Climate Change and Adaptation: The Case of Nigerian Agriculture

Abstract

The present research offers an economic assessment of climate change impacts on the four major crop families characterizing Nigerian agriculture. The evaluation is performed by shocking land productivity in a computable general equilibrium model tailored to replicate Nigerian economic development up to 2050. The detail of land uses in the model has been increased by differentiating land types per agro-ecological zones. Uncertainty about future climate is captured, using, as inputs, yield changes computed by a crop model under ten general circulation models runs. Climate change turns out to be negative for Nigeria in the medium term, with production losses and increase in crop prices, higher food dependency on foreign imports, and GDP losses in all the simulations after 2025. In a second part of the paper, a cost effectiveness analysis of adaptation in Nigerian agriculture is conducted. The adaptation practices considered are a mix of cheaper “soft measures” and more costly “hard” irrigation expansion. The main result is that the cost effectiveness of the whole package depends crucially on the possibility of implementing adaptation by exploiting low-cost opportunities which show a benefit-cost ratio larger than one in all the climate regimes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    For additional documentation about model description and application of ICES, the interested reader is also addressed to: http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=138&sez=Research&padre=18&sub=75&idsub=102.

  2. 2.

    The agricultural sectors considered in GTAP 7 database are paddy rice, wheat, cereal grains, vegetables and fruits, oil seeds, sugar cane, plant based fibres, and other crops.

  3. 3.

    Cassava and yam are the most important crops in terms of share of agricultural value added, building up in 2006 respectively the 16.3 and the 14.7% of it (Nwafor et al. 2010).

  4. 4.

    We assume neither an increase/reduction of harvested area due for example to a reduction/increase of pastureland or build-up land, nor an increase/reduction of the number of harvests per year.

  5. 5.

    Information on future irrigated land per crop and AEZ is not available. The study therefore assumes its uniform development.

  6. 6.

    The CMCC-MED global model is the reference GCM for the COSMO-CLM model (Scoccimarro et al. 2011).

  7. 7.

    Regional Climate Models are defined as limited-area models which are used to dynamically ‘downscale’, global model simulations for some particular geographical region to provide more detailed information, Flato et al. (2013)”.

  8. 8.

    The 10 GCMs considered are all reproducing the A1B scenario. This scenario is under A1 storyline, which describes a world characterised by high economic growth and regional convergence, but we assumed a balanced use of fossil and non-fossil energy sources proper of A1B scenario (Nakicenovic et al. 2000). We consider this storyline consistent economic scenario described in the “Nigeria Vision 20:2020” (FGN 2010): high GDP growth, decreasing VA share of agricultural sector, and increasing VA share of services.

  9. 9.

    In our analysis, we account only for the uncertainty due to the choice of the climate model. We are not considering the uncertainty due to emission scenarios, which is limited in the medium term according to the literature (Lionello 2012). Furthermore, the uncertainty related to the choice of the crop and the economic model is also disregarded.

  10. 10.

    Among the 10 GCM simulation considered, 9 comes from the Couple Models Intercomparison Project 3 (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php): CNRM_CM3, CSIRO_Mk3.5, GFDL_cm2.1, IAP_FGOALS, CCSR_MIROC3.2, MPI_ECHAM5, MRI_CGCM_2.3.2, NCAR_CCSM3, and UKMO_HadCM3. The last simulation is from the CMCC-MED global model (0.75 \(^{\circ }\) resolution).

  11. 11.

    Nonetheless, for completeness of information, production changes of these crops are also reported. But they depend upon changes in relative prices and are not directly imputable to climate-induced yield changes.

  12. 12.

    Note that the drop in production also affects the other two crop aggregates, “vegetables and fruits” and “other crops” which are not directly concerned by the yield decline. This is due to a general contraction of the Nigerian economy in the climate change scenario.

  13. 13.

    Bosello et al. (2007) noted that this procedure represents adaptation as a pure cost, neglecting the potential multiplicative effects of adaptation investment on the economy. They thus propose to trade off adaptation investment with consumption rather than with other investments. We will test this alternative formulation in a subsequent paper.

  14. 14.

    For further details about ICES model, please visit the website: http://www.icesmodel.feem.it/.

