Understanding the regional impacts of climate change Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review on the Economics

of Climate Change

Rachel Warren, Nigel Arnell, Robert Nicholls, Peter Levy and Jeff Price

September 2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research

Working Paper 90

UNDERSTANDING THE REGIONAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Research Report Prepared for the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change September 2006
Rachel Warren1 , Nigel Arnell 1,2 , Robert Nicholls 1,2, Peter Levy3 and Jeff Price4 1 Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia, UK 2 University of Southampton, UK 3 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, UK 4 California State University, Chico, USA

CONTENTS Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources Stress 3. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture 4. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Coastal Flooding 5. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Human Health 6. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Energy Requirements 7. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystems 8. Regional Climate Change Impacts on Vegetation 4 11 14 27 61 71 82 88 99

Acknowledgements Appendix Matrices 1. Australasia 2. Central America 3. East Asia 4. Europe 5. Global 6. North Africa 7. North America 8. Russia and Central Asia 9. South America 10. South and East Africa 11. South Asia 12. West Africa 13. West Asia

109 110

163 168 173 177 181 187 191 195 199 204 208 213 218

Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of this project was to bring together a range of work to examine the global impacts of climate change at different degrees of temperature rise (up to 5°C where possible), identifying vulnerable sectors in different parts of the world. The project aims to analyse impacts work in a consistent way, explicitly identifying assumptions between different results, and provides a basis for comparison with how impacts are handled in integrated assessment models. A key output of the project is the set of impacts matrices accompanying this report showing impacts in various sectors and regions. All annual global mean temperature increases mentioned in this report refer to a baseline date of 1990. The DEFRA-funded FastTrack and related work formed the bedrock for impacts matrices which ensures that a consistent up to date methodology and full set of SRES scenarios. For each sector the main factors driving variation and uncertainty in impacts were unpacked as far as the literature and available Fast Track data and models allow. These factors were variously (i) the choice of socio-economic scenario (ii) the adaptation assumptions, (iii) the direct effects of carbon dioxide (CO2), and (iv) the variability between different global circulation models (GCMs). The project assessed climate impacts upon water stress, agriculture, coastal flooding, human health, energy demand, and ecosystems (including biodiversity and global vegetation) out to 2100 in most cases. The regional assessment is based upon 13 world regions. A key consideration is that, with the exception of coastal flooding due to storm surge the study cannot resolve the impacts of changing frequencies or intensities of shortterm extreme weather events, so that the impact estimates given here may be considered an underestimation, since damages due to extreme weather events are already noticeably high. Impacts of climate change on water resources pressures are indexed by the numbers of people living in water-stressed watersheds (less than 1000m3/capita/year on average) in which runoff decreases or increases significantly due to climate change. Under most climate change scenarios, runoff increases in high latitudes and the wet tropics (except in South America), and decreases in mid-latitudes and dry sub-tropics, although there is variability within a region and between the different climate models used to create scenarios. The numbers of people affected by climate change by a given time period depend on the assumed population growth rate, but under even the lowest growth rate assumption a rise in temperature by 2085 of around 2°C would increase water resources stresses for between 800 and 1800 million people, largely in Africa, Asia, Europe and South America. Under the same assumptions, between 1340 and 2800 million water-

Page 4

stressed people – almost exclusively in south and east Asia – would experience increased runoff. However, this extra runoff would probably increase flood risks, and because it would occur during the wet season would not alleviate shortages during the dry season in the absence of storage. For a given global temperature change, the key driver of uncertainty in estimates of the impacts of climate change on water stress is the precipitation scenario, which varies between GCMs. Second, the impacts depend on assumed future population. Impacts of climate change on agriculture are indexed by (a) percentage changes in yield of major cereal crops under changed climate and increased carbon dioxide concentration (b) resultant millions at risk of hunger. A constant adaptation scenario is assumed with higher capabilities assumed in developed countries. Under all scenarios, the yield of the dominant cereal crop in each region falls under (i) the assumption of no carbon dioxide fertilisation effect, whilst an assumption of (ii) a carbon dioxide fertilisation effect, results in a mixed picture of increases in yields in Europe, N America and Australia but still decreases in yields elsewhere, although these are usually much smaller than the corresponding decreases under assumption (i). However, there are still significant decreases in maize yields, both globally and in regions where the crop is important such as Africa, even under the assumption of carbon dioxide fertilisation. Regionally, impacts on wheat are of serious concern in N Africa, Central and W Asia, with large losses under both assumptions (i) and (ii). Impacts on maize are of serious concern in Western and Southern Africa, and also in Latin America; whilst impacts on rice are of concern in S and E Asia. Overall global cereal production is modelled to fall linearly by around 3% per degree of temperature rise, under assumption (i) whilst under assumption (ii) smaller decreases occur. The numbers of additional people consequently at risk of hunger could reach 600 million globally in 2080 for temperature rises of 3°C above 1990 in the worst case of assumption (i) and a high global population concentrated in the world’s poor regions under conditions of global economic disparity (SRES scenario A2). These people are concentrated in Africa, and also W Asia, Latin America and Central Asia. Under assumption (ii) either increases or decreases in millions at risk from hunger could occur by 2080 depending on temperature rise, population growth and relative economic growth between regions. A temperature rise of 4°C is likely to increase millions at risk even under assumption (ii). Although only a single GCM is used in the study, Carbon dioxide fertilisation is the strongest driver of uncertainty in the results and this is borne out by other studies. These simulations take into account international trade and the expected increase in agricultural technology and the ability to farm on marginal land if demand exists. Although the study does not consider the potential to farm on land with a previously too cool climate for agriculture, suggesting that this study may be too pessimistic, other studies which make a hedonic assumption that such land immediately produces yields are too optimistic since factors such as irrigation, soil quality, conversion time are not included. Additional millions at risk would be expected to be higher than estimated due to the decline in calorific value under carbon dioxide fertilisation, impacts of climate on fisheries, regional mobilisation of desert dunes, salinisation of low-lying coastal farmland, and impacts of a

Page 5

climate-induced increased frequency of pest & disease outbreaks, episodes of elevated tropospheric ozone concentrations, and short-duration extreme weather events upon crop yields, none of which are included in the study. In fact, it is considered that Under-nutrition linked to drought and flooding will be one of the most important consequences of climate change. Sea level rise increases the number of people at risk of coastal flooding. The bulk of the population currently exposed to coastal flooding is in South Asia and East Asia, and these regions continue to dominate when predicting future risks, although Africa increases in its relative contribution. Actual experience of flooding (as opposed to risk) depends not only on sea-level rise, but also on population, socio-economic scenarios, and most especially assumptions about protection. More people are at risk under the high population IPCC A2 scenario. Small islands and deltaic areas appear most vulnerable. Whilst potential impacts from sea level rise are significant – actual impacts may be much smaller if we can realise our potential to adapt by increasing coastal protection. Although protection appears widely affordable, this requires the strong direction of investment to coast protection and related flood management. Sea defences can also result in the loss of coastal ecosystems. Events such as Katrina remind us that all residents of the coastal flood plain are vulnerable to some degree even in developed countries. All flood defences have a residual risk which ultimately leads to failure, whilst more intense storms and more intense storm surges would exacerbate the risks from sea level rise considered here. Health issues that are sensitive to climate make up a large portion of the total global disease burden. These include factors like vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria, dengue fever), other infectious diseases (e.g., diarrhea), heat-and cold-related mortality, malnutrition, air pollution and deaths due to flooding and storms. Climate change has been modeled to have already caused the loss of 150,000 lives and 5.5 million disability adjusted life-years (DALY) in 2000. The heat wave in Europe in 2003 caused 35,000 additional deaths, many of them potentially attributable to anthropogenic climate change. Key impacts of climate change upon health in the Stern regions include increases in vector-borne diseases (e.g., malaria, dengue fever) in all or parts of all Stern regions except the Arctic, with (in particular) increased dengue fever in India and China, and increased malaria in Africa. Other predicted impacts include increases in diarrhoea in SE Asia, W Asia and Africa; reductions in cold-related mortality in Europe, North America, and parts of Central and Eastern Asia; increases in heat-related mortality in Australasia, North America, Europe (among others), and increased health impacts from climate change related air pollution in Europe, East Asia, North and Central America (among others). Flood related deaths and diseases have the potential to be a problem in many regions (see coastal section) as does hunger and malnutrition (see agriculture). As individuals, the elderly and poor face some of the greatest health risks, while poorer countries have less adaptive capacity than richer ones. One of the greatest uncertainties in estimating the future risks of climate change on health is the overall population number and its distribution. Many of the climate change impact

Page 6

models appear to be more sensitive to population parameters than to climate parameters. The overall knowledge of the potential spread of vector-borne diseases is hampered by uncertainties in precipitation projections as drying could actually lead to a decrease of vector-borne diseases in some areas. Adaptation to many climate change related health impacts may reduce the level of the impact but this depends on increasing the level of basic health services in many areas that may not be economically able to do so. The impacts of climate change on energy demands for heating and cooling are indexed by changes in regional and global population-weighted heating and cooling degree days. With a 2oC rise in temperature, global heating requirements fall by approximately 20%, but global cooling requirements rise by over 30% (relative to the situation without climate change). These changes assume no change to the target "comfort" base temperature, and implicitly therefore assume no adaptation (in the sense of accepting warmer temperatures). Translating these into energy consumption requires assumptions about the energy sources used and the efficiency of space heating and cooling technologies. For a given global temperature change, the key driver of uncertainty in estimates of changes in regional heating and cooling energy requirements is the change in seasonal temperature across the region (as simulated by different GCMs). Differences in population have very little effect on changes in regional heating/cooling requirements. Translating requirements into demands and consumption is highly uncertain, as it would depend on energy sources, energy efficiency, and total population. Impacts of climate change are already being seen within ecosystems across the globe and are expected to escalate quickly as temperatures rise. They are predicted appear to take off strongly at temperatures of around 1.5°C above 1990 levels (or 2°C above preindustrial levels). All predicted extinction rates for temperature rise of around 1.5°C or above greatly exceed current extinction rates. Major biome losses are predicted in tundra, wooded tundra (taiga), cool conifer forest and temperate deciduous forests. With a 3°C rise in temperature, each biome loses variously between 7 and 74% of its extent such that 22% of the land surface is transformed, these areas supporting low biodiversity. The major world ecosystems at greatest risk of complete loss due to climate change are (a) Coral reefs (b) Arctic ecosystems (c) Biodiversity in hotspots where losses of species due to climate change could number into the thousands or tens of thousands of species. Of serious concern is that acidification of the ocean, a direct consequence of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, has the potential to disrupt the marine ecosystem. The report includes a detailed tabulation of predicted losses to ecosystems, but this does not include the potential consequences of the fact that predator-prey and pollinator-plant relationships often do not shift in concert as climate changes, leading to potential pest outbreaks and extinctions, with potentially large consequences for agriculture. As temperature increases forest ecosystems are increasingly disrupted by fire and pests, especially at higher rates of temperature changes. Rapid sea level rise would cause loss of protective coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangroves, destroying natural

Page 7

coastal defences. Climate change and land use change will act synergistically to reduce biodiversity, since for example with a 3°C temperature rise 50% of nature reserves will not be able to fulfil their conservation objectives. Hence extinction rates will be higher than those predicted due to climate change alone, with climate change being particularly important in Arctic and boreal regions. The effect of climate change on the distribution of natural ecosystems and carbon sequestration was summarised, based on the Fast-Track modelling work of Levy et al. (2004). A global vegetation model, 'HyLand', was used to simulate the effects of changes in climate, CO2 concentration and land use as prescribed by four SRES scenarios: A1F, A2, B1 and B2. Under all SRES scenarios simulated, the terrestrial biosphere was predicted to be a net sink for carbon over most of the 21st century. This sink peaks around 2050 and then diminishes rapidly towards the end of the century as a result of climate change. Without the effect of CO2 "fertilisation", the terrestrial biosphere becomes a net source much earlier, and carbon sequestration is reduced by an average of 6.0 +/- 3.1 (s.d.) Pg C y-1 in 2100. The mean effect of climate change across all scenarios is to reduce carbon sequestration by 4.7 +/- 2.6 (s.d.) Pg C y-1 in 2100. The effect of land use change is less clear, and may cause a source or a sink of carbon, depending on future trends in cropland expansion. Future changes in CO2 concentration, and the response of vegetation to that change, is the largest source of uncertainty in these simulations. In terms of the carbon balance, the worst affected region is South America, which accounts for 2.6 out of the 4.7 Pg C y-1 (55 %) emitted globally as a result of climate change in 2100. Australasia and West and Southern Africa are the other regions which act as significant sources of carbon. Only East and Central Asia & Eastern Europe are significant sinks for carbon (0.7 Pg C y-1 in total in 2100). The largest net losses of forest area occur in Australasia and the regions within Africa. North Africa sees a particularly large increase in desert area. The forest losses in Amazonia are to some extent balanced by gains from grassland and desert elsewhere within South America. In East and Central Asia & Eastern Europe, the effects of climate change are predicted to be beneficial, with desert areas are converted to forest and grassland.

Page 8

Regions of concern identified by this study include • N Africa where crop failures, desertification, and water resources stress could be expected to cause climate-induced migration of people from the region, • Southern and Western Africa where maize crop failure and desert dune mobilization could increase famine • Central Asia where crop failures may destabilize the region politically • Coasts of S Asia where livelihoods and lives are at risk from flooding and salinisation • Caribbean whose economy will be affected by a combination of damages to coral reefs and associated fisheries and sea level rise • Arctic where rapid warming is already affecting infrastructure and ecosystems are greatly at risk. • S America where water resource stress is expected to increase and crop yields to decrease, and the Amazon may dry with large biodiversity loss • Small island sub-regions in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are highly threatened by flooding and submergence due to sea-level rise Due to the very large number of people that will be affected, under-nutrition linked to drought and flooding will be one of the most important consequences of climate change, as will losses of ecosystems and biodiversity. Adaptation has the potential to reduce impacts on human systems given sufficient funds, but adaptations against impacts in one sector can have adverse consequences to another: for example, local water storage can provide breeding sites for disease vectors whilst large water storage projects can dry wetlands downstream, coastal protection can cause wetland loss, etc. Ecosystems, however, have almost no potential to adapt to the rapid rates of climate change that are already occurring, and severe impacts cannot be avoided unless temperature increase is curtailed.

Page 9

1. INTRODUCTION Aims and Outputs • The aim of this project was to bring together a range of work to examine the global impacts of climate change at different degrees of temperature rise (up to 5°C where possible), identifying vulnerable sectors in different parts of the world. The project aims to analyse impacts work in a consistent way, explicitly identifying assumptions between different results, and provides a basis for comparison with how impacts are handled in integrated assessment models. A. key output of the project is the set of impacts matrices showing impacts in various sectors and regions. The DEFRA-funded FastTrack and related work formed the bedrock and framework for impacts matrices (Parry and Livermore, 1999; Parry et al., 2001; Arnell et al., 2002; Parry, 2004). . The advantages of the use of Fast Track are that (i) it ensures that a consistent methodology and full set of SRES scenarios (ii) the assessment is based on the use of up to date climate and impact models. It is one of the few studies which spanned a full range of SRES scenarios both with and without a direct CO2 fertilisation effect on crops. Selected other studies were also compared with FastTrack work particularly in the case of agriculture. For each sector the main factors driving variation and uncertainty in impacts were unpacked as far as the literature and the available Fast Track data and models allow. These factors were (i) the choice of socio-economic scenario (ii) the adaptation assumptions, (iii) the direct effects of carbon dioxide (CO2), and (iv) the variability between different global circulation models (GCMs), although the details vary between sectors, as appropriate . Details are given in the sectoral sections in this report. The project assessed climate impacts upon water stress, agriculture, coastal flooding, human health, energy demand, and ecosystems (including biodiversity and global vegetation) out to 2100 in most cases. Large-scale abrupt changes in the earth system are not included since they are covered by a parallel report (ref). The regional assessment is based upon 13 world regions, henceforth referred to as “Stern Regions”: EUR (Europe), NAM (North America), SAM (South America), CAM (Central America), NAF (North Africa), SAS (South Asia), WAF (West Africa), CAS (Central Asia and former USSR), WAS (West Asia), SAS (South Asia), EAS (East Asia), AUS (Australasia). Island sub-regions for the Indian and Pacific Oceans are also recognised for the coastal analysis. The classification of countries into these regions is shown in Table A1 of the Appendix.

Page 10

A set of regional (and one global) impacts matrices summarising key outputs of this study accompany this paper.

Assumptions of the “Fast Track” approach Generic assumptions of Fast Track studies in different sectors concern the regional interpretation of SRES scenarios and the use of the climate simulations: • SRES scenario interpretation: (a) Population In the Fast Track study the SRES population projections (IPCC 2000) were downscaled to the national scale by the IIASA population project and the CIESIN project (Lutz and Goujon 2002, CIESIN 2002). Table A2 of the Appendix gives the regional population data. Global population is currently (1995) 5.6 billion, and, having peaked at 8.7 billion in the 2050s, would by the 2080s reach 7.8 billion under SRES A1/B1, 10.0 billion under SRES B2 and 14.1 billion under SRES A2. (b) Future economic growth National GDP to 2100 was estimated by applying regional change from 1990 to the national 1990 absolute GDP (Arnell et al. 2004). Both population and GDP downscaling omit 44 small countries with populations less than 150,000 in 1995. For these (mostly) small island states scenarios were instead developed by applying the trends in larger adjacent countries. (c) Land cover Water resources: assumed current land cover continued in the future; Vegetation: SRES land cover scenarios used; Agriculture: land use parameters are taken from FAO estimates. Climate simulations: In the Fast Track study future climate simulations from HadCM3 are passed to the impact models in the form of 30 year time slices centred on (for example) 2025, 2055, and 2085. Table 1.1 provides the temperatures and CO2 concentrations simulated by HadCM3 for the various SRES scenarios. For SRES A2 and SRES B2, additional ensemble experiments from HadCM3 were used (A2b,c and B2b) and these have been utilised in a small number of the impact analyses below. The ensemble members differ in the initial state of the climate system, and whilst global temperature changes are similar, there are pronounced differences in regional temperature rise and precipitation, for example A2c is considerably warmer in some locations, and A2a has drying in India whilst A2b has an increase in precipitation. In the report, where not specified “A2” is used the scenario is actually A2a and “B2” is similarly B2a.

Page 11

Table 1.1 Projected changes in global mean temperature (°C) relative to 19611990 mean and global CO2 concentrations (ppm) (Arnell et al. 2004). Year A1F1 A2a A2b A2c B1 B2a B2b 2020s 0.99 0.86 0.93 0.88 0.84 0.91 0.91 2050s 2.26 1.92 1.89 1.85 1.45 1.56 1.66 2080s 3.97 3.21 3.28 3.32 2.06 2.35 2.40 CO2 CONCN A1F1 A2 B1 B2 1990 358 358 358 358 2020s 432 432 421 422 2050s 590 549 492 422 2080s 810 709 527 561 • The GCM outputs detail monthly mean climates on a 2.5° latitude x 3.75° longitude spatial resolution and these changes are superposed onto time series of monthly observed climate data without further spatial interpolation. This means that extreme short-duration weather events cannot be resolved in the Fast Track climate scenario data. The science of predicting changes in extreme events is still in its infancy, and none of the other impact assessments in the literature take into account the potential for increased extreme weather events either. Furthermore, some of the Fast Track impact models themselves lack the capability to handle climate information on a daily timescale. However, the analysis of coastal flooding does take account of changes in extremes due to changes in mean conditions, and the water resources analysis is based on simulated time series of river flow data, which include high and low flow years. Extreme weather events such as more intense or extreme floods, droughts (particularly short ones), storms and hurricanes are expected to make a very significant contribution to climate change damages indeed, as all are predicted to increase with climate change, and the associated costs are very high. For example, insurance experts are now agreeing that the costs of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 will far exceed $100 billion. The European floods in 2002 cost $16 billion and 100 lives, and those in the UK in 2000 resulted in an insurance payout of £1 billion. Table A3 in the Appendix shows annual average costs of extreme weather events in the US. Insurance floods along the Yangtse River in China in 1998 were responsible for 4000 deaths and economic losses of $30 billion. Also in 1998, drought and fire in Florida costs $276 million (Vellinga and van Verseveld 2000). The European heatwave of 2003 cost as estimated $13.5 billion and caused 30000 lives. Meanwhile it has been calculated that there is more than 90% confidence that human influence has already at least doubled the risk of occurrence of a heatwave of this magnitude (Stott et al. 2004) and such events are predicted to become more frequent (Meehl and Tebaldi 2004). This means that economic and physical estimates of damages from climate change need to take into account the potentially very large impact of these events, in addition to the effects of changes in mean climate which are the driver of the impacts reported in the following report.

Page 12

REFERENCES Arnell, N.W., Cannell, M.G.R., Hulme, M., Kovats, R.S., Mitchell, J.F.B., Nicholls, Arnell, N.W., Livermore, M.J.J., Kovats, S., Levy, P.E., Nicholls, R., Parry, M.L., and Gaffin S.R. 2004. Climate and socioeconomic scenarios for global-scale climate change impacts assessments: characterising the SRES storylines. Global Environmental Change 14 pp 3-20. CIESIN 2002a Country level population and downscaled projections for the SRES A1, B1, A2 and B2 marker scenarios, 1990-2100, Beta version. CIESIN, Columbia University, Palisades, NY. Available at http://sres.ciesin.columbia.edu/tgcia climate threats and targets. Global Environmental Change, 11(3), 1-3. CO2 stabilisation for the impacts of climate change Climatic Change, 53, 413-446. Earth Policy Institute, 2003 Record Heat Wave in Europe takes 35000 lives. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update29.htm Events, WWF, Gland, Switzerland. Global Environmental Change, 14 (1), 1–99. IPCC 2000. Emissions scenarios. A Special report of working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Lutz, W., and Goujon, A. 1992 Unpublished downscaling of regional population projections to country level for the SRES A1, B1 and A2 scenarios corresponding to the IPCC SRES Report 1990-2100. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria. Available at http://sres.ciesin.columbia.edu M., Rosensweig, C., Iglesias, A. & Fischer, G., 2001. Millions at risk: defining critical Parry, M. & Livermore, M. (eds.) 1999. A new assessment of the global effects of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 9, S1-S107 Parry, M., Arnell, N., McMichael, T., Nicholls, R., Martens, P., Kovats, S., Livermore, Parry, M.L. (ed.) (2004), Global impacts of climate change under the SRES scenarios, Preston, B. 2005. Global Warming and Extreme Weather Events. Catastrophe risk management Spring 2005. pp.22-23 R.J., Parry, M.L., Livermore, M.T.J. & White, A. 2002. The consequences of Stott, P.A., Stone, D.A., and Allen, M.R. 2004. Human contribution to the European Heatwave of 2003. Nature 432, pp. 610-614 Vellinga, P. and van Verseveld, W.J. 2000. Climate Change and Extreme Weather The Sectoral and Regional Assessment of Climate Change Impacts follows.

Page 13

2. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES STRESS Contribution by Nigel Arnell University of Southampton Introduction and methods The availability of water resources in a watershed is indexed by the available resources per capita, calculated by dividing long-term average annual runoff (or "renewable resource") by the number of people living in the watershed (Falkenmark et al., 1989) 1 . A country experiences water scarcity when supply is below 1000 m3/capita/year, and absolute scarcity when supply is below 500m3/capita/year. The thresholds are based on estimates of water requirements in the household, agricultural, industrial and energy sectors, and the needs of the environment. Water availability is equal to the average annual renewable resource (average annual river runoff and groundwater recharge). Water availability per capita is only an indicator of potential exposure to stress. Some of "stressed" watersheds will actually have effective management systems in place to ensure adequate supplies (eg through storage); some watersheds with in excess of 1000m3/capita/year may experience severe water shortages because of lack of access to potentially available water. For comparative purposes, the basic water requirement for human needs, excluding that used directly for growing food, has been assessed at approximately 50 l/capita/day, or 18.25 m3/capita/year (Gleick, 1996) which includes allowances for drinking (2-4.5 l/capita/day), sanitation (20 l/capita/day), bathing (15 l/capita/day), and food preparation (10 l/capita/day). It does not include any allowance for growing food, industrial uses or the environment 2 . The threshold for water scarcity is considerably higher than the basic water requirement because (i) it also accounts for other human uses, particularly irrigation, industrial use and demands for effluent dispersion , and (ii) not all river flows are available for use (some flows occur during floods, and some is demanded by the environment). On average, approximately 30% of average river flows occur as uncaptured flood flows (Shiklomanov & Rodda, 2003), and freshwater ecosystem use is estimated to range between 20 and 50% of average flows (Smakhtin et al., 2004). Taken together, between 50 and 80% of average flow is unavailable to humans, meaning that a threshold of 1000 m3/capita/year of average flows translates into 200 to 500 m3/capita/year available flows. Average annual runoff by watershed is estimated using a hydrological model driven by 30-year time series of climate data at a spatial resolution of 0.5x0.5o (Arnell, 1999; 2003;
1

Water availability per capita per year is the most frequently used measure of water resource availability, adopted widely by the UN, and for which data is readily available; the next most frequently used measure is the ratio of withdrawals to availability, but this requires reliable estimates of actual and, most crucially, future withdrawals. 2 Actual usage varies considerably, depending on water availability, price, and cultural preferences (domestic consumption in England is around 170 l/capita/day; in large parts of Africa it is less than 20 l/capita/day).
Page 14

2004; 2006): the average is calculated over the 30 years of simulated river flows. The climate scenarios were constructed by rescaling the spatial pattern of change in mean monthly precipitation, temperature and net radiation as simulated by the 2080s by five climate models (HadCM3, ECHAM4, CSIRO2, CGCM2 and PCM) to global average temperature increases of 0.5 to 5oC (above the 1961-1990 mean), in increments of 0.5oC. This "rescaling" approach assumes that the spatial pattern of climate change with gradually increasing forcing remains broadly consistent, which is not entirely correct but is a reasonable first-order assumption. The hydrological simulations assume no change in either windspeed or relative humidity with climate change, and also assume no direct effect of CO2 enrichment on evaporation. Recent studies (Gedney et al., 2006) have suggested that CO2 enrichment does have a detectable effect on runoff at the catchment scalee through the suppression of evaporation. Incorporating the effects of CO2 enrichment would therefore lead to greater increases in runoff and smaller decreases in runoff, although the effects would depend on the extent and characteristics of vegetation cover within the catchment (it could be hypothesised that the effect of CO2 enrichment would be small in dry-region catchments where vegetation cover is more sparse). Watershed population totals are estimated under different population scenarios by summing estimates of population at the 0.5x0.5o scale. Watershed resources per capita are then calculated for each climate model pattern (5), temperature increment (10), and population scenario (3: A1/B1, A2 and B2) and time horizon (3: 2020s, 2050s and 2080s). The population exposed to an increase in water stress due to climate change is equal to the population living in watersheds where availability falls below 1000m3/capita/year, plus those living in watersheds which already have less than 1000m3/capita/year and where runoff decreases significantly. A significant decrease is greater than the standard deviation of long-term average runoff, which typically ranges between 5 and 10%. The population exposed to an apparent decrease in stress is equal to the population living in watersheds where availability rises above 1000m3/capita/year, plus those living in already-stressed watersheds where runoff decreases significantly. It is not appropriate to calculate the net change in number of people exposed to water stress because the effects of an apparent reduction in stress are not symmetrical to those of an apparent increase (a 10% increase in runoff in a stressed watershed is arguably not as beneficial as a 10% decrease is harmful). The additional runoff in many cases occurs during the wet season, and may not help availability in the dry season, and may increase the flood risk. The numbers in the matrices and spreadsheets summarise impact by region. There is, of course, considerable variability in the effect of climate change on river flows within a region, and this is summarised in the attached figure which shows change in runoff with a 2oC rise in temperature under the five climate model patterns. The figure also illustrates the consistencies and differences between the different climate models used to create climate change scenarios. Average annual runoff is a crude measure of resource availability. Using drought annual runoff changes the numbers of people exposed to change in water stress, but does not

Page 15

greatly affect the geographic distribution of change in stress (Arnell, 2004). Changes in the timing of flows through the year can also substantially affect resource availability. In large parts of central and northern Europe, North America, north and east Asia and mountainous regions in particular high temperatures would mean winter precipitation would fall as rain rather than snow; runoff would then occur in winter rather than after snowmelt in spring (Barnett et al., 1995). In effect, a very large natural reservoir is being lost, and although change in annual total runoff may be small, effects on summer resource availability may be very large. Barnett et al. (1995) estimate that approximately a sixth of the world's population rely on water released from snowpacks or glacier melt to maintain supplies during the peak demand season. The index of impact does not incorporate the effect of adaptation, because it is a measure of resource availability not resource utilization. Under most climate change scenarios, runoff increases in high latitudes and the wet tropics (except in South America), and decreases in mid-latitudes and dry sub-tropics, although there is variability within a region and between the different climate models used to create scenarios. The numbers of people affected by climate change by a given time period depend on the assumed population growth rate, but under even the lowest growth rate assumption a rise in temperature by 2085 of around 2°C would increase water resources stresses for between 800 and 1800 million people, largely in Africa, Asia, Europe and South America. Under the same assumptions, between 1340 and 2800 million water-stressed people – almost exclusively in south and east Asia – would experience increased runoff. However, this extra runoff would probably increase flood risks, and because it would occur during the wet season would not alleviate shortages during the dry season in the absence of storage. For a given global temperature change, the key driver of uncertainty in estimates of the impacts of climate change on water stress is the precipitation scenario, which varies between GCMs. Secondly, the impacts depend on assumed future population.
Arnell, N.W. (1999) A simple water balance model for the simulation of streamflow over a large geographic domain. Journal of Hydrology 217, 314-335. Arnell, N.W. (2003) Effects of IPCC SRES emissions scenarios on river runoff: a global perspective. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 7, 619-641 Arnell, N.W. (2004) Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change 14, 31-52. Arnell, N. W. (2006). Climate change and water resources: a global perspective. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Schellnhuber, H J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T. and Yohe, G (Eds). Cambridge University Press, 167-175. Barnett, T.P., Adam, J.C. and Lettenmaier, D.P.(2005) Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature, 438(7066): 303-309. Falkenmark, M., Lunquist, J. & Widstrand, C. (1989) Macro-scale water scarcity requires micro-scale approaches: aspects of vulnerability in semi-arid development. Natural Resources Forum 13, 258267. Gedney, N., Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Boucher, O. and Huntingford, C.S., P.A.,(2006) Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature, 439: 835-838. Gleick, P.H. (1996) Basic water requirements for human activities: meeting basic needs. Water International 21, 83-92.

Shiklomanov, I.A. and Rodda, J.C., (2003). World Water Resources at the Beginning of the 21st
Page 16

Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smakhtin, V., Revenga, C. and Doll, P., (2004). Taking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments, Comprehensive Assessment Secretariat, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Page 17

Table 2.1 shows the modelled impact of temperature increase upon water stress in the Stern regions, in terms of the populations experiencing increased or decreased water stress, differentiating the separate influences of global mean temperature rise and population (as specified by SRES scenario). Simulations were repeated for climate simulations from 5 GCMs (HadCM3, ECHAM4/OPYCPCM, CGCM2, CSIRO2, and PCM from NCAR/DOE). Table 2.1 gives the ranges of results across all GCMs. Table A2 of the Appendix shows the number of water stressed persons in each region compared to the regional populations. Table A4 of the Appendix gives further detail than is given in Table 2.1, showing persons moving into or out of a stressed class separately from those already stressed, where stress increases or decreases. Table 2.1. Impact of Global Annual Mean Temperature Increase (as modelled by 5 GCMs) for water stress amongst populations of the world regions
Increase in stress + move in A1/B1 303 0 - 169 88 - 301 155 - 304 154 - 305 154 - 306 West Africa A1/B1 135 17 - 258 22 - 277 27 - 294 40 - 301 40 - 322 South and East Africa A2 603 0 - 330 169 - 594 296 - 599 293 - 599 293 - 603 A2 290 19 - 357 34 - 376 50 - 403 50 - 413 50 - 461 B2 312 3 - 184 101 - 312 163 - 315 162 - 315 162 - 318 B2 432 23 - 407 32 - 472 59 - 517 59 - 517 59 - 564 0 - 129 0 - 136 0 - 136 0 - 136 0 - 185 0 - 271 0 - 276 1 - 279 1 - 279 1 - 343 0 - 288 0 - 292 0 - 309 0 - 351 2 - 375 0 - 144 0 - 147 0 - 149 0 - 148 0 - 148 A1/B1 0 - 290 0 - 299 0 - 303 0 - 300 0 - 300 A2 0 - 142 0 - 148 0 - 150 0 - 149 0 - 149 B2 A1/B1 Decrease in stress + move out A2 B2 % Change in Regional runoff (min/med/max)

All GCMs 1 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 2 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 North Africa

2085

-24 -43 -57 -67 -74

-11 -25 -36 -42 -45

-5 -14 -22 -23 -21

-6 -12 -17 -22 -26

-2 -4 -5 -7 -8

4 9 13 18 22

3 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 4 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4

A1/B1 151 4 - 191 21 - 231 33 - 307 35 - 319 36 - 320

A2 389 5 - 324 12 - 403 15 - 432 20 - 429 21 - 526 A2 2850 60 - 376 275 - 387 169 - 812 288 - 879

B2 502 8 - 444 44 - 496 51 - 529 57 - 574 57 - 569 B2 2276 34 - 175 47 - 221 47 - 356 47 - 409

A1/B1 0 - 229 23 - 260 33 - 260 42 - 260 51 - 260 A1/B1 0 - 1593 961 1597 1044 1602 1051 1602

A2 1 - 416 29 - 455 43 - 455 62 - 455 75 - 455 A2 39 - 2756 1579 2780 1723 2789 1735 2789

B2 0 - 472 38 - 521 50 - 521 59 - 535 72 - 535 B2 0 - 2284 1361 2300 1473 2299 1481 2306

-8 -15 -21 -26 -30

-1 -4 -4 -7 -8

5 11 16 20 22

South Asia

A1/B1 1433 26 - 123 35 - 156 39 - 264 39 - 281

-1 -3 -6 -8

4 9 12 15

7 13 18 22

Page 18

4-5 5 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 6 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 Australasia East Asia

37 - 327 A1/B1 429 0 - 17 2 - 136 2 - 140 2 - 140 2 - 160 A1/B1 0 000002 2 2 4 4

237 1010 A2 2461 0 - 1147 10 - 1571 41 - 1577 41 - 1584 12 - 1584 A2 0 000003 3 3 6 6

48 - 425 B2 806 0 - 154 4 - 250 4 - 300 4 - 727 4 - 781 B2 0 000002 2 2 3 3

1170 1602 A1/B1 0 - 307 15 - 371 47 - 375 47 - 375 80 - 376 A1/B1 000000 0 1 0 0

1917 2789 A2 1 - 1859 197 2311 627 2323 748 2323 748 2326 A2 000000 0 2 0 0

1633 2306 B2 0 - 546 113 - 771 182 - 778 182 - 778 238 - 756 B2 000000 0 1 0 0

-12

18

27

-4 -8 -12 -15 -19

1 4 7 10 12

4 7 11 15 17

-2 -5 -7 -8 -10

1 4 6 9 11

3 7 12 17 22

7 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 8 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 9 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 10

Europe

A1/B1 149 34 - 233 99 - 315 119 - 364 179 - 441 205 - 450

A2 304 58 - 433 197 - 489 237 - 550 287 - 567 297 - 590 A2 194 7 - 94 47 - 190 98 - 228 98 - 248 96 - 316 A2 151 0 - 130 32 - 172 92 - 173 109 - 206 109 - 247 A2

B2 138 31 - 238 89 - 328 102 - 341 193 - 429 213 - 440 B2 10 0 - 23 10 - 52 16 - 59 24 - 65 33 - 83 B2 78 0 - 57 16 - 84 26 - 86 48 - 110 48 - 112 B2

A1/B1 00

A2 00

B2 0 - 15 0 - 53 0 - 69 0 - 69 0 - 69 B2 0 - 35 0 - 37 000B2 0 - 19 0 - 20 0 - 20 0 - 21 0 - 21 B2 6 6 7

0 - 41 0 - 58 0 - 58 0 - 58 A1/B1 0 - 34 0 - 37 0006 6 6

0 - 47 0 - 67 0 - 68 0 - 68 A2 0 - 101 0 - 112 0 - 112 0 - 112 0 - 112 A2 0 - 33 2 - 33 8 - 33 11 - 33 17 - 59 A2

-8 -16 -23 -30 -35

-3 -7 -11 -14 -18

-1 -3 -6 -8 -10

Central Asia

A1/B1 9 0 - 10 5 - 47 14 - 52 14 - 59 24 - 75

1 1 0 -3 -7

3 9 11 13 13

11 19 23 22 18

North America

A1/B1 96 0 - 92 24 - 106 46 - 136 67 - 138 85 - 183

A1/B1 0 - 26 0 - 26 0 - 26 0 - 26 0 - 26 A1/B1

-2 -5 -9 -13 -17

0 1 0 -2 -5

2 4 5 5 4

Caribbean

A1/B1

Page 19

Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 11 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 12 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 13 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 14 Baseline* 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 Globe West Asia South America Central America

0 0 - 19 0 - 19 0 - 24 0 - 24 0 - 21 A1/B1 33 0 - 65 4 - 65 5 - 65 4 - 81 4 - 86 A1/B1 6 01 0 - 47 1 - 47 15 - 47 15 - 58 A1/B1 319 39 - 158 117 - 216 95 - 218 95 - 226 95 - 217 A1/B1 3061 304 - 946 731 1459 814 1827 964 2028 979 2144

48 0 - 51 0 - 55 0 - 73 0 - 75 0 - 75 A2 178 0 - 173 9 - 173 11 - 246 10 - 257 10 - 266 A2 88 1 - 146 39 - 170 72 - 272 124 - 226 180 - 299 A2 709 78 - 355 240 - 488 191 - 492 191 - 510 191 - 490 A2 8265 769 3047 2074 4439 2311 5182 2646 5391 2978 5822

34 0 - 33 0 - 35 0 - 38 0 - 49 0 - 47 B2 68 0 - 83 5 - 104 5 - 104 5 - 142 6 - 139 B2 8 0 - 35 0 - 52 16 - 70 19 - 106 20 - 106 B2 320 39 - 165 120 - 205 98 - 207 98 - 216 98 - 205 B2 4984 392 1409 1002 2178 1167 2614 1264 3293 1210 3375 0 - 123 0 - 168 0 - 191 0 - 201 0 - 202 A1/B1 197 2491 1079 2709 1341 2795 1384 2802 1592 2807 0 - 286 0 - 388 0 - 446 0 - 467 0 - 468 A2 949 5082 1841 5579 2537 5882 2649 5927 3040 5959 0 - 113 0 - 169 0 - 188 0 - 198 0 - 199 B2 460 3866 1534 4114 1976 4216 2018 4268 2253 4278 000001 1 1 1 3 0 - 106 0 - 107 0 - 108 0 - 135 0 - 143 A2 00000B2 2 2 2 2 4 0 - 28 0 - 30 0 - 51 0 - 51 0 - 51 A1/B1 0 - 66 0 - 105 0 - 151 0 - 151 0 - 151 A2 0 - 39 0 - 42 0 - 70 0 - 70 0 - 70 B2 000000 1 1 1 1 0000 3 3 0000 1 1

0 - 48 0 - 48 A2

0 - 33 0 - 33 B2

-27 -48 -64 -75 -83

-4 -10 -15 -18 -20

0 1 1 2 3

A1/B1

-23 -44 -60 -71 -77

-4 -9 -13 -17 -20

1 3 11 7 10

-15 -27 -38 -47 -53

-2 -3 -4 -5 -7

0 0 1 1 2

A1/B1

-15 -26 -33 -36 -36

-5 -10 -10 -11 -8

2 0 9 9 12

*baseline gives number of persons water stressed in absence of climate change in 2085.

Global maps showing how the use of various GCMs affects the simulation of changes in water stress for a 2°C global mean temperature rise are shown in Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 shows this graphically by region in 2085 for the A1/B1 SRES scenario. Whilst trends are similar, the magnitudes of the millions experiencing increased water stress do vary significantly between GCMs. Figure 1.3 gives corresponding variation of runoff in each region by GCM.

Page 20

Figure 2.1

Page 21

Figure 2.2 Variation in millions of people experiencing increased water stress as a function of GCM (HadCM3 is shown in bold) for the A1/B1 population in 2085 (source: Sterrngraphsnew2085.xls)
North Africa
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3
o

West Africa
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Temp change from 1990 ( C)

4

5

0

1

2 3 Temp change from 1990 ( o C)

4

5

South and East Africa
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

South Asia

Temp change f rom 1990 ( C) 2 3

o

4

5

0

1

Temp change from 1990 ( oC) 2 3

4

5

East Asia
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 Temp change f rom 1990 ( oC) 4 5
3. 5 3 2. 5 2 1. 5 1 0. 5 0 0 1

Australasia

Temp change f rom 1990 ( oC)

2

3

4

5

Page 22

Europe
500 400
50 70 60

Form er Soviet Union

300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 Temp change f rom 1990 ( oC) 4 5

40 30 20 10 0 0 1

Temp change from 1990 ( oC)

2

3

4

5

North Am erica
200 40 35 150 30 25 100 20 15 50 10 5 0 0 1 0

Caribbean

Temp change f rom 1990 ( C)

2

3

o

4

5

0

1

2 3 Temp change from 1990 ( o C)

4

5

Central Am erica
100 80 60 40 20
10 70 60 50 40 30 20

South Am erica

0 0 1

0

Temp change from 1990 ( o C)

2

3

4

5

0

1

2 3 Temp change f rom 1990 ( oC)

4

5

West Asia
250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5

Temp change from 1990 ( o C)

Page 23

Figure 2.3 Variation in change in runoff as a function of GCM (HadCM3 is shown in bold) for the A1/B1 population in 2085
North Africa
100 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5

West Africa

50

0 -50

- 100

0

1

2

3

4

5

Temperature change ( o C)

Temperat ure change ( oC)

South and East Africa
50 40 30 20 10 0 - 10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1

South Asia

2

3

4

5

Temperat ure change ( o C)

Temperat ure change ( oC)

East Asia
50 40 30 20 10 0 - 10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5

Australasia
50 40 30 20 10 0 - 10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5

Temperat ure change ( o C)

Temperat ure change ( oC)

Europe
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0

Former Soviet Union

1

2

3

4

5

Temperat ure change ( oC)

Temperat ure change ( oC)

Page 24

North America
50 40 30 20 10 0 - 10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5

Caribbean
50 40 30 20 10 0 - 10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5

Temperat ure change ( o C)

Temperat ure change ( oC)

Central America
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 0 1 2 3 4 5
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 0 1

South America

2

3

4

5

Temperat ure change ( oC)

Temperat ure change ( oC)

West Asia
50 40 30 20 10 0 - 10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 1 2 3 4 5

Temperat ure change ( o C)

Figure 1.4 shows the modelled % change in runoff for a 2°C increase in global mean temperature across the 5 GCMs used. Figure 1.4

Page 25

Page 26

3. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE Contribution by Rachel Warren UEA

Several studies are used to assess the implications of climate change for agriculture, but 2 studies form the basis of most of the analysis (a) Fast Track analysis of global agricultural impacts, since this covers a range of socioeconomic scenarios and has specified in detail the adaptations considered (Parry 2004, Parry 2005) (b) IIASA study (Fischer 2002) (c) Pew Centre study (Jorgenson 2004), which reviews a range of other studies covering both optimistic and pessimistic assumptions for agricultural impacts in the USA. Mearns (2003) studies the effects of the spatial scale in modelling agricultural impacts in the SE USA, whilst Sands and Edmonds provides an up to date assessmene of climate impacts in the USA. The work of Darwin, as it has evolved over the years (Darwin 1995, Darwin 1999, Darwin 2004), is also reviewed is also examined since this work has been used in integrated assessment models. Various other local studies have been used to populate the regional impacts tables. Outputs from different publications about the impacts of agriculture make, in general, different assumptions about socioeconomics, adaptation and CO2 fertilisation.

3.1 Fast Track Analysis This study (Parry et al. 2004) details projected climate impacts upon crop yields, crop production, cereal prices and millions at risk from hunger. The study is regionally specific and consists of a two stage process (i) the simulation of percentage reductions in major crop yields in the presence or absence of CO2 fertilisation and (ii) the simulation of millions at risk from hunger (via cereal production and prices). The study spans the four SRES scenarios A1F, A2, B1 and B2 including some variants of A2 and B2. The aspects of the SRES scenarios which affect crop yields are changes in climate, specifically monthly temperature and precipitation, whilst population affects the calculations of crop production and millions at risk from hunger. The four crops studied (wheat, maize, rice and soybean) account for 85% of the world’s traded grains and legumes, and the yield results relate to regions that account for about 70% of the world’s grain production, whilst the BLS simulates 80% of the world food trade system. In the analysis presented here, the data underlying the Parry et al. (2004) study has been obtained and analysed to produce a regional breakdown of climate impacts. In particular, SRES timelines have been matched to the global mean annual average surface temperature increases given in Arnell et al. (2004) (reproduced in table 1.1 above) which matches the scenarios used 1 . (i) Simulation of percentage changes in crop yields

The IBSNAT-ICASA dynamic crop models for the major cereals were specified and validated in 124 sites in 18 countries representing major agricultural regions of the world (Rosenzweig and Iglesias, 1999). The crop model simulation results were aggregated and extrapolated to the
1

Arnell et al. (2004) and Parry et al. (2004) form two of the papers in the Special issue of Global Environmental Change in which Fast Track is published.

