

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201412.513.013.514.014.515.015.516.016.517.017.5

Reference (FAO)Years

Yields (t/h

a)

China: Potato yields

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201412.513.013.514.014.515.015.516.016.517.017.5

IMPACT3 DefaultYears

Yields (t/h

a)

China: Potato yields

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201412.513.013.514.014.515.015.516.016.517.017.5

Reference (FAO) IMPACT3 DefaultYears

Yields (t/h

a)

China: Total production

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014525660646872768084889296

Reference (FAO) IMPACT3 DefaultYears

Productio

n (Mt)

China: Potato harvested area

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014400042004400460048005000520054005600

Reference (FAO) IMPACT3 DefaultYears

Harvested

Area (.00

0 ha)

BIOTIC CROP STRESS IN IMPACTA preliminary skirmish

Thoughts on pests and diseases modeling

• Discussed in Florida (Feb2014)• CIP’s pest modeling team focuses on the tomato leaf miner Tuta absoluta• Discussions to understand what is being modeled and what outputs are available:

– We need to understand what “technologies” are available– Who is the end user of the technologies– How much does it cost– How all this translates in yield shifts

Next steps and discussion

• Must work with the IMPACT team to “standardize” a calibration procedure– Exogenous land growth rates important

• Scheduled:– Complete the activities described

• Not in workplan but interesting…: – Conduct regional impact assessments to obtain better adoption thresholds for some countries (also discussed in ReMIP/AgMIP)

Literature on potato IPRs1. Scott, G. J., Rosegrant, M. W., & Ringler, C. (2000). Global projections for root and tuber crops to the year 2020. Food Policy, 25(5), 561–597.2. Scott, G. J. & Suarez, V. (2011). Growth rates for potato in India and their implications for industry. Potato Journal, 38(2), 100–112.3. Scott, G. J. (2011). Growth Rates for Potatoes in Latin America in Comparative Perspective: 1961-07. American Journal of Potato Research, 88, 143–152.4. Scott, G. J. & Suarez, V. (2012a). Limits to Growth or Growth to the Limits? Trends and Projections for Potatoes in China and Their Implications for Industry. Potato Research, 55, 135–156.5. Scott, G. J. & Suarez, V. (2012b). The Rise of Asia as the Center of Global Potato Production and Some Implications for Industry. Potato Journal, 39(1), 1–22.6. Scott, G. J., Labarta, R., & Suarez, V. (2013). Booms, Busts, and Emerging Markets for Potatoes in East and Central Africa1961-2010. Potato Research, 56, 205–236.7. Article from Ulrich and G. Scott on LAC… Under revision

THANK YOU