References

  1. Avetisyan M, Baldos U, Hertel T (2011) Development of the GTAP version 7 land use data base. GTAP Research Memorandum No. 19. Center for Global Trade Analysis. Purdue University

  2. Bationo A (ed) (2004) Managing nutrient cycle to sustain soil fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. Academic Science Publishers, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bationo A, Waswa B, Okeyo JM, Maina F, Kihara JM (eds) (2012) Innovations as key to the green revolution in Africa. Springer, Dordrecht

  4. Berritella M, Bigano A, Roson R, Tol RSJ (2006) A general equilibrium analysis of climate change impacts on tourism. Tour Manag 25:913–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bosello F, Zhang J (2005) Assessing climate change impacts: agriculture. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Note di Lavoro No. 94.2005

  6. Bosello F, Roson R, Tol RSJ (2006) Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: human health. Ecol Econ 58:579–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bosello F, Roson R, Tol RSJ (2007) Economy-wide estimates of the implications of climate change: sea level rise. Environ Resour Econ 37:549–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosello F, Eboli F, Parrado R, Nunes P, Ding H, Rosa R (2011) The economic assessment of changes in ecosystem services: and application of the CGE methodology. Econ Agrar Recur Nat 11(1):161–190

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bosello F, Nicholls RJ, Richards J, Roson R, Tol R (2012) Economic impacts of climate change in Europe: sea-level rise. Clim Change 112:63–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burniaux JM (2002) A prototype age modeling framework for assessing the sequestration potential from land use changes. Center for Global Trade Analysis Technical Paper, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  11. Burniaux JM, Lee HL (2003) Modelling land use changes in GTAP. In: Conference paper: sixth annual conference paper on global economic analysis, The Hague, The Netherlands

  12. Burniaux JM, Truong T (2002) GTAP-E: an energy-environmental version of the GTAP model. GTAP Technical Papers 923. Centre for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University

  13. Cervigni R, Valentini R, Santini M (2013) Toward climate-resilient development in nigeria. World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  14. Darwin R (2004) Effects of greenhouse gas emissions on world agriculture, food consumption, and economic welfare. Clim Change 66(1–2):191–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Darwin RF, Tol RSJ (2001) Estimates of the economic effects of sea level rise. Environ Resour Econ 19:113–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Darwin R, Tsigas M, Lewandrowski J, Raneses A (1995) World agriculture and climate change: economic adaptations. Agricultural Economic Report #703. USDA, Washington, DC

  17. Deke O, Hooss KG, Kasten C, Klepper G (1065) Springer K (2001) Economic impact of climate change: simulations with a regionalized climate-economy model. Kiel Institute of World Economics, No

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eboli F, Parrado R, Roson R (2010) Climate change feedback on economic growth: explorations with a dynamic general equilibrium model. Environ Dev Econ 15(5):515–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. FAO (2012) Low-carbon development in Nigeria’s agriculture sector. Background report, FAO, Rome, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  20. FAO and IIASA (2000) Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (UN), Rome, Italy, and International Institute for Applied Systems analysis (IIASA). Laxemburg, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  21. FGN (Federal Government of Nigeria) (2010) Nigeria Vision 20:2020: The First NV20: 2020 Medium-Term Implementation Plan (2010 -2013). Vol. 1. The Vision and Development Priorities, Lagos, Nigeria. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/14632_1stnipeditedversionvol1.pdf

  22. Fischer G, van Velthuizen H, Shah M, Nachtergaele FO (2002) Global agroecological assessment for agriculture in the 21st century: methodology and results. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Research report RR-02-02, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria

  23. Flato G, Marotzke J, Abiodun B, Braconnot P, Chou SC, Collins W, Cox P, Driouech F, Emori S, Eyring V, Forest C, Gleckler P, Guilyardi E, Jakob C, Kattsov V, Reason C, Rummukainen M (2013) Evaluation of climate models. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Golub AA, Hertel T, Lee HL, Rose S, Sohngen B (2009) The opportunity cost of land use and the global potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture and forestry. Resour Energy Econ 31(4):299–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Golub AA, Henderson BB, Hertel TW, Gerber PJ, Rose SK, Sohngen B (2012) Global climate policy impacts on livestock, land use, livelihoods, and food security. PNAS 2012; published ahead of print September 27, 2012. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108772109