Page 27

regional level based on agroclimatic zone analysis. These results were then used to specify appropriate functional forms for regional yield response to climate parameters (temperature and precipitation) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The resulting functions were then linked to a geographically explicit database for the evaluation of spatial yield changes under the HadCM3 model (Hulme et al. 1999). The crop models used were CERES-Wheat (Ricthie & Otter 1985), CERES-Rice (Godwin et al. 1993) and CERES-maize (Ritchie et al. 1989). All these three models simulate physiological processes in plant development and growth, evapotranspiration, and partitioning of photosynthate to produce economic yield. They all assume that weeds, diseases and insect pests are controlled, that there are no problem soil conditions, e.g. high salinity, which may in fact be an increasing problems in coastal agricultural areas, and that there are no extreme weather events such as heavy storms. To apply the models, at each site simulation experiments were performed for the baseline climate and for step changes in temperature, precipitation and CO2 concentrations, and GCM changes with and without physiological effects of CO2. This required definition of the representative crop management (ie variety, fertiliser, rained/irrigated) and soils; definition of a local baseline climate for 1961-1990; validation of the crop models under current climate with local experimental data from field trials, where available; simulations of crop responses with climate modified scenarios; and testing of farm level adaptations such as shifts of up to 1 month in planting date; additional application of irrigation to crops already under irrigation; and changes in crop variety assuming only the range that exists today. Further detail may be found in Parry et al. (1999). Tables A5-7 a-b and Figures A1-12 of the Appendix show how yields change in the different world regions covered in the study in the different SRES scenarios. Results differ between scenarios owing to the differing temperature and precipitation. Results are shown assuming full CO2 fertilisation and assuming zero CO2 fertilisation. Table A8 shows the relative importance of the three cereals in each country, together with their assigned Stern Region. This information is summarised as part of Table 3.1 below. These tables were derived from the raw data underlying the Fast Track agriculture study (Parry et al. 2004). Figure 3.1 shows how world yields of 3 important cereal crops changes under climate change as simulated by HadCM3. Figure 3.2 shows the changes in the dominant crops grown in each region considered (detailed in Table 3.1 and Table A8). In South and Central America both rice and maize are important whilst in other regions there is a clearly dominant cereal crop. Wheat Figure 3.1 shows that world wheat yields decline by 22% for a temperature rise of 3-4°C above 1990 in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. Figures A1-4 show that the countries where wheat yield declines the most under climate change are North, Southern and West Africa and Western Asia where reductions of 30-40% in yield could occur for temperature rises of 3-4°C globally above 1990, should CO2 fertilisation not occur. The next worst affected countries are Central America, Central Asia, East Asia, where losses of 20-30% occur, whilst in South Asia, Europe, N America and S America losses of 10-20% are simulated. If CO2 fertilisation does occur, the losses are considerably smaller, only 3% globally at worst, with increases in yield seen for small temperature rises globally (up to 3%) and in some regions, most notably in Australia where benefits of 12% occur even for temperature rises of 3-4°C, and also in Europe and N America where increases of 3 – 8% were simulated. However, simulated losses in N, W, and Southern Africa are still 18%, 12% and 16% respectively.

Page 28

Wheat is the dominant crop grown in Central Asia, Europe, N Africa, Australasia, North America and Western Asia; and is a dominant grain crop in southern South America. Since wheat is the dominant grain crop in North Africa and Central and Western Asia, the anticipated yield losses here are a serious problem. Losses still occur, but are roughly 50% smaller, if CO2 fertilisation occurs, but are still important. Figure 3.1 Impacts of climate change on global wheat, maize and rice yields (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
World Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4

Scenario 4 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b World

-4

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

2

-8

-12 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-16

-2

-20

-24

-4

World 0 0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4
Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation 0 0

World

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

-2

-4

-4

-8

-6

-12

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-8

-16

-10

-20

Page 29

Global Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Scenario 2 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Global

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-4

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-8

-12 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-2

-16

-20

-4

-24

Maize Globally, Figure 3.1 shows that world maize yield declines by 18% for a temperature rise of 34°C above 1990 in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. Graphs M1-4 show that the countries worst affected for maize yield are North and Southern Africa, where without-CO2 fertilisation losses at 3-4°C are between 30 and 40%; next affected are Central Asia, West Africa, South Asia and West Asia (20-30%) whilst losses of 10-20% are simulated for North & South America, East Asia, Australasia and Europe. Significant losses still occur with CO2 fertilisation, almost 10% globally and, for example, 20% in North Africa, 22% in Southern Africa, 16% in Central Asia, and 19% in West Africa. Since maize is a C4 plant, it responds less well to CO2 fertilisation. Since maize is the dominant grain crop in most of Southern and West Africa, and there are losses even if CO2 fertilisation does occur, the anticipated yield losses here are a serious problem. Maize is also a dominant grain crop in much of Central America, South and North America. The situation in Southern and West Africa is also of concern, even under conditions of CO2 fertilisation. Rice Globally, Figure 3.1 shows that world rice yield declines by 20% for a temperature rise of 3-4°C above 1990 in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. Graphs R1-4 show that the countries worst affected for rice yields are North and Southern Africa where reductions of 30-40% in yield could occur for temperature rises of 3-4°C in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. The next most affected countries are Central Asia, West Africa and S America, with 20-25% losses, whilst North America, Europe, South Asia, East Asia, and Central America experience 10-20% losses under these conditions. If CO2 fertilisation does occur, global increases in yield of 1-2% occur between temperature rises of 2-3°C and increases also occur for many regions, except Africa and Central Asia where losses still occur. At higher temperature of 3-4°C global reductions of around 3% in yield still occur as temperature effects dominate CO2 fertilisation. Rice is the dominant grain crop in S and E Asia, where the 10-20% potential losses in the absence of CO2 fertilisation are significant. It is a dominant grain crop in much of Central and South America, and West Africa, all of which could experience severe impacts due to

Page 30

Figure 3.2 Impacts of climate change on the yield of the regionally dominant cereal crop across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004). Australia: wheat; Central America: maize; Central Asia: wheat.
Australasia
16 Australasia Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

2

Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

12

-2

8

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

4

-6

0

-8
Central America Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b 4

0

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) Central America

4

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-4

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-1

-2

-3

-8

-4

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-5

-12

-6
Central Asia
0 Central Asia

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

-2

-5

-4

-10

-15 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-6

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

-8

-25

Page 31

Figure 3.2 (contd) Impacts of climate change on the yields of the regionally dominant cereal crop across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004). East Asia: rice; Europe: wheat; North Africa: wheat
East Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

East Asia 4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-4

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

2

-8

Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-16

-2
-20
Europe 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4
8 Scenario Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b Europe

6

-4

4

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

2

-12

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-16

-2

North Africa 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4
Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation 0 0 4

North Africa

-10

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

-4

Scenario -20 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-8

Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-30

-16

-20

-40

Page 32

Figure 3.2 ( contd) Impacts of climate change on the yield of the regionally dominant cereal crop across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004). North America: wheat; Southern Africa: maize; South America: rice
North America 4
8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b North America

Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation

0

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0

6

-4

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

4

-12

2

-16

0

-20
Southern Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

0

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

Southern Africa 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation

1

2

3

4
Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation -4

-8

-10

-12 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Scenario -20 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-16

-20

-24

-30

South America Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

South America 2

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-4

-8

-2

-12

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-16 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-6

-20

-8

-24

Page 33

Figure 3.2 ( contd) Impacts of climate change on the yield of the regionally dominant cereal crop across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004). South Asia: rice; West Africa: maize; Western Asia: wheat.
South Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

South Asia 4

Scenario Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-4

2

-8

Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-2

-16

-20

-4
West Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

West Africa 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation

1

2

3

4

-5

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4

-10

-8

-15 Scenario -20 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-16

-25

-30
Western Asia

-20
West Asia 0
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

0

0
0 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4

-10

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-12

-30

-16
-40

climate change in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. CO2 fertilisation would cancel out many of these impacts.
Page 34

“Unpacking” matrices or graphs could not be produced for the agriculture sector since within the scope of the project the original models could not be re-run. The following paragraphs review the existing literature which addresses these uncertainties in the context of this study. Sensitivity of results to use of different GCMS: The crop models used to calculate climateinduced changes in yields require monthly climate data from GCMs. The HadCM3 GCM is the only model utilised so it is not possible to show how results might differ with the use of another GCM. However, earlier studies of the consequences of CO2 doubling in the atmosphere did use three alternative GCMs, and identified larger impacts for UKMO (the uncoupled predecessor of HadCM2 and HadCM3) than for the GISS model or the GFDL models (Rosenzweig and Parry 1994, Rosenzweig et al. 1995). However, these larger impacts were due to the larger amount of temperature change associated with CO2 doubling in UKMO and not due to differing patterns of climate change for the same global temperature change. Sensitivity to treatment of adaptation The Fast Track analysis presented here assumes three different forms of adaptation, such that adaptation levels vary between countries BUT NOT between SRES scenarios. Adaptation methods considered are: (a) “level 0” adaptation at zero cost at the farm level, by shifting planting dates and available crop varieties (b) “level 1” low cost adaptation at the farm level by methods such as choice of crop, variety, planting date, and irrigation : this is assumed applied 100% in developed countries and 75% in developing countries and (c) “level 2” adaptation involving some regional or national policy change resulting in major changes in planting dates, availability of new cultivars, extensive expansion of irrigation and increased fertilizer application (Parry . 2005). These imply economic adjustments and are applied in developed countries only, based on current GDP. Although a single adaptation scenario was used in the Fast Track study, Rosenzweig and Parry (1994) did study the application of “level 1” versus “level 2” adaptation. They found that for CO2 doubling (which corresponded for the UKMO to a global temperature rise of 4.9°C above 1990) that level 1 adaptations largely compensated for yield reductions seen in the developed world, but that developing countries were still unable to compensate for their losses. Overall, the authors found that level 1 adaptations had little influence on reducing the global impacts of climate change (Parry et al. 2005). Level 2 adaptations, however, did significantly offset the impacts. In this particular study, different socioeconomic assumptions were made than under SRES so it would be difficult to use these results to extrapolate from the results of Parry et al. 2004 to create a “no adaptation” case for comparison. However, since the levels of adaptation applied are related to GDP, only the outputs for the developed world would change significantly if adaptation were removed, since adaptation levels in countries where GDP is low will be small. Sensitivity to omission of extreme weather events on a daily timescale Short term, extreme weather conditions such as floods, droughts and heatwaves are not included in the study, and can have significant effects on crop yields. Parry et al. (2005) point out that by the 2080s the HadCM3 predicts a dramatic increase in natural climate variability, to the extent that global and regional temperatures will fluctuate on an annual basis over a range equal to more than half the increase in temperature predicted over the next 80 years. Challinor et al. (2006) consider extremes of temperature, and point out how only a few days of high temperatures near flowering in wheat, groundnut and soybean can drastically reduce yield. They simulate a heatwave near flowering of soybean in India, and
Page 35

show how this significantly reduces yields in 2071-2100 for varieties which are moderately sensitive, whilst also pointing out that varieties which are tolerant to high temperature stress near flowering may be available, depending on the crop type. Rosenzweig et al. (2002) modified CERES-Maize to incorporate the effects of increased heavy precipitation and floods on maize yields in the USA. They predicted that the current 3% yield losses due to flooding could increase to 6% due to increased climate variability and precipitation under climate change using HadCM2 and CCS GCMs. Carbon Dioxide Fertilisation Effect Carbon Dioxide has a direct fertilisation effect upon plants which can in theory, and in the laboratory, increase the yields of crops such as wheat and rice (but no maize, for which the effect is small) significantly for small temperature rises, before the negative effects of increased temperatures become more important in determining yields. In this study simulations of the effect are based on an extensive review of previous simulations (Parry et al. 2004). However, recent evidence (Royal Society, 2005; Long et al. 2005) shows that the effects of CO2 fertilisation are lower in the field than in the laboratory for rice, wheat, maize and soybean, and would be further reduced with yield losses of up to 20% due to increases in episodes of high tropospheric ozone concentrations (which are predicted to increase with climate change). Yields are also reduced by climate-change induced outbreaks of pests and diseases, reductions in crop pollinators, and by a predicted increasing frequency in extreme weather [such as a day or an hour of extreme heat], even if soil-nutrient and water availability remain constant under climate change. However, the Parry et al. study presents results including and not including this effect, to encompass the full range of uncertainty.

(ii) Simulation of millions at risk from hunger The changes in yields of wheat, rice and maize from (i) are fed to a world food trade model (BLS) designed at IIASA for policy studies. It is a general equilibrium model system which simulates all economic sectors, and in which country models are linked by trade, world market prices and financial flows. Full details are given in Fischer et al. (1996, 2001). In the BLS, country yield changes are aggregated to an overall cereal production figure using the FAO relative weights given in Table A1, whilst yield changes were extrapolated to provide yield changes for other crops, and then converted via the BLS into predictions for regional and global food production and international prices. In the BLS, a fourth form of adaptation is simulated, that of the conversion of marginal land for agricultural use should there be a food shortage in the region concerned. The tables shown in this section thus include all four types of adaptation. Note that agricultural technological improvement is treated to be out of the scope of farm level adaptation and is included in the BLS but is constant across SRES (Table 3.1). The BLS uses FAO estimates of land use parameters rather than the SRES land cover scenarios. A comparison between the BLS and SRES projections of global cereal land area is given in the Appendix (Table A9). This results in some significant differences for example SRES suggests a decrease in cropland after the 2020s for scenarios A1 and B1 whilst BLS suggests a steady increase in arable land under these scenarios. Demand for food is allowed to vary between scenarios as it is linked to per capita GDP.

Page 36

Table 3.1. Assumed annual percentage rates of improvement in technology across SRES scenarios SRES A1 A2 B1 B2 Global Dev Dvlpg 1.2 1.0 1.7 1.2. 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.7

The BLS utilised in the Fast Track study does not, however, take into account the possibility for new areas to become suitable for the growth of crops as a result of changing climate. However it does allow for areas to be converted to cultivation, or given up, as far as the current climate permits, according to the demand for the crop products. Such a study would need to take into account of the soil types and precipitation in the areas where temperature has increased. Furthermore, many crops rely on an infrastructure for irrigation, which would require a substantial investment to put into place in new regions. Limitations of the approach employed in Fast Track are that the distribution of food trade depends on degree of convergence between economies; that a constant adaptation scenario is used; that flooding is not included; that only one GCM is used; and that cropland increases in the BLS are simulated to occur on marginal land only. Grain crops only are included, and detail of the spatial variability of agricultural conditions may not be captured. The BLS produces estimates of millions at risk from hunger in its own regions, and these could not be re-assigned to the precise regions listed in Table A1 due to model, data and resource availability constraints. Hence Table A8a (of the appendix) provides a mapping between the assignation of countries to BLS and Stern regions. The BLS is used to simulate the difference between a future baseline projection incorporating technological and population changes, and a future climate changed projection. Model results are therefore the additional millions at risk of hunger under the different scenarios, and the percentage increases in cereal prices. Model results are shown for the different SRES scenarios. SRES simulations differ due to (i) the different temperature and precipitation, which affects the yields (ii) the different population scenarios and (iii) the different temporal profiles of GDP/capita. (Recall that the same level of adaptation and technological change are assumed for all SRES scenarios). Figure 3.3 shows the BLS-simulated dramatic fall in global cereal production in the absence of CO2 fertilisation. Figure 3.4 shows the contrasting situation with CO2 fertilisation. However that note that the scale on Figure 3.4 is very much smaller than that of Figure 3.3

Page 37

Figure 3.3

Page 38

Figure 3.4 Tables 3.2-3.3 show the corresponding percentage changes in global cereal prices.

Table 3.2 Percentage increases in international BLS Cereal Prices for SRES scenarios in Parry et al. (2004) With CO2 fertilisation
Scenario A1FI A2 B1 B2 2020 5 5 9 13 2050 6 5 10 13 2080 14 3 15 6

Table 3.3 Percentage increases in international BLS Cereal Prices for SRES scenarios in Parry et al. (2004)
Page 39

Without CO2 fertilisation

Scenario A1FI A2 B1 B2

2020 19 19 17 21

2050 64 57 34 44

2080 136 129 45 73

Malnutrition currently causes 3.7 million deaths annually, 1.7 million of which are in Africa and 1.9 million of which are in Asia. It is therefore a bigger cause of death than disease (see Table 5.1). Table 3.4 shows the additional millions at risk from hunger simulated by the BLS for 4 SRES scenarios and three different dates into the future, with the matching temperatures simulated by HadCM3 (Hulme et al. 1999) shown alongside. Numbers are given against the simulated evolving SRES baselines for millions at risk in the absence of climate change, with and without CO2 fertilisation. Note that a regional breakdown is provided and that all at risk of hunger are in less developed countries (LDCs). Table A10a-d in the Appendix gives the corresponding percentage and absolute changes in cereal production globally and in the BLS regions. These millions at risk are also shown in Figures 3.5 – 3.8. Globally, millions at risk rise dramatically in the absence of CO2 fertilisation to a maximum of 600 mar in 2080, especially in Africa (up to 200 million at risk), W Asia (up to 150 million at risk), Latin America and Central Asia (each up to 90 million at risk). The A2 world has more millions at risk than the A1 world in the absence of CO2 fertilisation because (a) population – billions more concentrated in the poor regions of the world (b) regional differences in climate change scenarios (c ) greater economic disparities between regions in the A2 world. This limits the distribution of goods and also hinders adaptation resulting in the A2 world being unable to “grow” itself out of trouble, which it does in the presence of CO2 fertilisation. Attributing the exact influence of these three reasons is beyond the scope of this project. In the presence of CO2 fertilisation the A1 world is worse because of high temperatures.

Page 40

Table 3.4(a) Additional millions at risk of hunger in absence of CO2 fertilisation for SRES scenarios by region compared to reference scenarios to 2080 with no climate change (based on Parry et al. 2004)
2020 without C baseline % change 2050 without baseline % change 2080 without baseline % change

CO2
A1FI Global annual mean T rise sin ce 1990 LDCs (WORLD) ASIA LDCs OTHER LDCs AFR LAM WAS CPA SEA A2 fertilisation

CO2
fertilisation

CO2
fertilisation

0.7 63 49 14 8 3 3 7 42 2020

0 663 342 321 251 22 48 81 261 2020

0.7 10 14 4 3 12 6 9 16

1.96 100 16 84 50 13 21 9 7 2050

0 208 41 167 102 13 52 3 38 2050

1.96 48 39 50 49 95 41 287 18

3.67 263 35 229 157 27 44 26 8 2080

0 108 24 84 42 9 32 4 21 2080

3.67 243 142 272 369 294 138 728 41

Global annual mean T rise since 1990 LDCs (WORLD) ASIA LDCs OTHER LDCs AFR LAM WAS CPA SEA B1 Global annual mean temperature

0.59 63 45 18 9 5 4 11 34 2020

0 782 387 395 271 64 60 136 251 2020

0.59 8 12 5 3 8 6 8 13

1.59 212 101 112 54 26 32 37 63 2050

0 721 209 512 297 79 136 110 99 2050

1.59 29 48 22 18 32 24 34 64

2.9 551 132 419 200 85 134 88 44 2080

0 768 195 573 287 90 197 110 85 2080

2.9 72 68 73 70 95 68 80 52

0

0.54

1.15

1.15

1.76

1.76

Page 41

rise since 1990 LDCs (WORLD) ASIA LDCs OTHER LDCs AFR LAM WAS CPA SEA B2

0.54 44 32 12 6 3 2 3 29 2020 749 432 317 250 21 46 92 340 2020 6 7 4 3 13 5 3 8 34 7 27 17 4 7 3 4 2050

0 239 53 187 127 11 49 4 49 2050 14 14 15 13 33 14 62 9 34 2 33 23 5 5 0 2 2080

0 91 22 69 34 7 27 0 22 2080 38 7 48 67 72 18 0 7

Global annual mean T rise since 1990 LDCs (WORLD) ASIA LDCs OTHER LDCs AFR LAM WAS CPA SEA

0.61 54 38 16 9 5 3 9 29

0 630 246 384 283 51 50 98 148

0.61 9 15 4 3 9 6 9 20

1.31 66 19 47 28 10 10 15 4

0 348 85 263 181 26 57 42 42

1.31 19 22 18 16 37 17 35 10

2.08 151 27 124 89 15 20 18 9

0 233 54 180 113 16 51 20 33

2.08 65 50 69 78 99 39 89 27

Page 42

Table 3.4(b). Additional millions at risk of hunger in presence of CO2 fertilisation for SRES scenarios by region compared to reference scenarios to 2080 with no climate change (based on Parry et al. 2004)
2020 with baseline % change 2050 with baseline % change 2080 with baseline % change

CO2
A1FI Global annual mean T rise since 1990 LDCs (WORLD) ASIA LDCs OTHER LDCs AFRICA LATIN AMERICA WESTERN ASIA CENTRALLY PLANNED ASIA SOUTHEAST ASIA A2 fertilisation

CO2
fertilisation

CO2
fertilisation

0.7 24 19 4 3 1 0 2 18 2020

0 663 342 321 251 22 48 81 261 2020

0.7 4 6 1 1 2 1 2 7

1.96 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2050

0 208 41 167 102 13 52 3 38 2050

1.96 1 0 1 2 -3 -1 -12 1

3.67 28 2 27 21 1 5 1 0 2080

0 108 24 84 42 9 32 4 21 2080

3.67 26 7 32 49 13 15 32 2

Global annual mean T rise since 1990 LDCs (WORLD) ASIA LDCs OTHER LDCs AFRICA LATIN AMERICA WESTERN ASIA CENTRALLY PLANNED ASIA

0.59 21 16 5 4 1 1 5

0 782 387 395 271 64 60 136

0.59 3 4 1 1 1 1 3

1.59 1 0 0 2 0 -1 1

0 721 209 512 297 79 136 110

1.59 0 0 0 1 -1 0 1

2.9 -28 -16 -11 -2 -4 -5 -14

0 768 195 573 287 90 197 110

2.9 -4 -8 -2 -1 -5 -2
Page 43

-13

SOUTHEAST ASIA B1

12 2020

251 2020

5

-1 2050

99 2050

-1

-2 2080

85 2080

-3

Global annual mean T rise since 1990 LDCs (WORLD) ASIA LDCs OTHER LDCs AFRICA LATIN AMERICA WESTERN ASIA CENTRALLY PLANNED ASIA SOUTHEAST ASIA B2

0.54 22 16 6 4 1 1 0 16 2020

0 749 432 317 250 21 46 92 340 2020

0.54 3 4 2 2 6 2 0 5

1.15 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 2050

0 239 53 187 127 11 49 4 49 2050

1.15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1.76 12 1 11 8 2 1 0 1 2080

0 91 22 69 34 7 27 0 22 2080

1.76 13 2 16 23 26 4 0 2

Global annual mean T rise since 1990 LDCs (WORLD) ASIA LDCs OTHER LDCs AFRICA LATIN AMERICA WESTERN

0.61 31 22 10 6 2 1

0 630 246 384 283 51 50

0.61 5 9 3 2 4 3

1.31 11 3 8 5 1 1

0 348 85 263 181 26 57

1.31 3 4 3 3 5 2

2.08 -12 -2 -10 -8 -1 -1

0 233 54 180 113 16 51

2.08 -5 -5 -5 -7 -6 -2
Page 44

ASIA CENTRALLY PLANNED ASIA SOUTHEAST ASIA

4 17

98 148

4 12

2 1

42 42

6 2

0 -2

20 33

-2 -6

Page 45

Figure 3.5

Page 46

Figure 3.6

Page 47

Figure 3.7. Millions at risk from climate change across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
Africa 200

Africa 200

Scenario Millions at risk of hunger, without CO2 fertilisation 150 A1FI A2 B1 B2

Scenario 150 Millions at risk of hunger, with CO2 fertilisation A1FI A2 B1 B2

100

100

50

50

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-50

-50

Mexico, Central and South America (LAM) 200
200

Mexico, Central and South America (LAM)

Scenario Millions at risk of hunger, without CO2 fertilisation 150 A1FI A2 B1 B2
150 Millions at risk of hunger, with CO2 fertilisation

Scenario A1FI A2 B1 B2

100

100

50

50

0

0
0

0

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4
-50

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

-50

Page 48

Figure 3.8. Millions at risk from climate change across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
Western Asia (WAS) 200
200 Western Asia (WAS)

Scenario Millions at risk of hunger, without CO2 fertilisation 150 A1FI A2 B1 B2
150 Millions at risk of hunger, with CO2 fertilisation

Scenario A1FI A2 B1 B2

100

100

50

50

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-50
Centrally Planned Asia (CPA, includes China) 200

-50
Centrally Planned Asia (CPA, includes China) 200

Scenario Millions at risk of hunger, without CO2 fertilisation 150 A1FI A2 B1 B2
150 Millions at risk of hunger, with CO2 fertilisation

Scenario A1FI A2 B1 B2

100

100

50

50

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-50
Southeast Asia (SEA, includes India) 200

-50 Southeast Asia (SEA, includes India) 200

Scenario Millions at risk of hunger, without CO2 fertilisation 150 A1FI A2 B1 B2

150 Millions at risk of hunger, with CO2 fertilisation

100

100

Scenario A1FI A2 B1 B2

50

50

0

0
0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0

-50

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

-50

Page 49

Key aspects or regional impacts on agriculture not covered by large scale continental or global analyses General points • The studies do not include the impacts of sea level rise which will have impacts on agriculture. For example, Between 2 and 3°C the associated sea level rise would cause increased flooding in Bangladesh, damaging agriculture. Similarly, low-lying coasts worldwide will be affected by rising sea levels and salinisation. Studies do not take into account potential climate change induced yield reductions due to potential changes in ecosystem services, for example availability of soil nutrients and pollinators may decline as climate change occur, there may be climate-change induced increases in pest outbreaks, and increases in air pollutants such as tropospheric ozone which damages crops. Food quality can decline even if yields increase or remain constant. CO2 fertilisation can lead to declines in food quality. Between 0.9 and 1.4°C above 1990, poor farmers income declines globally (Hare 2003). This information may not show in model results for countries whose farmers have a range of incomes. Even if there are no overall impacts on the yield of a crop within a country as a whole, this picture can mask a large amount of local variation. For example, in Venezuela where a global temperature rise of 1.4-1.7°C has been predicted to decrease maize yields by 10-15%, 15% decrease maize yield (Gitay . 2001); adaptation could offset 10% of this but it hides huge local variation (Jones & Thornton 2003.

• • •

Africa • Between 1.4-1.9°C annual global mean temperature increase, fisheries are predicted to be impacted NW Africa, E African lakes (ECF 2004) Malawi – fishery damage removes primary protein source for 50% population(ECF 2004) • Between 1.4-1.9°C food production in Southern Africa is predicted to be threatened (ECF 2004) since there is a significant risk of 80% crop failure for both commercial and subsistence agriculture (ECF 2004); average • 10% loss maize production (1.7°C, 2055 IS92a, model CERES-maize, Jones & Thornton 2003) However maize yields rise by 100% in the Ethiopian highlands, whilst overall in Ethiopia there is little change, in other places the reductions are huge. J&T assume no adaptation. • In Southern Africa Kalahari dune activation threatens sub-Saharan agriculture (Thomas . 2005) • 1.9-3.4 crop failure rise from 50% to 75% (ECF 2004) Australia and Russia

Page 50

At 3.7°C above 1990 temperature rise globally, large areas may be out of production in both regions (Hare 2003). In Russia if local temperature rise in the 2070s was between 3 and 6°C, this would suggest a 5-12% drop in agricultural GDP in Russia and hence an overall GDP loss of 14-41% in the agricultural regions (ECF 2004). South Asia If global annual mean temperatures rise by 2 to 3°C, food security in India could be at risk, since changes in precipitation imply a 5 to 30% loss of rice and wheat yields (ECF 2004, consistent with Fast Track study), whist in China rice yields could change by +20 to -10% for global temperature increases between 2 and 2.5°C depending on the effects of CO2 fertilisation (also consistent with Fast Track study). Effect of collapse of the thermohaline circulation Food production could be threatened by a collapse of the THC in the following areas due to the associated changes in global circulation patterns.

3.2 Other Studies (a) Fischer et al. 2002 IIASA Study This study has similar aims to the Parry et al. 2004 work, and also makes use of the BLS model. However the results are substantially more optimistic because the study assumes a strong CO2 fertilisation effect. The study presents two sets of results, one for impacts of climate change on existing cultivated land, which is thus directly comparable with Parry et al. and another which presents impacts of climate change on all land, assuming that new land is brought under cultivation. Even when results are compared for existing land, there is still less impact of climate change under the IIASA study, because (a) a set of 4 GCMs are used, which present smaller adverse changes in rainfall and temperature and (b) optimistic assumptions are made about adaptation, for example effects in the developing world are simulated whilst assuming “an advanced level of inputs and management for currently cultivated areas”. Hence in this simulation some production increases are seen for some developing countries. (b) Pew Centre Study: The Pew Centre study (Jorgenson . 2004) is a non-modelling review of literature which investigates optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for the impacts of climate change on the economy of the USA, including agriculture. As such it provides a few elements of an unpacking matrix for the region, detailing how the use of different GCM patterns and “impact model” affects the predictions of economic impacts from agriculture for different climate scenarios. Effectively the “Impact model” simulates how much the climate

Page 51

change impacts on agricultural components of society, and thus incorporates in a simple way both the socioeconomic conditions and the ability to adapt, folded into a single concept. The “pessimistic”model is based on the results of Adams (1990, 1999) whilst the optimistic one is based on the US National Climate Change Assessment, 2001. Under the optimistic scenario temperature would need to rise 3.3°C in the USA for negative impacts on agriculture to be seen, whilst the Adams view is that this threshold is near or has already been crossed. The GCM patterns used by the Pew Centre encompass a range of variations in precipitation so necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the possible outcomes for agriculture. However a specific GCM analysis is not carried out, which makes it difficult to place the Fast Track analysis in the context of the GCM range studied. Instead, the Pew Centre analysis instead scopes the ranges of temperature and precipitation change that the continent as a whole might experience. The analysis is based on analysing the implications of the use of the range of damage functions in the literature. “Pessimism” or “Optimism” has a greater effect than GCM choice. The difference between the two involves both the inclusion or not of CO2 fertilisation and the level of assumed adaptive capacity. Table 3.5 shows a schematic unpacking of these various influences on the simulations. Table 3.5 Agriculture climate impacts simulations unpacking matrix for the USA, taken from Pew Centre report, page 12 North Income America
Factor Average annual percent change in unit cost function at 1.3°C Average annual percent change in unit cost function at 4°C

None (estimate for 1 set of assumptions) GCM patt

For 1.3C default is -0.2 (mean of +13.6 and -14.0 but includes some GCM variation)

Default is -7.8 (mean of -39.2 and +23.6)

+13.6 to +20.4 in optimistic case OR +14.9 to -14.0 in pessimistic case Impact model Range expands to -14.0 to +20.4

-1.1 to +23.6 in optimistic case OR -88.1 to -39.2 in pessimistic case Range expands to -88.1 to +23.6

Sands and Edmonds (2005) assess the effect of 1 and 2.5°C increases in global mean temperature by 2050 and show across the USA that yields of maize, wheat and soybean generally increase for a 2.5°C temperature rise only if full CO2 fertilisation is assumed, consistent with the Fast Track analysis. However this study provides as assessment for two different GCMs, and so the ranges given in the tables below reflect the range resulting from the use of both GCMs with and without sulphate aerosol forcing. The model allows for adaptation by crop switching and for conversion of forests to agriculture. The model separates out the inclusion or not of adaptation to the use of the additional precipitation that falls in some areas, and to the reduced precipitation in other areas by bringing down the area under cultivation. This adaptation has a moderating effect upon both gains and losses. However, CO2 fertilisation remains the most important driver of results (Table 3.6). Comparing the table with Figure 7 of the Appendix, in

Page 52

which maize yields fall by 5-7% in North America in the absence of CO2 fertilisation, the studies are very similar. However the Fast Track study shows gains up only 1% in maize yields in the presence of CO2 fertilisation and this for smaller temperature rises, with losses of 0-2% manifesting at 2.5°C. Thus this study is more optimistic than Fast Track about the effects of CO2 fertilisation on maize yields. Table 3.6. Maize yield changes from Sands and Edmonds (2005) for a 1-2.5°C temperature increase. MAIZE without CO2 with CO2 without CO2 with CO2 YIELD no change in no change in changed changed irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation CHANGES 1°C 3.6% loss to 7.9-12.7% gain 2.1-0.7 % loss 5.5-7.3% gain 1% gain 2.5C 15.4-0.6 % 2.6% loss to 4.6-11.8% 3.2% loss – loss 9.4% gain loss 2.5% gain WHEAT YIELD CHANGES 1°C 2.5°C without CO2 no change in irrigation 2.1 to 5.2% loss 6.2-9.7% loss with CO2 no change in irrigation 16-18.4% gain 11.1-12.8% gain without CO2 changed irrigation 2.9-3.5% loss 6.8-7.6% loss with CO2 changed irrigation 14.5-15.1% gain 7.7-10.9% gain

(d) Darwin (Darwin, 2004; Darwin, 1999; Darwin & Kennedy, 2000, and Darwin et al. 1995) generally provides the upper limit for climate impacts upon agriculture since it assumes perfect adaptation not only at the farm and policy level, but also assumes that there are instantaneous land use changes and appropriate choice and availability of crops to grow agriculture wherever possible as the geographical location of the climate envelopes of cultivars changes. This latter assumption is known as the “hedonic” method and has been strongly criticised as follows (Schlenker, 2004): the hedonic method, which uses the spatial difference in bio-economics of agriculture between warm and cold regions to predict the consequences of increasing temperatures in present-day cold regions to those of present-day warm regions, assumes thus that changes in time and space are equivalent, and that systems immediately just to a new stable state so that there is no consideration of time-dependence, and only annual average regional temperatures are considered, so that changes and seasonal variability in temperature or rainfall are not considered (Schneider 1997). It also assumes that precipitation measures the water supply for crops and that future changes in production costs will be capitalised in land values in the same way that past production costs were capitalised in past land values, both of which are problematic assumptions for the area of study, the USA, where large areas of cropland are irrigated, and construction of new water systems would be very much more costly than continued operations of existing ones. Using a hedonic model tied to a national data set of farmland values that combines both dryland and irrigated farming counties is likely to be questionable both on econometric grounds, because it

Page 53

combines what we expect to be two heterogeneous equations with different variables and different coefficients into a single regression, and also on economic grounds, since we expect it to understate future capital costs, especially those borne by farmers, in the areas that will need additional surface water irrigation due to the effects of climate change. Furthermore, potential increases in extreme weather events are not taken into account. Finally, to realise these changes in yields large land use changes are required. For example, to offset the impacts of CO2 doubling as simulated by the UKMO model in 2090, a 15% increase in world cropland is considered necessary, including a doubling of the area farmed in Canada. Such large scale conversion of previously uncultivated land would increase the stresses on ecosystems, which will already be strongly stressed by climate change rendering a greater need for conservation of remaining natural habitat, in particular to allow migration of fauna and flora to cooler locations. This literature is analogous to the “optimistic” scenarios referred to in the study by the Pew Centre since they underpin the US National Climate Change Assessment for agriculture. It is very much more optimistic in its adaptation assumptions than the Fast Track study, and in this author’s opinion unrealistically so. Specifically, Darwin (1999, 2004) uses a series of CO2 doubling and other GCM experiments’ input to the model FARM calibrated to 1990 economic conditions to derive parameters of how crop production changes with climate change of temperature and precipitation (without calculating directly effects on yields). He then scales these parameters to derive impacts of a 1 and 5°C temperature change by multiplying by the T change. Table 3.7 thus aims to provide an optimistic assessment of world impacts at different degrees of T change. Although some results are given by region they are based on an average of the different GCMs regional predictions for change in precipitation. Darwin does provide results without CO2 fertilisation for regions, but CO2 fertilisation is only modelled globally and in the absence of temperature rise. The quantities calculated are world crop production, livestock production, food consumption, livestock and food prices and per capita welfare. Only per capita welfare is provided on a regional basis. The results are calculated from statistical regressions in the FARM model of the relationship between the output variables and the changed climate or economic conditions and contrast greatly with Fast Track analyses. Table 3.7 From Darwin 2004: FARM analysis for 1990 economic conditions and no CO2 fertilisation (% changes) Temperature World World World crop World World Change °C crop livestock price livestock food production production price price 1 -0.22+/-0.08+/+0.58+/+0.14+/-0.68 +0.03+/0.44 0.12 0.78 0.16 5.2 -1.16+/-0.4+/+3.0+/-2.07 +0.73+/-1.81 0.14+/1.15 0.33 0.41

Page 54

(e) A study in the SE USA (Mearns, 2003 (ed).) also based on the CERES crop models was devoted to understanding scale influence on predictions of yields changes of 5 crops, based on a single GCM scenario for CO2 doubling only (CSIRO) which may be used to drive a finer scale model, the NCAR RCM (Tables 3.8, 3.9). There is no time dimension to this study and the CSIRO model predicts a global temperature rise of 4.0°C for CO2 doubling above 1990. The study also investigates the role of CO2 fertilisation and of adaptation. Adaptations considered for wheat, rice and maize are changes in sowing dates, and not changes in cultivars. There is thus less adaptation considered in this study than in the Fast Track study. However, for soybean and sorghum changes in cultivars were also considered, bringing the inclusion of adaptation closer to that considered in Fast Track. Table 3.8 Crop

Model:

GCM, no CO2 fert

RCM

GCM with CO2 fert

RCM with CO2 fert

GCM with CO2 fert and adaptation

RCM with CO2 fert and adaptation

Base % change yield (kg/ha) Maize 8100 -15 -16 -2 -2 +6 +6 Wheat 4500 -36 -32 -26 -21 -25 -21 Rice 9600 -16 -19 -3 -5 2 6 Sorghum 6410 -36 -51 -26 -42 -10 -15 Soybean 2380 -49 -69 -26 -54 -8 -18 Table 3.9. Duration of growing season for various crops in SE USA (Tsvetsinskaya et al. 2003) Crop Model: GCM, RCM GCM RCM GCM RCM no CO2 with with with CO2 with CO2 fert fert and fert and CO2 CO2 fert fert adaptation adaptation Base New Maize 123 105 107 105 107 112 118 Wheat 214 206 201 206 203 208 212 Rice 128 110 112 110 112 122 126 For maize the strongest driver of yield change is CO2 fertilisation and then adaptation; whilst for wheat adaptation had little impact and CO2 fertilisation a much smaller impact. 2 For rice again CO2 fertilisation was key in predicting the changes, followed by adaptation. Scale effects were largest for rice but the influence of the scale of the modelling was smaller than the influence of the inclusion or not of adaptation, or the
This study models CO2 fertilisation to be more effective for maize in the USA than does Fast Track, and much less effective for wheat; but conditions in the SE USA are not representative of the whole USA, so a comparison is not valid, and the importance of this section is the contribution the study makes to the sources of uncertainty in such estimates of climate impacts upon agriculture in the absence of an unpacking matrix for the Fast track study.
Page 55
2

influence of the inclusion or not of CO2 fertilisation. Even with the most optimistic assumptions yields of wheat still decreased. For soybean and sorghum the influences of CO2 fertilisation, adaptation and scale of modelling on the predicted changes in yield were all comparably large. However, consistent large negative responses to climate change are a common feature across the various assumptions one might make in attempting to predict the extent of yield reduction for soybean and sorghum even with changes in cultivars.

Page 56

REFERENCES 1. Adams, R.M., McCarl, B.A., Segerson, K., Rosenzweig, C., Bryant, K.J., Dixon, B.L., Conner, R., Evenson, R.E., and Ojima, D. 1999. Economic Effects of Climate Change on US Agriculture. In Impacts of climate change on the US Economy Mendelsohn, R., and Neumann, J.E. (Eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Pp 18-54 2. Adams, R.M., Rosenzweig, C., Peart, J., Ritchie, B., McCarl, B., Glyer, J., Curry, B., Jones, J., Boote, K., and Allen, L. 1990. Global climate change and US agriculture. Nature 219-224. 3. Challinor, A.J., Wheeler, T.R., and Slingo, J.M. 2006. Assessing the vulnerability of crop productivity to climate change thresholds using an integrated crop-climate model. In Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Schellnhuber, H.J., Cramer, W., Nakicenivic, N., Wigley, T., and Yohe, G. (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 4. Darwin, R, Tsigas, M., Leqandrowski, J., and Raneses, A.: 1995, World Agriculture and Climate Change: Economic Adaptations. Agricultural economic report number 703, US Dept of Agriculture. 5. Darwin, R., and Kennedy, D. 2000. Economic effects of CO2 fertilisation on crops: transforming changes in yield into changes in supply. Environmental Modelling and Assessment 5, 157-168 6. Darwin, R. 1999. A farmer’s view of the Ricardian approach to measuring agricultural effects of climatic change. Climatic Change 41, 371-411. 7. Darwin, R. 2004. Effects of greenhouse gas emissions on world agriculture, food consumption, and economic welfare. Climatic Change 66, 191-238. 8. European Climate Forum (ECF): 2004, ‘What is dangerous climate change? Initial results of a symposium on Key Vulnerable Regions, Climate Change and Article 2 of the UNFCCC’, held at Beijing, 27-30 October 2004, and presented at Buenos Aires, 14 Dec 2004 9. Fischer, G., Frohberg, K., Parry, M.L., Rosensweig, C. 1996. Impacts of potential climate change on global and regional food production and vulnerability. In

Page 57

Downing, T.E. (Ed) NATO ASI Series, Climate Change and World Food Security, Vol. 137. Springer, Berlin. 10. Fischer, G., Shah, M., van Velthiuzen, H., Nachtergaele, F.O. 2001. Global agroecological assessmet for agriculture in the 21st century. IIASA Research Report 02-02. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. 11. Gitay, H., Brown, S., Easterling, W. and Jallow, B.: 2001, 'Chapter 5: Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services', Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 237-342 12. Godwin, D., Singh, U., Ritchie, J.T., Alocilja, E.C. 1993. A user’s guide to CERES-rice. Muscle Shoals International Fertiliser Development Centre. 13. Hare, W., 2003, ‘Assessment of Knowledge on Impacts of Climate Change – Contribution to the specification of Art. 2 on the UNFCCC’, WGBU, Berlin 2003. 14. Hulme, M., Mitchell, J., Ingram, W., Johns, T., New, M., Viner, D., 1999. Climate change scenarios for global impacts studies. Global Environmental Change 9, S13-19. 15. Jones, P.G., and Thornton, P.K.: 2003, ‘The potential impacts of climate change on maize production in Africa and Latin America in 2055’, Global Environmental Change 13, 51-59. 16. Jorgenson, D.W., Goettle, R.J., Hurd, B.H., and Smith, J.B. US Market Consequences of Climate Change, Pew Centre, 2004. 17. Long, S.P., Ainsworth, E.A., Leakey, A.D.B., and Morgan, P.B. 2005. Global food insecurity: treatment of major food crops with elevated carbon dioxide or ozone under large-scale fully open-air conditions suggests recent models may have overestimated future yields. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 00 2011-2020 18. Parry, M., Arnell, N., McMichael, T., Nicholls, R., Martens, P., Kovats, S., Livermore, M., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A. and Fischer, G.: 2001, 'Millions at risk: defining critical climate change threats and targets', Global Environmental Change 11, 181-183. 19. Ritchie J.T., Singh, U., Godwin, D., Hunt, L., 1989. A User’s Guide to CERESMaize v2.10. Muscle Shoals International Fertiliser Development Centre.

Page 58

20. Ritchie, J.T., and Otter, S., 1995. Description and performance of CERESWheat: A user oriented wheat-yield model. In ARS Wheat Yield Project Willis, W.O. (Ed) 159-175. ARS-38 Washington DC. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 21. Rosenzweig, C., and Iglesias, A 1994. Implications of climate change for international agriculture: Crop Modelling Study. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. 22. Rosenzweig, C., and Parry, M.L. 1994. Potential impacts of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367, 133-138. 23. Rosenzweig, C., Parry, M., and Fischer, G. 1995. World Food Supply. In As Climate Changes: International Impacts and Implications. Strzepeck, K.M., and Smith, J.B. (Eds) Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-56. 24. Rosenzweig, C.E., Tubiello, F., Goldberg,R., and Bloomfield, J. 2002. Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Global Environmental Change 12, 197-202. 25. Royal Society 2005. Food crops in a changing climate: report of a Royal Society Discussion held in April 2005. Policy Document 10/05, June 2005. ISBN 0 854036156 (available at www.royal-soc.ac.uk) 26. Sands, R., Edmonds, J. (2005) Climate change impacts for the conterminous USA: an integrated assessment. Part 7: economic analysis of field crops and land use with climate change. Climatic Change 69, 127-150 27. Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Fischer, G. and Livermore, M.: 1999, 'Climate change and world food security: a new assessment', Global Environmental Change 9, S51-S68 28. Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., and Livermore, M. 2005. Climate change, global food supply and risk of hunger. Phil Trans R. Soc. B. 360, pp. 2125-2136. 29. Mearns, L. (Ed) Issues in the impacts of climate variability and change on agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston. 2003. 30. Schlenker, W., Hanemann, M., and Fisher, A.: 2004, ‘Will US Agriculture Really Benefit from Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic

Page 59

Approach’, CUDARE working paper, University of California, Berkeley. Paper 941 http://repositories.cdlib.org/are_ucb/941 31. Schneider, S.: 1997, ‘Integrated assessment modelling of global climate change: transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen for hiding valueladen assumptions?’, Environmental Modelling & Assessment 2, 229-249 32. Thomas, D.S.G., Knight, M., and Wiggs, G.S.F.: 2005, ‘Remobilization of southern African desert dune systems by twenty-first century global warming’, Nature 435, 1218-1222. 33. Tsvetsinskaya, E.A., Mearns, L.O., Mavromatis, T., Gao, W., McDanial. L., and Downton, M.W. 2003 The effect of spatial scale of climatic change scenarios on simulated maize, winter wheat and rice production in the SE United States. Climatic Change 60, pp 37-71. 34. Carbone, G.J., Kiechle, W., Locke, C., Mearns, L.O., McDaniel, L., and Downton, M.W. Response of soybean and sorgum to varying spatial scales of climate change scenarios in the SE United States. Climatic Change 60, pp. 73-98, 2003. 35. Royal Society, 2005. Food crops in a changing climate: report of a Royal Society Discussion held in 2005. Policy Document 10/05, ISBN 085403.

Page 60

4. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON COASTAL FLOODING Contribution by Robert J. Nicholls University of Southampton The results for coastal flooding are based on the methods in the Fast Track and related analyses (Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls and Lowe, 2004; 2006; Nicholls and Tol, 2006). They first estimate the number of people potentially exposed to coastal flooding due to storm surges due to different population and socio-economic scenarios, ignoring the effects of sea defences. Then the actual experience or risk of flooding is considered, based on a range of protection scenarios. It is estimated that about 200 million people where exposed globally to flooding due to storm surges in 1990. The bulk of this exposed population (>50%) was in South Asia and East Asia. These regions continue to dominate exposure to coastal flooding through the 21st Century, although Africa increases in its relative contribution over time. In 1990, it is estimated that 10 million people per year experienced flooding from storm surge (or about 5% of the exposed population). The risk of flooding depends on sea-level rise, population and socio-economic scenarios and most especially assumptions about protection. Sea-level rise increases the number of people at risk. Socio-economic scenarios are also important, as future world’s vary in vulnerable in flooding: the highest number of people are threatened under the A2 scenario for the same sea-level rise scenario due to the high population growth and the lower economic growth which reduces adaptive capacity. However, increased protection can offset increases in flood risk and the biggest uncertainty concerns the adaptation response to increased flood risk. Taking an economically efficient viewpoint, protection looks to be widely affordable and rationale to varying degrees in all the SRES worlds. However, protection cannot be guaranteed and there are number of factors that suggest that protection might be less widespread than suggested by economic optimisation, including lags in societal response and issues such as attitudes to risk (see discussion in Nicholls and Tol, 2006). Table 4.1 shows global estimates of the exposed population changes versus climate change over the 21st Century, while Tables 4.2 to 44. show the risk of flooding versus climate change for the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s, respectively. Table 4.5 illustrates the regional incidence of flooding for one protection scenario in the 2080s, while Table 4.5 focuses on the small island sub-regions which are widely recognised as being especially vulnerable to sea-level rise (Nurse and Sem, 2001). Notes to Tables 4.1 to 4.6 below: 1. The baseline is the world without climate-induced sea-level rise – relative sealevel rise occurs due to uplift/subsidence only. No allowance for enhance subsidence due to groundwater and other fluid withdrawal is made in the baseline. This could have important consequences for flood risk without climate change and it exacerbates the impacts of climate-induced sea-level rise (Nicholls, 2004).

Page 61

2. Population growth (and decline) is assumed to be uniform across each country – continuation of a net coastward migration as is presently observed would increase the impacts as presented here (Nicholls, 2004). 3. The coastal flood plain is defined as the area below the 1 in 1,000 year return period water level, ignoring the effects of flood defences. 4. Protection Scenarios from Nicholls (2004) and Nicholls and Lowe (2006) are as follows: • Constant Protection assumes constant (1990) protection standards. • Evolving Protection assumes dynamic protection upgraded in line with rising ability to protect (which is driven by GDP/capita), but with no allowance for sea-level rise (i.e. the response is based on present climate variability). • Enhanced Evolving Protection includes further upgrade by a factor of 10 (e.g., a 1 in 1 year defence is upgraded to a 1 in 10 year defence, etc., up to a limit of a 1 in 1000 year standard). 5. These Protection Scenarios are in essence arbitrary and cannot be compared with cost-benefit frameworks as applied in a range of integrated assessment models. Comparison with FUND by Nicholls and Tol (2006), suggests that Enhanced Evolving Protection represents the closest approximation to cost-benefit analysis in the coastal module of FUND. 6. The number of people flooded assumes no individual human response to the flooding – in reality as people are flooded more frequently they are likely to respond by migrating out of the flooded area if improved protection is not possible. 7. Validation supports the regional and global estimates of flood exposure and risk (Nicholls, 2004). 8. The relationship between temperature and “instantaneous” sea level rise assumed in deriving Tables 4.1 to 4.6 is shown in Table 4.7. Temperature affects sea level rise through thermal expansion of the ocean and also through melting ice sheets. Using the IPCC scenarios A1FI and B1 to 2100, and the results from seven climate models 1 (Figure 4.1), the relationship between the two parameters given in Table 4.2 was derived. This analysis therefore reflects the uncertainties arising from the use of different models, and is an improvement on earlier analyses which only considered one climate model (e.g., Parry et al., 2001; Nicholls and Lowe, 2006). Data from the linear portion only of the graphs were used.

1

The seven models are HadCM2, HadCM3, CSIRO, PCM, GFDL, CSM, ECHAM4

Page 62

Figure 4.1 Relationship between instantaneous sea level rise and global annual mean temperature rise relative to 1990 for seven different climate models reported in Houghton et al (2001).
90 80 Sea Level Rise (relative to 1990) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Global Mean Temperature Rise (relative to 1990)

Page 63

Table 4.1. Coastal Flood Plain Population in the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s.
Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Coastal Flood Plain Population in 2020s Population (millions) living in the coastal flood plain in absence of climate change and assuming even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 0 - 1°C A1/B1 A2 B2 min 293 (0 324 (0 296 (0 min 301 (3 333 (3 305 (3 min 309 (5 341 (5 313 (5 min 321 (10 355 (10 325 (10 293 296 324 Coastal Flood Plain Population in 2050s Coastal Flood Plain Population in 2080s

Baseline (for comparison)

Population (millions) living in the Population (millions) living in the coastal flood plain in absence of coastal flood plain in absence of climate change and assuming climate change and assuming even rural/urban growth even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1/B1 A2 B2 min 317 (0 434 (0 349 (0 min 326 (3 446 (3 358 (3 min 335 (6 457 (6 368 (6 min 348 (10 475 (10 382 (10 317 349 434 Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1/B1 A2 B2 min 286 (0 521 (0 374 (0 min 294 (5 535 (5 384 (5 min 302 (6 550 (6 394 (6 min 314 (10 572 (10 410 (10 286 374 521

max 305 4%) 337 4%) 309 4%) max 317 8%) 350 8%) 321 8%) max 333 14%) 368 14%) 337 14%) max 358 22%) 394 22%) 362 22%)

max 331 4%) 452 4%) 363 4%) max 344 8%) 469 8%) 378 8%) max 362 14%) 493 14%) 397 14%) max 388 22%) 529 22%) 426 22%)

max 298 4%) 543 4%) 389 4%) max 310 9%) 564 8%) 404 8%) max 327 14%) 593 14%) 425 14%) max 351 23%) 637 22%) 456 22%)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 A2 B2

A1/B1 A2 B2

A1/B1 A2 B2

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 A2 B2

A1/B1 A2 B2

A1/B1 A2 B2

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 A2 B2

A1/B1 A2 B2

A1/B1 A2 B2

Page 64

Table 4.2. Global Flood Risk in the 2020s: people flooded per year
Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2020s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 16 17 18 Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2020s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1) Low population (B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 1 - 2°C A1/B1 A2 B2 17 (3 19 (3 17 (3 45 177%) 50 172%) 48 182%) A2 B1 B2 A1 2 - 3°C A1/B1 A2 B2 29 (76 32 (76 29 (74 103 530%) 112 510%) 109 545%) A2 B1 B2 A1 3 - 4°C A1/B1 A2 B2 68 (315 74 (304 72 (326 180 1001%) 199 982%) 185 995%) A2 B1 B2 min 10 (0 17 (0 13 (0 12 (0 10 (3 17 (3 14 (3 12 (3 11 (18 25 (46 16 (17 18 (47 40 (313 68 (304 44 (233 57 (371 10 13 12 17 max 11 10%) 24 21%) 15 10%) 15 25%) 24 150%) 42 146%) 28 114%) 34 184%) 82 741%) 109 546%) 87 550%) 102 746%) 166 1600%) 191 1027%) 169 1166%) 173 1330%) Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2020s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1) Low population (B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 min 1 (0 2 (0 2 (0 1 (0 1 (3 2 (2 2 (2 1 (3 1 (13 3 (44 2 (14 2 (44 5 (272 8 (286 5 (212 6 (343 1 2 2 1 max 1 8%) 2 23%) 2 8%) 2 23%) 3 130%) 5 139%) 3 103%) 4 171%) 9 645%) 12 510%) 10 501%) 11 686%) 19 1390%) 21 960%) 19 1060%) 19 1224%)

Baseline (for comparison)

0 - 1°C A1/B1 A2 B2

min 16 (0 18 (0 17 (0

max 23 39%) 26 39%) 23 39%)

Page 65

Table 4.3. Global Flood Risk in the 2050s: people flooded per year.
Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2050s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 18 21 25 Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2050s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1) Low population (B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 1 - 2°C A1/B1 A2 B2 19 (46 27 (46 22 (42 54 201%) 72 186%) 62 201%) A2 B1 B2 A1 2 - 3°C A1/B1 A2 B2 33 (84 47 (84 36 (77 119 568%) 155 513%) 140 578%) A2 B1 B2 A1 3 - 4°C A1/B1 A2 B2 79 (345 105 (314 94 (356 206 1057%) 279 1004%) 233 1030%) A2 B1 B2 min 0 (0 16 (0 2 (0 3 (0 0 (17 17 (4 2 (6 3 (7 0 2 3 16 max 1 57%) 18 13%) 2 21%) 3 27%) 2 360%) 40 149%) 4 108%) 15 108%) Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2050s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1) Low population (B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 min 0 (0 2 (0 0 (0 0 (0 0 (3 2 (3 0 (3 0 (4 0 (8 2 (18 1 (10 1 (23 1 (152 8 (294 1 (113 3 (454 0 0 0 2 max 0 6%) 2 11%) 0 6%) 1 14%) 0 42%) 5 135%) 1 34%) 2 288%) 3 985%) 14 621%) 4 683%) 6 1142%) 7 2260%) 29 1382%) 9 1841%) 14 2749%)

Baseline (for comparison)

0 - 1°C A1/B1 A2 B2

min 18 (0 25 (0 21 (0

max 26 46%) 27 46%) 29 42%)

1 30 (98 6104%) 19 125 (22 681%) 2 32 (354 1662%) 4 53 (46 1907%) 6 (1066 67 (322 7 (307 23 (761 68 14005%) 258 1517%) 81 4429%) 124 4634%)

Page 66

Table 4.4. Global Flood Risk in the 2080s: people flooded per year.
Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (millions/year) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 0 - 1°C A1/B1 A2 B2 min 15 (0 30 (0 22 (0 15 22 30 Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (millions/year) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1 Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 1 - 2°C A1/B1 A2 B2 22 (46 43 (43 30 (35 61 296%) 103 245%) 93 316%) A2 B1 B2 A1 2 - 3°C A1/B1 A2 B2 45 (191 79 (164 64 (184 159 935%) 285 848%) 222 888%) A2 B1 B2 A1 3 - 4°C A1/B1 A2 B2 80 (423 134 (348 119 (429 187 1114%) 332 1006%) 256 1044%) A2 B1 B2 min 0 (0 11 (0 0 (0 1 (0 0 (63 12 (6 1 (70 1 (29 0 1 11 Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (millions/year) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1 Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 min 0 (0 2 (0 0 (0 0 (0 0 (3 2 (3 0 (4 0 (3 0 (21 2 (39 0 (26 1 (56 1 (225 4 (129 1 (254 1 (245 0 0 2

Baseline (for comparison)

max 34 118%) 61 104%) 47 109%)

max 1 230%) 15 29%) 1 217%) 2 174%) 2 615%) 21 82%) 2 732%) 4 466%)

max 0 12%) 2 21%) 0 15%) 0 30%) 0 43%) 2 61%) 0 60%) 1 78%) 3 1073%) 20 1201%) 3 1102%) 6 1468%) 8 2691%) 34 2069%) 8 2691%) 12 3037%)

1 30 (344 10309%) 17 178 (53 1462%) 1 30 (365 10173%) 3 52 (320 6991%) 7 72 (2314 25159%) 30 302 (166 2549%) 8 72 (2477 24222%) 10 106 (1264 14345%)

Page 67

Table 4.5 Regional Flood Risk in the 2080s, assuming Evolving Protection 2 (millions of people experiencing flooding per year).
Regions Southern Africa Temperature Rise relative to 1990 0 to 1 C 1 to 2 oC 2 to 3 oC 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 3
o

A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2

3 to 4 oC 2 5 4 24 2 5 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 8 3 14 3 18 17 34 17 19 3 6 3 4 3 5 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 7 3 4 25 156 25 37 2 3 2 2 8 9 8 7

West Africa

North Africa

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 2 12 2 15 3 6 3 4 2 4 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 11 100 11 16 0 1 0 0 4 5 4 4

Central America

West Asia

Australasia

South America

South Asia

North America

Europe

2

Central Asia is excluded as it has no coastal areas.

Page 68

East Asia

A1 A2 B1 B2

0 4 0 0

0 4 0 0

0 4 0 0

0 4 0 0

0 4 0 0

0 36 0 2

0 4 0 0

1 40 1 4

Table 4.6 Flood Risk for the Island sub-regions in the 2080s, assuming Evolving Protection (thousands of people experiencing flooding per year).
Sub-Regions
Indian Ocean

Pacific Ocean

Caribbean

A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2

0 to 1 C 0 2 1 4 0 2 1 3 0 1 0 2 1 6 0 1 2 9 4 21 2 9 2 10

o

Temperature Rise relative to 1990 1 to 2 oC 2 to 3 oC 0 39 4 410 1 60 7 634 0 39 4 410 1 55 6 581 0 9 2 162 0 18 3 319 1 63 11 163 0 13 2 233 2 79 16 1589 4 235 38 2772 2 79 16 1589 2 97 18 1849

3 to 4 oC 75 565 93 855 75 565 88 791 47 218 93 428 98 218 66 304 325 2177 652 3805 325 2177 379 2575

Table 4.7. Temperature vs. sea-level rise relationship from Figure 4.1.
Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) 0 – 1 °C 1 – 2 °C 2 – 3 °C 3 – 4 °C Instantaneous Sea level Rise 0 – 15 cm 10 – 30 cm 20 – 50 cm 35 – 80 cm

Table 4.1 shows that the exposed population grows through the 21st century and sea-level rise only plays a small part in this increase, as population growth dominates the trend. However, sea-level rise causes large increases in flood risk (Tables 4.2 to 4.4), most particularly if defences are assumed to be static (Constant Protection). Improved protection reduces these impacts in absolute terms, especially Enhanced Protection. Hence it is impossible to be prescriptive on the impacts of sea-level rise as they are dependent on a range of factors, including issues such as our ability to respond which are difficult to quantify. These results suggest that while potential impacts are significant – actual impacts may be much smaller if we can realise our potential to adapt. Under this optimistic scenario, a major consequence of sea-level rise is the direction of investment to coast protection and related flood management (Nicholls and Tol, 2006). Regionally, five regions contain most of the flood risk: North Africa, West Africa, Southern Africa, East Asia, and most especially South Asia (Table 4.5). The vulnerable areas in Asia are link to densely populated deltaic areas. While not important in terms of global impacts, small

Page 69

islands sub-regions experience significant impacts: in relative terms these impacts are usually large compared to the baseline. Hence, small islands, populated deltaic areas in South and East Asia and Africa appear most vulnerable and are likely areas where major impacts will occur given sea-level rise. Events such as Hurricane Katrina and its impacts on New Orleans in 2005 remind us that all residents of the coastal flood plain are vulnerable to some degree – even in developed countries. All flood defences have a residual risk which ultimately leads to failure –under a scenario of rising sea level the consequences of such failure become progressively more severe. More intense storms and more intense storm surges due to climate change as suggested by some authors for tropical storms (e.g., Webster et al., 2005) would exacerbate the risks considered here due to rising sea levels alone. Hence coastal areas are a location of major risks under climate change and sea-level rise and the scope further research to better understand these risks remains significant.

REFERENCES Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J. and Xiaosu, D. (eds.), 2001. Climate Change 2001. The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Nicholls, R.J., 2004. Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st Century: Changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14, 69-86. Nicholls, R.J. and Lowe, J.A., 2004. Benefits of Mitigation of Climate Change for Coastal Areas. Global Environmental Change, 14, 229-244. Nicholls, R.J. and Lowe, J.A., 2006. Climate Stabilisation and Impacts of Sea-Level Rise. In: Schellnhuber, H J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T. and Yohe, G (eds). Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 195-202. Nicholls, R.J., and Tol, R.S.J., 2006. Regional to global implications of sea-level rise: An analysis of the SRES scenarios. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 364, 1073–1095 Nurse, L., and G. Sem, 2001. Small Island States. In: McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., & White, K.S. (eds.) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 843-875. Parry, M., Arnell, N., Mcmichael, T., Nicholls, R., Martens, P., Kovats, S., Livermore, M., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A. and Fischer, G., 2001. Millions at risk: defining critical climate threats and targets. Global Environmental Change, 11(3), 1-3. Webster, P. J., G. J. Holland, J. A. Curry & H.-R. Chang, 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309 (5742), 1844-1846 Acknowledgements: Dr. Jason Lowe and Dr. Nicola Patmore contributed to the work on the relationship between temperature and sea-level rise, especially Figure 4.1.

Page 70

5. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH Jeff Price, California State University, and Rachel Warren, UEA Health determinates and outcomes that are sensitive to climate make up a large proportion of the total global disease burden. Climate change will likely have impacts on the distribution of vector borne and other infectious diseases, as well as on cardiovascular and other diseases. It will likely cause increases in mortality associated with heat stress and decreases in mortality associated with cold stress. Other possible impacts include an increase in the number of deaths due to exposure to tropospheric ozone. Allergies may also increase, as may respiratory illness from exposure to emissions from forest fires if these increase as projected. Climate will also have impacts through increases in malnutrition, additional deaths due to flooding associated with rivers or sea level rise, diseases linked to flooding, and health problems associated with flooding and environmental refugees. Climate change has been modelled to have already caused the loss of 150,000 lives and 5.5 million disability adjusted life years (DALY) 1 in 2000 (McMichael et al. 2004). However, climate change also has some health benefits in terms of reduced exposure to cold stress, and in some areas drying may reduce vector borne disease. Hence the balance of positive and negative health effects will vary from one location to another, and will alter over time if temperatures continue to rise and precipitation patterns continue to change. Life expectancy and other health indicators are improving in many countries. However, there continues to be inequalities in health status within and between countries. Some of the populations most vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change include the poor and homeless in large urban areas, rural populations in semi-arid regions, those living in low-income countries, water-stressed regions or in settlements in coastal and low-lying areas, those suffering from under nutrition and those dependent on specific resources. Whether an increase in potential for disease transmission leads to more frequent occurrence of disease depends on many factors other than climate as well on the adaptive capacity of the area. Nevertheless, projected changes in climate will increase the pressures on public health infrastructure in many parts of the world. While acclimatization and adaptation will reduce many health impacts, they will not eliminate them. In general, economic development is associated with improved capacity to adapt to climate change, but critically important will be trends in other factors such as health care and public health infrastructure. Some climate-specific adaptation measures have been developed and implemented both within the health sector and beyond, mostly in relation to preparedness for extreme events and infectious diseases. For example, the design and implementation of climate-health warning systems, established to reduce effects of
A DALY is the sum of years of life lost due to premature death taking into account the age at death compared to a maximum life expectancy plus the sum of years of life lives with disability taking into account disease duration, age of onset and a disability weight that characterises the severity of disease.
Page 71
1

weather extremes as well as for the seasonal predictions of infectious diseases. However, access to primary health care and basic education are essential elements of strategies to cope with climate change, but are not available to millions of people.

Page 72

In this section temperature changes were inferred for standard IPCC scenarios from Hulme et al. 1999 enabling McMichael et al (2003b) estimates for impacts for various temperature changes to be aggregated to give ranges corresponding to ranges of temperature change. Baseline estimates for current health risks by region are given in Table 5.1a and b, and within the tables where the data is available. Most of these numbers come from the Global Burden of Disease work performed by the WHO and are only available for endpoints where there is a model available. Table 5.1a. Current disease burden in terms of deaths by region and globally, in year 2000
Global Cause of death (deaths (1000s)) Diarrhoeal diseases Malaria Dengue Protein–energy malnutrition 1969 1120 21 3748 690 957 0 1767 64 1 3 50 22 0 0 18 1192 162 18 1913 Africa Americas Europe Asia

Source: (WHO 2002a; McMichael et al. 2003b; Ezzati et al. 2004) Table 5.1b Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) by region in 2002 Stern Region Diarrhoea Malaria Dengue Cardiovascular North Africa 32.6 7.6 0 358 West Africa 446 562.8 .1 527 Southern Africa 344.6 292.8 .1 546.9 South Asia 759.6 22.9 12.2 4312.4 East Asia 171.6 20.5 3.8 3862.5 Australasia 3 .9 0 72.6 Europe 9.7 .1 0 2518 Central Asia 6.8 .1 0 2407.8 North America 1.7 0 0 999.4 Central 20.5 .4 1.6 230.6 America South America 34.1 1.1 .5 698.4 West Asia 38 1.5 .3 170.9 Source : WHO 2005 5.1 Malaria Annually 400-500 million cases of malaria and 1 million deaths occur every year, 90% of which are in Africa. The annual economic growth in countries with high malaria transmission has historically been lower than in those without malaria (WHO 2006). Studies that looked solely at the transmission dynamics of the malaria or in the ability of the malaria vector (various mosquito species) to spread projected that malaria might extend into Europe and North America. However, most of these studies did not take into account the past control measures leading to the current absence of the disease from these areas (but see Van Lieshout et al 2004). Thus, effective public health

Page 73

infrastructure and an absence of a pool of infected human hosts makes it unlikely that the disease would become become established (Rogers and Randolph 2000). However, some localised areas in parts of Eastern Europe might experience isolated outbreaks where socioeconomic conditions are poorer. In Africa, there is an estimated 5-7% increase in the land area where malaria can be found, and a 13-18.9% increase in the number of people exposed, and a 15-28% increase of person-months exposure by 2070-2099 but the actual number of cases will depend on many factors (Tanser et al 2003). Most of the increase in area is altitudinal not latitudinal, and if zero increase in area is assumed, the person-months exposure still rises by 27.6-41.5%. Maps in Tanser’s publication show that most of the increase in malaria is found in sub-Saharan (including East) Africa. Tanser’s study assumes a static population (meaning that the increases are underestimated, since population will increase) and a current state of development (meaning that increases could be overestimated, because only current levels of adaptive capacity are asummed). The study used the HadCM3 model and three SRES scenarios to estimate temperature and rainfall changes only. Table 5.2. Impacts of global mean temperature rise on exposure to and transmission of falciparium malaria in Africa. Adapted from Tanser et al, 2003 Global Mean Area increase Population Person months Proportion of Temp exposure exposure increase of PME (millions) Change °C (millions) in areas of existing transmission Baseline 15.24 (0%) 445 (0%) 3082 Additional: 0-1 0.28-0.56 27-33 (6.0138-369 32.3-65.8% (1.8-3.7%) (4.5-12%) 7.1%) 1-2 0.38-0.78 39-62 243-544 (7.922.3-53.0% (2.5 -5.1%) (8.8-14%) 17.7%) 2-3 0.96 (6.3%) 68 (15.4%) 716 (23.2%) 41.5% 3-4 1.09 (7.2%) 84 (18.9%) 868 (28.2%) 27.6% Tanser’s model, MARA, is one of only two models which has been validated directly to account for the observed effect of climate variables on vector and parasite population biology has a more rigorous spatial calibration to today’s exposure based on 3791 surveys. Thomas (2004) used the same model and estimates little increase in the area of stable malaria zones over the next 30-40 years in Africa but by the second half of the century strong altitudinal increases in stable areas are expected, agreeing with Tanser et al (2003). WHO (2003) give the following ranges for increases in malaria risks under climate change in 2030, based upon Tanser and Rogers and Randolph’s results. Also shown are the estimates of thousands of days of life lost due to malaria in 2000.

Page 74

Table 5.3. Impacts of global mean temperature rise on exposure to and transmission of malaria in world regions (McMichael et al 2003 (Eds)) Region 1000s DALY/2002 1000s DALY/2000 due to climate change only 860 112 3 0 43 0 0-1°C % increases 1-2°C % increases 0-17% 0-43% 0-28% 0-2% 0-83% 0-27%

Africa E Mediterranean Latin America & Caribbean SE Asia W Pacific Developed countries

36012 2050 108 3680 409 20

0-11% 0-27% 0-18% 0-1% 0-53% 0-52%

Unlike the aforementioned studies, van Lieshout et al (2004) take into account population growth when assessing the response of malaria transmission to climate change. They assess increases of falciparium and vivax malaria over the twenty-first century, taking into account changes in temperature and precipitation. There are large differences between the ensemble members A2a, A2b and A2c and also B2a and B2b because of the varying predictions for precipitation. This makes it difficult to use this study to relate impacts to temperature because precipitation also varies between the scenarios and this has a profound effect as drying induces a reduction in transmission zones. Estimates are based on the current level of adaptation, which means that impacts could be overestimated. Table 5.4a Additional millions at risk to >3months exposure to malaria in different world regions in 2080 (from Van Lieshout et al 2004) 2080s A1F1 A2a A2b A2c B1 B2a B2b (+4.3C) (+3.5C) (+3.6C) (+3.6C) (+2.4C) (2.7C) (2.7C) A 0 -24 -12 -66 3 14 24 B 86 39 165 240 -13 -32 11 C 97 -363 -31 132 -106 -232 153 D 28 25 15 32 30 113 162 E -82 -162 -159 -166 -58 -88 -58 F -27 -44 -30 -16 -8 -10 4 World +100 -528 -52 156 -153 -236 297

Page 75

Table 5.4b Further regional detail on additional millions at risk to >3months exposure to malaria in different world regions in 2080 (from Van Lieshout et al 2004) 2080s A1F1 A2 B1 B2 (+4.3C) (average) (+2.4C) (average) (+3.5C) (2.7C) A, North America -15 -46 -9 11 A, Australasia 17 17 13 9 A, W Europe -1 -1 -1 0 B, Central Europe -1 -1 -1 -1 C, Eastern Europe 1 1 1 1 B, Latin America -92 -169 -29 -49 B, SE Asia 0 -1 0 0 B, West Asia 0 0 0 0 B, East Asia 82 143 -6 7 D, SE Asia 102 -77 -104 -35 D, West Asia 23 16 -2 62 D, Western S America -19 -42 -12 -17 D, West Africa -46 -35 -25 -8 E, Sub-Saharan Africa 49 53 21 51 World +100 -141 -153 31

Key: A = malaria free/low malaria counties W Europe, N America and Australasia B = Central Europe, SE & E Asia and parts of W Asia and Latin America where health systems are good and malaria incidence is low C = Bolivia & India where health systems are good and malaria incidence is high D = West Africa, parts of South America, Russia, parts of W Asia, and South Asia where health systems are poor and malaria incidence is low E = N South America and Parts of Sub-Saharan (Southern) Africa where health systems are poor and malaria incidence is high F = Parts of Sub-Saharan : very poor areas with high malaria incidence Note that scenario A2a has drying in India whilst A2b has an increase in precipitation, hence the very different outcomes for the same temperature rise. Comparing Van Lieshout et al. with Tanser et al. 2003, in which HadCM3 B1, A2a and A1F1 scenarios were used, both studies show an increase in malaria in sub-Saharan Africa (Risks decrease in group E countries overall in van Lieshout et al. due to drying in South America). In the 2080s, Fast Track is showing around 50 million additional persons at risk in sub-Saharan Africa group E countries, whist Tanser shows overall increases of 80 additional millions at risk in a similar region of sub-Saharan Africa with the same adaptation assumptions and a constant population. Tanser also highlights the problem of increasing person-months exposure in areas which are already affected, whilst van Lieshout et al suggest that in “group F” very poor countries with a high incidence of
Page 76

malaria (which are entirely in sub-Saharan Africa), malaria incidence is so high and occurs year round, so that climate change has no exacerbating effect. This likely explains the discrepancy between the two studies. The difference may also arise from the use of different models, metrics and regional definitions: Tanser uses an empirical model to calculate persons exposed and total person-months exposure, whilst van Lieshout uses a calibrated theoretical approach to calculate additional persons exposed for >1 month or >3 months. In the fact the similarity of the results, given the two different approaches, rather provides additional confidence in the outputs. However, Thomas et al. (2004) suggests reductions in malaria around the Sahel and in semi-arid Southern Africa due to drying, whilst there are localised increases in highlands and uplands. 5.2 Dengue In 1990, 30% of the world’s population (1.5 billion people) lived in regions with a dengue risk of >50%. Dengue fever causes 21000 deaths annually, mostly in Asia. Hales et al. (2002) used a vector-specific model to predict population exposures in 2085. Outputs from the HadCM2 and CGCMa2, scenario IS92a, projected that an additional 5-7 billion people were at risk of dengue compared to 3.5 billion in the absence of climate change (taking into account future population growth). Areas where dengue is projected to increase in aerial extent include India and China, Florida and the South Texas coast of North America, Northern Australia, West, Central and East Africa, central South America, and Western Asia. In Australia, a 3-5 fold increase of dengue is estimated to have an annual economic cost of AU$300,000 – AU$400,000. 5.3 Heat Stress 35,000 deaths were directly attributable to the 2003 European heat wave, and it has been estimated that the probability of such events has doubled since preindustrial times (Stott et al. 2004). Effects of heat waves are concentrated in older age groups or in higher risk groups (i.e., homeless). Overall, higher temperatures contribute approximately 1-4% to the mortality of the elderly in Europe (Pattenden et al. 2003). As populations age in the future many more will be at a higher risk from heat-related mortality. The frequency of heat waves has been projected to increase in frequency and duration in both Chicago (increase of 25% in frequency, approximately 3 days in duration) and Paris (increase of 31% in frequency and 3-5 days in duration) by the end of the century (2080-2099; Meehl and Tebaldi, 2004). Future projections include the probability of 2800 heat deaths per year in the UK for the 2050s (a 250% increase) under the UKCIP medium high scenario (Keatings et al 2002). Excess mortality from heat in 5 Eastern US cities in 2020 is predicted to reach -8% to +361%, and 0 to 682% in 2050, based on UKMO, GFDL and Max Planck (scenario?). In California, the annual number of days classified as heat wave conditions are projected to increase under both the B1 and A1FI scenarios with 319-1182 additional deaths (baseline of 165). However, adaptation may offset some of the impacts. 5.4 Cold-related mortality Cold waves can be a problem in temperate climates and higher elevations in the tropics with increasing health problems found in the elderly, poor and homeless (among others). Mortality in these cases is often attributable to failures in infrastructure (heating). Overall, reductions in cold-associated mortality are expected to be greater than heat-associated mortality in most temperate areas. However, these

Page 77

numbers have to be treated with caution as heat wave associated mortality often comes from extreme events and may not be adequately captured in climate models. In the UK greater reductions in cold-related mortality than occur for heat stress are expected (Keatings et al 2002). However, in 4 US Mid-Atlantic cities, overall increases in heat related mortality exceed reductions in cold related mortality in both 2020 and 2050, taking into account acclimatization and projected population changes (Benson et al. 2000). In a fifth city, winter mortality actually increased slightly in 2020 and 2050. 5.5 Cardiovascular disease Small increases in the risk of cardiovascular disease are expected as climate changes (McMichael et al 2003b (Eds)). Table 5.5 Climate-change induced increases in the risk of cardiovascular disease relative to 1990 (from (McMichael et al 2003b (Eds)). Region Africa E Mediterranean Latin America & Caribbean SE Asia W Pacific Developed countries 0-1°C 0-0.8% 0-0.7% 0-0.5% 0-0.9% 0% -0.2% to 0% 1-2°C 0-1.1% 0-0.7% 0-0.7% 0-1.3% 0% -0.1% to 0%

5.6 Diarrhoea Significant increases in the incidence of diarrhoea are expected as climate changes. Diarrhoeal disease is actually the disease which currently has the highest global death toll of nearly 2 million annually, of which 1 million are in Asia and 0.7 million in Africa. Increases in daily temperature will likely increase the number of cases of some common forms of food poisoning in temperate regions (impacts in the tropics are unknown). However, it is difficult to properly estimate either the current level of diarrhoea or to properly model future impacts from diarrhoea as there are many different agents and exposure pathways. The overall incidence of diarrhoea is likely higher than is reported. The days of life lost due to climate change in the year 2000 are also shown.

Page 78

Table 5.6. Climate-change induced increases in diarrhoea relative to 1990 (McMichael et al 2003b (Eds)) Region 1000s 1000s 0-1°C 1-2°C DALY/2002 DALY/2000 % increase in % increase risk in risk due to climate change only Africa 21524 414 -1% to +13% -0.1 to +16% E Mediterranean 10784 291 -2% to +11% -2% to +16% Latin America & 2692 17 -6% to +6% -8% to +8% Caribbean SE Asia 22377 640 -1% to +13% -1% to +17% W Pacific 4097 89 -5% to +6% -8% to +9% Developed countries 977 0 -6% to +6% -6% to +6% 5.7 Flooding Very large increases in flood deaths are expected due to climate change but they are based on a small baseline. Tables 5.7 and 5.8 show WHO predictions for these increases. The impacts of flooding are particularly severe in areas of environmental degradation, and in communities lacking basic public infrastructure, including sanitation and hygiene. Thus increases in frequency and intensity of flood events will test the integrity of water management systems and increase water-borne disease. In Australia annual flood related deaths may increase by up to 240% by 2020 (McMichael et al. 2003a).

Table 5.7 Climate-change induced increases in inland flood deaths under climate change relative to 1990 (McMichael et al 2003b (Eds)) Region 0-1C 1-2C convert to factors and round up Africa 0-216% 1-3.2 0-127% 1-2.3 E Mediterranean 0-559% 1-6.6 0-583% 1-6.8 Latin America & Caribbean 0-343% 1-4.4 0-324% 1-4.3 SE Asia 0-149% 1-2.5 0-75% 1-1.7 W Pacific 0-170% 1-2.7 0-213% 1-3.2 Developed countries 0-769% 1-8.7 0-779% 1-8.8

Page 79

Table 5.8. Climate-change induced increases in coastal flood deaths relative to 1990 (McMichael et al 2003b (Eds)) Region 0-1C 1-2C Africa 13-59% 2.1-2.6 20-79% 1.2-1.8 E Mediterranean 80-346% 2.8-4.5 116-461% 2.2-5.6 Latin America & Caribbean 57-243% 1.6-3.4 80-320% 1.8-4.2 SE Asia 4-15% 1.0-1.2 6-21% 1.1-1.2 W Pacific 2-8% 1.0-1.1 3-10% 1.0-1.1 Developed countries 34-181% 1.3-2.8 32-127% 1.3-2.3 5.8 Tropospheric ozone induced deaths Human mortality can ensue from exposure of vulnerable individuals to concentrations of tropospheric ozone above a certain threshold. This threshold is exceeded in some areas for varying numbers of days each year. Under climate change, the frequency of these high ozone episodes is expected to increase since increased temperature enhances tropospheric ozone production. Hence, mortality due to these air pollution episodes is likely to increase. For example, in the New York region, a 4.5% increase in ozone deaths is expected for an A2 scenario with the GISS GCM (Knowlton et al 2004). Again, the actualmagnitude of the impact will depend on adaptation measures.

REFERENCES Benson, K., P. Kacagil, and J. Shortle. 2000: Climate change and health in the MidAtlantic Region. Climate Research 14: 245-253. Ezzati, M., A. Lopez, A. Rodgers, and C. Murray, Eds., 2004: Comparative quantification of health risks: global and regional burden of disease due to selected major risk factors. Vols. 1 and 2. World Health Organization, 2235 pp. Hales, S., N. de Wet, J. Macdonald, and A. Woodward, 2002: Potential effect of population and climate changes on global distribution of dengue fever: an empirical model. Lancet, 360, pp. 830-834. Keatings, W.R., G.C. Donaldson, R.S. Kovats, and A. McMichael, 2002: Heat and cold related mortality morbidity and climate change. In: Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK. Department of Health, London Knowlton, K., J.E. Rosenthal, C. Hogrefe, B. Lynn, S. Gaffin, R. Goldberg, C. Rosenzweig, K. Civerolo, J.Y. Ku, and P.L. Kinney, 2004: Assessing ozone-related health impacts under a changing climate. Environ Health Perspect, 112(15), pp. 1557-63. McMichael, A., R. Woodruff, P. Whetton, K. Hennessy, N. Nicholls, S. Hales, A. Woodward, and T. Kjellstrom, 2003a: Human Health and Climate Change in Oceania: Risk Assessment 2002. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. McMichael, A.J., Campbell-Lendrum, D.H., Corvalan, C.F., Ebi, K.L., Githeko, A.,

Page 80

Scheraga, J.D., and Woodward.A (Eds) 2003b Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses WHO, Geneva. Meehl, G. and C. Tebaldi, 2004: More intense, more frequent and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century. Science, 305, 994-997. Pattenden, S., B. Nikiforov, and B. G. Armstrong, 2003: Mortality and temperature in Sofia and London. J Epidemiol and Community Health, 57, 628-633. Rogers, D.J., and S.E. Randolph, 2000: The global spread of malaria in a future, warmer world. Science, 289, pp. 1763-1765. Tanser F.C., Sharp B., and Le Sueur D.:2003, ‘Potential effect of climate change on malaria transmission in Africa’, Lancet 362, 1792-1798. Thomas, C.J., G. Davies, and C.E. Dunn, 2004: Mixed picture for changes in stable malaria distribution with future climate in Africa. Trends in parasitology, 20(5), pp. 216-220. Van Lieshout, M., Kovats, R.S., Livermore, M.T., Martens, P.: 2004, ‘Climate change and malaria: Analysis of the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios’, Global Environmental Change 14, 87-99. WHO, 2002a: World Health Report 2002. Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. WHO, Geneva, 268 pp. WHO. 2005. World Health Statistics Online - Death and Daly Estimates for 2002 by Cause for WHO Member States. http://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/statistics/bodgbddeathdalyestimates.xls WHO, 2006: Economic costs of malaria. Roll Back Malaria Infosheet 10. http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/363/RBMInfosheet_10.htm. Accessed 25 May 2006.

Page 81

6. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Contribution by Nigel Arnell University of Southampton Climate change has a potential impact on the demand for energy for heating and cooling. Energy requirements for heating or cooling are strongly related to cumulative temperature anomalies (Diaz and Quayle, 1980), as represented by heating degree days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD) respectively. Both HDD and CDD are calculated with reference to a base temperature, defined as the target "comfort" temperature, and are calculated from daily temperatures Ti. HDD = Σ (B - Ti) CDD = Σ (Ti – B) where Ti is less than B where Ti is greater than B

In North America and in most international-scale studies, the base temperature is taken to be 65oF or 18oC. An estimate of regional energy requirements can be determined by calculating regional population-weighted heating or cooling degree days, where the values for each point of calculation (e.g. grid cell) are weighted by the population in that area. Regional population-weighted heating degree days are used in the US and other countries for forecasting seasonal energy use. Figure 6.1 shows the change in grid-cell HDDs and CDDs across the world relative to the 1961-1990 baseline, based on rescaled HadCM3 climate scenarios and using a base temperature of 18oC. Different climate models would give different patterns, although temperature changes are quite consistent between models. Figure 6.2 shows the percentage change in global population-weighted heating degree days and population-weighted cooling degree days, with temperature increases above 1990 (the relationships are virtually identical with different SRES population projections (A1/B1, A2 or B2) and different time horizons, because the different population projections have broadly the same relative spatial patterns). With a 2oC rise in temperature, global heating requirements fall by approximately 20%, but global cooling requirements rise by over 30% (relative to the situation without climate change). These changes assume no change to the target "comfort" base temperature, and implicitly therefore assume no adaptation (in the sense of accepting warmer temperatures).

Page 82

Figure 6.1

Page 83

Global
100 75 50 % change 25 0 -25 -50 -75 -100 0 1 2 3 4 Temperature change (oC)
Co o ling energy demand

5

Heating energy demand

Figure 6.2:

Global climate-driven energy demand and temperature change

There is of course considerable regional variation in changes in energy requirements. Figure 6.3 shows percentage change in energy demands for a 2oC rise in temperature by region: cooling energy demands rise by between 20 and 170%, and heating energy demands fall by between 16 and 90%. For a given global temperature change, the key driver of uncertainty in estimates of changes in regional heating and cooling energy requirements is the change in seasonal temperature across the region (as simulated by different GCMs). Differences in population have very little effect on changes in regional heating/cooling requirements. Translating requirements into demands and consumption is highly uncertain, as it would depend on energy sources, energy efficiency, and total population.

Page 84

Effect of 2oC rise in global temperature
200

100

0

-100

Heating

Cooling

Figure 6.3: Effect of a 2oC rise in global average temperature on heating and cooling energy requirements

Translating changes in heating and cooling degree days into energy consumption is difficult, because energy use will depend on the technologies used to generate heating and cooling (which will include passive building measures). Figure 6.4 shows how Figure 6.2 breaks down across the regions.

Page 85

Figure 6.4
North Africa
150 100 50

West Africa
100 50 0

0 -50 - 100 0 1 2 3
o

-50 - 100
4 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

Temperat ure change ( C)

Temperat ure change ( oC)

South and East Africa
150 100 50

South Asia
100

50 0

0 - 50 -100 0 1 2 3 4 5

- 50 -100 0 1 2 3 4 5

Temperat ure change ( oC)

Temperature change ( o C)

East Asia
150 100 50 0 - 50 -100 0 1 2 3 4 5

Australasia
150 100 50 0 - 50 -100 0 1 2 3 4 5

Temperature change ( o C)

Temperat ure change ( oC)

Europe
400 300 200 100 0 - 100 0 1 2 3 4 5
400 300 200 100 0 -100 0

Form er Soviet Union

1

2

3

4

5

Temperat ure change ( o C)

Temperature change ( oC)

Page 86

North Am erica
200 150
50 100

Caribbean

100 50 0
- 50 0

-50 - 100 0 1 2 3 4 5
-100 0 1 2 3 4 5

Temperature change ( o C)

Temperat ure change ( o C)

Central Am erica
150 100 50 0 - 50 -100 0 1 2 3 4 5 150 100 50 0 - 50 -100 0 1

South Am erica

2

3

4

5

Temperat ure change ( o C)

Temperature change ( oC)

Central Am erica
150 100 50 0 - 50 -100 0 1 2 3 4 5

Temperat ure change ( o C)

REFERENCES Diaz, H.F., and R.G. Quayle, 1980: Heating Degree Day Data Applied to Residential Heating Energy Consumption. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 3, 241-246 CCIRG (1996) Impacts of Climate Change in the United Kingdom. HMSO: London

Page 87

7. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEMS

Contribution by Rachel Warren UEA

Impacts of climate change are already being seen within ecosystems across the globe (Root et al 2003) and impacts are expected to escalate quickly as temperatures rise. Major conclusions from this review are: • • • Impacts appear to take off strongly at temperatures of around 1.5°C above 1990 levels (or 2°C above pre-industrial levels). All predicted extinction rates for temperature rise of around 1.5°C or above greatly exceed current extinction rates Major biome losses occur in tundra, wooded tundra (taiga), cool conifer forest and temperate deciduous forests. With a 3°C rise in temperature, each biome loses variously between 7 and 74% of its extent such that 22% of the land surface is transformed, these areas supporting low biodiversity. Climate change and land use change will act synergistically to reduce biodiversity. The major world ecosystems at greatest risk of complete loss due to climate change are (a) coral reefs and (b) Arctic ecosystems Losses of species from biodiversity hotspots due to climate change could number into the thousands or tens of thousands of species. Acidification of the ocean, a direct consequence of increased carbon dioxide concentrations, has the potential to disrupt the marine ecosystem, at the very least halting the growth of corals (which is likely to occur at a concentration of 500 ppm CO2) and damaging molluscs and coccolithiphores (types of plankton) at the base of the food chain (Turley et al. 2006, Kleypas et al. 2001).