  26. Hanoch G (1975) Production and demand models with direct or indirect implicit additivity. Econom 43:395–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hertel TW (1997) Global trade analysis: modelling and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hertel T, Tsigas M, Narayanan B (2008) GTAP 7 Data base documentation - Chapter 12.A: Primary Factor Shares. In: Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 7 Data Base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University

  29. Hertel T, Lee H, Rose S, Sohngen B (2009a) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. An integrated land use data base for CGE analysis of climate policy options. Routledge Press, Abingdon, pp 123–153

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hertel TW, Lee HL, Rose S, Sohngen B (2009b) Modeling land-use related greenhouse gas sources and sinks and their mitigation potential. In: Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, London

  31. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, pp 1–32

  32. JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) (1995) The study on the national water master plan. Sector Report, vol 2. Report prepared for the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and Rural Development, Abuja, Nigeria

  33. Kamiri WMH, Pypers P, Vanlauwe B (2011) Residual effects of applied phosphorus fertilizers on maize grain yield and phosphorus recovery from a long-term trial in Western Kenya. In: Bationo A, Waswa B, Okeyo JM, Maina F, Kihara J (eds) Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa, vol 1. Springer, New York, pp 717–727

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kane S, Reilly J, Tobey J (1991) Climate change: economic implications for world agriculture. U.S, Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  35. Keeney R, Hertel TW (2005) GTAP-AGR: a framework for assessing the implications of multilateral changes in agricultural policies. GTAP Technical Paper 24, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

  36. Lee H (2003) The GTAP Non-CO2 emissions data base. Purdue University, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lee H, Hertel TW, Rose S, Avetisyan M (2009) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. An integrated land use data base for CGE analysis of climate policy options. Routledge Press, Abingdon, pp 72–88

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lionello P (2012) Program focuses on climate of the mediterranean region. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 93(10):105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mereu V, Spano D (2011) Climate change impacts on crop production. Climate Risk Analysis over Nigeria, Report for the WB tender

    Google Scholar 

  40. Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, Hertel TW (2009) Global agricultural land use data for climate change analysis. An integrated land use data base for CGE analysis of climate policy options. Routledge Press, Abingdon, pp 33–49

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mutiro K, Murwira HK (2004) The profitability of manure use on maize in the smallholder sector of Zimbabwe. Managing nutrient cycles to sustain soil fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. Afnet-CIAT, Nairobi, Kenya, pp 571–582

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S et al (2000) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 599

    Google Scholar 

  43. Narayanan GB, Walmsley TL (eds) (2008) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 7 data base, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University. http://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/databases/v7/v7_doco.asp

  44. Nwafor M, Diao X, Alpuerto V (2010) A 2006 social accounting matrix for Nigeria: methodology and results. IFPRI, Nigeria Strategy Support Program (NSSP), Report No. NSSP007

  45. Olesen JE, Carter TR, Diaz-Ambrona CH, Fronzek S, Heidmann T, Hickler T, Holt T, Minguez MI, Morales F, Palutikof J, Quemada M, Ruiz-Ramos M, Rubik G, Sau F, Smith B, Sykes M (2007) Uncertainties in projected impacts of climate change on european agriculture and terrestrial ecosystems based on scenarios from regional climate models. Clim Change 81:123–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Palatnik RR, Roson R (2009) Climatic change assessment and agriculture in general equilibrium models: alternative modelling strategies. FEEM Working paper 67.2009

  47. Palatnik RR, Kan I, Rapaport-Rom M, Ghermandi A, Eboli F, Shechter M (2011) Integration of general and partial equilibrium agricultural land-use transformation for the analysis of climate change in the mediterranean. Clim Change Econ 2(4):275–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Parry M (2009) Closing the loop between mitigation, impacts and adaptation. Clim Change 96:23–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ponce D, Bosello F, Giupponi C (2012) Integrating water resources into computable general equilibrium models–a survey. FEEM Note di Lavoro 2012:057

    Google Scholar 

  50. Reilly J, Hohmann N (1993) Climate change and agriculture: the role of international trade. Am Econ Rev 83:306–312

    Google Scholar 

  51. Reilly J, Paltsev S, Felzer B, Wang X, Kicklighter D, Melillo J, Prinn R, Sarofim M, Sokolov A, Wang C (2007) Global economic effects of changes in crops, pasture, and forests due to changing climate, carbon dioxide, and ozone. Energy Policy 35(11):5370–5383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rockel B, Will A, Hense A (2008) The regional climate model COSMO-CLM (CCLM). Meteorol Z 17(4):347–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ronneberger K, Berrittella M, Bosello F, Tol R (2008) KLUM@GTAP: spatially-explicit, biophysical land use in a computable general equilibrium model. GTAP Working Papers 2611, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University

  54. Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A (1994) Implications of climate change for international agriculture. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Crop Modeling Study, U.S

    Google Scholar 

  55. Scoccimarro E, Gualdi S, Bellucci A, Sanna A, Fogli PG, Manzini E, Vichi M, Oddo P, Navarra A (2011) Effects of tropical cyclones on ocean heat transport in a high resolution coupled general circulation model. J Clim 24:4368–4384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Thurlow J, Zhu T, Diao X (2009) The impact of climate variability and change on economic growth and poverty in Zambia. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00890

  57. Tsigas ME, Frisvold GB, Kuhn B (ed) (1997) Global climate change in agriculture’ in global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Thomas W. Hertel, editor, Cambridge University Press

  58. UN, (2009) World population prospects: the 2008 revision. Long-Range Projections Supplement, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division

  59. van Meijl H, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A, Eickhout B (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol 114(1) (May 2006) pp 21–38. ISSN 0167–8809: doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.006

  60. You L, Ringler C, Nelson G, Wood-Sichra U, Robertson R, Wood S, Zhe G, Zhu T, Sun Y (2009) Torrents and trickles: irrigation spending needs in Africa. Background Paper 9. World Bank. Washington DC

  61. Zhai F, Lin T, Byambadorj E (2009) A general equilibrium analysis of the impact of climate change on agriculture in the People’s Republic of China. MPRA Paper No. 21127

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is an elaboration of the economic assessment part of the “Nigerian Climate Risk Analysis consulting report” prepared for the World Bank, whose financial support is gratefully acknowledged. The content of the present paper, however, does not necessarily represent the World Bank’s view. The authors would also like to thank Prof. Donatella Spano and Dr. Valentina Mereu (Sassari University and CMCC) for providing the DSSAT-CSM crop model results, and Prof. Riccardo Valentini and Dr. Monia Santini (Tuscia University and CMCC) for providing the data on the direct cost of soft and hard adaptation measures in Nigerian agriculture. The authors accept sole responsibility for any errors and omissions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorenza Campagnolo.

Additional information

This paper has not been submitted elsewhere in identical or similar form, nor will it be during the first three months after its submission to the Publisher.

Appendix

Appendix

The Core of ICES Model

The Intertemporal Computable Equilibrium System (ICES) modelFootnote 14 is multi-regional CGE model of the world economy, built upon the static GTAP-E model (Burniaux and Truong 2002), which in turn is an extension of the basic GTAP model (Hertel 1997). Industries are “typically” modelled through a representative cost-minimizing firm, taking input prices as given. In turn, output prices are given by average production costs. The production functions are specified via a series of nested CES functions. Peculiar to ICES is the “isolation” in the production tree of energy factors which are taken out from the set of intermediate inputs and are inserted as primary production factors in a nested level of substitution with capital. The following figure shows the production structure of the model.

Fig. 6
figure6

ICES nested production function

At the top of Fig. 6, production stems from the combination of intermediate inputs (QF) and a value added composite including all primary factors and energy (QVAEN). Perfect complementarity is assumed between value added and intermediates. This implies the adoption a Leontief production function. For sector i in region r final supply (output) results from the following constrained production cost minimization problem for the producer:

$$\begin{aligned}&\min PVAEN_{i,r} QVAEN_{i,r} +PF_{i,r} QF_{i,r} \\&s.t. \,Y_{i,r} =\min \left[ QVAEN_{i,r} ,QF_{i,r} \right] \end{aligned}$$

where PVAEN and PF are prices of the related production factors.