• • • •

The regional tables accompanying this report detail how some key impacts accrue in different regions of the world as temperatures rise. Key, globally significant changes in biodiversity and ecosystems as a result of increasing levels of global annual mean temperature change are summarised in Table 7.1, whilst impacts resulting from various rates of climate change may be found in Table 7.2. These are not, however, a comprehensive list of all possible impacts on biodiversity – this is not available in the

Page 88

Table 7.1: Some world ecosystem statistics as a function of increasing temperature rise
Temperat ure rise above 1990 (°C) 0-0.5 % biomes transformed % species extinct Ecosystem losses of global significance Iconic species losses (examples) References

0.5-1

At ~1°C: 10% Global Ecosystems transformed (5 GCMS: HadCM2, GFDL, ECHAM4 CSIRO, MK2 CGCM1)

9-31% (mean 18%) species extinct At 1.4°C 15-37% (mean 24%) species extinct globally

Tropical high mountain (cloud) forest loss, coral reef losses At 1C: loss 47% wooded tundra and 23% loss cool conifer forest. Ecosystems variously lose between 2 to 47% of their extent. Coral reefs bleached and functionally extinct; risks to many ecosystems; no Arctic summer sea ice; declines in global migrant geese and shorebirds that nest in high Arctic; cloud forests lose 100s of metres of elevational extent Extinction rates take off e.g. Succulent Karoo reduced to 20% of area, threatening 2800 plants with extinction; 5 S African parks lose > 40% plant species At 2.4°C, large losses migratory bird habitat worldwide 50% loss world’s most productive duck habitat (several GCMs) At ~3°C 50% all nature reserves cannot fulfil conservation objectives

1-1.5

Endemic reptiles, amphibians in Queensland rainforest; regional functional extinction coral reefs Polar bear Coral reef fish and corals; Golden Bowerbird

Still 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg 1999 Thomas 2004b; Leemans & Eickhout 2004, Williams 2003

Hoegh Guldberg 1999; ACIA 2004; Folkestad 2005, Still 1999

1.5-2

2-2.5

At ~2°C, 16% global ecosystems transformed: ecosystems variously lose between 5 and 66% of their extent Amazon forest may collapse driving millions of species to extinction; 66 of 165 rivers studied lose >10% of fish species At ~3°C, few ecosystems adapt; 22% are transformed: ecosystems variously lose 7 - 74% of their extent; 22% loss coastal wetlands Further ecosystem transformation

At 2°C, 21-52% (mean 35%) species extinct Extinction s continue to increase

8 – 12% of 277 medium/large mammals in 141 African national parks critically endangered/extinct Risk extinction of 90% Hawaiian honeycreeper birds

Leemans & Eickhout 2003. Thomas 2004b Thuiller 2006 Midgley 2002

2.5-3

Extinction s continue to increase

3-3.5

Extinction rates very high

60% loss tundra and 44% loss taiga

3.5-4

Further ecosystem transformation

Extinction rates extremely high

High extinction rates e.g. S Africa mammals (24 – 59%), birds (28 – 40%), butterflies (13 – 70%), invertebrates (18 – 80%), reptiles (21 – 45%) 30 – 40% of 277 mammals in 141 African parks critically endangered/extinct; 15 – 20% endangered Loss of forest wintering habitat of Monarch butterfly 90-100% loss Queensland rainforest

Leemans & Eickhout 2004, Nicholls 1999, Najjar 2000 Sorenson 1998 ; Xenopoulos 2005, Benning 2002 Nicholls 1999, Leemans & Eickhout 2004 Thomas 2004

Neilson 1997 Thuiller 2006

Villiers-Ruiz 1998

Page 89

literature, and the scope of this study was sufficient only to highlight some key examples of the kinds of effects that are expected. Where blanks occur in the tables it does not imply that there are no impacts, and when temperatures beyond those listed are considered, impacts would be expected to continue to accrue (cumulatively) as climate changes further. All studies listed in the tables were supported by modelling calculations. Most of the species extinction predictions are based upon species-area relationships. The regional estimates from Thomas 2004 and the Africa mammal and plant extinction estimates from Thuiller 2006 are examples. The global estimates from Thomas 2004 are based on species area relationships, so the actual global percentages of species extinct are more uncertain than the local ones. This is because the coefficients in the species-area relationships can affect the estimates of extinction rates and the coefficients are uncertain. Many studies including Thomas 2004 take into account the range of outcomes depending on whether species disperse or not in response to changing temperatures. Malcolm (2006) considered the consequences of doubled carbon dioxide levels for global biodiversity hotspots, using a range of GCMs and two dynamic vegetation models. Hence a range of global temperature changes of between and is implied. The study found that several hotspots (S Africa, Caribbean, Indo-Burma, Mediterranean, Central China, Tropical Andes) were particularly vulnerable to climate change losing over 100 species for all the resultant CO2 doubling scenarios. Vertebrate extinctions reached 42737 species in the tropical Andes, and 21-377 in the Caribbean, 10-214 in Indo-Burma, and plant extinctions reached over 2000 species in S Africa, Caribbean, Indo-Burma, Mediterranean, SW Australia and Tropical Andes). In the worst case 39-43% biota could be lost in the hotspots leading to the loss of some 56,000 endemic plants species and 3,700 endemic vertebrate species. In summary, thousands to tens of thousands of species are predicted to be lost from biodiversity hotspots if carbon dioxide concentrations are doubled. Aside from the specific impacts tabulated below, a number of serious concerns exist which concern ecosystems in general as they respond to climate change. These may have very large ramifications which are not included in the tables below, since their effects are rather unpredictable. They also have ramifications for human systems, and there is in general little study of how these impacts also affect human systems: for example it is assumed in the study of agriculture that a ready supply of pollinators will remain to pollinate our crops. The specific concerns include: • Predator-prey and pollinator-plant relationships do not shift in concert as climate changes. This means that pest outbreaks and extinctions may occur which are not taken account of in the tables below, and the consequences of these ecosystem changes have not been taken into account in the studies of human systems in the other tables above. There may be large consequences for agriculture (which is a managed ecosystem). (Burkett 2005, Price 2002).

Page 90

Table 7.2: Effects of rate of temperature rise upon world ecosystems Rate of temperature rise (°C/decade) Biodiversity 0-0.05 0.05°C decade reduced as proposed competition threshold for permits only damage to survival of ecosystems more mobile opportunistic species e.g. “weeds” 0.05-0.1 0.1°C/ decade 50% ecosystems proposed able to adapt threshold for to damage to 0.1°C/decade; ecosystems 0.1-0.3 Current rate is 30% 0.17+/- 0.05 ecosystems /decade able to adapt to 0.3°C/decade 0.3-0.5 At Low biodiversity, 0.4°C/decade aggressive, all ecosystems opportunistic deteriorate: species current rate dominate the 0.46°C/decade globe in Arctic

Reference

van Vliet & Leemans 2006; Malcolm 2002

Vellinga & Swart 1991; Leemans & Eickhout 2003; Leemans & Eickhout 2003 IPCC 2001 Leemans & Eickhout 2003; Neilson 1993

As temperature increases forest ecosystems are increasingly disrupted by fire. This is particularly important in boreal regions such as Canada, Alaska and Russia, and also in areas which are drying as a result of climate change, such as the Mediterranean. (Gitay 2001, Mouillot 2002) As temperature increases forest ecosystems are increasingly disrupted by pests. This is particularly important in boreal and temperate zones such as Eurasia and North America. (Gitay 2001) Vulnerability to pests and diseases and fire is greater at higher rates of change of temperature. For sea level rise in excess of 5mm/year coastal erosion and loss of protective coastal ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangroves would occur, destroying natural coastal defences. Coastal wetlands would also be lost (Donnelly & Bertness 2001, IPCC 2001) (Sea level rise ecosystem impact table may be added or alternatively converted to T and extra entries added to table E1)

• •

Page 91

The studies do not include the effects of land use change. This means that species extinctions are likely to proceed more rapidly than the tables suggest, since overall ecosystems will be impacted by a combination of climate change, land use change, invasive species, acid deposition and eutrophication. Studies project a significant reduction in native vegetation (principally forest) in non-industrialised countries and arid regions due to expansion of agricultural or urban land use driven principally by population growth, especially in Africa, South America and in South Asia where a reduction in native habitat will result in biodiversity loss. Globally, biodiversity (represented by species richness and relative abundance) may decrease by 12-16% by 2050 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) due to a combination of climate change and land use change, and are likely in virtually all biomes with tropical forest and woodland, savanna and warm mixed forest accounting for 80% of the species lost (~30,000 species) by 2050 Land use change is a primary driver of habitat loss and one author considers that it remains a more significant driver of extinctions than climate change out to 2100, except in the Arctic where it remains the only significant driver (Sala 2000). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment considers that between the present day and 2050, climate change is about twice as strong a driver for biodiversity loss in the Arctic tundra as land use change, whilst in cool conifer forest and savannas they consider it be to 2 to 3 times more important (Figure 10.17, Biodiversity Across Scenarios, MEA). For other ecosystems such as temperate deciduous forests and warm mixed forests they consider land use change to be a stronger driver of biodiversity loss by a factor of about 4. However, an analysis of the SRES scenarios to 2100 (Strengers 2004) predicts that deforestation stops in all scenarios except A2, suggesting that beyond 2050 climate change will be the major driver for biodiversity loss rather than land use change. Malcolm (2006) finds that by 2100, climate-change induced extinction rates in hotspots for biodiversity in the tropics exceed the predicted extinctions from deforestation, suggesting that at least in some cases climate change is a more serious threat to biodiversity than land use change. For tropical forests the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment does not take account of the detailed analysis of Malcolm 2006 upon tropical forest biodiversity hotspots, and instead estimates a very small effect of climate change in biodiversity loss. However, it has to be recalled that the MEA considers changes only as far out as 2050, on which timescale the drying and collapse of the Amazon would not be expected to occur, and temperature rises in other tropical areas would be considerably smaller than in the 2100 timescale considered by SRES or by Malcolm. In summary it is likely that only temperate and warm mixed forests might have a smaller impact from climate change than from land use change. If, as Scholze 2006 suggests, there is a 44% risk of a terrestrial carbon source with a 3°C temperature rise above 1990, this would imply a worldwide decline of forests and grassland. Thus for these temperature rises climate change could become a stronger driver of biodiversity loss than land use change in all ecosystem types. Thomas (2004) considers that climate change is likely to be the greatest threat to biota in many or most regions.

Page 92

Climate change will affect the areas which are currently being preserved from land use change for conservation regions, since with a 3°C temperature rise from 1990 50% of nature reserves will not be able to fulfil their conservation objectives (Leemans & Eickhout 2004). Hence in the absence of climate change, extinctions might be prevented through careful nature conservation policy. In the presence of climate change, this will be more difficult since conservation areas become unsuitable for the species which they are deisgned to protect. Actual extinction rates will depend significantly on how climate change and other drivers of extinction interact (Sala 2000). Existing and future land use change will impede the migration of species as they attempt to adapt their geographical ranges to account for changes in temperature and rainfall. Table 7.4 shows how biomes have been affected by existing land use change.

Table 7.4. Current State of Biomes Biome name Current Area (M km2) Desert 22.7 Grassland 42.6 Tropical forest 17.5 Temperate forest 10.4 Boreal forest 13.7 Tundra 5.6 Wetlands 10.3

% transformed by land use change 3.5 28.6 34 67 25 0.3 11

Potential Area 23.5 59.7 26.5 31.5 54.8 5.6 11.6

REFERENCES Bakkenes, M., J.R.M. Alkemade, F. Ihle, R. Leemans, and J.B. Latour, 2002: Assessing effects of forecasted climate change on the diversity and distribution of European higher plants for 2050. Global Change Biology, 8(4), pp. 390-407. Beaumont, L.J., and L. Hughes, 2002: Potential changes in the distributions of latitudinally restricted Australian butterfly species in response to climate change. Global Change Biology, 8(10), pp. 954-971. Benning, T.L., D. Lapointe, C.T. Atkinson, and P.M. Vitousek, 2002: Interactions of climate change with biological invasions and land use in the Hawaiian Islands: Modeling the fate of endemic birds using a geographic information system. Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the United States of America, 99(22), pp. 14246-14249. Burkett, V. R., D. A. Wilcox, et al. (2005). "Nonlinear dynamics in ecosystem response to climatic change: Case studies and policy implications." Ecological Complexity 2(4): 357-394.

Page 93

Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, M. Collins, P.P. Harris, C. Huntingford, and C.D. Jones, 2004: Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle projections for the 21st century. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 78(1-3), pp. 137-156. Donnelly, J.P. and Bertness, M.D.: 2001, 'Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98 14218-23 ECF (ed.) 2004: What is dangerous climate change? Initial results of a symposium on key vulnerable regions climate change and article 2 of the UNFCCC. International Symposium, Beijing, Inda;27-30 October, ECF: European Climate Forum, Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 39. Eliot, I., C.M. Finlayson, and P. Waterman, 1999: Predicted climate change, sea-level rise and wetland management in the Australian wet-dry tropics. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 7(1 - 2), pp. 63-81. Erasmus, B.F.N., A.S. Van Jaarsveld, S.L. Chown, M. Kshatriya, and K.J. Wessels, 2002: Vulnerability of South African animal taxa to climate change. Global Change Biology, 8(7), pp. 679-693. Forcada, J., P.N. Trathan, K. Reid, E.J. Murphy, and J.P. Croxall, 2006: Contrasting population changes in sympatric penguin species in association with climate warming. Global Change Biology, 12, pp. 411-423. Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page, 2002: Global climate change and sea level rise: Potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds, 25(2), pp. 173-183. Gitay, H., S. Brown, W. Easterling, and B. Jallow, 2001: Ecosystems and their goods and services. In: Climate Change 2001 - Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge a.o., pp. 237-342. Halloy, S.R.P., and A.F. Mark, 2003: Climate-change effects on alpine plant biodiversity: A New Zealand perspective on quantifying the threat. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 35(2), pp. 248-254. Hannah, L., G.F. Midgley, T. Lovejoy, W.J. Bond, M. Bush, J.C. Lovett, D. Scott, and F.I. Woodward, 2002: Conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate. Conservation Biology, 16(1), pp. 264-268. Hilbert, D.W., M. Bradford, T. Parker, and D.A. Westcott, 2004: Golden bowerbird (Prionodura newtonia) habitat in past, present and future climates: predicted extinction of a vertebrate in tropical highlands due to global warming. Biological Conservation, 116(3), pp. 367. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999: Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research, 50(8), pp. 839-866.

Page 94

Hughes, L., E.M. Cawsey, and M. Westoby, 1996: Climatic range sizes of Eucalyptus species in relation to future climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 5(1), pp. 23-29. Johnson, W.C., B.V. Millett, T. Gilmanov, R.A. Voldseth, G.R. Guntenspergen, and D.E. Naugle, 2005: Vulnerability of northern prairie wetlands to climate change. Bioscience, 55(10), pp. 863-872. Kerr, J., and L. Packer, 1998: The impact of climate change on mammal diversity in Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 49(2-3), pp. 263-270. Kleypas, J.A., Buddermeier, R.W., and Gattuso, J.P. 2001. The future of coral reefs in an age of global change Int. J. Earth Sciences 90, 426-427. Leemans, R and Eickhout, B.: 2003, ‘Analysing ecosystems for different levels of climate change’, Report to OECD Working Party on Global and Structural Policies ENV/EPOC/GSP 5/FINAL. OECD. Leemans, R., and B. Eickhout, 2004: Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 14(3), pp. 219-228. Malcolm, J.R., Markham, A., Neilson, R.P. & Garaci, M., 2002. Estimated migrationrates under scenarios of global climate change. J.ÊBiogeogr., 29(7): 835-849 Malcolm, J. R., C. R. Liu, et al. (2006). Global warming and extinctions of endemic species from biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology 20(2): 538-548. McDonald, K.A., and J.H. Brown, 1992: Using montane mammals to model extinctions due to global change. Conservation Biology, 6, pp. 409-415. Midgley, G.F., L. Hannah, D. Millar, M.C. Rutherford, and L.W. Powrie, 2002: Assessing the vulnerability of species richness to anthropogenic climate change in a biodiversity hotspot. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11(6), pp. 445-451. Midgley, G.F., L. Hannah, D. Millar, W. Thuiller, and A. Booth, 2003: Developing regional and species-level assessments of climate change impacts on biodiversity in the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation, 112(1-2), pp. 87-97. Mouillot, F., S. Rambal, and R. Joffre, 2002: Simulating climate change impacts on fire frequency and vegetation dynamics in a Mediterranean-type ecosystem. Global Change Biology, 8(5), pp. 423-437. Najjar, R.G., 2000: The potential impacts of climate change on the mid-Atlantic coastal region (vol 14, pg 219, 2000). Climate Research, 15(2), pp. 160-160. Neilson, R.P.: 1993, ‘Vegetation redistribution: a possible biosphere source of CO2 during climatic change’, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 70, 659-673 Neilson, R.P., I.C. Prentice, B. Smith, T. Kittel, and D. Viner, 1998: Simulated changes in vegetation distribution under global warming. In: Regional impacts of climatic change: An assessment of vulnerability. A special report of the Intergovernmental Panel

Page 95

on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II [Watson, R.T., M.C. Zinyowera, R.H. Moss, and D.J. Dokken (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 439456. Ni, J., 2001: Carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems of China: Estimates at different spatial resolutions and their responses to climate change. Climatic Change, 49(3), pp. 339-358. Nicholls, R.J., F.M.J. Hoozemans, and M. Marchand, 1999: Increasing flood risk and wetland losses due to global sea-level rise: regional and global analyses. Global Environmental Change, 9, pp. S69-S87. Peterson, A.T., M.A. Ortega-Huerta, J. Bartley, V. Sanchez-Cordero, J. Soberon, R.H. Buddemeier, and D.R.B. Stockwell, 2002: Future projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change scenarios. Nature (London), 416(6881), pp. 626-629. Preston, B.L., 2007: Risk-based reanalysis of the effects of climate change on U.S. coldwater habitat. Climatic Change, pp. 29 (submitted). Price, J.T., and T.L. Root, 2005: Potential Impacts of climate change on Neotropical migrants: management implications. In: Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas [Ralph, C.J., and T.D. Rich (eds.)]. U.S. Forest Service, Arcata, CA, pp. 1123-1128. Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C., and Pounds, J.A. (2003) Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421, no 6918, 57-60. Rutherford, M.C., G.F. Midgley, W.J. Bond, L.W. Powrie, R. Roberts, and J. Allsopp (eds.), 2000: Plant biodiversity: Vulnerability and adaptation assessment. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa, 59pp. Sala, O. E., I. F. S. Chapin, et al. (2000). "Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100." Science 287(5459): 1770-1774. Scholze, M., W. Knorr, et al. (2007). "A climate change risk analysis for world ecosystems."Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the United State s of America: 19(submitted). Sheppard, C.R.C., 2003: Predicted recurrences of mass coral mortality in the Indian Ocean. Nature (London), 425(6955), pp. 294-297. Sorenson, L.G., R. Goldberg, T.L. Root, and M.G. Anderson, 1998: Potential effects of global warming on waterfowl populations breeding in the Northern Great Plains. Climatic Change, 40(2), pp. 343-369. Still, C.J., P.N. Foster, and S.H. Schneider, 1999: Simulating the effects of climate change on tropical montane cloud forests. Nature (London), 398(6728), pp. 608-610. Symon, C., L. Arris, and B. Heal (eds.), 2005: Arctic climate impact assessment (ACIA) Scientific report. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1042pp. Theurillat, J.P., and A. Guisan, 2001: Potential impact of climate change on vegetation in the European Alps: a review. Climatic Change, 50, pp. 77-109. Theurillat, J.P., F. Felber, P. Geissler, J.M. Gobat, M. Fierz, A. Fischlin, P. Küpfer, A. Schlüssel, C. Velluti, G.F. Zhao, and J. Williams, 1998: Sensitivity of plant and soil ecosystems of the Alps to climate change. In: Views from the Alps: regional
Page 96

perspectives on climate change [Cebon, P., U. Dahinden, H.C. Davies, D.M. Imboden, and C.C. Jager (eds.)]. MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts a.o., pp. 225-308. Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M.F. de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld, G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L. Phillips, and S.E. Williams, 2004: Extinction risk from climate change. Nature (London), 427(6970), pp. 145-148. Thuiller, W., G.F. Midgley, G.O. Hughes, B. Bomhard, G. Drew, M.C. Rutherford, and F.I. Woodward, 2007: Endemic species and ecosystem sensitivity to climate change in Namibia. Global Change Biology, 12, pp. 18(in press). Thuiller, W., O. Broenniman, G. Hughes, J.R.M. Alkemades, G.F. Midgley, and F. Corsi, 2006: Vulnerability of African mammals to anthropogenic climate change under conservative land transformation assumptions. Global Change Biology, 12, pp. 1-17. Thuiller, W., S. Lavorel, M.B. Araujo, M.T. Sykes, and I.C. Prentice, 2005: Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences of the United States of America, 102(23), pp. 8245-8250. Turley,C., Blackford, J.C., Widdicombe, S., Lowe, D., Nightingale, P.D., and Rees, A.P., 2006. Reviewing the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on oceanic pH and the marine ecosystem. In: Avoiding dangerous climate change [Schellnhuber, H.J.p.C.W., N. Nakicenovic, T. Wigley, and G. Yohe (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 93-131. vanVliet, A., and Leemans, R., 2006. Rapid species’ responses to changes in climate require stringent climate projection targets. In: Avoiding dangerous climate change [Schellnhuber, H.J.p.C.W., N. Nakicenovic, T. Wigley, and G. Yohe (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 93-131. Vellinga, P. and Swart, R.J.: 1991, ‘The greenhouse marathon: A proposal for a global strategy’, Climatic Change, 18, 7-12 Villers-Ruiz, L., and I. Trejo-Vazquez, 1998: Impact of climatic change in forests and natural protected areas of Mexico. Interciencia, 23(1), pp. 10-13. Warren, R., 2006: Impacts of global climate change at different annual mean global temperature increases. In: Avoiding dangerous climate change [Schellnhuber, H.J.p.C.W., N. Nakicenovic, T. Wigley, and G. Yohe (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 93-131. Williams, S.E., E.E. Bolitho, and S. Fox, 2003: Climate change in Australian tropical rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B Biological Sciences, 270(1527), pp. 1887-1892. Xenopoulos, M.A., D.M. Lodge, J. Alcamo, M. Marker, K. Schulze, and D.P. Van Vuuren, 2005: Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions from climate change and water withdrawal. Global Change Biology, 11(10), pp. 1557-1564.

Page 97

Zockler, C., and I. Lysenko, 2000: Waterbirds on the edge. WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 11, UNEP/WCMC, 27pp.

Page 98

8. REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON GLOBAL VEGETATION Contribution by Peter Levy CEH Edinburgh Friedlingstein et al. (2006) present a review of 11 models which simulate the interactions between climate and natural vegetation, focusing on the uncertainties surrounding the climate-carbon cycle feedback. The models were forced by historical and SRES A2 emissions of CO2 for the 1850-2100 time period. All models show that future climate change will reduce the efficiency of the Earth system to sequester carbon. A larger fraction of carbon will remain airborne by 2100 than in the absence of the feedback process. The models variously estimate 20-200 ppm additional CO2 concentration, with most estimating between 50-100 ppm. The following tables and graphs summarise the Fast-Track modelling results of Levy et al. (2004), which are based on a further (12th) global vegetation model, 'HyLand', which was used to simulate the effects of changes in climate, CO2 concentration and land use on natural ecosystems. This model simulates 76 ppm of additional CO2 to remain in the atmosphere by 2100, in the centre of the range provided bby Friedlingstein. In the Hyland outputs summarised here the changes were prescribed by all four SRES scenarios: A1f, A2, B1 and B2. Under all SRES scenarios simulated, the terrestrial biosphere was predicted to be a net sink for carbon over most of the 21st century. This sink peaks in around 2050 and then diminishes rapidly towards the end of the century as a result of climate change, in line with the other 11 models referred to above. The value of 0.66 PgC/yr carbon sink in 1990 lies in the mean for the range of 11 models reviewed by Friedlingstein.

Here, these results are summarised with respect to the increase in global temperature relative to 1990. Summary matrix The summary table shows minima and maxima for model output variables, classified by the increase in global temperature relative to 1990. The following variables are shown: Carbon sequestration (Pg C y-1); Change in forest percent cover since 1990; Change in grassland percent cover since 1990; and Change in desert percent cover since 1990. Tables are given for the entire globe and for the regions defined earlier. As CO2 is the dominating influence on the vegetation, columns are shown for default sensitivity to elevated CO2 and no sensitivity to CO2 (labelled 'CO2' and 'NoCO2' respectively). Without the effects of elevated CO2, the effects of climate change are much more severe. This is of concern, as the long-term and large-scale effects of elevated CO2 are still open to question.

Page 99

Bar Graphs The figure shows the influence of the three main input factors on the predicted net carbon sequestration of the terrestrial biosphere over the periods 2090-2100 and 1990-2100 in four SRES scenarios (A1F, A2C, B1 & B2B). Grey bars show the predicted value when all factors are included in the simulation; other bars show the contribution from climate change, elevated CO2 and land use change to this value. Note that there are interaction effects. Averaged over the period 1990 to 2100, the net sink varies between scenarios, from ~2 to 6 Pg C y-1. Differences are largely the result of differences in CO2 concentrations. A CO2 fertilisation effect on natural ecosystems is considered less important than for crops, since over the annual seasonal cycle effects cancel, unlike the situation for crops which are harvested each year. Effects of climate change are opposite to that of elevated CO2 and slowly convert the terrestrial biosphere from a sink for CO2 to a source. Land use change also results in a loss of carbon to the atmosphere in the B2B scenario, in which the increase in cropland area continues. In the other scenarios, there is a decrease in croplands and grassland, with a corresponding increase in natural vegetation, resulting in a net sink to the biosphere. The credibility of these results depends on the accuracy of the predictions of land use change in the SRES scenarios, and these are highly uncertain.

15 2090 to 2100 elevated CO2 climate change land use change All factors

10

Carbon flux (Pg C y-1)

5

sink
0

source
-5

-10 A1f A2 B1 B2

SRES scenario
kk

Page 100

10 1990 to 2100 8 elevated CO2 climate change land use change All factors

Carbon flux (Pg C y-1)

6

4

2

sink
0

source
-2

-4 A1f A2 B1 B2

SRES scenario

Contour plot The figure shows the response of global carbon sequestration (Pg C y-1, averaged over 2090 to 2099) to the increase in global temperature relative to 1990 (dT) and CO2 concentration (ppm). Points show the combination of dT and CO2 that occur in the available simulations and a response surface has been fitted to these. Positive values (green) indicate a terrestrial sink for CO2, negative values (red) indicate a source to the atmosphere. The extreme values are unlikely to occur because the driving variables (CO2 and dT) are so closely linked. More simulations would be required to define this response surface in more detail.

Page 101

Unpacking matrix This table gives the change in four model output variables with independent changes in three input factors: CCh = climate change CO2 = change in CO2 LUC = land use change. The effect of these factors is quantified in two ways. The first gives variability deriving from uncertainty in model sensitivity, the second gives variability deriving from uncertainty in the input factors, assuming the model is correct. More precise definitions are given below, but this is probably best explained by an example: In the top left section of the matrix (Global, Carbon sequestration), "Model sensitivity" to Climate Change is 4.71, meaning that the mean effect of including climate change in simulations reduces Carbon sequestration by an average of 4.71 Pg C y-1. "Input variability" is 5.304, meaning that the range of climate change within the four SRES scenarios produces a range of 5.304 Pg C y-1 around the mean Carbon sequestration. For Model sensitivity, the factors tend to counter-balance each other, so the overall mean effect (0.958, "All") is smaller than for individual factors. However, the range of variation from individual factors accumulates in the overall Input variability (10.34), though not in a simple additive way because of interaction effects. Detailed definition: We have simulations for each of the four SRES scenarios (default runs); plus for each SRES scenario, we have three further simulations where there is no change from 1990 in one input factor, either climate, CO2 or land use (noCC, noCO2 & noLUC) ie. 12 simulations in all.

Page 102

1. "Model sensitivity" is given by the mean difference in output X between default and noCC runs. [and analagously for other factors] 2. "Input variability" is given by the range* in differences between default and noCC runs. [and analagously for other factors] * actually 2 x the standard deviation is used, as this is less sensitive to extreme values.

Carbon sequestration PgC/yr

10 5 0 -5 -10 1990 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 45 Tem perature Change C With CO2 low With CO2 high Without CO2 low Without CO2 high

Summary Table. Net Equilibrium Biome Changes and Carbon Sequestration for different global mean temperature rises.
Global dT °C Baseline (1990) C sequestration (Pg C y-1) NoCO2 CO2 0.66 0.66 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00

Page 103

0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5

3.09 4.35 2.60 6.56 0.89 7.80 -0.61 6.83 3.06 3.06

0.19 1.19 -1.60 0.00 -3.28 -0.38 -4.44 -1.51 -5.85 -5.85

0.70 0.89 1.84 2.41 3.11 4.64 3.43 4.95 5.84 5.84

0.57 0.76 0.89 1.27 1.21 1.97 0.89 1.33 1.14 1.14

0.00 0.32 -0.89 -0.19 -1.78 -0.76 -1.27 -1.08 -0.70 -0.70

-0.44 -0.25 -1.21 -0.38 -1.46 -0.89 -1.02 -0.95 -1.65 -1.65

-1.14 -0.70 -1.97 -0.95 -3.87 -1.97 -3.87 -2.16 -5.14 -5.14

-0.38 -0.19 -0.57 0.32 -0.83 -0.13 -0.38 0.13 0.51 0.51

Arctic dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.41 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -3.98 -3.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57

Australasia dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.21 0.59 0.90 -0.09 0.88 -0.52 0.50 -0.40 0.47 -0.80 -0.80 0.21 0.07 0.38 -0.70 0.07 -1.24 -0.33 -0.88 -0.47 -1.67 -1.67 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 3.85 5.13 5.13 8.97 6.41 10.26 10.26 10.26 14.10 14.10 0.00 3.85 5.13 3.85 5.13 0.00 5.13 0.00 2.56 2.56 2.56 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -5.13 -3.85 -8.97 -5.13 -10.26 -6.41 -10.26 -10.26 -14.10 -14.10 0.00 -5.13 -3.85 -5.13 -3.85 -5.13 0.00 -2.56 -1.28 -8.97 -8.97 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 6.41 6.41

Central_America dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1
Page 104

C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.03 -0.05 0.03 -0.16

Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5

0.22 0.05 0.24 -0.14 0.26 -0.11 0.15 -0.05 -0.05

0.10 -0.12 -0.01 -0.26 -0.03 -0.20 -0.19 -0.38 -0.38

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.14 -7.14 -10.71 -10.71

0.00 0.00 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 7.14 7.14

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 7.14 3.57 3.57

0.00 -3.57 0.00 -3.57 -3.57 -3.57 -3.57 -7.14 -7.14

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 7.14

Central_Asia_&EE dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.22 0.37 0.35 0.83 0.40 1.03 1.22 1.22 0.03 -0.05 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.14 0.31 0.16 0.49 0.58 0.58 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -0.35 0.00 -0.70 0.70 0.00 1.76 -0.70 1.76 1.76 1.76 0.00 -0.35 0.00 -1.06 0.35 0.00 1.76 -0.70 1.76 1.76 1.76 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.35 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 2.11 2.11 2.47 5.63 5.63 0.00 0.00 0.70 -0.70 0.70 0.35 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -0.70 -0.35 -1.41 0.00 -3.87 -1.06 -4.23 -1.41 -7.39 -7.39 0.00 -0.35 0.00 -1.06 1.76 -2.82 -0.70 -2.82 -0.35 -2.82 -2.82

East_Asia dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 -0.01 0.12 0.19 0.21 0.52 0.26 1.11 0.23 1.21 1.40 1.40 -0.01 -0.05 0.03 -0.04 0.15 -0.02 0.47 -0.04 0.55 0.50 0.50 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.69 2.08 2.08 4.86 6.94 6.25 8.33 9.72 9.72 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 2.08 3.47 4.86 3.47 4.86 5.56 5.56 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.69 1.39 -0.69 0.69 -2.08 0.69 0.69 0.69 2.08 2.08 0.00 -0.69 -0.69 -1.39 0.69 -2.78 -0.69 -2.08 -1.39 -2.08 -2.08 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.39 -0.69 -2.78 -1.39 -7.64 -3.47 -9.03 -6.94 -11.81 -11.81 0.00 0.00 0.69 -1.39 -0.69 -2.78 -1.39 -2.78 -2.08 -3.47 -3.47

Europe dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.03 -0.02 0.04 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 1.35 1.35 0.00 0.00 1.35 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.35 0.00 0.00 -1.35 0.00 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 105

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5

0.02 0.14 0.04 0.37 0.06 0.43 0.48 0.48

-0.03 0.06 -0.02 0.17 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.19

0.00 1.35 1.35 5.41 2.70 8.11 10.81 10.81

0.00 1.35 0.00 1.35 -1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35

-1.35 1.35 -2.70 0.00 -5.41 -2.70 -8.11 -8.11

-1.35 0.00 -1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.35 -1.35

-2.70 1.35 -2.70 -1.35 -2.70 0.00 -2.70 -2.70

-1.35 1.35 -1.35 1.35 -1.35 1.35 0.00 0.00

North_Africa dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration NoCO2 CO2 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.11 -0.01 0.09 -0.04 0.00 -0.07 -0.07 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 -0.05 -0.02 -0.08 -0.08 -0.09 -0.09 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 2.94 2.94 5.88 7.35 7.35 8.82 7.35 8.82 7.35 7.35 0.00 2.94 2.94 2.94 4.41 4.41 5.88 4.41 5.88 5.88 5.88 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.47 -1.47 -4.41 -2.94 -7.35 -5.88 -7.35 -7.35 -8.82 -8.82 0.00 -2.94 -1.47 -4.41 -2.94 -8.82 -4.41 -11.77 -10.29 -11.77 -11.77 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.47 -1.47 -2.94 -1.47 -2.94 0.00 -1.47 0.00 1.47 1.47 0.00 -1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.41 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88

North_America dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration NoCO2 CO2 0.16 0.26 0.43 0.26 0.63 0.32 0.84 0.29 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.16 0.09 0.25 -0.01 0.22 0.03 0.33 -0.04 0.23 0.22 0.22 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -0.43 0.43 0.43 1.28 1.70 2.98 1.28 3.40 3.83 3.83 0.00 -0.43 0.43 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 -0.43 0.85 0.85 0.85 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.85 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.00 2.13 0.85 1.70 2.13 2.13 0.00 0.43 0.85 0.43 2.13 0.00 2.55 0.85 1.70 2.13 2.13 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -2.13 -0.85 -2.98 -2.13 -4.68 -2.98 -4.26 -2.98 -5.96 -5.96 0.00 -1.28 -0.43 -2.98 -0.85 -3.40 -0.85 -1.70 -1.28 -2.98 -2.98

South_America dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2
Page 106

C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.14 0.64 1.17 0.68 0.14 -0.12 0.34 -0.42

Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 1.22 1.83 3.66 0.00 1.22 1.22 1.22

Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.22 -0.61 -4.27 0.00 -0.61 -0.61 -1.22

Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 0.00 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61

2-3 3-4 4-5

1.48 -0.48 0.81 -1.29 0.04 -2.48 -2.48

-0.27 -1.56 -0.50 -2.10 -1.60 -3.53 -3.53

4.88 5.49 6.71 6.10 6.10 5.49 5.49

1.83 0.61 1.22 0.00 1.83 -4.27 -4.27

-3.05 -6.71 -4.88 -6.71 -6.10 -6.71 -6.71

-1.22 -2.44 -1.22 -3.66 -1.83 -3.05 -3.05

-0.61 -0.61 1.22 0.00 0.61 1.22 1.22

0.00 0.61 1.83 1.83 1.83 7.32 7.32

South_Asia dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration NoCO2 CO2 -0.23 0.01 0.08 0.14 0.38 -0.04 0.93 0.15 1.02 0.99 0.99 -0.23 -0.14 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 -0.22 0.20 -0.08 0.22 0.07 0.07 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 2.33 3.49 6.98 8.14 8.14 13.95 11.63 15.12 17.44 17.44 0.00 2.33 2.33 2.33 3.49 4.65 5.81 4.65 5.81 5.81 5.81 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.16 2.33 -6.98 -1.16 -3.49 4.65 0.00 6.98 4.65 4.65 0.00 -1.16 -1.16 -5.81 -2.33 -5.81 -2.33 -3.49 -1.16 1.16 1.16 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -4.65 -2.33 -5.81 -1.16 -18.61 -4.65 -22.09 -11.63 -22.09 -22.09 0.00 -1.16 -1.16 -1.16 2.33 -3.49 1.16 -4.65 -1.16 -6.98 -6.98

Southern_Africa dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration NoCO2 CO2 0.10 0.30 0.78 0.53 1.01 0.20 1.34 0.09 1.30 1.24 1.24 0.10 -0.15 0.26 -0.18 -0.07 -0.37 -0.14 -0.69 -0.31 -0.79 -0.79 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 1.75 2.63 5.26 3.51 6.14 8.77 8.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 1.75 1.75 0.00 0.88 -3.51 -1.75 -3.51 -2.63 -7.90 -7.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.75 -0.88 -3.51 0.00 -1.75 -0.88 -3.51 -3.51 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.75 -1.75 -2.63 -1.75 -2.63 -0.88 -2.63 -0.88 -0.88 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 1.75 0.00 3.51 0.88 1.75 2.63 2.63

West_Africa dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.18 0.40 0.53 0.50 0.95 0.18 -0.03 0.06 -0.10 -0.01 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.10 -1.10 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.10 0.00 -2.20 -1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10

Page 107

2-3 3-4 4-5

0.08 0.78 0.00 0.21 0.07 0.07

-0.31 -0.16 -0.56 -0.49 -0.93 -0.93

2.20 4.40 2.20 2.20 4.40 4.40

0.00 1.10 -1.10 1.10 -1.10 -1.10

-3.30 0.00 -4.40 -3.30 -5.50 -5.50

-6.59 -1.10 -5.50 -3.30 -8.79 -8.79

-3.30 1.10 1.10 2.20 1.10 1.10

0.00 6.59 2.20 6.59 9.89 9.89

West_Asia dT °C Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration NoCO2 CO2 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.06 0.00 6.06 0.00 3.03 3.03 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.06 0.00 -6.06 0.00 -6.06 -3.03 -6.06 -6.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

References Levy, P.E., Cannell, M.G.R. and Friend, A.D. (2004) Modelling the impact of future changes in climate, CO2 concentration and land use on natural ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 14, 21-30. Friedlingstein, P, Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., Bala, G., John, J., Jones, C., Joos, F., Kato, T., Kawamiya, M., Knorr, W., Lindsay, K., Matthews, H.D., Raddatz, T., Rayner, P., Reick, C., Roeckner, E., Schnitzler, K.-G., Schnur, R., Strassman, K., Weaver, A.J., Yoshikawa, C., and Zeng, N. 2006. Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis, results from the C4MIP model intercomparison.

Page 108

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is very grateful to Matthew Livermore and Ana Iglesias for providing the raw Fast Track agriculture data for analysis, and also for very helpful discussions regarding agricultural impacts; to Jason Lowe and Nicola Patmore for providing the relationships between temperature and sea level rise; and to Sarah Winne and Rita Yu for assistance with tabulation. The project was funded by a grant from the UK Treasury.

Page 109

APPENDIX Table A1. Regions used in the project and their component countries
Stern region North Africa (NAF) West Africa (WAF) Countries Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, Sao Tomé and Principe Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Mongolia Australia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Nauru, New Zealand, Papau New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, plus Melanesia and Micronesia Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Turkey, Yugoslavia Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbeckistan Canada United States Caribbean islands, including Bahamas, Cuba, Domenica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guyana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

Southern Africa (SAF)

South Asia (SAS)

East Asia (EAS)

Australasia (AUS)

Europe (EUR)

Central Asia (Russia and Former Soviet Union) (CAS)

North America (NAM) Central America (CAM)

South America (SAM)

West Asia (WAS)

Page 110

Table A2. SRES-Specific Regional Population Totals in used Fast Track Analyses, and matching detail of populations exposed to water stress
Total population A1/B1 A2 North Africa 1995 133 2025 223 251.3 2055 279.3 414.4 2085 312.1 609.5 West Africa 1995 276.6 2025 594.7 621 2055 788.9 919.3 2085 782.1 1012.3 South and East Africa 1995 284.5 2025 539.4 571.4 2055 699.3 850.3 2085 691.4 966.5 South Asia 1995 1635.6 2025 2458.8 2660.5 2055 2755.7 3576.9 2085 2404 4057.7 East Asia 1995 1566.6 2025 1795.3 2100.3 2055 1628.7 2659.9 2085 1263.5 3310.2 Australasia 1995 26.9 2025 38.1 41 2055 44.1 54.1 2085 38.6 59.9 Europe 1995 579.2 2025 629.1 647.3 2055 624.6 681 2085 588.6 743 Former Soviet Union 1995 284.3 2025 302.7 327.1 2055 296.2 400.8 2085 264.6 509.1 North America 1995 295.3 2025 374.9 388.1 2055 432.9 477.2 2085 486.4 607.6 Caribbean 1995 30.1 2025 38 43.7 2055 39.3 58.4 2085 38.5 77.5 Central America 1995 123.3 2025 184.6 212.5 Page 111 B2 Population < 1000m3/capita/year A1/B1 A2 B2 North Africa 1995 124.9 2025 212 239.8 203.6 2055 269.7 403.8 262.5 2085 303.1 603.1 311.6 West Africa 1995 13.5 2025 61.4 64 61.5 2055 137.3 259.9 241.2 2085 135.4 289.8 431.8 South and East Africa 1995 15.4 2025 71.6 75.9 110.6 2055 191.4 336.8 380.4 2085 151.2 389.4 501.6 South Asia 1995 428.1 2025 1439.6 1551.8 1429.6 2055 1664.3 2483.1 1982.4 2085 1432.5 2849.7 2276 East Asia 1995 664.5 2025 749.5 893.7 794.8 2055 665.4 1833 805.7 2085 428.9 2461.2 806.4 Australasia 1995 0 2025 0 0 0 2055 0 0 0 2085 0 0 0 Europe 1995 221 2025 162.4 183.9 131.4 2055 176 216.1 136.4 2085 148.4 303.5 138.3 Former Soviet Union 1995 2025 2055 2085 North America 1995 2025 2055 2085 Caribbean 1995 2025 2055 2085 Central America 1995 2025 15.4 8.4 10.6 9.2 46.7 73.6 85.1 95.6 0 0 0 0 22.7 29.6

213.6 274.3 321.8

598.5 915 1106.6

591.9 890 1074.2

2485 3028.7 3214.8

1900.5 1953.5 1940.4

38.2 41 31.6

604.7 578.4 574.6

290.1 281.9 268.7

10.2 137.6 193.5

7.9 11.5 10.4

367.5 384.7 394.7

76.2 98.7 151.5

72.1 75.5 77.6

41.3 49.7 52.8

0 36.4 48

0 27.6 33.9

187.9

60.9

29.8

2055 207.2 2085 187.8 South America 1995 324.2 2025 460 2055 509.2 2085 463.3 West Asia 1995 85.4 2025 211.9 2055 322.2 2085 319.5 Global 1995 5644.9 2025 7850.5 2055 8627.6 2085 7840.3

310.7 411.5

232.6 247

527.3 766.9 1016.2

461.1 543.6 577.6

240 500.7 709.3

185.8 272.9 319.9

8631.5 11670.5 14090.2

7966.3 9446.1 10124.8

2055 58 2085 32.5 South America 1995 2.9 2025 5.6 2055 6.4 2085 5.8 West Asia 1995 67.9 2025 188.6 2055 322.2 2085 319 Global 1995 1623.1 2025 3002.4 2055 3586.4 2085 3061.3

129.7 178

64.5 68.4

6.4 28.7 88.2

5.7 7.4 7.9

234.9 500.7 709.3

164.7 273 319.9

3398 6464.6 8265

3011.6 4268.1 4983.8

Table A3. (taken from Preston, 2005)

Page 112

Table A4. Impact of Global Annual Mean Temperature Increase (as modelled by 5 GCMs) for water stress amongst populations of the world regions: detail of transition between stress classes
All GCMs North Africa 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 2 West Africa 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 3 South and East Africa 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 4 South Asia 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 East Asia 0-1 1-2 2-3 A1/B1 0 - 17 2 - 136 2 - 140 A2 0 - 1147 10 - 1571 41 - 1577 B2 0 - 154 4 - 250 4 - 300 A1/B1 0 - 307 15 - 371 47 - 375 A2 1 - 1859 197 - 2311 627 - 2323 B2 0 - 546 113 - 771 182 - 778 A1/B1 00 0- 40 0- 40 A2 0- 39 0- 272 0- 272 B2 0- 23 0- 67 0- 109 A1/B1 0- 27 0- 28 0- 30 A2 0- 97 0- 111 5- 173 B2 0- 28 0- 56 0- 58 A1/B1 0- 17 2- 133 2- 137 A2 0- 1112 10- 1299 41- 1305 A1/B1 26 - 123 35 - 156 39 - 264 39 - 281 37 - 327 A2 60 - 376 275 - 387 169 - 812 288 - 879 237 - 1010 B2 34 - 175 47 - 221 47 - 356 47 - 409 48 - 425 A1/B1 0 - 1593 961 - 1597 1044 1602 1051 1602 1170 1602 A2 39 - 2756 1579 2780 1723 2789 1735 2789 1917 2789 B2 0 - 2284 1361 2300 1473 2299 1481 2306 1633 2306 A1/B1 0- 23 0- 55 4- 59 4- 59 4- 80 A2 0- 314 0- 314 0- 345 0- 407 0- 438 B2 0- 31 5- 33 5- 33 5- 33 5- 33 A1/B1 0- 710 25- 947 563- 1345 576- 1454 642- 1454 A2 0- 164 39- 1102 39- 1278 39- 1968 270- 2091 B2 0- 884 0- 1106 99- 1321 358- 1844 807- 1977 A1/B1 26- 114 35- 137 35- 204 35- 222 33- 246 A2 60- 273 73- 352 73- 466 73- 534 69- 572 A1/B1 4 - 191 21 - 231 33 - 307 35 - 319 36 - 320 A2 5 - 324 12 - 403 15 - 432 20 - 429 21 - 526 B2 8 - 444 44 - 496 51 - 529 57 - 574 57 - 569 A1/B1 0 - 229 23 - 260 33 - 260 42 - 260 51 - 260 A2 1 - 416 29 - 455 43 - 455 62 - 455 75 - 455 B2 0 - 472 38 - 521 50 - 521 59 - 535 72 - 535 A1/B1 0- 25 0- 60 0- 91 0- 103 0- 109 A2 0- 12 3- 44 5- 46 11- 47 11- 151 B2 05 0- 29 2- 46 4- 56 4- 56 A1/B1 0- 151 0- 155 0- 155 1- 174 1- 174 A2 0- 194 1- 250 1- 250 1- 250 1- 315 B2 0- 200 0- 279 0- 279 0- 283 0- 287 A1/B1 4- 166 7- 197 7- 215 7- 215 7- 211 A2 4- 312 9- 358 9- 385 9- 381 9- 376 A1/B1 17 - 258 22 - 277 27 - 294 40 - 301 40 - 322 A2 19 - 357 34 - 376 50 - 403 50 - 413 50 - 461 B2 23 - 407 32 - 472 59 - 517 59 - 517 59 - 564 A1/B1 0 - 129 0 - 136 0 - 136 0 - 136 0 - 185 A2 0 - 271 0 - 276 1 - 279 1 - 279 1 - 343 B2 0 - 288 0 - 292 0 - 309 0 - 351 2 - 375 A1/B1 0- 79 0- 81 0- 104 0- 112 0- 133 A2 0- 22 0- 38 0- 39 0- 65 0- 88 B2 0- 37 0- 75 0- 98 0- 98 0- 178 A1/B1 0- 69 0- 82 0- 82 0- 97 0- 119 A2 03 0- 107 0- 110 0- 110 0- 154 B2 0- 113 0- 113 0- 120 0- 157 1- 311 A1/B1 15- 179 22- 198 27- 214 27- 214 27- 214 A2 19- 334 26- 354 33- 372 33- 372 33- 372 Increase in stress + move in A1/B1 0 - 169 88 - 301 155 - 304 154 - 305 154 - 306 A2 0 - 330 169 - 594 296 - 599 293 - 599 293 - 603 B2 3 - 184 101 - 312 163 - 315 162 - 315 162 - 318 A1/B1 0 - 144 0 - 147 0 - 149 0 - 148 0 - 148 Decrease in stress + move out A2 0 - 290 0 - 299 0 - 303 0 - 300 0 - 300 B2 0 - 142 0 - 148 0 - 150 0 - 149 0 - 149 A1/B1 000001 3 5 6 6 Move into stressed class A2 000001 1 3 4 6 B2 33334 6 7 7 A1/B1 0- 20 0- 76 0- 78 0- 80 0- 81 Move out of stressed class A2 05 0- 41 0- 153 0- 157 0- 157 B2 0- 20 0- 75 0- 78 0- 80 0- 81 A1/B1 0- 167 87- 298 154- 299 153- 299 153- 300 Increase in stress A2 0- 329 169- 593 296- 596 293- 596 293- 597

2085

0

97

15

15

3- 10

15

23

32

40

40

40

8

41

45

45

45

34

42

42

42

40

0

Page 113

4

4

3-4 4-5 6 Australasia 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 7 Europe 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 8 Former Soviet Union 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 9 North America 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 10 Caribbean 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 11 Central

2 - 140 2 - 160 A1/B1 000002 2 2 4 4

41 - 1584 12 - 1584 A2 00000A2 58 - 433 197 - 489 237 - 550 287 - 567 297 - 590 3 3 3 6 6

4 - 727 4 - 781 B2 00000B2 31 - 238 89 - 328 102 - 341 193 - 429 213 - 440 2 2 2 3 3

47 - 375 80 - 376 A1/B1 000000 0 1 0 0

748 - 2323 748 - 2326 A2 00000A2 00 0 - 47 0 - 67 0 - 68 0 - 68 0 0 2 0 0

182 - 778 238 - 756 B2 00000B2 0 - 15 0 - 53 0 - 69 0 - 69 0 - 69 0 0 1 0 0

0- 61 0- 76 A1/B1 000002 2 2 4 4

0- 272 0- 272 A2 00000A2 0- 101 28- 122 59- 184 83- 200 88- 276 3 3 3 6 6

0- 595 0- 649 B2 00000B2 0- 34 7- 97 32- 111 37- 198 62- 269 2 2 2 3 3

0- 30 0- 295 A1/B1 000000 0 1 0 0

7- 201 7- 270 A2 00000A2 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

0- 109 0- 131 B2 00000B2 0- 15 0- 15 0- 15 0- 15 0- 15 0 0 1 0 0

2- 137 2- 156 A1/B1 000000 0 0 0 0

41- 1311 12- 1311 A2 00000A2 58- 332 151- 366 177- 366 204- 366 208- 366 0 0 0 0 0

4

4

0

0

0

0

0

A1/B1 34 - 233 99 - 315 119 - 364 179 - 441 205 - 450

A1/B1 00 0 - 41 0 - 58 0 - 58 0 - 58

A1/B1 5- 38 19- 91 23- 140 38- 217 61- 237

A1/B1 000000 0 0 0 0

A1/B1 29- 194 69- 223 70- 223 87- 223 91- 223

29

66

67

10

10

A1/B1 0 - 10 5 - 47 14 - 52 14 - 59 24 - 75

A2 7 - 94 47 - 190 98 - 228 98 - 248 96 - 316

B2 0 - 23 10 - 52 16 - 59 24 - 65 33 - 83

A1/B1 0 - 34 0 - 37 0006 6 6

A2 0 - 101 0 - 112 0 - 112 0 - 112 0 - 112

B2 0 - 35 0 - 37 0006 6 7

A1/B1 08 0- 10 0- 20 3- 21 6- 66

A2 07 2- 13 4- 58 7- 64 7- 122

B2 0- 14 4- 19 7- 22 15- 25 18- 73

A1/B1 0- 33 0- 36 0004 4 4

A2 0- 32 0- 36 0- 36 0- 36 0- 36

B2 0- 32 0- 32 0002 2 2

A1/B1 09 3- 38 3- 38 3- 39 2- 40

A2 7- 89 40- 183 40- 220 40- 223 38- 226

0

4

4

4

3

A1/B1 0 - 92 24 - 106 46 - 136 67 - 138 85 - 183 A1/B1 0 - 19 0 - 19 0 - 24 0 - 24 0 - 21 A1/B1

A2 0 - 130 32 - 172 92 - 173 109 - 206 109 - 247 A2 0 - 51 0 - 55 0 - 73 0 - 75 0 - 75 A2

B2 0 - 57 16 - 84 26 - 86 48 - 110 48 - 112 B2 0 - 33 0 - 35 0 - 38 0 - 49 0 - 47 B2

A1/B1 0 - 26 0 - 26 0 - 26 0 - 26 0 - 26 A1/B1 000000 1 1 1 1

A2 0 - 33 2 - 33 8 - 33 11 - 33 17 - 59 A2 0000 3 3

B2 0 - 19 0 - 20 0 - 20 0 - 21 0 - 21 B2 0000 1 1

A1/B1 0- 21 0- 23 0- 53 0- 53 22- 92 A1/B1 0- 17 0- 19 0- 24 0- 24 0- 21 A1/B1

A2 0- 14 2- 43 29- 43 31- 92 31- 114 A2 004 7

B2 09 0- 27 0- 29 1- 51 1- 53 B2 0000 0 4

A1/B1 000002 2 2 2 2

A2 02 0- 26 0- 26 0- 26 0- 26 A2 00000A2 0 0 0 0 0

B2 00000B2 00000B2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 5

A1/B1 0- 71 24- 91 31- 91 62- 91 62- 91 A1/B1 000001 1 1 1 1

A2 0- 116 29- 129 63- 129 77- 133 77- 140 A2 0- 48 0- 51 0- 51 0- 51 0- 51 A2

0

16

26

47

47

A1/B1 000000 0 0 0 0

0

0

0- 25 0- 27 0- 27 A2

0

0 - 48 0 - 48 A2

0 - 33 0 - 33 B2

0- 15 0- 13 B2

0

0

A1/B1

A1/B1

A1/B1

Page 114

America 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 12 South America 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 13 West Asia 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 Globe 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 A1/B1 39 - 158 117 - 216 95 - 218 95 - 226 95 - 217 A1/B1 304 - 946 731 - 1459 814 - 1827 964 - 2028 979 - 2144 A2 78 - 355 240 - 488 191 - 492 191 - 510 191 - 490 A2 769 - 3047 2074 4439 2311 5182 2646 5391 2978 5822 B2 39 - 165 120 - 205 98 - 207 98 - 216 98 - 205 B2 392 - 1409 1002 2178 1167 2614 1264 3293 1210 3375 A1/B1 0 - 123 0 - 168 0 - 191 0 - 201 0 - 202 A1/B1 197 - 2491 1079 2709 1341 2795 1384 2802 1592 2807 A2 0 - 286 0 - 388 0 - 446 0 - 467 0 - 468 A2 949 - 5082 1841 5579 2537 5882 2649 5927 3040 5959 B2 0 - 113 0 - 169 0 - 188 0 - 198 0 - 199 B2 460 - 3866 1534 4114 1976 4216 2018 4268 2253 4278 A1/B1 000000 0 0 0 0 A2 00000A2 23- 476 117- 707 194- 887 368- 1191 419- 1306 0 0 0 0 0 B2 00000B2 7- 110 53- 314 141- 423 131- 1007 161- 1048 0 0 0 0 0 A1/B1 0- 26 0- 35 0- 38 0- 50 0- 50 A1/B1 2- 944 66- 1273 566- 1667 580- 1843 711- 1863 A2 06 0- 54 0- 74 0- 75 0- 75 A2 1- 513 48- 1722 55- 2032 240- 2762 720- 2972 B2 0- 27 0- 36 0- 40 0- 37 0- 52 B2 0- 1174 38- 1566 203- 1882 578- 2442 811- 2601 A1/B1 39- 158 117- 216 95- 218 95- 226 95- 217 A1/B1 277- 801 665- 1255 718- 1412 693- 1481 690- 1517 A2 78- 355 240- 488 191- 492 191- 510 191- 490 A2 694- 2868 19093909 20744294 22324464 23054516 A1/B1 01 0 - 47 1 - 47 15 - 47 15 - 58 A2 1 - 146 39 - 170 72 - 272 124 - 226 180 - 299 B2 0 - 35 0 - 52 16 - 70 19 - 106 20 - 106 A1/B1 000001 1 1 1 3 A2 0 - 106 0 - 107 0 - 108 0 - 135 0 - 143 B2 000002 2 2 2 4 A1/B1 00 0- 47 0- 47 11- 47 11- 58 A2 0- 62 11- 106 11- 179 39- 158 39- 215 B2 0- 34 0- 51 14- 65 14- 106 17- 106 A1/B1 000000 1 1 1 1 A2 0- 106 0- 106 0- 108 0- 131 0- 135 B2 000000 0 0 2 2 A1/B1 000000 0 4 4 4 A2 1- 132 5- 132 4- 140 30- 163 30- 141 0 - 65 4 - 65 5 - 65 4 - 81 4 - 86 0 - 173 9 - 173 11 - 246 10 - 257 10 - 266 0 - 83 5 - 104 5 - 104 5 - 142 6 - 139 0 - 28 0 - 30 0 - 51 0 - 51 0 - 51 0 - 66 0 - 105 0 - 151 0 - 151 0 - 151 0 - 39 0 - 42 0 - 70 0 - 70 0 - 70 02 00 00 000000 1 1 1 1 000000 0 0 1 4 000000 0 3 3 4 0- 62 4- 62 5- 62 2- 62 2- 62 0- 173 8- 173 9- 173 8- 175 8- 175

0

0- 22 0- 23 0- 23 0- 59

0- 24 0- 95 2- 109 2- 122

0- 22 0- 22 0- 76 0- 76

4

5

5

5

0

0

0

0

0

39

12

98

98

98

A1/B1 8- 181 64- 242 71- 415 135- 546 183- 627

375

824 84

816

812

Page 115

Table A5a % Changes in Maize yields with respect to 1990 with CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America W Asia & Mid E WORLD 0.54 -4.96 -4.50 -3.60 -4.90 -0.62 -3.46 -3.37 -8.57 -0.87 -3.51 -3.64 -5.08 -3.51 A2b2050 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America W Asia & Mid E WORLD
Page 116

A2a2020 0.56 -5.27 -3.95 -3.09 -4.90 -0.48 -2.46 -2.74 -6.16 0.76 -0.81 -1.98 -5.44 -2.76 A2a2050 1.62 -9.39 -6.59 -8.16 -9.24 -3.30 -2.00 -3.96 -10.38 0.12 -2.57 -4.27 -9.84 -5.03

A2c2020 0.58 -3.97 -2.63 -2.46 -5.48 -1.26 -3.09 -2.40 -4.89 0.08 -0.93 -1.50 -5.36 -2.58 B1a2080 1.76 -10.20 -8.61 -9.68 -9.99 -4.24 -6.07 -5.60 -11.82 -3.37 -5.07 -7.30 -11.02 -6.91

B2a2020 0.61 -7.24 -4.40 -4.75 -6.51 -1.94 -1.59 -4.49 -8.85 -0.63 -3.15 -3.17 -7.11 -4.24 A1F2050 1.96 -10.85 -8.33 -9.74 -10.14 -2.53 -5.29 -4.28 -11.56 -1.31 -2.34 -3.66 -12.84 -5.85

B2b2020 0.61 -5.67 -4.71 -4.09 -6.16 -1.20 -2.98 -3.82 -7.09 -0.24 -2.13 -3.04 -6.03 -3.72 B2a2080 2.05 -13.24 -10.22 -11.67 -10.13 -3.82 -3.79 -4.50 -9.99 -0.03 -2.47 -4.93 -12.65 -6.29

A2b2020 0.63 -4.38 -3.42 -3.10 -4.61 -0.13 -1.47 -2.09 -5.89 0.53 -2.22 -3.14 -5.03 -2.55 B2b2080 2.10 -18.56 -11.35 -12.42 -12.70 -4.06 -4.59 -5.44 -11.71 -1.36 -2.85 -5.49 -17.79 -7.71

A1F2020 0.70 -4.42 -3.66 -3.19 -5.50 0.56 -2.56 -2.86 -6.19 0.31 -0.83 -1.59 -5.54 -2.72 A2a2080 2.91 -16.95 -12.79 -15.00 -10.20 -4.38 -3.99 -3.61 -11.41 -1.48 -1.95 -5.90 -15.46 -6.90

B1a2050 1.15 -7.62 -6.32 -6.55 -8.44 -2.91 -4.56 -4.57 -8.29 -2.02 -4.48 -5.22 -8.34 -5.29 A2b2080 2.98 -14.51 -12.45 -14.16 -10.45 -3.95 -5.21 -3.16 -13.70 -1.23 -3.07 -5.83 -14.18 -6.61

B2a2050 1.26 -10.46 -7.58 -7.86 -9.48 -3.76 -4.80 -5.37 -9.33 -1.91 -3.64 -4.81 -10.85 -6.10 A2c2080 3.02 -16.23 -12.34 -14.32 -11.93 -6.66 -5.41 -3.73 -12.04 -3.57 -1.98 -6.08 -15.39 -7.31

B2b2050 1.36 -8.20 -7.79 -7.67 -9.63 -2.79 -4.86 -5.36 -12.48 -1.57 -3.61 -4.77 -8.66 -5.79 A1F2080 3.67 -21.86 -18.57 -20.84 -12.11 -7.47 -7.16 -3.80 -15.07 -2.16 -2.50 -6.31 -19.81 -8.91

A2c2050 1.55 -7.91 -5.43 -6.17 -9.27 -3.75 -3.77 -4.22 -10.92 -0.92 -2.40 -3.81 -9.02 -4.94

Table A5a (contd) % Changes in Maize yields with respect to 1990 with CO2 fertilisation
1.59 -8.19 -6.03 -6.72 -8.30 -2.30 -4.15 -4.12 -11.37 -0.07 -2.74 -5.04 -9.31 -4.96

Table A5b % Changes in Maize yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America W Asia & Mid E WORLD 0.54 -4.96 -4.50 -3.60 -4.90 -0.62 -3.46 -3.37 -8.57 -0.87 -3.51 -3.64 -5.08 -3.51 A2b2050 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America W Asia & Mid E WORLD 1.59 -11.19 -9.03 -9.72 -11.30 -5.30 -7.15 -7.12 -14.37 -3.07 -5.74 -8.04 -12.31 -7.96 A2a2020 0.56 -6.27 -4.95 -4.09 -5.90 -1.48 -3.46 -3.74 -7.16 -0.24 -1.81 -2.98 -6.44 -3.76 A2a2050 1.62 -12.39 -9.59 -11.16 -12.24 -6.30 -5.00 -6.96 -13.38 -2.88 -5.57 -7.27 -12.84 -8.03 A2c2020 0.58 -4.97 -3.63 -3.46 -6.48 -2.26 -4.09 -3.40 -5.89 -0.92 -1.93 -2.50 -6.36 -3.58 B1a2080 1.76 -12.20 -10.61 -11.68 -11.99 -6.24 -8.07 -7.60 -13.82 -5.37 -7.07 -9.30 -13.02 -8.91 B2a2020 0.61 -7.24 -4.40 -4.75 -6.51 -1.94 -1.59 -4.49 -8.85 -0.63 -3.15 -3.17 -7.11 -4.24 A1F2050 2.05 -17.24 -14.22 -15.67 -14.13 -7.82 -7.79 -8.50 -13.99 -4.03 -6.47 -8.93 -16.65 -10.29 B2b2020 0.61 -5.67 -4.71 -4.09 -6.16 -1.20 -2.98 -3.82 -7.09 -0.24 -2.13 -3.04 -6.03 -3.72 B2a2080 2.10 -22.56 -15.35 -16.42 -16.70 -8.06 -8.59 -9.44 -15.71 -5.36 -6.85 -9.49 -21.79 -11.71 A2b2020 0.63 -5.38 -4.42 -4.10 -5.61 -1.13 -2.47 -3.09 -6.89 -0.47 -3.22 -4.14 -6.03 -3.55 B2b2080 2.91 -23.95 -19.79 -22.00 -17.20 -11.38 -10.99 -10.61 -18.41 -8.48 -8.95 -12.90 -22.46 -13.90 A1F2020 0.70 -5.42 -4.66 -4.19 -6.50 -0.44 -3.56 -3.86 -7.19 -0.69 -1.83 -2.59 -6.54 -3.72 A2a2080 2.91 -14.85 -12.33 -13.74 -14.14 -6.53 -9.29 -8.28 -15.56 -5.31 -6.34 -7.66 -16.84 -9.85 B1a2050 1.15 -8.62 -7.32 -7.55 -9.44 -3.91 -5.56 -5.57 -9.29 -3.02 -5.48 -6.22 -9.34 -6.29 A2b2080 2.98 -21.51 -19.45 -21.16 -17.45 -10.95 -12.21 -10.16 -20.70 -8.23 -10.07 -12.83 -21.18 -13.61 B2a2050 1.26 -11.46 -8.58 -8.86 -10.48 -4.76 -5.80 -6.37 -10.33 -2.91 -4.64 -5.81 -11.85 -7.10 A2c2080 3.02 -23.23 -19.34 -21.32 -18.93 -13.66 -12.41 -10.73 -19.04 -10.57 -8.98 -13.08 -22.39 -14.31 B2b2050 1.36 -9.20 -8.79 -8.67 -10.63 -3.79 -5.86 -6.36 -13.48 -2.57 -4.61 -5.77 -9.66 -6.79 A1F2080 3.67 -29.86 -26.57 -28.84 -20.11 -15.47 -15.16 -11.80 -23.07 -10.16 -10.50 -14.31 -27.81 -16.91 A2c2050 1.55 -10.91 -8.43 -9.17 -12.27 -6.75 -6.77 -7.22 -13.92 -3.92 -5.40 -6.81 -12.02 -7.94

Table A5b (contd) % Changes in Maize yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation

Page 117

Table A6a % Changes in Rice Yields with respect to 1990 with CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America WORLD 0.54 -2.03 -2.36 -1.91 -2.17 -0.35 -0.39 -1.65 -7.57 -0.95 -8.58 -6.65 -3.44 A2a2020 0.56 -1.45 -1.71 -1.34 -1.59 0.33 0.44 2.27 -5.16 2.63 -4.10 -1.23 -1.00 A2c2020 0.58 -0.65 -1.33 -0.78 -2.20 0.32 0.09 0.49 -3.89 1.47 -4.54 -3.09 -1.53 B2a2020 0.61 -3.10 -3.03 -2.82 -3.00 -0.97 -0.45 0.73 -7.85 -0.54 -6.02 -4.20 -2.76 B2b2020 0.61 -2.26 -2.79 -2.44 -2.92 -1.02 -0.74 0.00 -6.09 -0.14 -5.32 -3.67 -2.55 A2b2020 0.63 -1.02 -1.77 -1.31 -1.53 0.37 -0.03 0.53 -4.89 0.25 -6.75 -4.41 -2.13 AIF2020 0.70 -1.26 -1.90 -1.65 -2.40 -0.30 0.26 1.09 -5.19 2.08 -4.86 -3.53 -1.83 B1a2050 1.15 -0.96 -1.37 -1.79 -1.26 1.00 1.80 2.88 -4.29 -1.17 -6.86 -4.67 -1.69 B2a2050 1.26 -3.60 -2.52 -3.37 -1.99 0.49 2.01 2.64 -5.33 -0.06 -5.61 -2.76 -1.82 B2b2050 1.36 -1.74 -2.21 -3.10 -2.38 -0.44 1.83 2.67 -8.48 -0.02 -6.70 -5.76 -2.43

Table A6a (contd) % Changes in Rice Yields with respect to 1990 with CO2 fertilisation
A2c2050 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America WORLD 1.55 0.30 0.47 -0.35 -0.62 1.26 4.32 5.20 -5.92 1.11 -5.48 -3.63 -0.33 A2b2050 1.59 -0.69 -0.27 -1.23 0.21 2.21 3.91 5.14 -6.37 0.78 -4.68 -0.97 0.09 A2a2050 1.62 -1.78 -1.33 -2.75 -0.48 2.32 3.88 5.37 -5.38 2.60 -4.90 -2.52 -0.49 B1a2080 1.76 -4.46 -4.52 -6.04 -3.46 -1.65 0.54 2.08 -8.82 -3.14 -8.28 -6.20 -3.90 AIF2050 1.96 -8.36 -2.40 -6.98 2.95 3.89 9.59 10.23 -1.41 2.13 1.87 1.12 1.60 B2a2080 2.05 -2.79 -1.38 -3.55 -0.23 1.48 5.24 6.39 -5.56 -1.37 -2.69 -0.43 0.04 B2b2080 2.1 -5.64 -3.22 -6.04 -0.24 1.97 5.06 4.49 -3.99 1.68 -3.80 -2.81 -1.24 A2a2080 2.91 -9.32 -3.84 -6.55 -1.92 2.11 4.94 5.99 -5.71 -2.23 -5.00 -2.89 -1.81 A2b2080 2.98 -6.10 -1.33 -5.83 2.56 1.93 9.92 10.24 -3.70 1.00 1.42 1.18 1.63 A2c2080 3.02 -6.68 -1.36 -5.55 1.25 3.04 9.30 10.66 -2.04 1.81 1.87 -0.51 1.49 AIF2080 3.67 -18.27 -9.02 -15.74 -1.02 -1.84 7.24 5.14 -6.07 1.00 0.09 -3.57 -3.52

Page 118

Table A6b % Changes in Rice Yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America WORLD 0.54 -3.03 -3.36 -2.91 -3.17 -1.35 -1.39 -2.65 -8.57 -1.95 -9.58 -7.65 -4.44 A2a2020 0.56 -3.45 -3.71 -3.34 -3.59 -1.67 -1.56 0.27 -7.16 0.63 -6.10 -3.23 -3.00 A2c2020 0.58 -2.65 -3.33 -2.78 -4.20 -1.68 -1.91 -1.51 -5.89 -0.53 -6.54 -5.09 -3.53 B2a2020 0.61 -4.10 -4.03 -3.82 -4.00 -1.97 -1.45 -0.27 -8.85 -1.54 -7.02 -5.20 -3.76 B2b2020 0.61 -3.26 -3.79 -3.44 -3.92 -2.02 -1.74 -1.00 -7.09 -1.14 -6.32 -4.67 -3.55 A2b2020 0.63 -3.02 -3.77 -3.31 -3.53 -1.63 -2.03 -1.47 -6.89 -1.75 -8.75 -6.41 -4.13 AIF2020 0.7 -3.26 -3.90 -3.65 -4.40 -2.30 -1.74 -0.91 -7.19 0.08 -6.86 -5.53 -3.83 B1a2050 1.15 -5.96 -6.37 -6.79 -6.26 -4.00 -3.20 -2.12 -9.29 -6.17 -11.86 -9.67 -6.69 B2a2050 1.26 -8.60 -7.52 -8.37 -6.99 -4.51 -2.99 -2.36 -10.33 -5.06 -10.61 -7.76 -6.82 B2b2050 1.36 -6.74 -7.21 -8.10 -7.38 -5.44 -3.17 -2.33 -13.48 -5.02 -11.70 -10.76 -7.43

Table A6b (contd) % Changes in Rice Yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
A2c2050 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America WORLD 1.55 -7.70 -7.53 -8.35 -8.62 -6.74 -3.68 -2.80 -13.92 -6.89 -13.48 -11.63 -8.33 A2b2050 1.59 -8.69 -8.27 -9.23 -7.79 -5.79 -4.09 -2.86 -14.37 -7.22 -12.68 -8.97 -7.91 A2a2050 1.62 -9.78 -9.33 -10.75 -8.48 -5.68 -4.12 -2.63 -13.38 -5.40 -12.90 -10.52 -8.49 B1a2080 1.76 -9.46 -9.52 -11.04 -8.46 -6.65 -4.46 -2.92 -13.82 -8.14 -13.28 -11.20 -8.90 AIF2050 1.96 -12.79 -11.38 -13.55 -10.23 -8.52 -4.76 -3.61 -15.56 -11.37 -12.69 -10.43 -9.96 B2a2080 2.05 -15.64 -13.22 -16.04 -10.24 -8.03 -4.94 -5.51 -13.99 -8.32 -13.80 -12.81 -11.24 B2b2080 2.1 -19.32 -13.84 -16.55 -11.92 -7.89 -5.06 -4.01 -15.71 -12.23 -15.00 -12.89 -11.81 A2a2080 2.91 -25.36 -19.40 -23.98 -14.05 -13.11 -7.41 -6.77 -18.41 -14.87 -15.13 -15.88 -15.40 A2b2080 2.98 -23.10 -18.33 -22.83 -14.44 -15.07 -7.08 -6.76 -20.70 -16.00 -15.58 -15.82 -15.37 A2c2080 3.02 -23.68 -18.36 -22.55 -15.75 -13.96 -7.70 -6.34 -19.04 -15.19 -15.13 -17.51 -15.51 AIF2080 3.67 -35.27 -26.02 -32.74 -18.02 -18.84 -9.76 -11.86 -23.07 -16.00 -16.91 -20.57 -20.52

Page 119

Table A7a % Changes in Wheat yields with respect to 1990, with CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America W Asia & Mid E WORLD 0.54 -0.07 -0.92 0.32 -3.51 1.50 2.22 -1.45 -5.57 1.86 -5.43 -3.44 -0.87 -1.13 A2c2050 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America W Asia & Mid E WORLD 1.55 2.08 2.27 1.61 -0.06 3.51 8.37 3.77 -3.92 4.98 -3.39 -0.08 -0.15 2.45 A2a2020 0.56 0.45 -0.14 0.86 0.38 1.05 3.00 1.85 -3.16 3.65 -1.31 2.62 -0.74 1.23 A2b2050 1.59 1.10 1.42 0.72 2.89 5.05 8.02 3.65 -4.37 4.08 -3.31 3.89 -0.87 2.56 A2c2020 0.58 1.15 0.87 1.41 -2.92 -0.08 3.11 1.24 -1.89 2.39 -1.84 -0.11 -0.99 0.71 A2a2050 1.62 0.12 0.77 -0.86 0.35 4.24 9.49 3.93 -3.38 6.38 -1.33 1.91 -1.24 2.25 B2a2020 0.61 -1.20 -0.74 -0.62 -0.29 0.91 3.77 -0.47 -5.85 1.53 -4.15 -0.89 -2.24 -0.63 B1a2080 1.76 -1.55 -1.98 -3.19 0.88 2.28 5.49 1.70 -5.82 1.55 -5.65 -1.01 -3.28 -0.09 B2b2020 0.61 -0.33 -1.05 -0.25 -0.90 0.78 3.42 0.13 -4.09 2.38 -3.62 -0.69 -1.54 -0.21 A1F2050 1.96 -2.12 -1.18 -2.78 0.86 3.21 8.00 3.57 -4.56 1.27 -3.70 3.47 -4.76 1.20 A2b2020 0.63 0.89 0.21 0.88 -1.25 2.32 5.13 0.90 -2.89 3.89 -3.74 -1.05 -0.56 0.61 B2a2080 2.05 -4.68 -3.27 -5.27 0.88 3.22 8.49 2.55 -2.99 3.88 -2.75 0.68 -4.74 0.11 A1F2020 0.7 0.60 -0.11 0.51 -4.64 0.44 3.48 1.17 -3.19 5.21 -1.54 -0.61 -1.22 0.46 B2b2080 2.1 -8.77 -4.28 -5.66 -0.42 3.24 7.89 2.88 -4.71 0.44 -5.51 1.15 -9.47 -0.58 B1a2050 1.15 -0.06 -0.64 -0.76 -1.34 2.49 4.77 1.46 -3.29 1.96 -5.57 -1.99 -1.68 0.28 A2a2080 2.91 -7.41 -3.29 -6.36 3.26 4.34 13.49 7.42 -0.41 5.20 0.05 4.96 -5.64 2.65 B2a2050 1.26 -2.80 -2.05 -2.35 -0.36 2.07 4.41 0.89 -4.33 2.59 -4.01 0.68 -4.26 -0.33 A2b2080 2.98 -5.16 -2.70 -5.25 4.16 3.14 12.31 7.21 -2.70 0.77 -2.83 4.76 -4.34 2.64 B2b2050 1.36 -0.75 -2.03 -2.14 -0.34 2.11 4.54 0.38 -7.48 1.25 -4.31 -3.62 -2.03 -0.62 A2c2080 3.02 -5.83 -2.37 -4.91 -0.46 2.04 12.78 7.28 -1.04 6.35 -3.65 1.31 -5.01 2.32 A1F2080 3.67 -17.28 -11.59 -15.32 -0.68 -3.95 10.56 2.70 -5.07 1.74 -6.54 -0.20 -13.58 -3.48

Table A7a (contd). % Changes in Wheat yields with respect to 1990, with CO2 fertilisation

Page 120

Table A7b % Changes in Wheat yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation
B1a2020 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America W Asia & Mid E WORLD 0.54 -3.07 -3.92 -2.68 -6.51 -1.50 -0.78 -4.45 -8.57 -1.14 -8.43 -6.44 -3.87 -4.13 A2c2050 delT1990 HadCM3 North Africa West Africa Southern Africa South Asia East Asia Australasia Europe C Asia & E Eur N America C America S America W Asia & Mid E WORLD 1.55 -7.92 -7.73 -8.39 -10.06 -6.49 -1.63 -6.23 -13.92 -5.02 -13.39 -10.08 -10.15 -7.55 A2a2020 0.56 -3.55 -4.14 -3.14 -3.62 -2.95 -1.00 -2.15 -7.16 -0.35 -5.31 -1.38 -4.74 -2.77 A2b2050 1.59 -8.90 -8.58 -9.28 -7.11 -4.95 -1.98 -6.35 -14.37 -5.92 -13.31 -6.11 -10.87 -7.44 A2c2020 0.58 -2.85 -3.13 -2.59 -6.92 -4.08 -0.89 -2.76 -5.89 -1.61 -5.84 -4.11 -4.99 -3.29 A2a2050 1.62 -9.88 -9.23 -10.86 -9.65 -5.76 -0.51 -6.07 -13.38 -3.62 -11.33 -8.09 -11.24 -7.75 B2a2020 0.61 -4.20 -3.74 -3.62 -3.29 -2.09 0.77 -3.47 -8.85 -1.47 -7.15 -3.89 -5.24 -3.63 B1a2080 1.76 -9.55 -9.98 -11.19 -7.12 -5.72 -2.51 -6.30 -13.82 -6.45 -13.65 -9.01 -11.28 -8.09 B2b2020 0.61 -3.33 -4.05 -3.25 -3.90 -2.22 0.42 -2.87 -7.09 -0.62 -6.62 -3.69 -4.54 -3.21 A1F2050 1.96 -13.12 -12.18 -13.78 -10.14 -7.79 -3.00 -7.43 -15.56 -9.73 -14.70 -7.53 -15.76 -9.80 A2b2020 0.63 -3.11 -3.79 -3.12 -5.25 -1.68 1.13 -3.10 -6.89 -0.11 -7.74 -5.05 -4.56 -3.39 B2a2080 2.05 -15.68 -14.27 -16.27 -10.12 -7.78 -2.51 -8.45 -13.99 -7.12 -13.75 -10.32 -15.74 -10.89 A1F2020 0.7 -3.40 -4.11 -3.49 -8.64 -3.56 -0.52 -2.83 -7.19 1.21 -5.54 -4.61 -5.22 -3.54 B2b2080 2.1 -19.77 -15.28 -16.66 -11.42 -7.76 -3.11 -8.12 -15.71 -10.56 -16.51 -9.85 -20.47 -11.58 B1a2050 1.15 -6.06 -6.64 -6.76 -7.34 -3.51 -1.23 -4.54 -9.29 -4.04 -11.57 -7.99 -7.68 -5.72 A2a2080 2.91 -25.41 -21.29 -24.36 -14.74 -13.66 -4.51 -10.58 -18.41 -12.80 -17.95 -13.04 -23.64 -15.35 B2a2050 1.26 -8.80 -8.05 -8.35 -6.36 -3.93 -1.59 -5.11 -10.33 -3.41 -10.01 -5.32 -10.26 -6.33 A2b2080 2.98 -23.16 -20.70 -23.25 -13.84 -14.86 -5.69 -10.79 -20.70 -17.23 -20.83 -13.24 -22.34 -15.36 B2b2050 1.36 -6.75 -8.03 -8.14 -6.34 -3.89 -1.46 -5.62 -13.48 -4.75 -10.31 -9.62 -8.03 -6.62 A2c2080 3.02 -23.83 -20.37 -22.91 -18.46 -15.96 -5.22 -10.72 -19.04 -11.65 -21.65 -16.69 -23.01 -15.68 A1F2080 3.67 -35.28 -29.59 -33.32 -18.68 -21.95 -7.44 -15.30 -23.07 -16.26 -24.54 -18.20 -31.58 -21.48

Table A7b (contd) % Changes in Wheat yields with respect to 1990 without CO2 fertilisation

Footnote: yield changes were aggregated to the Stern regions using the weighted sums of the country yield reductions produced by Fast Track. FAO1990 actual yields from each country were used for the scaling. It was considered invalid to use the areas under production for scaling as these might change.

Page 121

Table A8a Country classifications in this project and in the BLS, showing the most important cereal crops grown in each region
Stern region Most important crop(s) Wheat forms 90100% cereal crop in all countries except Mauritania where rice is key and in Egypt where wheat, rice and maize are all important Maize forms 70-90% of the cereal crop in all countries except in French Guiana where 100% rice Equivalen t BLS region AFRICA Countries (Stern) Countries (BLS) “Exception” countries BLS classes Libya in W Asia

North Africa

Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia

West Africa

AFRICA

Southern Africa

Maize forms 75100% of cereal crop in most countries except in Sudan (90% wheat), Madagascar (93% rice), Ethiopia (61% maize and 38% wheat), Eritrea (66% wheat and 33% maize)

AFR

Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, Sao Tomé and Principe Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Congo Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia French Guiana Gabon Gambia, The Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Israel Ivory Coast Kenya Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Senegal Sierra Leone

Page 122

South Asia

Rice forms 75-100% cereal crop in most countries except in Afghanistan (79% wheat), Bhutan (53% rice, 42% maize), India (63% rice, 32% wheat), Iran (73% wheat), Nepal (61% rice, 22% maize, 17% wheat), Pakistan (69% wheat, 26% rice)

South-east Asia (SEA)

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore India, Iran, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka

Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania, United Republic of Togo Tunisia Uganda Western Sahara Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe Bangladesh Burma India Indonesia Malaysia Nepal Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand

Afghanistan is classed in W Asia in BLS Brunei, and Bhutan are classed in E Asia in BLS Iran is classed in W Asia in BLS Papua New Guinea is classed in Australasia in Stern Bhutan is classed in E Asia in Stern Thailand is classed in East Asia in Stern

Page 123

East Asia

Rice forms 80-100% cereal crop except in Mongolia (100% wheat), China (45% rice, 25% wheat and 29% maize)

Centrally Planned Asia (CPA)

Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam China, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Mongolia

Bhutan Brunei Cambodia China Laos Mongolia Taiwan Vietnam

Both Koreas and Japan are in PAO in BLS but in East Asia in Stern Stern classes Bhutan in S Asia BLS has Thailand in S Asia Both Koreas and Japan are in PAO in BLS but in East Asia in Stern BLS includes Papua New Guinea in S Asia Some Eastern European countries and Russia are included in Europe in Stern and in Central Asia & FSU in BLS.

Australasia

Wheat is the key crop in the region (but also maize in New Zealand)

Pacific Australia Oceania (PAO)

Australia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, plus Melanesia and Micronesia

Australia Japan Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of New Zealand

Europe

Wheat is the dominant cereal crop in Europe with maize being more important only in southern countries such as Georgia, Greece, Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia, Romania, Italy, Austria, Spain and Portugal. Only Romania grows rice to a significant extent (12% cereal crop). (UK data is 100% wheat!)

Europe (EUR)

Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia,

Albania Austria Belgium Denmark France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Macedonia Netherlands Portugal Spain Switzerland United Kingdom Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria

Page 124

Turkey, Yugoslavia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Russia, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine

Central Asia (Russia and Former Soviet Union)

Wheat forms 78-96% of the cereal crop

Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (FSU+EE U)

Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbeckistan

Byelarus Croatia Czech Republic Estonia Finland Georgia Hungary Kazakhstan Latvia Lithuania Moldova Montenegro Norway Poland Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Sweden Ukraine Canada United States Argentina Belize Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Djibouti Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua

North America Central America

Canada & Alaska: 80% wheat USA: 77% maize Rice and maize are key crops in different countries in this region. Wheat has a small importance (15% cereal crop) in Mexico

North America (NAM) Latin America (LAM)

Canada United States Caribbean islands, including Bahamas, Cuba, Domenica, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guyana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela

South America

Rice forms 50-99% of the cereal crop in Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Uruguay, whilst wheat is important in Argentina and Chile (50-60% of cereal crop) and maize is
Page 125

Latin America (LAM)

important in Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela (50-70% cereals). Most countries grow at least 2 of these 3 cereals in significant amounts.