The second nested-level in Fig. 6 represents, on the left hand side, the value added plus energy composite (QVAEN). This composite stems from a CES function that combines four primary factors: land (QLAND), natural resources (QFE), labour (QFE) and the capital-energy bundle (QKE) using \(\sigma \)VAE as elasticity of substitution. Primary factor demand on its turn derives from the first order conditions of the following constrained cost minimization problem for the representative firm:

$$\begin{aligned}&\min P_{i,r}^{Land} LAND_{i,r} +P_{i,r}^{NR} NR_{i,r} +P_{i,r}^L L_{i,r} +P_{i,r}^{KE} KE_{i,r} \\&s.t.\, QVAEN_{i,r,t} =\left. {\left( {LAND_{i,r}^{\frac{\sigma _{VAE} -1}{\sigma _{VAE} }} +NR_{i,r}^{\frac{\sigma _{VAE} -1}{\sigma _{VAE} }} +L_{i,r}^{\frac{\sigma _{VAE} -1}{\sigma _{VAE} }} +KE_{i,r}^{\frac{\sigma _{VAE} -1}{\sigma _{VAE} }} } \right. } \right) ^{\frac{\sigma _{VAE} }{\sigma _{VAE} -1}} \end{aligned}$$

In the third nested-level, the QLAND bundle combines the AEZ-specific land types and the KE bundle combines capital with a set of different energy inputs. This is a peculiarity of GTAP-E and ICES model. In fact, energy inputs are not part of the intermediates, but are combined to capital in a specific composite.

Furthermore, Energy is produced using Electric and Non Electric commodities in the Fourth nested-level, while the Non Electric commodity is produced using Coal and Otherfuel commodities. At the basic level of the production tree, there are Gas, Oil, Petroleum Products and Biofuels.

Notice that domestic and foreign inputs are not perfect substitutes, according to the so-called “Armington assumption”, which accounts for—amongst others—product heterogeneity. In general, inputs grouped together are more easily substitutable among themselves than with other elements outside the nest. For example, imports can more easily be substituted in terms of foreign production source, rather than between domestic production and one specific foreign country of origin. Analogously, composite energy inputs are more substitutable with capital than with other factors.

A representative consumer in each region receives income, defined as the service value of national primary factors (natural resources, land, labour, capital). Capital and labour are perfectly mobile domestically but immobile internationally. Land and natural resources, on the other hand, are industry-specific. This income is then used to finance three classes of expenditure: aggregate household consumption, public consumption and savings as depicted in the Fig. 7.

Fig. 7
figure7

ICES nested tree structure for final demand

Thus, the upper level represented in Fig. 7, mathematically translates into a Cobb-Douglas utility constrained maximization problem:

$$\begin{aligned} \max U= & {} C\mathop \prod \limits _i U_i^{B_i } \\ subject \,to\, X= & {} \mathop \sum \limits _i E_i \left( {P_i ,U_i } \right) \end{aligned}$$

where \(U_{i}\) are the per capita utility from private consumption, per capita utility from government consumption, and per capita real savings; C is a scaling factor and \(B_{i}\) are distribution parameters. X describes the budget constraint which must meet the sum of three types of expenditures \(E_{i}\). \(P_{i}\) is the expenditure-share-weighted index of commodity group price indices.

At the second level, per capita utility from private consumption is derived from the aggregation of per capita private consumption of individual commodities. This is done using the Hanoch’s constant difference elasticity (CDE) demand system (Hanoch 1975).

$$\begin{aligned} 1=\mathop \sum \limits _i B_i U^{\Upsilon _i R_i }\left( {\frac{P_i }{X}} \right) ^{\Upsilon _i } \end{aligned}$$

where U denotes utility, \(P_{i}\) the price of commodity i, X the expenditure, \(B_{i}\) are distribution parameters, \(Y_{i}\) substitution parameters, and \(R_{i}\) expansion parameters.