Panama Paraguay Peru Puerto Rico Suriname Trinidad Uruguay Venezuela West Asia (WAS) Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen Libya is in N Africa in Stern Iran and Afghanistan are in S Asia in Stern Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenista n are in C Asia in Stern Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus and Turkey are in Europe in Stern Syria is in W Asia in Stern

West Asia

Wheat forms 75100% cereal crop except in Kuwait, UAE and Qatar where maize is the key crop

Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Cyprus Iran Iraq Jordan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Libya Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria Tajikistan Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Yemen

Table A8b. FAO relative weights for cereals
FAO Cultivar Weights (1961-90) RI%GR 3.865797753

Stern Region COUNTRY Australia
Page 126

WH%GR AUS 94.88855279

MZ%GR 1.245649457

New Zealand Papua New Guinea Belize Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Mexico Nicaragua Panama Puerto Rico Cuba Dominican Republic Haiti Jamaica Trinidad Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Georgia Moldova Russia Ukraine Cambodia China Japan Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Laos Mongolia Taiwan Thailand Vietnam Albania Austria Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 127

AUS AUS CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS CAS EAS EAS EAS EAS EAS EAS EAS EAS EAS EAS EUR EUR EUR EUR

56.91391001 0 0 0 0 2.006022301 15.48520853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95.6605539 83.34197787 89.31506849 78.18181818 78.36166924 96.94171956 97.05608099 99.23954373 31.18466899 43.06505726 95.94102308 87.59156417 0 25.38844697 3.565688545 2.288329519 0.151613322 0 100 1 0.002674268 0 55.8302431 41.66728565 89.90773866 21.96156395

0 26.53061224 24.32432432 88.16234445 8.068796548 1.808553157 1.808095616 44.51627427 68.36978279 98.42519685 81.83760684 91.71185667 31.96433811 0.737644455 65.60973932 2.818708831 0.907676349 6.575342466 10.90909091 13.91035549 0 1.07899294 0 0 0 1.069025304 0.530504493 98.13118874 45.25139383 96.43244695 52.63157895 98.84668108 94.76432946 0 1 82.92491107 94.49870048 0.082406263 0 0 0

43.08608999 73.46938776 75.67567568 11.83765555 91.93120345 96.18542454 82.70669585 55.48372573 31.63021721 1.57480315 18.16239316 8.288143329 68.03566189 99.26235554 34.39026068 1.52073727 15.75034578 4.109589041 10.90909091 7.72797527 3.058280439 1.864926069 0.760456274 68.81533101 56.93494274 2.989951613 11.87793133 1.868811261 29.36015921 0.00186451 45.08009153 1.001705598 5.235670541 0 1 17.07241466 5.50129952 44.08735064 58.33271435 10.09226134 78.03843605

Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom Algeria Egypt Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco Tunisia Alaska Canada United States
Page 128

EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR EUR NAF NAF NAF NAF NAF NAF NAF NAM NAM NAM

61.90641248 28.21865762 1 95.67020296 100 100 100 71.05410357 86.6231331 45.72621711 39.47102766 100 98.66666667 42.12950717 100 100 1 62.05166844 1 93.56979574 100 96.07840919 28.34398839 24.6094087 69.55069309 31.59483404 58.05783763 100 77.02258028 89.03582592 100 99.93479754 36.30876952 91.46341463 99.68551593 0.509937405 95.35076013 100 79.80398458 79.80398458 20.32238985

0.346620451 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.227498681 0 5.259629408 0.070664244 0 0 7.511031432 0 0 1 5.132281716 1 0 0 0 12.02175265 0.180823871 0 0 7.164299897 0 0 1.346477519 0 0.050258833 30.99113179 0 0 81.11319336 0.860056993 0 0 0 2.539318426

37.74696707 71.78134238 1 4.32979704 0 0 0 28.71839775 13.3768669 49.01415348 60.4583081 0 1.333333333 50.3594614 0 0 1 32.81604984 1 6.430204262 0 3.921590814 59.63425896 75.20976743 30.44930691 68.40516596 34.77786247 0 22.97741972 9.617696562 0 0.014943626 32.70009869 8.536585366 0.314484068 18.37686924 3.789182881 0 20.19601542 20.19601542 77.13829172

Angola Botswana Djibouti Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mozambique Namibia Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania, United Republic of Uganda Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei India Indonesia Iran Malaysia Nepal
Page 129

SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAF SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAM SAS SAS SAS SAS SAS SAS SAS SAS SAS

1.167793198 3.765690377 0 66.66666667 38.85601578 13.61867704 13.57204431 0.149031297 0.123902473 0.183823529 18.38565022 0.689655172 21.05094229 90.39451115 0.198019802 2.413238336 1.058823529 1 4.046450555 9.690593203 58.21314103 9.40614734 7.377814048 53.0593432 2.461921929 1.456528175 0 42.2493656 6.833028657 0 36.61548085 0.030323981 78.86904762 4.63235564 5.319148936 0 32.30632713 0 73.6413164 0 16.76875399

5.838965989 0 0 0 0 2.33463035 0 93.14456036 3.887219313 12.77573529 0 1.379310345 0.023286518 0.343053173 0.330033003 21.08136061 9.647058824 1 0.896693443 0.013843705 3.547494172 32.53125802 21.93906202 6.661408934 61.2779832 67.00346242 99.41520468 6.899637397 55.66843458 99.85566318 56.45494458 42.99973646 10.41666667 95.35859368 53.19148936 100 62.84411243 84.59263543 19.74101076 97.80273438 61.42870387

92.99324081 96.23430962 100 33.33333333 61.14398422 84.04669261 86.42795569 6.706408346 95.98887821 87.04044118 81.61434978 97.93103448 78.9257712 9.262435678 99.47194719 76.50540106 89.29411765 1 95.056856 90.29556309 38.2393648 58.06259464 70.68312394 40.27924787 36.26009487 31.5400094 0.584795322 50.850997 37.49853677 0.144336822 6.929574572 56.96993956 10.71428571 0.009050675 41.4893617 0 4.849560444 15.40736457 6.617672848 2.197265625 21.80254214

Pakistan Philippines Sri Lanka Cameroon Central African Republic Benin Burkina Faso Burundi Chad Congo Equatorial Guinea French Guiana Gabon Gambia, The Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Ivory Coast Liberia Mali Niger Nigeria Rwanda Senegal Sierra Leone Togo Western Sahara Iraq Jordan Kuwait Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates Yemen

SAS SAS SAS WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAF WAS WAS WAS WAS WAS WAS WAS WAS WAS

68.6622807 0 0 0.049723414 0 0 0 4.635327606 0.474547316 0.584795322 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.432224992 3.488372093 0.464326161 7.170294494 0 0 0 1 76.69616519 96.07476636 1.869158879 100 27.27272727 99.45498667 94.22462802 12.78451393 74.72078671

26.22319688 72.34170676 98.42619873 6.718876251 16.51982379 4.145310366 24.42159383 21.40524047 58.76861751 27.94022092 1 99.90692898 2.597402597 66.18981747 17.63383551 89.35101177 93.11731168 1 100 64.80601698 81.39534884 35.35673839 7.042253521 62.66690254 97.7783325 11.3661832 1 15.92920354 0 0 0 0 0 0.002309225 0 0

5.114522417 27.65829324 1.573801267 93.23140034 83.48017621 95.85468963 75.57840617 73.95943192 40.75683518 71.47498376 1 0.093071023 97.4025974 33.81018253 82.36616449 10.64898823 6.882688315 1 0 34.76175803 15.11627907 64.17893545 85.78745198 37.33309746 2.221667499 88.6338168 1 7.374631268 3.925233645 98.13084112 0 72.72727273 0.545013327 5.773062751 87.21548607 25.27921329

Note: CAR is a subregion of CAM

Page 130

Figure A1. Impacts of climate change on wheat yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
Australasia
16 Australasia Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

2

Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

12

-2

8

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

4

-6

0

-8
Central America
2

0

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) Central America

4

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0
Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation

1

2

3

4

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-5

-2

-10

-4

-15 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-6

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

-8

-25

Page 131

Central Asia
0

Central Asia

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

-2

-5

-4

-10

-15 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-6

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

-8

-25

Page 132

Figure A2. Impacts of climate change on wheat yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
East Asia 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4
Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation 6 East Asia

-5

4

2

-10 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b 4

-15

-2

-20

-4

-25
Europe 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4
8 Scenario Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Europe

6

-4

4

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

2

-12

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-16

-2

Page 133

North Africa 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4
Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation 0 0 4

North Africa

-10

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

-4

Scenario -20 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-8

Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-30

-16

-20

-40

Page 134

Figure A3. Impacts of climate change on wheat yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
North America 4
8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b North America

Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation

0

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0

6

-4

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

4

-12

2

-16

-20

0 0
Southern Africa

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
Southern Africa

4

4
Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-10

-4

-20 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-30

-12

-16
-40

Page 135

South America
6

South America

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO 2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation 4

-4

2

-8

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b 4

-12 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-2

-16

-4

-20

Page 136

Figure A4. Impacts of climate change on wheat yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
South Asia

South Asia 6 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-4

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0

1

2

3

4

4

2

-8

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-12 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-2

-4

-16

-6

-20
West Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4

West Africa 4

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-10

-4

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-8

-30

-12

Page 137

Western Asia

West Asia 0

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

0
0 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

Percentage change in wheat yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in wheat yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4

-10

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-12

-30

-16
-40

Page 138

Figure A5. Impacts of climate change on maize yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
Australasia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

Australasia 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation

1

2

3

4

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-2

-4

-4

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-6

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b
Central America

-12

-8
-16
Central America Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b 4

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-1

-4

-2

-3

-8

-4

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-5

-12

-6

Page 139

Central Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Central Asia 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-5

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-10

-8

-15

-12

-20
-16

-25

Page 140

Figure A6. Impacts of climate change on maize yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
East Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4

East Asia 2

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-4

-2

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-4

Scenario -6 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b
Europe 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b 4

-12

-16
Europe Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4

-8

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-2

-4

-4

-8

-12

-6

Page 141

North Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

North Africa 0 0
4

0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation

1

2

3

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

-5

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4

-10

-8

-15 Scenario -20 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-12 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-16

-25

-20

-30

-24

Page 142

Figure A7. Impacts of climate change on maize yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
North America Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation 1 2 3 4
North America 1 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

-4

-1

Scenario -8 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-2

-3

-12 Southern Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

-4

Southern Africa 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation

1

2

3

4

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4

-8

-10

-12 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Scenario -20 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-16

-20

-30

-24

Page 143

South America Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

South America 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation

1

2

3 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

4

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-2

-4

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-8

-4

-12

-6

-16

-8

Page 144

Figure A8. Impacts of climate change on maize yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
South Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

South Asia 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

0 Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation

1

2

3

4

-5

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-10

-8

-15

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-12

-20

-25
West Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0

-16
West Africa 0 0
0 1 2 3 4

1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

4

Percentage change in maize yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-5

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4

-10

-8

-15 Scenario -20 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-16

-25

-30

-20

Page 145

West Asia 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

West Asia 0 0 1 2 3 Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 4

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Percentage change in maize yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-8

-8

-12

-12

-16

-16

-20

-20

Page 146

Figure A9. Impacts of climate change on rice yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
Australasia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b Australasia 12

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-2

8

-4

4

Scenario -6 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-8

-4

-10
Central America Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Central America 4

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-8

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-12

-8

-16

-20

-12

Page 147

Central Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4
0 0

Central Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

1

2

3

4

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-5

-2

-10

-4

-15

-6

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Scenario -8 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

-10

-25

Page 148

Figure A10. Impacts of climate change on rice yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
East Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

East Asia 4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-4

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

2

-8

Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-16

-2
-20

Europe 4

Europe 12 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

8

-4

4

Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-8

-12

-4

Page 149

North Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4
Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

North Africa 4

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-10

-4

-8 Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-30

-16

-20

-40

Page 150

Figure A11. Impacts of climate change on rice yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
North America 4

North America 4

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)

2

-4

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

Scenario -2 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-12

-16
Southern Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-4
Southern Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

-10

-4

-20 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-8 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-12

-30

-16

-40

Page 151

South America Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

South America 2

-4

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

-8

-2

-12

-4 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-16 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

-6

-24

-8

Page 152

Figure A12. Impacts of climate change on rice yields across world regions (data assembled from that underlying Parry et al., 2004).
South Asia Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

South Asia 4

Scenario Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation

-4

2

-8

Scenario -12 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-2

-16

-20

-4
West Africa Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C) 0 0 1 2 3 4

West Africa 2

Increase in global mean temperature relative to 1990 (°C)
Percentage change in rice yield, without CO2 fertilisation -5

Percentage change in rice yield, with CO2 fertilisation

0 0 1 2 3 4

-10

-2

-15 Scenario A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-4 Scenario -6 A1f A2a A2b A2c B1a B2a B2b

-20

-25

-8

-30

-10

Page 153

Table A9 Global cereal land area (defined at 50% of cropland) as specified in the SRES and BLS (areas in Mha) (Arnell et al. 2004) YEAR BLS SRES A1F1 A2 B1 B2 A1F1 A2 B1 1990s 747 746 747 746 736 730 718 2020s 872 875 874 880 744 784 754 2050s 928 995 918 947 644 841 697 2080s 972 1091 939 995 422 905 583 Table A10 (a). Percentage changes in cereal production (with CO2 fertilisation)
delT1990 WORLD NAM WEU PAO EEU+FSU AFR LAM WAS CPA SEA ROW+NES B1PC2020 0.54 -1.0 3.4 1.2 5.8 -10.4 -3.5 -1.8 -1.3 0.1 -1.2 0.9 B1PC2020 0.54 -1.5 2.1 1.1 7.4 -10.5 -3.3 0.3 -2.8 -0.8 -1.8 0.9 A2PC2020 0.56 -0.8 4.6 3.2 3.8 -8.5 -3.4 -1.0 0.0 -1.8 -1.6 1.6 A2PC2020 0.56 -1.6 2.9 2.9 5.9 -9.1 -3.9 1.2 -1.7 -3.4 -2.8 1.3 B2PC2020 0.61 -1.3 3.5 2.7 13.8 -11.0 -3.9 -0.9 -0.7 -1.5 -2.3 1.3 B2PC2020 0.61 -1.8 2.0 2.3 15.4 -11.1 -3.9 0.8 -2.2 -2.3 -3.0 1.5 A1PC2020 0.70 -0.8 4.7 1.3 6.0 -7.5 -3.3 -0.8 -1.2 -1.0 -3.1 0.8 A1PC2020 0.70 -1.7 3.3 0.3 8.3 -8.3 -3.6 1.0 -3.2 -2.6 -4.1 0.4 B1PC2050 1.15 -1.2 1.9 1.7 9.9 -9.1 -5.4 -1.4 -3.7 0.1 -1.1 1.4 B1PC2050 1.15 -3.2 -4.2 -0.6 13.4 -11.0 -5.5 7.4 -6.4 -2.8 -3.1 2.2 B2PC2050 1.26 -1.7 3.2 -0.4 9.0 -10.0 -6.4 -1.7 -2.0 -0.4 -2.7 1.4 B2PC2050 1.26 -3.9 -3.4 -2.4 13.6 -12.3 -4.9 3.1 -5.1 -3.2 -5.3 3.1 A2PC2050 1.62 -0.9 7.0 2.2 12.5 -12.2 -7.1 -2.7 -0.9 0.9 -2.4 2.6 A2PC2050 1.62 -4.4 -4.6 2.1 17.1 -18.3 -6.2 8.5 -1.3 -3.7 -7.4 2.9 B1PC2080 1.76 -2.3 1.5 0.7 12.8 -11.4 -7.2 -0.6 -4.7 0.1 -3.6 1.8 B1PC2080 1.76 -5.3 -5.9 -1.7 17.5 -14.0 -7.7 6.5 -9.1 -3.8 -6.5 1.5 A2PC2080 1.91 -0.4 6.1 2.9 5.9 -9.6 -13.9 0.6 2.3 3.9 -0.9 4.5 A2PC2080 1.91 -8.4 -17.4 5.9 9.2 -19.4 -14.8 11.9 -0.3 -5.7 -12.8 7.0 A1PC2050 1.96 -1.1 3.1 3.3 10.0 -12.7 -7.3 1.3 -4.0 1.3 -1.8 3.5 A1PC2050 1.96 -5.7 -9.8 -1.9 15.4 -17.4 -7.4 14.1 -9.9 -4.7 -6.4 4.2

B2 730 777 821 867

B2PC2080 2.05 -1.4 8.8 -0.6 7.6 -11.6 -11.4 -1.9 -4.6 1.6 -2.8 1.8 B2PC2080 2.05 -5.8 -4.6 -5.7 12.3 -17.4 -11.3 7.0 9.0 -3.7 -8.3 3.4

A1PC20802 3.67 -1.9 4.1 3.4 0.1 -10.2 -17.6 2.8 -10.2 2.0 -2.6 5.3 A1PC20802 3.67 -10.4 -13.9 -7.4 2.9 -19.1 -20.5 20.3 -10.0 -8.6 -13.3 7.6

Table A10(b) Percentage changes in cereal production (without CO2 fertilisation)
delT1990 WORLD NAM WEU PAO EEU+FSU AFR LAM WAS CPA SEA ROW+NES

Page 154

Table A10 (c) Actual changes in cereal production (with CO2 fertilisation) B1ACT2020 delT1990 WORLD NAM WEU PAO EEU+FSU AFR LAM WAS CPA SEA ROW+NES 0.54 -27.1 19.4 1.8 3.0 -37.3 -5.7 -3.5 -1.1 0.5 -5.0 0.8 A2ACT2020 0.56 -21.3 26.4 5.1 2.3 -31.3 -5.8 -2.2 0.0 -9.9 -7.5 1.5 B2ACT2020 0.61 -34.4 19.7 4.3 7.8 -40.2 -6.6 -1.7 -0.6 -8.2 -10.2 1.3 A1ACT2020 0.70 -20.6 27.0 2.0 3.3 -27.0 -5.4 -1.6 -1.0 -5.2 -13.6 0.8 B1ACT2050 1.15 -41.6 12.7 2.8 6.4 -37.3 -14.3 -3.1 -4.0 0.6 -6.8 1.5 B2ACT2050 1.26 -60.1 21.2 -0.6 6.6 -43.8 -18.1 -4.5 -2.2 -3.0 -17.4 1.6 A2ACT2050 1.62 -34.6 48.3 3.8 10.5 -57.7 -21.1 -9.7 -1.0 6.6 -17.5 3.3 B1ACT2080 1.76 -87.0 11.0 1.2 7.5 -53.5 -23.1 -1.3 -5.0 0.9 -26.8 2.1 A2ACT2080 1.91 -20.5 47.4 5.2 5.6 -56.9 -61.0 3.3 3.8 34.3 -8.8 6.7 A1ACT2050 1.96 -39.1 20.8 5.4 7.0 -53.4 -19.3 3.4 -4.3 9.0 -11.6 3.9 B2ACT2080 2.05 -56.6 63.2 -1.0 5.7 -62.6 -43.7 -5.5 -5.3 13.8 -23.6 2.4 A1ACT2080 3.67 -73.8 29.2 5.8 0.1 -49.6 -58.4 6.9 -10.6 17.2 -20.9 6.4

Table A10 (d) Actual changes in cereal production (without CO2 fertilisation) B1ACT2020 delT1990 WORLD NAM WEU PAO EEU+FSU AFR LAM WAS CPA SEA ROW+NES 0.54 -38.4 11.9 1.7 3.8 -37.6 -5.4 0.6 -2.4 -4.1 -7.8 0.8 A2ACT2020 0.56 -44.6 16.8 4.6 3.4 -33.8 -6.5 2.6 -1.5 -18.2 -13.2 1.3 B2ACT2020 0.61 -48.6 11.3 3.7 8.7 -40.8 -6.6 1.7 -1.9 -12.6 -13.6 1.4 A1ACT2020 0.70 -44.3 18.7 0.5 4.5 -29.8 -5.9 2.0 -2.7 -14.0 -18.1 0.4 B1ACT2050 1.15 -106.8 -28.6 -1.0 8.6 -45.3 -14.6 17.0 -6.9 -19.2 -19.3 2.4 B2ACT2050 1.26 -135.0 -22.9 -4.1 10.0 -54.0 -13.8 8.4 -5.5 -22.5 -34.3 3.6 A2ACT2050 1.62 -166.9 -32.0 3.5 14.4 -86.4 -18.5 30.6 -1.5 -26.3 -54.3 3.6 B1ACT2080 1.76 -198.6 -42.1 -2.8 10.2 -65.6 -24.8 13.6 -9.6 -31.9 -47.5 1.7 A2ACT2080 1.91 -404.7 -135.3 10.4 8.9 -115.2 -65.1 60.1 -0.5 -50.5 -127.9 10.4 A1ACT2050 1.96 -195.7 -66.3 -3.2 10.8 -73.3 -19.7 35.5 -10.7 -32.4 -41.2 4.7 B2ACT2080 2.05 -237.1 -33.1 -9.8 9.2 -94.3 -43.2 19.9 10.3 -31.4 -69.1 4.4 A1ACT2080 3.67 -402.6 -100.0 -12.6 2.0 -93.3 -67.7 49.3 -10.4 -72.4 -106.6 9.1

Page 155

Table A11 Unpacking Matrix for Dynamic Vegetation Changes and Carbon Sequestration
2100 Source of variation Global CCh CO2 LUC All Arctic CCh CO2 LUC All Australasia CCh CO2 LUC All Central_America CCh CO2 LUC All Central_Asia_&EE CCh CO2 LUC All East_Asia CCh CO2 LUC All Europe CCh CO2 LUC All
Page 156

Carbon sequestration (Pg C y-1) Model Input sensitivity variability -4.71 5.998 1.585 0.958 0.0186 0.0218 -0.00038 0.013342 -1.1132 0.6024 -0.0051 -0.172 -0.25353 0.22535 0.06003 0.01062 0.466 0.4067 0.1857 0.3528 0.2422 0.5348 0.369 0.382 0.0721 0.1552 0.1216 0.1163 5.304 6.128 4.186 10.34 0.031574 0.030324 0.0009 0.030672 1.3232 0.7594 0.1086 1.685 0.3236 0.2612 0.1726 0.4768 0.3334 0.4246 0.5038 0.4606 0.2086 0.6028 0.8232 0.5986 0.0984 0.2348 0.3468 0.2358

Change in forest percent cover since 1990 Model Input sensitivity variability 0.1111 3.3175 -0.3175 1.0371 0.14205 0 0 0.04735 -2.564 9.615 0 2.35 0 6.25 0 2.083 1.0564 0 -0.6162 0.1467 2.778 3.125 -0.347 1.852 1.351 5.743 -0.676 2.14 0.3 2.1358 0.9446 3.6044 0.5682 0 0 0.328 3.626 3.31 0 11.248 0 8.988 0 7.74 0 0 2.4648 1.9336 1.6038 1.793 1.389 3.5698 2.206 5.992 2.702 6.666

Change in grassland percent cover since 1990 Model Input sensitivity variability -0.03175 0.0635 -0.01585 0.0053 0.8523 0.8523 0 0.5682 2.564 -7.692 0 -1.709 0 -2.5E-05 0 -8.3E-06 1.585 1.761 -0.264 1.027 2.778 2.778 0 1.852 -1.689 -4.054 0 -1.914 1.2114 1.1958 0.5808 0.9432 3.41 3.41 0 2.654 3.626 3.626 0 9.49 0 8.248 0 4.308 3.66 3.942 1.056 3.442 3 1.964 0 3.316 1.352 4.934 0 4.382

Change in desert percent cover since 1990 Model Input sensitivity variability -0.0793 -3.3809 0.3333 -1.0423 -0.9943 -0.8523 0 -0.6155 0 -1.9231 0 -0.641 0 -6.25 0 -2.083 -2.641 -1.761 0.88 -1.174 -5.556 -5.903 0.347 -3.704 0.3378 -1.6892 0.6757 -0.2252 1.3612 3.2696 1.5216 4.0136 3.264 3.41 0 2.63 0 6.104 0 3.708 0 10.714 0 8.318 3.66 3.942 2.336 4.376 2.536 3.674 1.388 6.47 1.3514 1.3514 2.7028 2.7834

North_Africa CCh CO2 LUC All North_America CCh CO2 LUC All South_America CCh CO2 LUC All South_Asia CCh CO2 LUC All Southern_Africa CCh CO2 LUC All West_Africa CCh CO2 LUC All West_Asia CCh CO2 LUC All

-0.20315 0.04485 0.00195 -0.05212 0.0628 0.5059 0.183 0.2505 -2.6279 1.032 0.1159 -0.4933 -0.0843 0.5555 0.3671 0.2794 -0.5379 1.2462 0.1445 0.2843 -0.73428 0.6409 0.0421 -0.01709 -0.0171 0.026075 -0.00048 0.002833

0.20934 0.0499 0.01216 0.25254 0.0564 0.5142 0.589 0.566 3.1874 0.8848 0.4444 3.6864 0.112 0.7054 0.6392 0.7518 0.243 1.3892 0.548 1.7268 0.761 0.6038 0.1478 1.283 0.02016 0.04154 0.00408 0.04434

-2.206 2.573 0 0.123 0.5319 2.3404 -0.4255 0.8156 -0.61 6.25 0 1.88 1.163 8.14 -0.581 2.907 -1.754 5.482 -0.219 1.17 -2.7473 3.022 -0.5495 -0.0916 0.758 2.273 0 1.01

3.798 1.47 0 4.6 0.4256 1.0988 1.7022 2.6284 0.996 4.916 0 6.986 1.8988 6.0046 1.3426 8.559 1.4324 3.89 0.8772 6.8698 4.208 3.754 2.198 5.886 3.03 3.03 0 2.984

-7.353 2.941 0 -1.471 -0.7447 -0.2128 0 -0.3192 -1.372 -3.811 -0.152 -1.778 1.744 4.942 0.291 2.326 -0.2193 -1.9737 0.2193 -0.6579 -1.9231 1.9231 0.2747 0.0916 -5.303 1.515 0 -1.263

2.402 2.402 0 9.216 2.5414 0.8512 0 1.545 1.5346 2.0826 0.6098 3.4672 4.028 4.402 8.358 6.726 2.996 3.616 0.878 3.184 4.874 4.16 2.766 4.91 3.03 3.5 0 6.568

9.559 -5.515 0 1.348 0.2128 -2.1277 0.4256 -0.4964 1.9817 -2.4391 0.1525 -0.1016 -2.907 -13.081 0.291 -5.233 1.974 -3.509 0 -0.512 4.670325 -4.94505 0.274725 0 4.545 -3.788 0 .253 0

5.632 2.816 0 13.418 2.4568 1.5538 1.7022 2.9888 1.5346 4.9786 0.6098 4.6752 4.842 7.684 8.982 13.65 2.632 2.482 0 5.098 1.099 7.2892 1.099 9.086 3.5 5.802 0 7.948

Note: 1. "Model sensitivity" is given by the mean difference in output X between default and noCC runs. [and analagously for other factors] 2. "Input variability" is given by the range* in differences between default and noCC runs. [and analagously for other factors] * actually 2 x the standard deviation is used, as this is less sensitive to extreme values.
Page 157

Table A12. Net Equilibrium Biome Changes and Carbon Sequestration for different global mean temperature rises.
Global dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration (Pg C y-1) CO2 NoCO2 0.66 3.09 4.35 2.60 6.56 0.89 7.80 -0.61 6.83 3.06 3.06 0.66 0.19 1.19 -1.60 0.00 -3.28 -0.38 -4.44 -1.51 -5.85 -5.85 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.70 0.89 1.84 2.41 3.11 4.64 3.43 4.95 5.84 5.84 0.00 0.57 0.76 0.89 1.27 1.21 1.97 0.89 1.33 1.14 1.14 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.32 -0.89 -0.19 -1.78 -0.76 -1.27 -1.08 -0.70 -0.70 0.00 -0.44 -0.25 -1.21 -0.38 -1.46 -0.89 -1.02 -0.95 -1.65 -1.65 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.14 -0.70 -1.97 -0.95 -3.87 -1.97 -3.87 -2.16 -5.14 -5.14 0.00 -0.38 -0.19 -0.57 0.32 -0.83 -0.13 -0.38 0.13 0.51 0.51

Arctic dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.41 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -3.98 -3.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57 -0.57

Australasia dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.21 0.59 0.90 -0.09 0.88 -0.52 0.50 -0.40 0.47 -0.80 -0.80 0.21 0.07 0.38 -0.70 0.07 -1.24 -0.33 -0.88 -0.47 -1.67 -1.67 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 3.85 5.13 5.13 8.97 6.41 10.26 10.26 10.26 14.10 14.10 0.00 3.85 5.13 3.85 5.13 0.00 5.13 0.00 2.56 2.56 2.56 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -5.13 -3.85 -8.97 -5.13 -10.26 -6.41 -10.26 -10.26 -14.10 -14.10 0.00 -5.13 -3.85 -5.13 -3.85 -5.13 0.00 -2.56 -1.28 -8.97 -8.97 Change in desert % NoCO2 CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28 6.41 6.41

Central_America dT C sequestration

Change in forest %

Change in grassland

Change in desert

Page 158

CO2 Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3- 4 4-5 0.03 -0.05 0.22 0.05 0.24 -0.14 0.26 -0.11 0.15 -0.05 -0.05

NoCO2 0.03 -0.16 0.10 -0.12 -0.01 -0.26 -0.03 -0.20 -0.19 -0.38 -0.38

CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.14 -7.14 -10.71 -10.71

% CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 7.14 7.14

NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 7.14 3.57 3.57

% CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.57 0.00 -3.57 -3.57 -3.57 -3.57 -7.14 -7.14

NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.14 7.14

Central_Asia_&EE dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.03 0.03 0.15 0.22 0.37 0.35 0.83 0.40 1.03 1.22 1.22 0.03 -0.05 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.14 0.31 0.16 0.49 0.58 0.58 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -0.35 0.00 -0.70 0.70 0.00 1.76 -0.70 1.76 1.76 1.76 0.00 -0.35 0.00 -1.06 0.35 0.00 1.76 -0.70 1.76 1.76 1.76 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.35 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 2.11 2.11 2.47 5.63 5.63 0.00 0.00 0.70 -0.70 0.70 0.35 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -0.70 -0.35 -1.41 0.00 -3.87 -1.06 -4.23 -1.41 -7.39 -7.39 0.00 -0.35 0.00 -1.06 1.76 -2.82 -0.70 -2.82 -0.35 -2.82 -2.82

East_Asia dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 -0.01 0.12 0.19 0.21 0.52 0.26 1.11 0.23 1.21 1.40 1.40 -0.01 -0.05 0.03 -0.04 0.15 -0.02 0.47 -0.04 0.55 0.50 0.50 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.69 2.08 2.08 4.86 6.94 6.25 8.33 9.72 9.72 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 2.08 3.47 4.86 3.47 4.86 5.56 5.56 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.69 1.39 -0.69 0.69 -2.08 0.69 0.69 0.69 2.08 2.08 0.00 -0.69 -0.69 -1.39 0.69 -2.78 -0.69 -2.08 -1.39 -2.08 -2.08 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.39 -0.69 -2.78 -1.39 -7.64 -3.47 -9.03 -6.94 -11.81 -11.81 0.00 0.00 0.69 -1.39 -0.69 -2.78 -1.39 -2.78 -2.08 -3.47 -3.47

Europe dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.03 -0.02 0.04 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 1.35 1.35 0.00 0.00 1.35 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.35 0.00 0.00 -1.35 0.00 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 159

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5

0.02 0.14 0.04 0.37 0.06 0.43 0.48 0.48

-0.03 0.06 -0.02 0.17 0.00 0.21 0.19 0.19

0.00 1.35 1.35 5.41 2.70 8.11 10.81 10.81

0.00 1.35 0.00 1.35 -1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35

-1.35 1.35 -2.70 0.00 -5.41 -2.70 -8.11 -8.11

-1.35 0.00 -1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.35 -1.35

-2.70 1.35 -2.70 -1.35 -2.70 0.00 -2.70 -2.70

-1.35 1.35 -1.35 1.35 -1.35 1.35 0.00 0.00

North_Africa dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.11 -0.01 0.09 -0.04 0.00 -0.07 -0.07 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 -0.05 -0.02 -0.08 -0.08 -0.09 -0.09 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 2.94 2.94 5.88 7.35 7.35 8.82 7.35 8.82 7.35 7.35 0.00 2.94 2.94 2.94 4.41 4.41 5.88 4.41 5.88 5.88 5.88 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.47 -1.47 -4.41 -2.94 -7.35 -5.88 -7.35 -7.35 -8.82 -8.82 0.00 -2.94 -1.47 -4.41 -2.94 -8.82 -4.41 -11.77 -10.29 -11.77 -11.77 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.47 -1.47 -2.94 -1.47 -2.94 0.00 -1.47 0.00 1.47 1.47 0.00 -1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.41 5.88 5.88 5.88 5.88

North_America dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.16 0.26 0.43 0.26 0.63 0.32 0.84 0.29 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.16 0.09 0.25 -0.01 0.22 0.03 0.33 -0.04 0.23 0.22 0.22 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -0.43 0.43 0.43 1.28 1.70 2.98 1.28 3.40 3.83 3.83 0.00 -0.43 0.43 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 -0.43 0.85 0.85 0.85 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.85 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.00 2.13 0.85 1.70 2.13 2.13 0.00 0.43 0.85 0.43 2.13 0.00 2.55 0.85 1.70 2.13 2.13 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -2.13 -0.85 -2.98 -2.13 -4.68 -2.98 -4.26 -2.98 -5.96 -5.96 0.00 -1.28 -0.43 -2.98 -0.85 -3.40 -0.85 -1.70 -1.28 -2.98 -2.98

South_America dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.14 0.64 1.17 0.68 1.48 -0.48 0.81 -1.29 0.04 0.14 -0.12 0.34 -0.42 -0.27 -1.56 -0.50 -2.10 -1.60 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 1.22 1.83 3.66 4.88 5.49 6.71 6.10 6.10 0.00 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.83 0.61 1.22 0.00 1.83 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.22 -0.61 -4.27 -3.05 -6.71 -4.88 -6.71 -6.10 0.00 -0.61 -0.61 -1.22 -1.22 -2.44 -1.22 -3.66 -1.83 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 1.22 0.00 0.61 0.00 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 0.00 0.61 1.83 1.83 1.83

Page 160

4-5

-2.48 -2.48

-3.53 -3.53

5.49 5.49

-4.27 -4.27

-6.71 -6.71

-3.05 -3.05

1.22 1.22

7.32 7.32

South_Asia dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 -0.23 0.01 0.08 0.14 0.38 -0.04 0.93 0.15 1.02 0.99 0.99 -0.23 -0.14 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 -0.22 0.20 -0.08 0.22 0.07 0.07 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 2.33 3.49 6.98 8.14 8.14 13.95 11.63 15.12 17.44 17.44 0.00 2.33 2.33 2.33 3.49 4.65 5.81 4.65 5.81 5.81 5.81 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.16 2.33 -6.98 -1.16 -3.49 4.65 0.00 6.98 4.65 4.65 0.00 -1.16 -1.16 -5.81 -2.33 -5.81 -2.33 -3.49 -1.16 1.16 1.16 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -4.65 -2.33 -5.81 -1.16 -18.61 -4.65 -22.09 -11.63 -22.09 -22.09 0.00 -1.16 -1.16 -1.16 2.33 -3.49 1.16 -4.65 -1.16 -6.98 -6.98

Southern_Africa dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.10 0.30 0.78 0.53 1.01 0.20 1.34 0.09 1.30 1.24 1.24 0.10 -0.15 0.26 -0.18 -0.07 -0.37 -0.14 -0.69 -0.31 -0.79 -0.79 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 1.75 2.63 5.26 3.51 6.14 8.77 8.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 1.75 1.75 0.00 0.88 -3.51 -1.75 -3.51 -2.63 -7.90 -7.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.75 -0.88 -3.51 0.00 -1.75 -0.88 -3.51 -3.51 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.75 -1.75 -2.63 -1.75 -2.63 -0.88 -2.63 -0.88 -0.88 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 1.75 0.00 3.51 0.88 1.75 2.63 2.63

West_Africa dT Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 C sequestration CO2 NoCO2 0.18 0.40 0.53 0.50 0.95 0.08 0.78 0.00 0.21 0.07 0.07 0.18 -0.03 0.06 -0.10 -0.01 -0.31 -0.16 -0.56 -0.49 -0.93 -0.93 Change in forest % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.10 2.20 4.40 2.20 2.20 4.40 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 1.10 -1.10 1.10 -1.10 -1.10 Change in grassland % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 1.10 -3.30 0.00 -4.40 -3.30 -5.50 -5.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.10 -1.10 -6.59 -1.10 -5.50 -3.30 -8.79 -8.79 Change in desert % CO2 NoCO2 0.00 -1.10 0.00 -2.20 -1.10 -3.30 1.10 1.10 2.20 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 6.59 2.20 6.59 9.89 9.89

West_Asia dT
Page 161

C sequestration

Change in forest %

Change in grassland %

Change in desert %

CO2 Baseline (1990) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.04

NoCO2 0.01 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03

NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.06 0.00 6.06 0.00 3.03 3.03 3.03

NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.06 0.00 -6.06 0.00 -6.06 -3.03 -6.06 -6.06

NoCO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Page 162

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR AUSTRALASIA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 846 to 880 Cooling energy demands 920 to 974 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 727 to 818 % change (-14 to -7%) Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 999 to 1139 % change (9 to 18%)

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

1756 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -3.1% min / med / max to -1.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.6% to -2.0% absolute change 1713 1781 1815 without • Yield for rice: % change % change (-2 1 3) relative to baseline -1.0% to +0.5% with CO2 fertilisation, - 5.5% to -3.1% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +2.4% to +5.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -1.0 to +1.1% without

1 - 2°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -6.7% to -2.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.1% to - 5.2% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +1.0% to +10.1% with CO2 fertilisation, - 5.2% to -3.1% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +4.0% to +9.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -3.5 % to -1.0% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -5.2% to -4.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -12.0% to -8.1% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +5.1% to +10.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.2% to -5.3% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +8.1 to +13.7% with CO2 fertilisation, - 6.0% to -3.0% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -7.1% to – 5.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.3% to -12.0% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +7.0 to +9.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.2% to -8.4% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline

1674 1819 1885 (-5 4 7)

Heating energy demands 623 to 703 (-26 to -20%) Cooling energy demands 1165 to 1313 (27 to 36%)

2 - 3°C

1636 1868 1962 (-7 -6 12)

Heating energy demands 531 to 600 (-37 to -32%) Cooling energy demands 1346 to 1502 (46 to 57%)

3 - 4°C

1612 1910 2051 (-8 9 17)

Heating energy demands 449 to 508 (-47 to -43%) Cooling energy demands 1541 to 1701 (68 to 78%)

Page 163

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

+11.1% to +13.5% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.0% to - 5.1% without

4 - 5°C

1589 1957 2149 (-10 11 22)

Heating energy demands 378 to 429 (-55 to -52%) Cooling energy demands 1742 to 1906 (89 to 100%)

Page 164

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR AUSTRALASIA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 39 32 60

Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 9 Medium population (B2) 12 High population (A2) 19

Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 1 1 2

Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 1 1 2

Baseline 2080: A1 B1 B2 A2

0 0 0 0

Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 3 Malaria 1 Dengue 0 Cardiovascular 73

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 3 7%) 0 2 7%) 0 4 7%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0%) 0 0 0%) 0 0 0%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 9 (0 19 (0 12 (0

max 66 613%) 137 630%) 90 620%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

min 1 (0 2 (0 5 (0 1 (0

max 6 474%) 12 551%) 42 714%) 7 578%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

min 1 (0 2 (0 1 (0 1 (0

max 1 7%) 2 8%) 5 393%) 1 8%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 0 (0%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 0 (0%) • 2.3C 4.1 billion people (44%) at risk of dengue (HadCM2) (Hales et al. 2002)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 3 7%) 0 2 7%) 0 4 7%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0%) 0 0 0%) 0 0 0%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 40 (332 85 (354 53 (326 412 4337%) 877 4569%) 551 4316%) A2 B1 B2

5 (332 9 (410 36 (585 6 (422

50 4572%) 104 5516%) 403 7634%) 65 5827%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

1 6 (5 455%) 2 12 (5 553%) 5 46 (332 4249%) 1 8 (5 584%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 3 7%) 0 2 7%) 0 4 7%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2 4%) 0 1 4%) 0 2 4%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 92 (895 189 (906 126 (915 566 5994%) 1178 6172%) 757 5971%) A2 B1 B2

8 564 (615 53100%) 15 1175 (692 63349%) 49 566 (842 10756%) 9 755 (735 685582%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

1 (10 2 (10 6 (453 1 (11

63 5842%) 131 6992%) 63 5857%) 84 7571%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (0%) A2 0 ( 0%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (0%) A2 0 ( 0%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 0 0 5 ( 0 0 12%) B2 0 0 4 ( 0 0 12%) A2 0 0 6 ( 0 0 11%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0%) 0 0 0%) 0 0 0%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 466 777 (4924 8269%) 983 1525 (5132 8018%) 625 963 (4911 7622%) A2 B1 B2

94 (8795 189 (10103 456 (8645 124 (11198

777 73136%) 1525 82227%) 777 14808%) 963 87495%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

11 (915 21 (1052 52 (4787 14 (1167

86 7959%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: 168 A1 0 8974%) (0%) 86 7959%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: 106 A1 0 ( 0%) 9550%)

• 3.3C 5.2 billion people (52%) exposed to dengue in 2085 (HadCM2) (Hales et al. 2002) • 3.3C 5-7 billion people exposed by 2085 (4 GCMs) (Hales et al. 2002)

Page 165

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 0 0 5 ( 0 0 12%) B2 0 0 4 ( 0 0 12%) A2 0 0 6 ( 0 0 11%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0%) 0 0 0%) 0 0 0%)

Page 166

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) • 0 - 1°C Risk extinctions in Dryandra • forest (Gitay 2001) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.2 Pg C Range loss begins for Golden • 0.6-0.9 Pg C(with CO2) Bowerbird (Hilbert 2004) • 0.1 – 0.4 Pg C(without CO2) • PL, net 3.85-5.13% increase with CO2 • PL, net 3.85-5.13% increase without CO2 • PL. net 3.85-5.13% decrease with CO2 • PL net 3.85-5.13% decrease without CO2 • PL net 0% change with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2

• 1 - 2°C

Extensive loss/conversion of • Extinction reptiles (7 – 14%) • -0.1 to 0.9 PgC (with CO2) habitat in Kakadu wetland frogs (8 – 18%) birds (7 – • -0.7 to 0.1 PgC (without due to sea level rise and 10%), mammals (10 – 15%) in CO2) saltwater intrusion (Eliot Queensland as 47% of habitat 1999) lost (Thomas 2004; Williams Complete loss alpine zone 2003) (ECF 2004) • Risk functional extinction of Golden Bowerbird: habitat reduced by 50% (Rutherford 2000) • Extinction butterflies (13 – 23%) (Thomas 2004) • Extinctions of 200-300 species • -0.5 to 0.5 PgC (with CO2) (32-63%) of alpine flora in New • -1.24 to -0.33 PgC (without Zealand (Halloy 2003) CO2) • Extinction butterflies (21 – 36%) (Thomas 2004) • >50% range loss for 83% of 24 latitudinally restricted endemic butterflies (Beaumont 2002) • High risk extinction of Golden Bowerbird: at 2C local temperature rise habitat reduced by 90% and at 3C by 96% (Hilbert 2004)

• PL net 5.13-8.97% increase with CO2 • PL net 3.85-5.13% increase without CO2

• PL. net 5.13-8.97% decrease with CO2 • PL net 3.85-5.13% decrease without CO2

• PL net 0% change with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2

2 - 3°C

• PL net 6.41-10.26% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-5.13% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 6.41-10.26% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0-5.13% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

3 - 4°C

• 50 - 73% eucalypts out of range: extinction risks (Hughes 1996)

• 30 endemic frogs/mammals extinct, 35 threatened, 90– 100% loss Heritage Rainforest (Williams 2003)

• -0.4 to -0.9 PgC (with CO2) • 0.5 to -0.5 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 10.26% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-2.56% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 10.26% decrease (with • PL net 0% change(with CO2) CO2) • PL net 0-1.28% increase (without CO2) • PL net 1.28 – 2.56% decrease (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• 57 endemic frogs/mammals extinct, 8 endangered (Williams 2003)

• -0.8 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • -1.7 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 14.1% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 2.56% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 14.1% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 8.97% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 0% change (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 6.41% increase (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 167

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR CENTRAL AMERICA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 424 to 428 Cooling energy demands 1304 to 1305 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 296 to 360 % change (-30 to -16%) Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 1449 to 1612 % change (11 to 24%)

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

1092 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -3.5% min / med / max to -0.8% with CO2 fertilisation, -3.5% to -1.8% absolute change 837 1049 1105 without • Yield for rice: % change % change (-23 -4 1) relative to baseline -8.6 to -4.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -9.6% to -6.1% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -5.4% to -1.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.4% to -5.3% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -5.1 to -2.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.1 to -4.6% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -8.3 to +1.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -13.5% to -10.6% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -5.7% to -1.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -14.7% to -10% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -3.1% to -2% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.1% to -6.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -5.0% to +1.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.% to +13.8% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -5.5% to 0.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -20.8% to -13.8% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -2.5% to -2.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.5% to -9.0% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +0.1 to +1.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -16.9% to -15.1% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -6.5% to -3.7% with CO2 612 996 1123 (-44 -9 3)

1 - 2°C

Heating energy demands 201 to 247 (-53 to -42%) Cooling energy demands 1771 to 1946 (36 to 49%)

2 - 3°C

433 946 1208 (-60 -13 11)

Heating energy demands 135 to 167 (-68 to -61%) Cooling energy demands 2122 to 2313 63 to 77%

3 - 4°C

316 907 1169 (-71 -17 7)

Heating energy demands 88 to 111 (-79 to -74%) Cooling energy demands 2497 to 2699 92 to 107%

Page 168

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

fertilisation, -24.5% to -21.7% without

4 - 5°C

256 876 1200 (-77 -20 10)

Heating energy demands 55 to 71 (-87 to -83%) Cooling energy demands 2892 to 3099 (122 to 137%)

Page 169

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR CENTRAL AMERICA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 55 Medium population (B2) 71 High population (A2) 127 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 6 11 20 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 6 Medium population (B2) 7 High population (A2) 12

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger**

Health impacts

Baseline (for comparison)

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Low population (A1/B1) 188 Medium population (B2) 247 High population (A2) 412

Baseline 2080: A1 9 B1 7 B2 16 A2 90

Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 20.5 Malaria 0.4 Dengue 1.6 Cardiovascular 230.6

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 0 ( 0 1 B2 0 ( 0 2 A2 0 ( 0 3

2 65 35%) 5 84 34%) 10 173 42%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 28 0 15%) 0 0 40 0 16%) 0 0 66 0 16%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 55 (0 127 (0 71 (0

max 129 133%) 278 119%) 169 139%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 6 (0 20 (0 11 (0

max 15 158%) 41 107%) 22 100%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 6 (0 12 (0 18 (0

max 6 9%) 13 14%) 19 9%)

• 0.2C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 258% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004) • 0.7C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 276% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004) • 1.0C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 364% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 ( 3 B2 ( 2 A2 ( 2

5 23 66 12 35%) 5 35 104 14 42%) 9 88 174 21 42%)

A1/B1 0 ( 0 0 B2 0 ( 0 0 A2 0 ( 0 0

0 30 16%) 0 43 17%) 1 105 26%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1/B1 A2 B2 59 (7 135 (7 76 (7 432 681%) 912 621%) 579 719%) A1/B1 A2 B2 6 (7 21 (6 11 (6 112 1884%) 314 1474%) 143 1228%) A1/B1 A2 B2 6 (6 12 (5 19 (6 14 143%) 38 218%) 21 19%) B1 5 ( 72%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 2 (26%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 ( 3 B2 ( 2 A2 ( 3

5 39 66 21 35%) 6 48 104 20 42%) 11 116 247 28 60%)

A1/B1 0 ( 0 0 B2 0 ( 0 0 A2 0 ( 0 0

0 52 28%) 0 70 29%) 1 151 37%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

199 (260 420 (232 263 (271

2492 4409%) 4875 3751%) 3036 4194%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

23 (309 61 (209 32 (194

1903 33639%) 3533 17632%) 2277 21037%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

6 (13 14 (22 20 (12

215 3716%) 399 3283%) 405 2188%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 15 (99%) A2 85 ( 95%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 -1 (-6%) A2 -4 ( -5%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 ( 3 B2 ( 2 A2 ( 3

5 38 81 20 43%) 6 47 143 19 58%) 11 113 257 28 63%)

A1/B1 0 ( 0 2 B2 0 ( 0 1 A2 0 ( 0 4

3 52 28%) 3 70 29%) 16 151 37%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

1028 (1761 1960 (1448 1250 (1668

3785 6748%) 7661 5951%) 4762 6636%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

376 2558 (6570 45248%) 771 4825 (3771 24118%) 449 3094 (4071 28624%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

43 285 (671 4954%) 89 538 (652 4459%) 90 1980 (407 11078%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 27 (294 %) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 1 ( 13%)

Page 170

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 ( 3 B2 ( 3 A2 ( 3

5 38 87 20 46%) 7 47 140 19 57%) 11 116 266 28 65%)

A1/B1 0 ( 0 2 B2 0 ( 0 1 A2 0 ( 0 6

3 52 28%) 3 70 29%) 27 151 37%)

** These numbers are for all of Latin America

Page 171

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.03 Pg C • -0.5 -0.22 Pg C (with CO2) • -0.16 – 0.1 Pg C (without CO2) • PL, net 0% change with CO2 • PL, net 0% change without CO2 • PL net 0% change with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2 • PL net 0% change with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2

0 - 1°C

• 1 - 2°C •

Extinction mammals (2 – 18%), birds (2 – 8%) and butterflies (1 – 11%) (Thomas 2004) Large range loss animals & risk extinctions of 11% species (Peterson 2002)

• 0.05-0.24 PgC (with CO2) • -0.12 to -0.01 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0% change with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2

• PL net 0-3.57% increase with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2

• PL net 0 – 3.57% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2

2 - 3°C

• Cloud forest regions lose hundreds of metres of elevational extent, potential extinctions (Still 1999)

• -0.14 to 0.26 PgC (with CO2) • -0.26 to -0.03 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

• PL net 3.57% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

• PL net 3.57% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

• 3 - 4°C

Loss of forest wintering habitat of Monarch butterfly (Villers-Ruiz 1998)

• -0.11 to 0.15 PgC (with CO2) • -0.2 to -0.19 PgC (without CO2)

• PL 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 7.14% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 3.57% increase (with CO2) • PL net 7.14% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 3.57% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• -0.5 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • -0.38 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 0% change (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 10.71% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 7.14% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 3.57% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 7.14% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 7.14% increase (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 172

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR EAST ASIA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 2083 to 2105 Cooling energy demands 1056 to 1075 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 1881 to 2004 % change (-10 to -5%) Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 1155 to 1282 % change (9 to 19%)

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

3139 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -1.9% to min / med / max +0.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -2.3% to -0.4% without absolute change 3022 3184 3250 • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -1.0% to +0.4% % change (-4 1 4) with CO2 fertilisation, -2.3% to -1.4% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -0.1% to +2.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.1% to -1.5% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -4.2% to -2.5% with CO2 fertilisation, -6.8% to -3.8% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -1.7% to +3.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.5% to - 4.0% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +2.1% to +5.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.8% to -3.5% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -4.4 to -3.8% with CO2 fertilisation, -11.4% to -6.5% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +1.5% to +2.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.1% to -7.9% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +3.1% to +4.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -14.9% to -7.8%% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -7.5% to -6.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.5% to -13.7% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -1.8% to 3.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -18.8% to -14.0% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -4.0% to +2.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -22.0% to -16.0% without 2903 3273 3371 (-8 4 7)

1 - 2°C

Heating energy demands 1698 to 1808 (-19 to -14%) Cooling energy demands 1367 to 1500 (29 to 40%)

2 - 3°C

2777 3359 3371 (-12 7 11)

Heating energy demands 1525 to 1629 (-27 to -23%) Cooling energy demands 1592 to 1735 (50 to 62%)

3 - 4°C

2657 3438 3599 (-15 10 15)

Heating energy demands 1366 to 1462 (-35 to -31%) Cooling energy demands 1831 to 1981 (73 to 85%)

4 - 5°C

2551 3522 3682 (-19 12 17)

Heating energy demands 1217 to 1305 (-42 to -38%) Cooling energy demands 2082 to 2239

Page 173

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

(97 to 109%)

Page 174

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR EAST ASIA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 4157 Medium population (B2) 6543 High population (A2) 11607 A1/B1 A2 B2 min 4157 (0 11607 (0 6543 (0 max 4292 3%) 11985 3%) 6756 3%) Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 60 Medium population (B2) 285 High population (A2) 3723 A1/B1 A2 B2 min 60 (0 3723 (0 285 (0 max 63 4%) 3867 4%) 294 3%) Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 60 Medium population (B2) 90 High population (A2) 532 A1/B1 A2 B2 min 60 (0 532 (0 90 (0 max 62 3%) 549 3%) 92 3%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1/B1 A2 B2 4243 (2 11847 (2 6678 (2 4460 7%) 12409 7%) 6994 7%) A1/B1 A2 B2 61 (2 3817 (3 290 (2 97 60%) 4055 9%) 329 16%) A1/B1 A2 B2 61 (2 543 (2 91 (2 64 5%) 565 6%) 94 5%) B1 0 (0%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 0 (0%)

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 1264 1940 3310

Baseline 2080: A1 4 B1 0 B2 20 A2 110

Current disease burden in terms of death (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 171.6 Malaria 20.5 Dengue 3.8 Cardiovascular 3862.5

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 0 0 18 ( 0 0 1%) B2 0 1 155 ( 0 0 8%) A2 0 183 1147 ( 0 6 35%)

A1/B1 1 43 307 ( 0 3 24%) B2 1 154 547 ( 0 8 28%) A2 1 379 1860 ( 0 11 56%)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 2 53 136 ( 0 4 11%) B2 4 75 251 ( 0 4 13%) A2 10 863 1572 ( 0 26 47%)

A1/B1 16 124 371 ( 1 10 29%) B2 113 300 771 ( 6 15 40%) A2 197 983 2311 ( 6 30 70%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 1

2 53 141 4 11%) 4 199 300 10 15%) 41 880 1578 27 48%)

A1/B1 48 233 375 ( 4 18 30%) B2 182 430 778 ( 9 22 40%) A2 627 1179 2323 ( 19 36 70%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

4341 (4 12123 (4 6834 (4

20073 383%) 54788 372%) 30335 364%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

64 (5 3916 (5 299 (5

360 497%) 35662 858%) 2416 749%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

62 (4 554 (4 93 (3

71 18%) 4213 692%) 324 262%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 18 (89%) A2 88 ( 80%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (-2%) A2 -14 ( -13%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 1

2 96 141 8 11%) 4 237 728 12 37%) 42 898 1584 27 48%)

A1/B1 48 234 375 ( 4 19 30%) B2 182 432 778 ( 9 22 40%) A2 748 1180 2323 ( 23 36 70%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

4557 (10 12707 (9 7168 (10

21812 425%) 59118 409%) 32748 400%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

103 (71 4122 (11 344 (21

1214 1912%) 39501 961%) 3647 1182%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

65 (7 573 (8 96 (7

164 172%) 4612 767%) 455 408%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 26 (728%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 1 ( 32%)

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

2 109 160 9 13%) 4 260 782 13 40%) 13 898 1584 27 48%)

A1/B1 81 245 376 ( 6 19 30%) B2 239 447 757 ( 12 23 39%) A2 748 1178 2326 ( 23 36 70%)

Page 175

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) • 0 - 1°C Coral reefs regionally functionally extinct (HoeghGuldberg 1999) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

-0.01 Pg C • 0.12-0.19 Pg C(with CO2) • -0.05 to 0.03 Pg C(without CO2) • PL net 0 – 0.69% increase with CO2 • PL net 0 - 0.69% increase without CO2 • PL net 0.69-1.39% increase with CO2 • PL net 0.69% decrease without CO2 • PL net 0.69-1.39% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0-0.69% increase without CO2

• 1 - 2°C

• 0.21-0.52 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 2.08% increase with CO2 • -0.04-0.15 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 0.69-2.08% increase without CO2

• PL net 0.69% increase or decrease with CO2 • PL net 1.39% decrease to 0.69% increase without CO2

• PL net 1.39 to 2.78% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0.69 to 1.39% decrease without CO2

2 - 3°C

• Complete loss boreal forest (Ni 2001)

• 0.26 to 1.11 PgC (with CO2) • -0.02 to 0.47 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 2.08% decrease to 0.69% increase (with CO2) • PL net 4.86 to 6.94% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.69 to 2.78% decrease (without CO2) • PL net 3.47 to 4.86% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 3.47 to 7.64% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.3902.78% decrease (without CO2)

3 - 4°C

• 0.23 to 1.21 PgC (with CO2) • -0.04 to 0.55 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 6.25-8.33% increase (with CO2) • PL net 3.47-4.86% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 0.69% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.39-2.08% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 6.94-9.03% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 2.08-2.78% decrease (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• 1.4 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • 0.5 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 9.72% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 5.56% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 2.08% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 2.08% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 11.81% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 3.47% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 176

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR EUROPE Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 2942 to 2960 Cooling energy demands 186 to 191 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 2654 to 2814 % change (-10 to -5%) Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 237 to 298 % change (26 to 56%)

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

1765 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -4.5% min / med / max to -2.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.5% to -3.1% absolute change 1619 1716 1751 without • Yield for rice: % change % change (-8 -3 -1) relative to baseline -1.7 to +2.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -2.7 to +0.3% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -1.5% to +1.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.5 % to -2.2% without

1 - 2°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -5.6% to -4.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.6% to -5.6% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +2.1% to +10.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -3.6% to -2.1% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +0.4 to +3.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.4% to -4.5% without

1479 1644 1712 (-16 -7 -3)

Heating energy demands 2397 to 2541 (-19 to -14%) Cooling energy demands 352 to 429 (89 to 126%)

2 - 3°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -5.4% to -3.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.6% to -8.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +4.5% to +10.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -6.8% to -4.0% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +2.6% to +7.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.8% to -8.1% without

1354 1577 1669 (-23 -11 -6)

Heating energy demands 2159 to 2291 (-27 to -23%) Cooling energy demands 494 to 573 (166 to 208%)

3 - 4°C

Page 177

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -3.8% to -3.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -11.8% to -10.7% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +5.1% to +10.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -11.9% to

1239 1510 1631 (-30 -14 -8)

Heating energy demands 1939 to 2059 (-34 to -30%) Cooling energy demands 656 to 754 (252 to 299%)

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

-6.3% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +2.7% to +7.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.3% to -10.7% without

4 - 5°C

1143 1442 1586 (-35 -18 -10)

Heating energy demands 1734 to 1847 (-41 to -38%) Cooling energy demands 833 to 940 (348 to 398%)

Page 178

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR EUROPE Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) min 41 (0 49 (0 41 (0 41 41 49 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) min 27 (0 32 (0 25 (0 27 25 32 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) min 27 (0 32 (0 25 (0 27 25 32

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low Population (A1/B1) Medium Population (B2) High Population (A2) 589 575 743

Baseline 2080: A1 B1 B2 A2

0 0 0 0

Current disease burden in terms of death (1000s) Diarrhoea 9.7 Malaria 0.1 Dengue 0 Cardiovascular 2518

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 35 82 233 ( 6 14 40%) B2 31 72 238 ( 5 13 41%) A2 59 180 433 ( 8 24 58%)

A1/B1 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0%) B2 0 0 15 ( 0 0 3%) A2 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

max 220 443%) 260 429%) 220 441%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

max 152 455%) 173 434%) 139 455%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

max 37 33%) 42 31%) 33 33%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 100 111 316 ( 17 19 54%) B2 89 126 328 ( 16 22 57%) A2 198 263 489 ( 27 35 66%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 41 7%) 0 53 9%) 0 48 6%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

89 565 (120 1295%) 107 690 (117 1305%) 86 561 (112 1282%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

75 (173 88 (173 69 (176

442 1514%) 533 1551%) 415 1556%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

28 (3 33 (3 26 (3

68 147%) 81 151%) 63 151%)

B1 0 (0%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 0 (0%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 120 164 364 ( 20 28 62%) B2 103 195 342 ( 18 34 59%) A2 238 332 551 ( 32 45 74%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 58 0 10%) 0 0 69 0 12%) 0 0 68 0 9%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

351 (766 413 (741 353 (770

4319 10554%) 5206 10503%) 4072 9928%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

229 (737 257 (696 209 (733

4164 15098%) 5009 15411%) 3885 15404%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

45 (64 51 (59 41 (63

479 1649%) 576 1685%) 447 1683%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (0%) A2 0 ( 0%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (0%) A2 0 ( 0%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 179 267 441 ( 30 45 75%) B2 194 267 429 ( 34 47 75%) A2 288 424 567 ( 39 57 76%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 58 0 10%) 0 0 69 0 12%) 0 0 68 0 9%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

2265 (5488 2735 (5469 2144 (5181

6682 16386%) 7949 16087%) 6320 15464%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

2139 6545 (7706 23785%) 2574 7773 (7871 23968%) 1995 6158 (7859 24471%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

256 (836 308 (855 239 (852

731 2568%) 868 2588%) 688 2645%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 0 (0%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 0 ( 0%)

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 206 320 451 ( 35 54 77%) B2 214 320 440 ( 37 56 77%) A2 297 446 591 ( 40 60 79%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 58 0 10%) 0 0 69 0 12%) 0 0 68 0 9%)

Page 179

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.03 Pg C • 0.02-0.08 Pg C (with CO2) • -0.02 to 0.04 Pg C(without CO2) • PL net 1.35% increase with CO2 • PL net 0-1.35% increase without CO2 • PL net 0-1.35% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0-1.35% decrease without CO2 • PL net 0 -1.35% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2

0 - 1°C

• 1 - 2°C

Alpine systems in Alps can • Extinction of plants (3-14%) tolerate local temperature (Thomas 2004) rise of 1-2C, but tolerance likely to be negated by land use change (Theurillat 2001) Transformation of ecosystems e.g. 32% of plants move from 44% European area with potential extinction of endemics (Bakkenes 2002) •

• 0.02-0.14 PgC (with CO2) • -0.03 to 0.06 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0-1.35% increase with CO2 • PL net 0-1.35% increase without CO2

• PL net 1.35% increase or decrease with CO2 • PL net 0-1.35% decrease without CO2

• PL net 1.35% increase to 2.7% decrease with CO2 • PL net 1.35% increase or decrease without CO2

2 - 3°C

• Increased fire frequency converts forest & macquis to scrub, increased pest outbreaks (Mouillot 2002)

Extinction of plants (4 – • 0.04 to 0.37 PgC (with CO2) 21%) (Thomas 2004) • -0.02 to 0.17PgC (without CO2) • 2 – 10% European plants critically endangered or extinct; mean species turnover of 48% (spatial range 17 – 75%); mean species loss of 27% (spatial range 1- 68%) (Thuiller 2005) • Extinction birds (4 – 38%) (Thomas 2004) • 4 – 24% European plants critically endangered/extinct; mean species turnover of 63% (spatial range 22 – 90%); mean species loss of 42% (spatial range 2.5 – 86%) (Thuiller 2005) Risk of extinction of Alpine species (Theurillat 1998) • -0.06 to 0.43 PgC (with CO2) • 0-0.21 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 1.35-5.41% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-1.35% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 0-2.7% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0 -1.35% decrease% (without CO2)

• PL net 1.35-2.7% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.35% increase or decrease without CO2

3 - 4°C

• PL net 2.7-8.11% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.35% increase or decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 2.7-5.41% decrease (with CO2) • PL 0% change (without CO2)

• PL net 0-2.7% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.35% increase or decrease without CO2

4 - 5°C

• 0.48 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • 0.19PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 10.81% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 1.35% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 8.11% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net -1.35% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 2.7% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0% change (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 180

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBE Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 1171 to 1173 Cooling energy demands 1681 to 1689 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 1038 to 1105 % change (-11 to -6%) Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 1806 to 1949 % change (7 to 15%)

Change in agricultural productivity

Cereal prices

1.26 $/ha in 1990 In 2080 for A1: 2.18 A2: 2.64 B1: 1.67 B2: 1.86 • Yield for maize: % change THESE NUMBERS TO BE relative to baseline -4.2% REPLACED to -2.6% with CO2 • Overall increase in cereal fertilisation, -4.2 to -3.6% prices in each region ($/ha without and % change relative to baseline (note baseline • Yield for rice: % change increases between 1990 relative to baseline and 2080) with and without -3.4% to -1.0% with CO2 CO2 fertilisation fertilisation, -4.4% to -3.0% assumptions without • Yield for wheat: % change A1 without 2020: rise of 0.24 relative to baseline -1.1% (19%) to +1.2% with CO2 A1 with 2020: rise of 0.07 (5%) fertilisation, -4.1% to -2.8% A2 without 2020: rise of 0.24 without (19%) A2 with 2020: rise of 0.07 (5%) B1 without 2020: rise of 0.22 (17%) B1 with 2020: rise of 0.12 (9%) B2 without 2020: rise of 0.27 (21%) B2 with 2020: rise of 0.16 (13%) Overall range with 0.07 to 0.16 (5-13%) Overall range without 0.22 to 0.27 (17-21%)

0 - 1°C

1 - 2°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -6.9% to -4.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.9% to -6.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -3.9% to +0.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.0% to -6.7% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -0.3% to +2.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -9.8% to -5.7% without

• Overall changes in cereal prices in each region ($/ha and % change relative to baseline) with and without CO2 fertilisation assumptions • A1 without 2050 rise of 0.83 (64%) • A1 with 2050 rise of 0.08 (6%) • A2 without 2050: rise of 0.74 (57%) • A2 with 2050 rise of 0.06 (5%) • B1 without 2050 rise of 0.43 (33%), 2080 rise of 0.58 (45%) • B1 with 2050 rise of 0.12 ( 10%) 2080 rise of 0.2 (15% ) • B2 without 2050: rise of 0.57 (44%) • B2 with 2050: rise of 0.17 (13%) Overall range with 0.06-0.2 (5 -15%) Overall range without 0.43 – 0.83 (33 – 64%)

Heating energy demands 922 to 980 (-21 to -16%) Cooling energy demands 2071 to 2218 (23 to 31%)

Page 181

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

2 - 3°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -6.3% to -7.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -13.9% to -9.9% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -1.8% to +1.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -11.2% to -15.4% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -0.6% to +2.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.4% to -10.9% without

• Overall changes in cereal prices in each region ($/ha and % change relative to baseline) with and without CO2 fertilisation assumptions • A2 without 2080 rise of 1.67 (129%) • A2 with 2080 rise of 0.04 (3%) • B2 without 2080: rise of 0.95 (73%) • B2 with 2080: rise of 0.08 (6%) • A1 without 2070 rise of (86%) • A1 with 2070 rise of (8 %) Overall range: • Overall changes in cereal prices in each region ($/ha and % change relative to baseline) with and without CO2 fertilisation assumptions • A1 with 2080 rise of 1.77 (136%) • A1 without 2080 rise of 0.18 (14%)

Heating energy demands 819 to 871 (-30 to -26%) Cooling energy demands 2357 to 2504 (40 to 48%)

3 - 4°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -8.9% to -7.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -16.9% to -14.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -3.5% to +1.5% with CO2 fertilisation, -20.2% to -15.5% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -3.5% to +2.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -21.5% to -15.7% without

Heating energy demands 726 to 773 (-38 to -34%) Cooling energy demands 2650 to 2800 (57 to 66%)

4 - 5°C

• Overall changes in cereal prices in each region ($/ha and % change relative to baseline) with and without CO2 fertilisation assumptions

Heating energy demands 642 to 684 (-45 to -42%) Cooling energy demands 2941 to 3106 (75 to 84%)

Page 182

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBE Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 15 22 30 Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1) Low population (B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 286 0 1 11 Millions of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (millions) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1) Low population (A1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 0 0 0 15

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 7840 10125 14090

Baseline 2080: A1 B1 B2 A2

108 91 233 768

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 B2 A2

305 520 946 (4 7 12%) 392 748 1409 (4 7 14%) 770 1633 3047 (5 12 22%)

A1/B1 197 1122 2492 (3 14 32%) B2 460 1564 3866 (5 15 38%) A2 950 2280 5082 (7 16 36%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 15 (0 30 (0 22 (0

max 34 118%) 61 104%) 47 109%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

min 0 (0 11 (0 0 (0 1 (0

max 1 230%) 15 29%) 1 217%) 2 174%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

min 0 (0 2 (0 0 (0 0 (0

max 0 12%) 2 21%) 0 15%) 0 30%)

• 0.2C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 44% in W Africa and 258% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004) • 0.7C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 48% in W Africa and 276% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004) • 1.0C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 64% in W Africa and 364% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 B2 A2

732 962 1460 (9 12 19%) 1003 1236 2178 (10 12 22%) 2074 2874 4440 (15 20 32%)

A1/B1 B2 A2

1079 (14 1534 (15 1841 (13

1601 20 2652 26 3989 28

2710 35%) 4114 41%) 5580 40%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 22 (46 43 (43 30 (35 61 296%) 103 245%) 93 316%) A2 B1 B2

0 (63 12 (6 1 (70 1 (29

2 615%) 21 82%) 2 732%) 4 466%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

0 (3 2 (3 0 (4 0 (3

0 43%) 2 61%) 0 60%) 1 78%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 34 (38%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 12 (13%) • 2.3C 4.1 billion people (44%) at risk of dengue (HadCM2) (Hales et al. 2002)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 814 1130 1828 ( 10 14 23%) B2 1168 1348 2615 ( 12 13 26%) A2 2311 3227 5182 ( 16 23 37%)

A1/B1 1341 1686 2796 ( 17 22 36%) B2 1977 3001 4217 ( 20 30 42%) A2 2537 4301 5882 ( 18 31 42%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 45 (191 79 (164 64 (184 159 935%) 285 848%) 222 888%) A2 B1 B2

1 30 (344 10309%) 17 178 (53 1462%) 1 30 (365 10173%) 3 52 (320 6991%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

0 (21 2 (39 0 (26 1 (56

3 1073%) 2 1201%) 3 1102%) 6 1468%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 151 (65%) A2 551 ( 72%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 -12 (-5%) A2 -28 ( - 4%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 965 1274 2028 ( 12 16 26%) B2 1265 1618 3293 ( 12 16 33%) A2 2647 3563 5391 ( 19 25 38%)

A1/B1 1385 1747 2803 ( 18 22 36%) B2 2018 3336 4269 ( 20 33 42%) A2 2650 4619 5928 ( 19 33 42%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 80 (423 134 (348 119 (429 179 1066%) 319 964%) 247 1001%) A2 B1 B2

7 57 (2314 19698%) 30 245 (166 2052%) 8 57 (2477 18964%) 10 83 (1264 11179%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

1 (225 4 (129 1 (254 1 (245

6 2101%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: 28 A1 263 1669%) (243%) 6 2101%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: 9 A1 28 (26%) 2364%)

• 3.3C 5.2 billion people (52%) exposed to dengue in 2085 (HadCM2) (Hales et al. 2002) • 3.3C 5-7 billion people exposed by 2085 (4 GCMs) (Hales et al. 2002)

Page 183

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 979 1492 2145 ( 12 19 27%) B2 1211 1806 3376 ( 12 18 33%) A2 2978 3568 5823 ( 21 25 41%)

A1/B1 1593 1837 2807 ( 20 23 36%) B2 2253 3517 4279 ( 22 35 42%) A2 3040 4856 5959 ( 22 34 42%)

Page 184

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost • In 2004 IUCN assessed that there were 9917 bird species of which 1213 (12%) are threatened, 5743 amphibians of which 1856 (32%) are threatened, 5416 mammals of which at least 1101 (2023%) are threatened, 287,655 plants of which at least 8321 are threatened (3-70%), 8163 reptiles of which at least 304 (4-61%) are threatened, 28500 fish of which at least 800 (3-46%) are threatened, and 1,190200 invertebrates of which at least 1992 (0.2 to 57%) are threatened. In almost all cases these threats are not due to climate change and the ranges arise where some species’ conservation status is not known. • However, in the last 20 years only 1 amphibian, 3 birds, 1 mammal, and 7 plants have gone extinct in the wild. • These are much lower extinction rates than those predicted below.

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

Baseline (for comparison)

• Of these a further 15-18% may be lost to a combination of agricultural expansion AND climate change (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Figure 10.17) by 2050.

0.7 Pg C

• MEA predicts losses due to land use change only for 1970 • MEA predicts losses due to to 2050 of 35-40% (warm mixed forests), 10-17% land use change only for 1970-2050 of 8-10% (tropical forests), 2 to (grasslands) and 10-20% 4%(boreal forests), 11-20% (cool conifer forests), and 25(savannas). 30% (temperate decidous • Currently there are 65.4 forests) million square km of grassland • Currently there are 41.6 • Potential area (baseline for PL million square km of forests results) is 12.31 • Potential area (baseline for PL results) is 87.06

• Currently there are 33.3 million square km of deserts (including tundra) • Potential area (baseline for PL results) 33.6 • I sq km = 1,000,000 sq m • 1 ha = 10,000 sq m • 1 sq km = 100 ha • 33.6 million sq km = 33.6 times 10 to the 8 ha

0 - 1°C

• At 1C: 10% Global Ecosystems transformed (5 GCMS), includes CO2 fertilisation and no land use change. • Loss 47% wooded tundra and 23% cool conifer forest

• 1C 9-31% (mean 18%) • 3.1-4.4 Pg C(with CO2) species extinct (range for • 0.2-1.2 Pg C(without CO2) dispersal or not; species area curve) At 0.9C coral reefs in Indian Ocean, Great Barrier Reef and Carribean, SE Asia, functionally extinct At 0.9C risk functional extinction Golden Bower Bird in Australia

• PL, net 0.7-0.89% increase • PL. net 0-0.32% with CO2 with CO2 • PL net -0.44 to -0.25% • PL, net 0.57-0.76% increase without CO2 without CO2 • At 0.9C the IMAGE/LPJ modellling system predicts the following losses of stable biome areas (potential increases shown in brackets)*: • ice -1.1 (1.0) • tundra -13.0 (18.4) • wooded tundra -46.6 ( 33.2) • boreal forest -4.3 (4.2) • cool conifer -22.9 (14.2) • temp. mixed forest 5.2 (21.7) • temp.deciduous forest 11.7 (12.6) • warm mixed forest -4.3 (7.3) • grassland/steppe -14.5 (9.3) • hot desert -3.9 (3.3) • scrubland -20.9 (19.4) • savanna -13.5 (10.1) • tropical woodland -8.4 (23.0) • tropical forest -4.9 (4.0) • Total -10.4 (10.4)

• PL net 0 to -1.14% with CO2 • PL net -0.38 to -0.19 without CO2

1 - 2°C

At 2C, 16% global ecosystems • transformed: ecosystems variously lose between 5 and 66% of their extent (5 GCMs) • Loss 21% tundra, 58% wooded tundra , 31 % cool conifer forest and 21% temperate deciduous forest

1.4C 15-37% (mean 24%) species extinct (dispersal or not, species area curve) 1.4C Total loss Arctic summer ice, high risk of extinction of polar bears, walrus, seals, whole ecosystems stressed • 8-12% of 277 medium/large mammals from 28 families in 141 African national parks

• 2.6-6.6 PgC (with CO2) • -1.6 to 0 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 1.84 to 2.41% with CO2 • PL net -0.89 to -0.19% with • PL net -1.97 to -0.95% with CO2 CO2 • PL net 0.89 to 1.27% without CO2 • PL net -1.21 to -0.38% without • PL net -0.57 to 0.32% without CO2 CO2 At 1.9C the IMAGE/LPJ modellling system predicts the following losses of stable biome areas (potential increases shown in brackets)*:

Page 185

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

critically endangered or extinct • Extinctions 10% endemics in hotspot for plant biodiversity due to 51-65% loss of Fynbos ecosystem in S Africa • Succulent Karoo, S Africa reduced to 20% of area, threatening 2800 plants with extinction

ice -3.0 (0.8) tundra -20.5 (12.0) wooded tundra -57.8 ( 52.7) boreal forest -10.1 (10.0) cool conifer -31.1 (40.7) temp. mixed forest -9.1 (34.3) temp.deciduous forest -21.4 (23.8) • warm mixed forest -10.7 (13.4) • grassland/steppe -20.3 (13.7) • hot desert -6.8 (4.2) • scrubland -24.8 (18.3) • savanna -19.4 (11.0) • tropical woodland -10.6 (45.4) • tropical forest -8.9 (7.7) Total -15.5 (15.5) ] • PL net -0.76 to -1.78% (with CO2) • PL net 3.11 to 4.64% (with CO2) • PL net -0.89 to -1.46% (without CO2) • PL net 1.21 to 1.97% (without CO2) • At 2.9C the IMAGE/LPJ modellilng system predicts the following losses of stable biome areas (potential increases shown in brackets): • ice -5.0 (0.3) • tundra -38.4 (5.4) • wooded tundra -67.9 ( 71.2) • boreal forest -12.0 (15.4) • cool conifer -44.3 (61.6) • temp. mixed forest -13.5 (47.2) • temp.deciduous forest -25.6 (30.6) • warm mixed forest -17.2 (18.9) • grassland/steppe -27.8 (18.8) • hot desert -10.9 (5.4) • scrubland -33.9 (25.4) • savanna -26.6 (15.3) • tropical woodland -9.6 (64.0) • tropical forest -9.8 (10.1) Total -21.1 (21.1) • PL net -3.87 to -1.97% (with CO2) • PL net -0.83 to -0.13% (without CO2)

• • • • • • •

2 - 3°C

• Few ecosystems adapt to 3C rise; 22% are transformed: ecosystems variously lose between 7 and 74% of their extent; 50% all nature reserves cannot fulfil conservation objectives (5 GCMs) • At 3C warming there is an estimated 44% risk of a terrestrial carbon source developing from carbon cycle feedbacks (Scholze et al. 2006)

• 2.4C 21-52% (mean 35%) • 0.9 to 7.8 PgC (with CO2) species extinct (dispersal or • -3.3 to -0.4 PgC (without CO2) not, species area curve) • Amazon rainforest may collapse driving millions of species to extinction • 50% loss world’s most productive duck habitat in prairie pothole region USA • 30-40% of 277 mammals in 141 African parks critically endangered/extinct; 15-20% endangered • 66 of 165 rivers studied globally lose >10% of their fish species • Extinctions of 200-300 species (32-63%) of alpine flora in New Zealand

• 3 - 4°C •

Further ecosystem transformation 60% loss tundra and 44% loss taiga

• Extinction rates continue to escalate • 4-24% European plants critically endangered/extinct

• -0.6 to 6.8 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 3.43 to 4.95% (with CO2) • -4.4 to -1.5 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 0.89 to 1.33% (without CO2)

• PL net -1.27 to -1.08% (with • PL net -3.87 to -2.16% (with CO2) CO2) • PL net -1.02 to 0.95% (without • PL net -0.38 to 0.13% (without CO2) CO2)

4 - 5°C

• Further ecosystem transformation

• Extinction rates are extremely high

• 3.1 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • -5.9 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 5.84% (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 1.14% (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net -0.7% (with CO2, 4C) • PL net -1.65% (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net -5.14% (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0.51% (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 186

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR NORTH AFRICA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 775 to 782 Cooling energy demands 1253 to 1260 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 631 to 709 % change ( -19 to -9%) Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 1368 to 1499 % change ( 9 to 19%)

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

60 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -7.2% min / med / max to -4.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.2% to absolute change 46 53 57 -5.0%% without • Yield for rice: % change % change (-24 -11 -5) relative to baseline -3.1% to -0.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.1% to -2.7% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -1.2% to +1.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.2% to -2.9% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -10.9% to -7.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -17.2% to -8.6% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -8.4% to +0.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -12.8% to -6.0% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -2.8% to +2.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -13.1% to -6.1% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -18.6% to -13.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -24.0% to -14.9% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -9.2% to -2.8% with CO2 fertilisation, -25.4% to -15.6% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -8.8% to -4.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -25.4% to -15.7% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -21.9% to -16.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -29.9% to -23.2% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -18.2% to -6.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -35.3% to -23.7% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -17.3% to –5.8% with CO2

1 - 2°C

35 45 52 (-43 -25 -14)

Heating energy demands 505 to 575 (-35 to -27%) Cooling energy demands 1613 to 1749 (29 to 39%)

2 - 3°C

26 39 47 (-57 -36 -22)

Heating energy demands 395 to 449 (-49 to -42%) Cooling energy demands 1871 to 2018 (49 to 60%)

3 - 4°C

20 35 47 (-67 -42 -23)

Heating energy demands 300 to 351 (-61 to -56%) Cooling energy demands 2147 to 2305 (71 to 83%)

Page 187

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

fertilisation, -35.28 to -23.8% without

4 - 5°C

16 33 47 (-74 -45 -21)

Heating energy demands 225 to 266 (-71 to -66%) Cooling energy demands 2440 to 2609 (95 to 107%)

Page 188

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR NORTH AFRICA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 681 Medium population (B2) 675 High population (A2) 1361 min 681 (0 1361 (0 675 (0 max 5962 776%) 12007 782%) 5926 778%) Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) min 16 (0 32 (0 18 (0 16 18 32 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) min 16 (0 32 (0 18 (0 16 18 32

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger**

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 312 322 610

Baseline 2080: A1 42 B1 34 B2 113 A2 287

Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 32.6 Malaria 7.6 Dengue 0 Cardiovascular 358

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 1 A2 ( 0

1 76 169 24 54%) 4 85 184 26 57%) 1 144 331 24 54%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 144 0 46%) 0 0 143 0 44%) 0 0 290 0 48%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

A1/B1 A2 B2

max 113 509%) 225 598%) 128 622%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

max 18 9%) 35 9%) 19 9%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 89 169 302 ( 28 54 97%) B2 101 176 313 ( 31 55 97%) A2 170 330 595 ( 28 54 98%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 2 148 1 47%) 0 2 149 1 46%) 0 4 300 1 49%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

5709 (739 11499 (745 5675 (741

7074 939%) 14166 941%) 7014 939%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

102 (520 203 (530 115 (550

166 909%) 326 914%) 180 914%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

17 (6 34 (6 19 (6

19 18%) 38 18%) 21 19%)

B1 23 ( 67%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 8 ( 23%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 89 (78%) A2 200 ( 70%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 155 208 305 ( 50 67 98%) B2 164 216 315 ( 51 67 98%) A2 296 406 599 ( 49 67 98%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 2 150 1 48%) 0 2 151 1 47%) 0 4 303 1 50%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

6214 (813 12515 (820 6178 (815

12981 1807%) 25641 1784%) 12963 1820%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

125 (660 247 (667 141 (693

3251 19666%) 6275 19405%) 3532 19840%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

18 (12 36 (12 20 (12

373 2167%) 719 2136%) 405 2188%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 -8 (-7%) A2 -2 ( -1%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 154 218 306 ( 49 70 98%) B2 162 227 315 ( 50 71 98%) A2 294 426 599 ( 48 70 98%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 3 148 1 47%) 0 3 150 1 46%) 0 5 301 1 49%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

7554 (1010 15101 (1010 7566 (1021

16361 2304%) 32166 2264%) 17716 2524%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

704 (4180 1389 (4217 788 (4347

16226 98561%) 31918 99114%) 17578 99127%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

80 1826 (388 11003%) 158 3592 (392 11065%) 90 1980 (407 11078%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 157 ( 369%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 21 ( 49%)

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 154 222 306 ( 49 71 98%) B2 162 230 319 ( 50 71 99%) A2 294 426 603 ( 48 70 99%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 5 149 2 48%) 1 5 150 2 47%) 1 8 301 1 49%)

** These numbers are for all of Africa.

Page 189

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) • 0 - 1°C Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.03 Pg C • 0.08-0.09 Pg C (with CO2) • 0.04-0.05 Pg C(without CO2) • PL, net 2.94% increase with CO2 • PL, net 2.94% increase without CO2 • PL. net 1.47% decrease with CO2 • PL net 1.47-2.94% decrease without CO2 • PL net 1.47% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0- 1.47% decrease without CO2

1 - 2°C

• 8 – 12% of 277 medium/large mammals from 28 families in 141 African national parks critically endangered or extinct; further 22 – 25% endangered (Thuiller 2006a)

• 0.06-0.11 PgC (with CO2) • 0-0.01 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 5.88-7.35% increase with CO2 • PL net 2.94-4.41% increase without CO2

• PL net 2.94-4.41% decrease with CO2 • PL net 2.94-4.41% decrease without CO2

• PL net 1.47-2.94% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0% change without CO2

2 - 3°C

• Cloud forest regions lose hundreds of metres of elevational extent, potential extinctions (Still 1999)

• -0.01 to 0.09 PgC (with CO2) • -0.02 to -0.05 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 7.35-8.82% increase (with CO2) • PL net 4.41-5.58% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 5.88-7.35% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 4.41-8.82% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 0-2.94% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0-4.41% increase (without CO2)

3 - 4°C

• 30 – 40% of 277 mammals in 141 African parks critically endangered/extinct; 15 – 20% endangered (Thuiller 2006a)

• -0.4 to 0 PgC (with CO2) • -0.08 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 7.35-8.82% increase (with CO2) • PL net 4.41-5.88% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 7.35% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 10.29-11.77% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 0-1.47% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 5.88% increase (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• -0.07 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • -0.09 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 7.35% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 5.88% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 8.82% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 11.77% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 1.47% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 5.88% increase (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 190

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR NORTH AMERICA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 2605 to 2615 Cooling energy demands 600 to 602 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 2342 to 2482 % change -10 to -5% Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 694 to 799 % change 16 to 33%

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

4327 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -0.9% min / med / max to +0.8% with CO2 fertilisation, -0.9% to absolute change 4239 4345 4423 -0.2% without • Yield for rice: % change % change (-2 0 2) relative to baseline 1.0% to +2.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -2.0% to +0.6% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +1.5 to +5.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -1.6% to +1.2% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -3.4% to +0.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -5.4% to -2.6% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -3.1% to +2.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -11.4% to -5.0% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +1.3 to +6.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -9.7% to -3.4% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -1.5% to 0% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.5% to -4.0% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -2.2% to +1.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -16.0% to -8.3% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +0.4% to +5.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -17.2% to -7.1% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -3.6% to -2.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.6% to -10.2% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline +1.0% to +1.8% with CO2 fertilisation, -16.0 to -15.2% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +1.7% to +6.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -16.3% to

1 - 2°C

4100 4362 4490 (-5 1 4)

Heating energy demands 2103 to 2230 -19 to -15% Cooling energy demands 901 to 1016 50 to 69%

2 - 3°C

3960 4320 4528 (-9 0 5)

Heating energy demands 1881 to 2000 -28 to -24% Cooling energy demands 1129 to 1253 88 to 108%

3 - 4°C

3770 4240 4531 (-13 -2 5)

Heating energy demands 1676 to 1787 -36 to -32% Cooling energy demands 1374 to 1506 129 to 150%

Page 191

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

-11.7% without

4 - 5°C

3595 4091 4513 (-17 -5 4)

Heating energy demands 1485 to 1588 -43 to -39% Cooling energy demands 1634 to 1774 172 to 195%

Page 192

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR NORTH AMERICA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 1 26 5%) 1 20 5%) 6 33 5%) A1/B1 A2 B2 min 21 (0 26 (0 17 (0 21 17 26 max 30 45%) 38 45%) 25 45%) Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1/B1 A2 B2 min 21 (0 26 (0 17 (0 21 17 26 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) A1/B1 A2 B2 min 21 (0 26 (0 17 (0 21 17 26

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 486 395 608

Baseline 2080: A1 B1 B2 A2

0 0 0 0

Current disease burdens in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 1.7 Malaria 0 Dengue 0 Cardiovascular 999.4

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 0 ( 0 3 B2 0 ( 0 1 A2 0 ( 0 4

16 93 19%) 6 57 14%) 23 131 22%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 0 0 0 1

max 30 45%) 38 45%) 25 45%)

max 22 4%) 27 4%) 18 4%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 24 81 106 ( 5 17 22%) B2 17 60 84 ( 4 15 21%) A2 33 120 173 ( 5 20 28%)

A1/B1 0 7 27 ( 0 1 6%) B2 0 5 20 ( 0 1 5%) A2 3 26 34 ( 0 4 6%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

21 (3 27 (3 18 (3

48 130%) 60 130%) 39 130%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

21 (3 27 (3 18 (3

48 130%) 60 130%) 39 130%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

21 (3 27 (3 18 (3

23 11%) 29 12%) 19 11%)

B1 0 (0%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 0 (0%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 ( 9 B2 ( 7 A2 ( 15

46 95 136 20 28%) 26 71 86 18 22%) 93 141 173 23 28%)

A1/B1 0 7 27 ( 0 1 6%) B2 0 6 20 ( 0 1 5%) A2 8 26 34 ( 1 4 6%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

39 (88 49 (88 32 (87

476 2192%) 598 2194%) 391 2188%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

39 (88 49 (88 32 (87

476 2192%) 598 2194%) 291 2188%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

22 (5 27 (5 18 (5

52 152%) 66 152%) 43 151%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (0%) A2 0 ( 0%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (0%) A2 0 ( 0%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 67 112 139 ( 14 23 28%) B2 49 73 110 ( 12 19 28%) A2 109 160 207 ( 18 26 34%)

A1/B1 0 26 27 ( 0 5 6%) B2 0 20 22 ( 0 5 6%) A2 11 33 34 ( 2 5 6%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

168 (709 211 (710 138 (707

2322 11080%) 2915 11080%) 1904 11052%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

168 (709 211 (710 138 (707

2322 11080%) 2915 11080%) 1904 11052%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

37 (76 46 (76 30 (76

252 1115%) 317 1115%) 207 1112%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 0 (0%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 0 ( 0%)

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 85 128 184 ( 17 26 38%) B2 49 84 113 ( 12 21 29%) A2 109 168 247 ( 18 28 41%)

A1/B1 0 26 27 ( 0 5 6%) B2 0 20 22 ( 0 5 6%) A2 18 33 60 ( 3 5 10%)

Page 193

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) • 8% loss freshwater fish habitat, 15% loss in Rocky Mountains, 9% loss of salmon (Preston 2006) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.16 Pg C • 0.26-0.43 Pg C(with CO2) • 0.09-0.25 Pg C(without CO2) • PL net 0.43% increase or decrease with CO2 • PL net 0.43% increase decrease without CO2 • PL. net 0.85-1.7% increase with CO2 • PL net 0.43-0.85% increase without CO2 • PL net 0.85 to 2.13% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0.43 to 1.28% decrease without CO2

0 - 1°C

• 1 - 2°C •

• •

16% freshwater fish habitat loss, 28% loss in Rocky Mtns, 18% loss salmon (Preston 2006) 60% N American wood warblers ranges contract, whilst only 8% expand, 4 to 13 (34%) reach “vulnerable” status (Price 2005) New England maples at risk impacting tourism (ECF 2004) 20 – 70% loss (average 44%) bird habitat at 4 major coastal sites (Galbraith 2002) • Loss of 9 – 62% mammal species from mountainous areas of Great Basin (McDonald 1992)

• 0.26-0.63 PgC (with CO2) • -0.01-0.22 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0.43 to 1.28% increase with CO2 • PL net 1.7% increase with • PL net 2.13 – 2.98% decrease CO2 with CO2 • PL net 0 to 0.85% increase without CO2 • PL net 0.43 to 2.13% increase • PL net -0.85 to 2.98% without CO2 decrease without CO2

2 - 3°C

• Large loss migratory bird habitat (Nicholls 1999; Najjar 2000) • 50% loss world’s most productive duck habitat in prairie pothole region (Soreson 1998; Johnson 2005)

• 0.32 to 0.84 PgC (with CO2) • 0.3 to 0.33 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 1.7-2.98% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0 – 0.85% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 0-2.13% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-2.55% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 2.98-4.68% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0.85-3.4% decrease (without CO2)

• 3 - 4°C •

Extinctions of endemics such • 0.29 to 0.92 PgC (with CO2) as Hawaiian honeycreepers • -0.4 to 0.23 PgC (without (bird) (Benning 2002) CO2) Parts of the USA lose 30 – 57% neotropical migratory bird species richness (Price 2005) • 0.97 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • 0.22 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 1.28-3.4% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.43% decrease to 0.85% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 0.85-1.7% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.85-1.7% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 2.98-4.26% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.28-1.7% decrease (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• 79% loss at 4 key bird sites (Galbraith 2002)

• PL net 3.83% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0.85% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 2.13% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 2.13% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 5.96% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 2.98% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 194

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR RUSSIA AND CENTRAL ASIA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 4626 to 4664 Cooling energy demands 160 to 163

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

Baseline (for comparison)

3166 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -8.9% min / med / max to -4.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.9% to absolute change 3186 3272 3513 -5.9% without • Yield for rice: % change % change (1 3 11) relative to baseline -7.9% to -3.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.9% to -5.9% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -5.9% to -1.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.9% to -5.9% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -12.5% to -8.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -14.4% to -9.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -8.8% to -1.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.6% to -9.3% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -7.5% to -3.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.6% to -9.3% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -13.7% to -10.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -20.7% to -14.0% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -5.7% to -3.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -20.7% to -14.0% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -4.7% to -0.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -20.7% to -14.0% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -15.1% to -12.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -23.1% to -19.0% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -6.1% to -2.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -23.1% to -19.0% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -5.1%

Heating energy demands absolute HDD 4229 to 4461 % change -9 to -4% Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 215 to 285 % change 34 to 75%

1 - 2°C

3194 3440 3778 (1 9 19)

Heating energy demands 3866 to 4079 -16 to -13% Cooling energy demands 352 to 438 120 to 169%

2 - 3°C

3169 3523 3887 (0 11 23)

Heating energy demands 3525 to 3727 -24 to -20% Cooling energy demands 517 to 615 223 to 279%

3 - 4°C

3077 3563 3849 (-3 13 22)

Heating energy demands 3203 to 3393 -31 to -27% Cooling energy demands 702 to 810 338 to 400%

Page 195

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

to -1.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -23.1% to -19.0% without

4 - 5°C

2954 3562 3743 (-7 13 18)

Heating energy demands 2895 to 3077 -37 to -34% Cooling energy demands 903 to 1020 464 to 530%

Page 196

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR RUSSIA AND CENTRAL ASIA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 7 Medium population (B2) 7 High population (A2) 14 0 35 13%) 0 35 13%) 0 101 20%) A1/B1 A2 B2 min 7 (0 14 (0 7 (0 max 8 5%) 15 5%) 8 5%) Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 7 Medium population (B2) 7 High population (A2) 14 A1/B1 A2 B2 min 7 (0 14 (0 7 (0 max 8 5%) 15 5%) 7 5%) Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 7 Medium population (B2) 7 High population (A2) 14 A1/B1 A2 B2 min 7 (0 14 (0 7 (0 max 8 5%) 15 5%) 8 5%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1/B1 A2 B2 7 (3 14 (3 8 (3 8 9%) 15 9%) 8 9%) A1/B1 A2 B2 7 (3 14 (3 8 (3 8 9%) 15 9%) 8 9%) A1/B1 A2 B2 7 (3 14 (3 8 (3 8 9%) 15 9%) 8 9%) B1 0 (0%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 0 (0%)

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 265 269 509

Baseline 2080: A1 B1 B2 A2

0 0 0 0

Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 6.8 Malaria 1 Dengue 0 Cardiovascular 2407.8

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 0 4 11 ( 0 1 4%) B2 1 10 24 ( 0 4 9%) A2 8 40 94 ( 1 8 19%)

A1/B1 0 ( 0 0 B2 0 ( 0 0 A2 0 ( 0 0

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 5 17 48 ( 2 6 18%) B2 10 25 53 ( 4 9 20%) A2 47 131 191 ( 9 26 37%)