Endogenous Dynamics

ICES model is a recursive dynamic model. This means it presents a sequence of static equilibria which are inter-temporally connected by the process of capital accumulation. Capital growth is standard along exogenous growth theory models and follows:

$$\begin{aligned} Ke_r =I_r +\left( {1-\delta } \right) Kb_r \end{aligned}$$

where Ke \(_{r}\) is the “end of period” capital stock, Kb \(_{r}\) is the “beginning of period” capital stock, \(\delta \) is capital depreciation and \(I_{r}\) is endogenous investment. Once the model is solved at a given step t, the value of Ke \(_{r}\) is stored in an external file and used as the “beginning of period” capital stock of the subsequent step \(t+1\).

The hearth of the model’s dynamics is the endogenous determination of investment demand \(I_{r}\). Sources of world investments are savings from households. Regional households save a given share of their income which is firstly “pooled” by a “world bank” and then redistributed back to each region following:

$$\begin{aligned} I_r =\varphi _r RGDP_r e^{\left[ \left( {\rho _r \left( {R_r^E -R^{w}} \right) } \right. \right] } \end{aligned}$$

where RGDP is real GDP, \(\rho _{r}\) and \(\varphi _{r}\) are given parameters, \(R_{r}^{E}\) and \(R^{W}\) are the expected rate of return to capital in region r and the world rate of return to capital respectively. According to the previous equation, each region demands investment as long as its real GDP rises or its expected rate of return is higher than the world rate of return \(R^{W}\). Investment demand is negatively correlated to \(R^{W}\) which on its turn is determined by the general equilibrium condition requiring equalization between global savings and investments. The parameter \(\rho _{r}\) reflects the flexibility of capital movement related to changes in the current rate of return. If \(\rho _{r}\) has a small value then it will reduce the effect of the growth of the current rate of return when compared with the growth of the global rate of return; basically it can be assumed to reflect policy restrictions. \(R_{r}^{E}\) needs a particular comment: ICES does not generate endogenously the expected rate of return to capital according to a fully rational expectation generation process of a forward looking agent; more simply it is assumed that the expected rate of return to capital coincides with the current observed rate of return to capital.

The world investment supply (savings) must match world investment demand, but this is not necessarily so at the regional level. Indeed a region can run a foreign debt or credit position as long as Sr \(\ne \) Ir. This will be reflected in disequilibrium in the trade balance.

In ICES model, also the stock of natural resource has an endogenous dynamics. As explained in Hertel et al. (2008), initial calibration values of these variables in the original GTAP database are not obtained from official statistics, but are indirectly estimated to make the model consistent with industry supply elasticity values from the literature. Then to represent in ICES availability of additional resources due to new discoveries, the price of natural resources has been fixed exogenously, making it variable over time in line with exogenous projections, while allowing the model to compute endogenously the corresponding stock levels.

Exogenous Dynamics

Capital and natural resources are not the only factors expected to vary over time. Population stock, labour stock, labour and land productivity change over time because of natural or technological evolutionary processes. These processes have been also taken into account in the baseline. This has been done by updating exogenously year by year the initial calibration data of all the above mentioned variables according to their expected rates of change.

GTAP Database

The model and database are calibrated for year 2004, which constitutes also the beginning year for simulations. ICES model relies on GTAP 7 Data Base (Narayanan and Walmsley 2008) with world coverage: countries are aggregated in 113 macro-regions, and all economic sectors, grouped in 57 sectors.

Furthermore, the database and the model account for main GHG emissions \(\hbox {CO}_{2}, \hbox {CH}_{4}\) and \(\hbox {N}_{2}\hbox {O}\). Following Burniaux and Truong (2002), \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) emissions are calculated proportionally to energy combustion. Data relative to energy volumes are also included in the GTAP 7 Data Base. Emissions of other greenhouse gases, namely methane and nitrous oxide, are also included in ICES. Data relative with emissions of these gases have been calculated starting from the GTAP \(\hbox {non-CO}_{2}\) emissions database (Lee 2003).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bosello, F., Campagnolo, L., Cervigni, R. et al. Climate Change and Adaptation: The Case of Nigerian Agriculture. Environ Resource Econ 69, 787–810 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0105-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Adaptation
  • Agriculture
  • CGE modelling
  • Climate change
  • Impact assessment

JEL Classification

  • C68
  • Q51
  • Q54
  • Q15