A1/B1 0 ( 0 0 B2 0 ( 0 0 A2 0 ( 0 1

0 38 14%) 0 38 14%) 5 112 22%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 14 25 53 ( 5 9 20%) B2 17 30 60 ( 6 11 22%) A2 98 163 228 ( 19 32 45%)

A1/B1 0 0 6 ( 0 0 2%) B2 0 1 6 ( 0 0 2%) A2 0 5 113 ( 0 1 22%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

8 (6 15 (6 8 (6

77 961%) 147 961%) 77 961%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

8 (6 15 (6 8 (6

77 961%) 147 961%) 77 961%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

8 (6 15 (6 8 (6

8 16%) 16 16%) 8 16%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (0%) A2 0 ( 0%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 0 (0%) A2 0 ( 0%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 ( 5 B2 ( 9 A2 ( 19

14 32 60 12 22%) 25 36 65 13 24%) 99 194 248 38 49%)

A1/B1 0 0 6 ( 0 0 2%) B2 0 1 6 ( 0 0 2%) A2 0 3 113 ( 0 1 22%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

8 (11 15 (11 8 (11

82 1025%) 156 1025%) 82 1025%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

8 (11 15 (11 8 (11

82 1025%) 156 1025%) 82 1025%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

8 (11 15 (11 8 (11

9 22%) 17 22%) 9 22%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 0 (0%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 0 ( 0%)

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 25 43 76 ( 9 16 29%) B2 34 59 83 ( 12 22 31%) A2 97 224 316 ( 19 44 62%)

A1/B1 0 0 7 ( 0 0 2%) B2 0 1 7 ( 0 0 3%) A2 0 1 113 ( 0 0 22%)

Page 197

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.03 Pg C • 0.03-0.15 Pg C(with CO2) • -0.05 to 0.06 Pg C(without CO2) • PL net 0-0.35% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0-0.35% decrease (without CO2) • PL net 0.35-0.7% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-0.7% increase (without CO2) • PL net 0.35 to 0.7% decrease with CO2 • PL net 0 to 0.35% decrease without CO2

0 - 1°C

1 - 2°C

• 0.22-0.37 PgC (with CO2) • 0.05-0.12 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0.7% increase or decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0.35% increase to 1.06% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 0.7% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.7% increase or decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 0 to 1.41% decrease with CO2 • PL net 1.06% decrease to 1.76% increase without CO2

2 - 3°C

• 0.35-0.83 PgC (with CO2) • 0.14 – 0.31 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0-1.76% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0 -1.76% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 0.7-2.11% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.35- 1.06% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 1.06 to 3.87% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0.7 to 2.82% decrease (without CO2)

3 - 4°C

• 0.4 -1.03 PgC (with CO2) • 0.16-0.49 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0.7% decrease to 1.76% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.7% decrease to 1.76% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 2.11-2.47% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.06% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 1.41 to 4.23% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0.35 to 2.82% decrease (without CO2)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 198

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH AMERICA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 495 to 500 Cooling energy demands 1464 to 1468 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 397 to 449 % change -20 to -10% Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 1604 to 1758 % change 10 to 20%

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

12463 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -3.6% min / med / max to -1.5% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.1% to -2.5% absolute change 10639 12269 12457 without • Yield for rice: % change % change (-15 -2 0) relative to baseline -6.7% to -1.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.7% to -3.2% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -3.4% to +2.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -6.4% to -1.4% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -7.3% to -3.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -9.3% to -5.8% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -6.2% to -1.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -11.6% to -7.8% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -3.6% to 3.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.1% to -5.3% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -5.9% to -4.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -12.9% to -7.7% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -2.9% to 1.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.9% to -12.8% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline +0.7% to +5.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -13.2% to -9.9% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -6.3% to -6.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -14.3% to -13.1% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -3.6% to -0.5% with CO2 fertilisation, -20.6% to -17.5% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -0.2% to +1.3% with CO2

1 - 2°C

9036 12105 12409 (-27 -3 0)

Heating energy demands 317 to 360 -36 to -28% Cooling energy demands 1901 to 2060 30 to 40%

2 - 3°C

7717 12019 12584 (-38 -4 1)

Heating energy demands 252 to 287 -49 to -43% Cooling energy demands 2212 to 2380 51 to 62%

3 - 4°C

6658 11817 12544 (-47 -5 1)

Heating energy demands 199 to 228 -60 to -55% Cooling energy demands 2538 to 2713 73 to 85%

Page 199

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

fertilisation, -18.2% to -16.7% without

4 - 5°C

5898 11652 12706 (-53 -7 2)

Heating energy demands 158 to 181 -68 to -64% Cooling energy demands 2876 to 3057 96 to 108%

Page 200

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH AMERICA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 51 Medium population (B2) 90 High population (A2) 109 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 9 Medium population (B2) 11 High population (A2) 19 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 9 Medium population (B2) 11 High population (A2) 19

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger**

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2 High population (A2) 463 578 1016

Baseline 2080: A1 9 B1 7 B2 16 A2 90

Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 34.1 Malaria 1.1 Dengue 0.5 Cardiovascular 698.4 • 0.2C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 258% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004) • 0.7C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 276% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004) • 1.0C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 364% in C/S America (McMichael et al 2004)

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 1 1 1 ( 0 0 0%) B2 1 1 35 ( 0 0 6%) A2 1 34 147 ( 0 3 14%)

A1/B1 0 0 2 ( 0 0 0%) B2 0 0 2 ( 0 0 0%) A2 0 0 107 ( 0 0 11%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 51 (0 109 (0 90 (0

max 155 205%) 333 206%) 219 144%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 9 (0 19 (0 11 (0

max 21 129%) 44 129%) 26 126%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 9 (0 19 (0 11 (0

max 9 5%) 20 5%) 12 5%)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 1 1 48 ( 0 0 10%) B2 1 16 53 ( 0 3 9%) A2 40 144 171 ( 4 14 17%)

A1/B1 0 0 2 ( 0 0 0%) B2 0 0 2 ( 0 0 0%) A2 0 4 107 ( 0 0 11%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1/B1 A2 B2 53 (5 115 (5 94 (5 1208 2285%) 2619 2304%) 1505 1577%) A1/B1 A2 B2 9 (3 20 (4 12 (3 143 1489%) 309 1500%) 174 1444%) A1/B1 A2 B2 9 (3 20 (4 12 (3 22 150%) 49 151%) 28 145%) B1 5 ( 72%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 2 (26%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 1 13 48 ( 0 3 10%) B2 16 50 70 ( 3 9 12%) A2 72 152 272 ( 7 15 27%)

A1/B1 0 0 2 ( 0 0 0%) B2 0 0 2 ( 0 0 0%) A2 0 15 109 ( 0 1 11%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

256 (405 552 (406 343 (283

2817 5464%) 6080 5480%) 3739 4068%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

32 (255 69 (255 39 (249

2066 22912%) 4489 23103%) 2551 22483%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

10 (7 21 (7 12 (7

229 2446%) 497 2467%) 282 2396%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 15 (99%) A2 85 ( 95%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 -1 (-6%) A2 -4 ( -5%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 16 ( 3 7 B2 20 ( 3 8 A2 125 ( 12 20

34 48 10%) 46 107 19%) 205 227 22%)

A1/B1 0 0 2 ( 0 0 0%) B2 0 0 2 ( 0 0 0%) A2 0 25 135 ( 0 2 13%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

1898 (3649 4104 (3666 2473 (2657

3533 6877%) 7630 6903%) 4586 5012%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

216 (2310 68 (2321 267 (2261

2974 33032%) 6424 33106%) 3648 32193%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

29 (223 63 (224 36 (217

323 3502%) 698 3510%) 396 3408%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 27 (294 %) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 1 ( 13%)

Page 201

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 16 ( 3 8 B2 21 ( 4 7 A2 181 ( 18 23

35 59 13%) 38 107 19%) 232 299 29%)

A1/B1 0 0 4 ( 0 0 1%) B2 0 1 5 ( 0 0 1%) A2 0 50 143 ( 0 5 14%)

** These numbers are for all of Latin America

Page 202

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.14 Pg C • 0.64-1.17 Pg C(with CO2) • -0.12 to 0.34 Pg C(without CO2) • PL net 1.22-1.83% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.22% increase (without CO2) • PL. net 0.61-1.22% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0.61% decrease (without CO2) • PL net 0.61% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0.61% decrease (without CO2)

0 - 1°C

• 1 - 2°C

Amazon collapse – huge loss • Extinction 48 – 57% Cerrado of biodiversity (Cox 2004) plants (Thomas 2004)

• 0.68-1.48 PgC (with CO2) • -0.42 to -0.27 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 3.66-4.88% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.22-1.83% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 3.05-4.27% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.22% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 0.61% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0-0.61% decrease (without CO2)

2 - 3°C

• Extinction of plants (4 – 100%) as Amazon dries (Thomas 2004)

• -0.48 to 0.81 PgC (with CO2) • -1.56 to -0.5 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 5.46-6.71% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.61-1.22% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 4.88 to 6.71% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.22-2.44% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 0.61% decrease to 1.22% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.61-1.83% increase (without CO2)

3 - 4°C

• -1.29 to 0.04 PgC (with CO2) • PL net 6.1% increase (with CO2) • -2.1 to -1.6 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 0 - 1.83% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 6.1-6.71% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.83 to 3.66% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 0-0.61% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.83% increase (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• -2.48 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • -3.53 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 5.49% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 4.27% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net -6.71% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 3.05% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 1.22% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 7.32% increase (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 203

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH AND EAST AFRICA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 183 to 217 Cooling energy demands 1403 to 1512 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 116 to 176 % change -37 to -20% Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 1551 to 1831 % change 10 to 21%

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

2601 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -4.8% min / med / max to -2.5% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.8% to absolute change 2397 2574 2723 -3.5% without • Yield for rice: % change % change (-8 -1 5) relative to baseline 2.8% to -0.8% with CO2 fertilisation, -3.8% to -2.8% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -0.6% to +1.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -3.6% to -2.6% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -9.7% to -6.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -11.7% to -7.6% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline 7.0% to -0.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -13.6% to -6.8% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -3.2% to +1.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -13.8% to -6.8%% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -15.0% to -11.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -22.0% to -13.7% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -6.6% to -3.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -24.0% to -16.0% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -6.4% to -5.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -24.4% to -16.3% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -20.8% to -14.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -28.8% to -21.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -15.7% to -5.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -32.7% to -22.6% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -15.3% to -4.9% with CO2

1 - 2°C

2215 2504 2879 (-15 -4 11)

Heating energy demands 72 to 113 -61 to -50% Cooling energy demands 1873 to 2163 32 to 44%

2 - 3°C

2057 2488 3015 (-21 -4 16)

Heating energy demands 43 to 71 -76 to -69% Cooling energy demands 2212 to 2520 55 to 67%

3 - 4°C

1930 2413 3111 (-26 -7 20)

Heating energy demands 26 to 43 -86 to -82% Cooling energy demands 2567 to 2884 79 to 92%

Page 204

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

fertilisation, -33.3% to -22.9% without

4 - 5°C

1826 2401 3185 (-30 -8 22)

Heating energy demands 15 to 26 -92 to -89% Cooling energy demands 2934 to 3257 104 to 117%

Page 205

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH AND EAST AFRICA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) min 1404 (0 1884 (0 2811 (0 1404 2811 1884 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 19 Medium population (B2) 38 High population (A2) 201 min 19 (0 201 (0 38 (0 max 158 744%) 693 245%) 228 493%) Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) min 19 (0 25 (0 36 (0 19 36 25

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger**

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 691 1074 967

Baseline 2080: A1 42 B1 34 B2 113 A2 287

Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 344.6 Malaria 292.8 Dengue 0.1 Cardiovascular 546.9

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 ( 1 B2 ( 1 A2 ( 1

4 52 192 8 28%) 9 220 444 20 41%) 5 160 325 17 34%)

A1/B1 0 ( 0 7 B2 0 ( 0 8 A2 2 ( 0 10

48 229 33%) 89 473 44%) 93 416 43%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

max 3041 117%) 4112 118%) 5095 81%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

A1/B1 A2 B2

max 32 69%) 75 199%) 54 49%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080:

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 21 68 231 ( 3 10 33%) B2 45 277 496 ( 4 26 46%) A2 13 194 403 ( 1 20 42%)

A1/B1 24 93 260 ( 3 13 38%) B2 39 178 522 ( 4 17 49%) A2 30 154 456 ( 3 16 47%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

2016 (44 2681 (42 3695 (31

15608 1011%) 21094 1020%) 30009 968%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

42 (127 286 (43 71 (84

420 2148%) 2799 1295%) 693 1704%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

19 (2 32 (26 37 (2

46 145%) 301 1102%) 76 109%)

B1 23 ( 67%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 8 ( 23%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 89 (78%) A2 200 ( 70%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 34 73 308 ( 5 10 44%) B2 52 254 529 ( 5 24 49%) A2 15 172 432 ( 2 18 45%)

A1/B1 33 95 260 ( 5 14 38%) B2 50 227 522 ( 5 21 49%) A2 44 214 456 ( 5 22 47%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

4066 (190 5543 (194 6494 (131

16466 1073%) 22264 1082%) 31540 1022%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

273 (1361 1100 (448 385 (901

3234 17193%) 6438 109%) 4742 12244%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

44 (136 118 (372 71 (96

349 1769%) 695 2672%) 513 1310%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 -8 (-7%) A2 -2 ( -1%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 36 74 320 ( 5 11 46%) B2 57 281 574 ( 5 26 53%) A2 21 191 429 ( 2 20 44%)

A1/B1 43 95 260 ( 6 14 38%) B2 59 290 535 ( 6 27 50%) A2 62 265 456 ( 6 27 47%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

15822 (1027 21386 (1035 30390 (981

17331 1134%) 23441 1144%) 33088 1077%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

1600 (8455 4234 (2011 2297 (5879

5139 27383%) 23437 11584%) 8081 20936%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

174 (830 458 (1725 250 (587

551 2848%) 2518 9937%) 866 2279%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 157 ( 369%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 21 ( 49%)

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 ( 5 B2 ( 5 A2 ( 2

36 64 321 9 46%) 58 204 570 19 53%) 21 148 526 15 54%)

A1/B1 51 95 260 ( 7 14 38%) B2 72 327 535 ( 7 30 50%) A2 75 269 456 ( 8 28 47%)

** These numbers are for all of Africa

Page 206

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) • Range losses begin for animal species in S Africa (Rutherford 2000) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses • Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.1 Pg C • 0.3-0.78 Pg C(with CO2) • -0.15 to 0.26 Pg C(without CO2) • PL, net 0% change with CO2 • PL, net 0% change without CO2 • PL. net 1.75% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2) • PL net 1.75% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

0 - 1°C

• 1 - 2°C

Succulent Karoo reduced to • 8 – 12% of 277 medium/large 20% of area, threatening mammals from 28 families in 2800 plants with extinction; 5 141 African national parks S African parks lose > 40% critically endangered or plant species (Rutherford extinct; further 22 – 25% 2000; Hannah 2002) endangered (Thuiller 2006a) • Extinctions (100% potential range loss) 10% endemics in hotspot for plant biodiversity; 51 – 65% loss of Fynbos (Midgely 2002) • Fish populations decline, wetland ecosystems dry and disappear (ECF 2004) • Extinction of 21 – 40% of Proteaceae (based on range loss and species area assumptions) (Thomas 2004)

• 0.53-1.01 PgC (with CO2) • -0.18 to -0.07 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 1.75% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-0.88% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 0-0.88% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0.88-1.75% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 1.75-2.63% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0 - 0.88% increase (without CO2)

2 - 3°C

• Cloud forest regions lose hundreds of metres of elevational extent, potential extinctions (Still 1999)

• 66% animals lost from Kruger; • 0.2 to 1.34 PgC (with CO2) 29 endangered species lose • -0.37 to -0.14 PgC (without >50% range; 4 species locally CO2) extinct (Erasmus 2002) • Extinction mammals (24 – 59%), birds (28 – 40%), butterflies (13 – 70%), other invertebrates (18 – 80%), reptiles (21 – 45%) (Thomas 2004) • 3 – 9 species endemic plants extinct/critically endangered; further 15 – 20 endangered (Thuiller 2006b) • 0.09 to 1.3 PgC (with CO2) • -0.31 to -0.69 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 2.63-5.26% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-0.88% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 1.75-3.51% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0-3.51% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 1.75-2.63% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0 -1.75% increase (without CO2)

3 - 4°C

• PL net 3.51 to 6.14% increase • PL net 2.63-3.51% decrease (with CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0.88-1.75% decrease CO2) (without CO2)

• PL net 0.88-2.63% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0.88-1.75% increase (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• 1.24 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • -0.79 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 8.77% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0.88% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 7.9% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 3.5% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 0.88% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 2.63% increase (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 207

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH ASIA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -6.5% to -4.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -6.5% to -4.9% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -3.0% to -1.5% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.4% to -3.2% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -4.6% to 0.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -8.6% to -3.3% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -10.1% to -8.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -12.3% to -9.4% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -3.5% to +3.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.2% to -6.3% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -1.3% to +2.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.1% to -6.3% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -12.7% to -10.1% with CO2 fertilisation, -17.5% to -14.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -1.9% to +2.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -14.4% to -10.2% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -0.4% to +4.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -14.7% to -10.1% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -12.1% to -11.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -20.1% to -18.9% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -1.0% to +1.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -18.0% to -15.8% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -0.7% to -0.5% with CO2 Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 296 to 305 Cooling energy demands 2684 to 2691 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 243 to 277 % change -18 to -9% Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 2833 to 2998 % change 6 to 11%

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

6375 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

min / med / max absolute change 6288 6601 6839 % change (-1 4 7)

1 - 2°C

6196 6920 7209 (-3 9 13)

Heating energy demands 201 to 229 -32 to -25% Cooling energy demands 3143 to 3311 17 to 23%

2 - 3°C

6001 7124 7515 (-13 12 18)

Heating energy demands 168 to 192 -43 to -38% Cooling energy demands 3461 to 3635 29 to 35%

3 - 4°C

5842 7326 7803 (-8 15 22)

Heating energy demands 143 to 162 -52 to -48% Cooling energy demands 3790 to 3966 41 to 47%

Page 208

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

fertilisation, -18.7% to -18.5% without

4 - 5°C

5633 7508 8074 (-12 18 27)

Heating energy demands 122 to 138 -59 to -55% Cooling energy demands 4124 to 4302 54 to 60%

Page 209

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR SOUTH ASIA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 7834 Medium population (B2) 10456 High population (A2) 13339 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 100 Medium population (B2) 166 High population (A2) 7015 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 100 133 817

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 2404 3215 4058

Baseline 2080: A1 B1 B2 A2

21 22 33 85

Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 759.6 Malaria 22.9 Dengue 12.2 Cardiovascular 4312.4

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 26 65 123 ( 1 3 5%) B2 34 87 175 ( 1 3 5%) A2 60 201 376 ( 1 5 9%)

A1/B1 0 1004 1594 ( 0 42 66%) B2 0 1330 2285 ( 0 41 71%) A2 40 1601 2756 ( 1 39 68%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 7834 (0 13339 (0 10456 (0

max 13853 77%) 24235 82%) 19556 87%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 100 (0 7015 (0 166 (0

max 189 88%) 7957 13%) 299 80%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 100 (0 817 (0 133 (0

max 104 4%) 911 12%) 139 4%)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 35 ( 1 5 B2 48 ( 1 6 A2 276 ( 7 8

126 157 7%) 185 222 7%) 316 387 10%)

A1/B1 961 1397 1598 ( 40 58 66%) B2 1361 1981 2301 ( 42 62 72%) A2 1579 2350 2781 ( 39 58 69%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1/B1 A2 B2 8076 (3 13759 (3 10783 (3 20835 166%) 36881 176%) 30086 188%) A1/B1 A2 B2 103 (3 7186 (2 170 (3 320 219%) 9010 28%) 493 197%) A1/B1 A2 B2 103 (3 835 (2 137 (3 112 12%) 1016 24%) 150 12%) B1 2 (7%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 1 (2%) • 2.3C 4.1 billion people (44%) at risk of dengue (HadCM2) (Hales et al. 2002)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 39 143 264 ( 2 6 11%) B2 48 188 356 ( 1 6 11%) A2 169 327 812 ( 4 8 20%)

A1/B1 1045 1432 1603 ( 43 60 67%) B2 1473 2037 2300 ( 46 63 72%) A2 1723 2415 2790 ( 42 60 69%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

19631 (151 34711 (160 28329 (171

83275 963%) 142848 971%) 111542 967%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

274 (174 8728 (24 428 (157

11239 11105%) 99946 1325%) 15764 9386%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

106 (5 987 (21 141 (5

1244 1140%) 11282 1282%) 1745 1208%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 9 (27%) A2 44 ( 52%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 -2 (-6%) A2 -2 ( -3%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 39 152 282 ( 2 6 12%) B2 48 199 409 ( 1 6 13%) A2 289 355 880 ( 7 9 22%)

A1/B1 1051 1432 1603 ( 44 60 67%) B2 1482 2037 2307 ( 46 63 72%) A2 1735 2415 2790 ( 43 60 69%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

35787 (357 60575 (354 50127 (379

88846 1034%) 152672 1045%) 119088 1039%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

967 (864 12308 (75 1350 (712

13156 13016%) 107550 1433%) 18397 10970%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

167 (66 1380 (69 221 (66

1441 1337%) 12050 1376%) 2016 1411%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 8 (41%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 0 (2%)

• 3.3C 5.2 billion people (52%) exposed to dengue in 2085 (HadCM2) (Hales et al. 2002) • 3.3C 5-7 billion people exposed by 2085 (4 GCMs) (Hales et al. 2002)

Page 210

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 37 156 327 ( 2 6 14%) B2 48 205 426 ( 1 6 13%) A2 238 345 1011 ( 6 9 25%)

A1/B1 1171 1432 1603 ( 49 60 67%) B2 1633 2077 2307 ( 51 65 72%) A2 1917 2483 2790 ( 47 61 69%)

Page 211

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) • 0 - 1°C Coral reefs regionally functionally extinct (HoeghGuldberg 1999) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

-0.23 Pg C • 0.01-0.08 Pg C(with CO2) • -0.08 to -0.14 Pg C(without CO2) • PL net 2.33-3.49% increase (with CO2) • PL net 2.33% increase (without CO2) • PL net 1.16% decrease to 2.33% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.16% decrease (without CO2) • PL net 2.33 to 4.65% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.16% decrease (without CO2)

1 - 2°C

• 0.14-0.38 PgC (with CO2) • -0.08 to 0.01 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 6.98-8.14% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.16-6.98% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 2.33 to 3.49% increase (without CO2) • PL net 2.33-5.81% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 1.16-5.81% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.16% decrease to 2.33% increase (without CO2)

2 - 3°C

• Cloud forest regions lose hundreds of metres of elevational extent, potential extinctions (Still 1999)

• -0.04 to -0.22 PgC (with CO2) • 0.2 to 0.93 PgC (without CO2) • PL net 8.14-13.95% increase (with CO2) • PL net 4.65-5.81% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 3.49% decrease to 4.65% increase (with CO2) • PL net 2.33-5.81% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 4.65-18.61% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 3.49% decrease to 1.16% increase (without CO2)

• 3 - 4°C

• 0.15-1.02 PgC (with CO2) • -0.08 to 0.22 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 11.63-15.12% increase • PL net 0 to 6.98% increase (with CO2) (with CO2) • PL net 4.65-5.81% increase • PL net 1.16-3.49% decrease (without CO2) (without CO2)

• PL net 11.63-22.09% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.16-4.65% decrease (without CO2)

• 4 - 5°C

• 0.99 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • 0.07PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 17.44% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 5.81% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 4.65% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 1.16% increase (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 22.09% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 6.98% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 212

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR WEST AFRICA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 9 Cooling energy demands 2835 to 2844 Heating energy demands absolute HDD 3 to 6 % change -67 to -40% Cooling energy demands absolute CDD 3017 to 3214 % change 6 to 13%

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

3727 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -4.7% to -2.6% with CO2 min / med / max fertilisation, -5.0% to -3.6% without absolute change 3488 3662 3866 • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -3.0% % change (-6 -2 4) to -1.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.0% to -3.3% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -1.1% to +0.9% with CO2 fertilisation, -4.1% to -3.1% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -8.6% to -5.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -10.6% to -7.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -4.5% to +0.5% with CO2 fertilisation, -11.4% to -6.4% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -2.1% to 2.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -12.2% to -6.6% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -12.8% to -10.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -19.8% to -12.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -3.8% to -1.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -19.4% to -13.2% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -4.3% to -2.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -21.3% to -14.3% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -18.6% to -12.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -26.6% to -19.3% without • Yield for rice: % change relative to baseline -9.0% to -1.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -26.0% to -18.4% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -11.6% to -2.4% with CO2

1 - 2°C

3270 3584 4048 (-12 -4 9)

Heating energy demands 1 to 2 -90 to -82% Cooling energy demands 3389 to 3580 20 to 26%

2 - 3°C

3078 3525 4226 (-17 -5 13)

Heating energy demands 0 to 1 -98 to -95% Cooling energy demands 3760 to 3952 33 to 39%

3 - 4°C

2906 3475 4387 (-22 -7 18)

Heating energy demands 0 -100 to -99% Cooling energy demands 4134 to 4325 46 to 52%

Page 213

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

fertilisation, -29.6% to -20.4% without

4 - 5°C

2757 3424 4537 (-26 -8 22)

Heating energy demands 0 -100 to -100% Cooling energy demands 4508 to 4697 59 to 66%

Page 214

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR WEST AFRICA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 1030 1641 1294 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 16 146 127 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 16 25 20

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger**

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 782 1107 1012

Baseline 2080: A1 42 B1 34 B2 113 A2 287

Current disease burdens in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 446 Malaria 562.8 Dengue 0.1 Cardiovascular 527 • 0.2C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 44% in W Africa (McMichael et al 2004) • 0.7C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 48% in W Africa (McMichael et al 2004) • 1.0C Risks of death due to flooding increased by 64% in W Africa (McMichael et al 2004)

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 17 35 259 ( 2 4 33%) B2 24 51 408 ( 2 5 37%) A2 20 43 357 ( 2 4 35%)

A1/B1 0 33 129 ( 0 4 17%) B2 0 144 288 ( 0 13 26%) A2 0 50 272 ( 0 5 27%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 1030 (0 1294 (0 1642 (0

max 5375 422%) 6791 425%) 8593 423%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 16 (0 127 (0 146 (0

max 106 568%) 704 452%) 801 449%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 16 (0 20 (0 25 (0

max 19 19%) 82 313%) 94 280%)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 22 48 277 ( 3 6 35%) B2 32 84 472 ( 3 8 43%) A2 35 72 376 ( 3 7 37%)

A1/B1 0 60 136 ( 0 8 17%) B2 0 185 292 ( 0 17 26%) A2 1 78 276 ( 0 8 27%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1/B1 A2 B2 1974 (92 2574 (99 2933 (79 9365 809%) 11743 807%) 15228 828%) A1/B1 A2 B2 30 (87 226 (77 170 (17 212 1240%) 1258 887%) 1528 948%) A1/B1 A2 B2 16 (4 30 (53 26 (4 25 55%) 141 612%) 172 598%) B1 23 ( 67%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 8 ( 23%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 89 (78%) A2 200 ( 70%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 28 91 294 ( 4 12 38%) B2 60 156 518 ( 5 14 47%) A2 51 135 403 ( 5 13 40%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

1 73 136 9 17%) 1 240 309 22 28%) 1 121 279 12 28%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

8776 (752 11008 (751 1452 (768

14045 1263%) 17568 1257%) 21909 1235%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

182 2169 (1049 13576%) 1181 12234 (827 9503%) 1432 14811 (882 10060%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

21 (34 133 (572 162 (557

240 1412%) 1370 6812%) 1659 6610%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 -8 (-7%) A2 -2 ( -1%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 ( 5 B2 ( 5 A2 ( 5

41 58 302 7 39%) 60 119 518 11 47%) 51 114 413 11 41%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

1 79 136 10 17%) 1 271 351 24 32%) 1 172 279 17 28%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

10024 (873 12573 (871 16151 (884

15228 1378%) 19048 1372%) 23741 1346%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

458 (2791 2025 (1489 1881 (1190

3216 20183%) 13933 10837%) 17179 11684%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

51 (222 226 (1041 210 (751

354 Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: 2132%) A1 157 1547 ( 369%) 7707%) 1909 With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: 7619%) A1 21 ( 49%)

Page 215

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 ( 5 B2 ( 5 A2 ( 5

41 58 323 7 41%) 60 148 565 13 51%) 51 127 461 13 46%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

1 79 186 10 24%) 3 293 376 26 34%) 2 215 344 21 34%)

** These numbers all for all of Africa

Page 216

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.18 Pg C • 0.4 to 0.53 Pg C(with CO2) • -0.03 to 0.06 Pg C(without CO2) • PL, net 0% change (with CO2) • PL, net 0-1.1% increase (with CO2) • PL, net 0% change (without CO2) • PL, net 0% change (without CO2) • PL net 0 to 1.1% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

0 - 1°C

1 - 2°C

• 8 – 12% of 277 medium/large mammals from 28 families in 141 African national parks critically endangered or extinct; further 22 – 25% endangered (Thuiller 2006a)

• 0.5 to 0.95 PgC (with CO2) • -0.1 to -0.01 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 1.1% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-1.1% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 0-1.1% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.1% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 1.1-2.2% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0-1.1% increase (without CO2)

2 - 3°C

• Cloud forest regions lose hundreds of metres of elevational extent, potential extinctions (Still 1999)

• 0.08 to 0.78 PgC (with CO2) • -0.31 to -0.16 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 2.2-4.4% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0-1.1% increase (without CO2)

• PL net 0-3.3% decrease (with • PL net 1.1% increase to 3.3% CO2) decrease (with CO2) • PL net 1.1-6.59% decrease • PL net 0-6.6% increase (without CO2) (without CO2)

3 - 4°C

• 30 – 40% of 277 mammals in 141 African parks critically endangered/extinct; 15 – 20% endangered (Thuiller 2006a)

• 0 to 0.21 PgC (with CO2) • -0.56 to -0.49 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 2.2% increase (with CO2) • PL net 1.1% increase or decresase (without CO2)

• PL net 3.3-4.4% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 3.3-5.3% decrease (without CO2)

• PL net 1.1-2.2% increase (with CO2) • PL net 2.2-6.59% increase (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• 0.07 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • -0.93 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 4.4% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 1.1% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 5.5% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 8.79% decrease (without CO2, 4C)

• 1.1% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 9.9% increase (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 217

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

INCOME/MARKET EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR WEST ASIA Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for comparison) Energy (heating and cooling requirements) Heating energy demands 632 to 649 Cooling energy demands 1887 to 1912 Heating energy demands Absolute HDD 517 to 590 % change -18 to -9% Cooling energy demands Absolute CDD 2039 to 2226 % change 8 to 17%

Change in agricultural productivity

Water supply

51 km /year

3

0 - 1°C

• Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -7.1% min / med / max to -5.0% with CO2 fertilisation, -7.1% to -5.1% absolute change 44 49 53 without • Yield for wheat: % change % change (-15 -5 2) relative to baseline -2.2% to -0.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -5.2% to -3.9% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -12.8% to -8.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -13.0% to -9.3% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -4.8% to -0.2% with CO2 fertilisation, -15.8% to -7.7% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -17.8% to -12.7% with CO2 fertilisation, -22.5% to -16.7% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -9.5% to -4.3% with CO2 fertilisation, -23.6% to -15.7% without • Yield for maize: % change relative to baseline -19.8% to -15.4% with CO2 fertilisation, -27.8% to -22.4% without • Yield for wheat: % change relative to baseline -5.0% to -13.6% with CO2 fertilisation, -31.6% to -23.0% without 38 46 52 (-26 -10 0)

1 - 2°C

Heating energy demands 420 to 483 -34 to -26% Cooling energy demands 2360 to 2550 25 to 34%

2 - 3°C

35 46 56 (-33 -10 9)

Heating energy demands 337 to 392 -47 to -40% Cooling energy demands 2695 to 2892 43 to 52%

3 - 4°C

33 45 56 (-36 -11 9)

Heating energy demands 267 to 314 -58 to -52% Cooling energy demands 3043 to 3246 61 to 71%

4 - 5°C

33 47 58 (-36 -8 12)

Heating energy demands 209 to 249 -67 to -63% Cooling energy demands 3405 to 3613 80 to 90%

Page 218

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR WEST ASIA Global Millions of people suffering an Temperature increase in water stress in Rise (relative 2080s to 1990) Millions of people suffering a decrease in water stress in 2080s Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – constant protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 76 Medium population (B2) 63 High population (A2) 188 Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – evolving protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) 3 Medium population (B2) 8 High population (A2) 176 min 3 (0 176 (0 10 (0 8 (0 max 7 137%) 963 448%) 45 359%) 37 349%) Thousands of people experiencing coastal flooding – enhanced protection in 2080s Population (thousands) experiencing coastal flooding in absence of climate change and even rural/urban growth Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) min 3 (0 24 (0 3 (0 3 (0 3 3 24

Additional millions of people at risk of hunger

Health impacts

Population (millions) living in water-stressed watersheds in 2080s in the absence of climate change Baseline (for comparison) Low population (A1/B1) Medium population (B2) High population (A2) 320 320 709

Baseline 2080: A1 B1 B2 A2

32 27 51 197

Current disease burden in terms of deaths (1000s) in 2000 Diarrhoea 38 Malaria 1.5 Dengue 0.3 Cardiovascular 170.9

0 - 1°C

A1/B1 39 89 158 ( 12 28 50%) B2 39 92 166 ( 12 29 52%) A2 79 180 356 ( 11 25 50%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 123 0 39%) 0 0 114 0 36%) 0 0 286 0 40%)

A1/B1 A2 B2

min 76 (0 188 (0 63 (0

max 390 410%) 977 420%) 318 402%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

A1 A2 B1 B2

max 3 8%) 113 378%) 7 136%) 6 125%) Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 5 (18 %) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B1 1 (4%)

1 - 2°C

A1/B1 117 157 216 ( 37 49 68%) B2 120 171 206 ( 38 53 64%) A2 240 329 489 ( 34 46 69%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 168 0 53%) 0 0 170 0 53%) 0 0 388 0 55%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 82 (7 201 (7 68 (7 806 953%) 1991 959%) 662 945%) A2 B1 B2

3 (5 188 (7 10 (6 9 (6

25 723%) 1885 974%) 98 895%) 81 877%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

3 (5 25 (6 3 (5 3 (5

4 17%) 213 802%) 12 287%) 10 262%)

2 - 3°C

A1/B1 95 147 218 ( 30 46 68%) B2 99 161 208 ( 31 50 65%) A2 192 308 492 ( 27 43 69%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 0 192 0 60%) 0 0 189 0 59%) 0 0 447 0 63%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 689 1505 (813 1868%) 1753 3434 (832 1721%) 568 1311 (796 1969%) A2 B1 B2

11 (269 1738 (890 80 (712 65 (692

243 7951%) 2392 1262%) 984 9867%) 807 9685%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

3 28 (11 817%) 200 266 (749 1029%) 11 110 (267 3541%) 9 90 (244 3249%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 20 (39%) A2 134 ( 68%)

With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: B2 -1 (-2%) A2 -5 ( -2%)

3 - 4°C

A1/B1 95 142 226 ( 30 45 71%) B2 99 156 216 ( 31 49 68%) A2 192 298 510 ( 27 42 72%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 62 202 20 63%) 0 52 199 16 62%) 0 155 468 22 66%)

A1 A1/B1 A2 B2 841 (1000 2074 (1003 695 (997 2383 3016%) 5163 2646%) 2013 3077%) A2 B1 B2

65 2369 (2070 78459%) 1949 5135 (1010 2824%) 451 2369 (4468 23893%) 367 1998 (4349 24120%)

A1 A2 B1 B2

8 (163 219 (829 51 (1588 42 (1446

266 8728%) 576 2339%) 266 8728%) 225 8251%)

Without CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 44 (138%) With CO2 Fertilisation 2080: A1 5 ( 15%)

4 - 5°C

A1/B1 95 128 217 ( 30 40 68%) B2 99 140 206 ( 31 44 64%) A2 192 271 490 ( 27 38 69%)

A1/B1 ( 0 B2 ( 0 A2 ( 0

0 116 202 36 63%) 0 99 199 31 62%) 0 283 469 40 66%)

Page 219

TYNDALL CENTRE REGIONAL IMPACTS – OUTLINE MATRIX

ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS – OUTLINE MATRIX FOR GLOBAL AND EACH UNEP REGION Global Temperature Rise (relative to 1990) Baseline (for • comparison) Proportion of biomes transformed and examples of key global/regional ecosystem losses Proportion of species extinct and examples of key iconic species lost

Carbon sequestration

Change in forest cover

Change in grassland cover

Change in desert cover

0.01 Pg C • 0-0.01 Pg C(with CO2) • 0-0.01 Pg C(without CO2) • PL net 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (with CO2) PL net 0% change (without CO2) • PL net 0% change (without • PL net 0% change (without CO2) CO2)

0 - 1°C

1 - 2°C

• 0-0.01 PgC (with CO2) • 0 to -0.01 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0% change (with CO2) • PL net 0-6% increase (with • PL net 0% change (without CO2) CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

• PL net 0-6% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

2 - 3°C

• -0.01 to 0.4 PgC (with CO2) • -0.01 to 0 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 0-3% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

• PL net 0-6% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

• PL net 0-6% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

3 - 4°C

• 0.01 to 0.05 PgC (with CO2) • 0.00 to 0.00 PgC (without CO2)

• PL net 3% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

• PL net 0-3% increase (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

• PL net 3-6% decrease (with CO2) • PL net 0% change (without CO2)

4 - 5°C

• 0.04 PgC (with CO2, 4C) • 0.0 PgC (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 3% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0% change (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 3% increase (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0% change (without CO2, 4C)

• PL net 6% decrease (with CO2, 4C) • PL net 0% change (without CO2, 4C)

Note: The global table reports calculations from the IMAGE model of the losses of biome areas, and the areas that could eventually be re-couped for that biome, given an infinitely slow rate of climate change, shown in brackets. The net changes in forest, grassland and desert are also reported in both global and regional tables, taken from Chapter 8 of this study, contributed by Peter Levy (PL) using a dynamic vegetation model, Hyland. Note that the mature ecosystems lost will be richer than the early-successional ecosystems gained, in terms of biodiversity. Therefore, the net balance of areal losses and gains may not correspond closely with the loss of biodiversity.

Page 220

The inter-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort. The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring about climate variations. In addition, he was committed to improving the quality of science education and knowledge. The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following institutions: University of East Anglia University of Manchester University of Southampton University of Sussex University of Oxford University of Newcastle The Centre is core funded by the following organisations: Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site (www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact: Communications Manager Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0) 1603 59 3901 Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk

Recent Tyndall Centre Technical Reports Tyndall Centre Technical Reports are available online at

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/tech_r eports/tech_reports.shtml

Lowe, T. (2006) Vicarious experience vs. scientific information in climate change risk perception and behaviour: a case study of undergraduate students in Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 43 Atkinson, P, (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B3- Coastal simulator and biodiversity - Modelling the change in wintering Twite Carduelis flavirostris populations in relation to changing saltmarsh area, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B3

Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and Sutherland, W.,
(2006) Towards an integrated coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B2- Coastal simulator and biodiversity models of biodiversity responses to environmental change Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B2

Ridley, J., Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and Sutherland, W., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part B1- Coastal simulator and biodiversity - Design and structure of the coastal simulator Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B1

Stansby, P., Launder B., Laurence, D., Kuang, C., and Zhou, J., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia: Part A- Coastal wave climate prediction and sandbanks for coastal protection Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42A

Lenton, T. M., Loutre, M. F, Williamson, M. S., Warren, R., Goodess, C., Swann, M., Cameron, D. R., Hankin, R., Marsh, R. and Shepherd, J. G., (2006) Climate change on the millennial
timescale, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 41 Bows, A., Anderson, K. and Upham, P. (2006) Contraction & Convergence: UK carbon emissions and the implications for UK air traffic, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 40

Page 221

Starkey R., Anderson K., (2005) Domestic Tradeable Quotas: A policy instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy use:, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 39 Pearson, S., Rees, J., Poulton, C., Dickson, M., Walkden, M., Hall, J., Nicholls, R., Mokrech, M., Koukoulas, S. and Spencer, T. (2005) Towards an integrated coastal sediment dynamics and shoreline response simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 38 Sorrell, S. (2005) The contribution of energy service contracting to a low carbon economy, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 37 Tratalos, J. A., Gill, J. A., Jones, A., Showler, D., Bateman, A., Watkinson, A., Sugden, R., and Sutherland, W. (2005) Interactions between tourism, breeding birds and climate change across a regional scale, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 36 Thomas, D., Osbahr, H., Twyman, C., Adger, W. N. and Hewitson, B., (2005) ADAPTIVE: Adaptations to climate change amongst natural resourcedependant societies in the developing world: across the Southern African climate gradient, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 35 Arnell, N. W., Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N. and Delany, K. (2005) Vulnerability to abrupt climate change in Europe, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 34 Shackley, S. and Anderson, K. et al. (2005) Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a climate conscious future, Tyndall Technical Report 33 Halliday, J., Ruddell, A., Powell, J. and Peters, M. (2005) Fuel cells: Providing heat and power in the urban environment, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 32 Haxeltine, A., Turnpenny, J., O’Riordan, T., and Warren, R (2005) The creation of a pilot phase Interactive Integrated Assessment Process for managing climate futures, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 31 Nedic, D. P., Shakoor, A. A., Strbac, G., Black, M., Watson, J., and Mitchell, C. (2005) Security assessment of futures electricity scenarios, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 30 Shepherd, J., Challenor, P., Marsh, B., Williamson, M., Yool, W., Lenton, T., Huntingford, C., Ridgwell, A and Raper, S. (2005) Planning and Prototyping a Climate Module for the Tyndall Integrated Assessment Model, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 29

Lorenzoni, I., Lowe, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) A strategic assessment of scientific and behavioural perspectives on ‘dangerous’ climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 28 Boardman, B., Killip, G., Darby S. and Sinden, G, (2005) Lower Carbon Futures: the 40% House Project, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 27 Dearing, J.A., Plater, A.J., Richmond, N., Prandle, D. and Wolf , J. (2005) Towards a high resolution cellular model for coastal simulation (CEMCOS), Tyndall Centre Technical Report 26 Timms, P., Kelly, C., and Hodgson, F., (2005) World transport scenarios project, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 25 Brown, K., Few, R., Tompkins, E. L., Tsimplis, M. and Sortti, (2005) Responding to climate change: inclusive and integrated coastal analysis, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 24 Anderson, D., Barker, T., Ekins, P., Green, K., Köhler, J., Warren, R., Agnolucci, P., Dewick, P., Foxon, T., Pan, H. and Winne, S. (2005) ETech+: Technology policy and technical change, a dynamic global and UK approach, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 23 Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N., Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and Arnold, R. (2005) Microgrids: distributed on-site generation, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 22 Shepherd, D., Jickells, T., Andrews, J., Cave, R., Ledoux, L, Turner, R., Watkinson, A., Aldridge, J. Malcolm, S, Parker, R., Young, E., Nedwell, D. (2005) Integrated modelling of an estuarine environment: an assessment of managed realignment options, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 21 Dlugolecki, A. and Mansley, M. (2005) Asset management and climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 20 Shackley, S., Bray, D. and Bleda, M., (2005) Developing discourse coalitions to incorporate stakeholder perceptions and responses within the Tyndall Integrated Assessment, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 19 Dutton, A. G., Bristow, A. L., Page, M. W., Kelly, C. E., Watson, J. and Tetteh, A. (2005) The Hydrogen energy economy: its long term role in greenhouse gas reduction, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 18 Few, R. (2005) Health and flood risk: A strategic assessment of adaptation processes and policies, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 17

Page 222

Brown, K., Boyd, E., Corbera-Elizalde, E., Adger, W. N. and Shackley, S (2004) How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? Tyndall Centre Technical Report 16 Levermore, G, Chow, D., Jones, P. and Lister, D. (2004) Accuracy of modelled extremes of temperature and climate change and its implications for the built environment in the UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 14 Jenkins, N., Strbac G. and Watson J. (2004) Connecting new and renewable energy sources to the UK electricity system, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 13 Palutikof, J. and Hanson, C. (2004) Integrated assessment of the potential for change in storm activity over Europe: Implications for insurance and forestry, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 12 Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., and Arnell, N. (2004) Business and Climate Change: Measuring and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 11 Tsimplis, S. et al (2004) Towards a vulnerability assessment for the UK coastline, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 10 Gill, J., Watkinson, A. and Côté, I (2004). Linking sea level rise, coastal biodiversity and economic activity in Caribbean island states: towards the development of a coastal island simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 9

Skinner, I., Fergusson, M., Kröger, K., Kelly, C. and Bristow, A. (2004) Critical Issues in Decarbonising Transport, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 8 Adger W. N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. and Eriksen, S. (2004) New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 7 Macmillan, S. and Köhler, J.H., (2004) Modelling energy use in the global building stock: a pilot survey to identify available data, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 6 Steemers, K. (2003) Establishing research directions in sustainable building design, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 5 Goodess, C.M. Osborn, T. J. and Hulme, M. (2003) The identification and evaluation of suitable scenario development methods for the estimation of future probabilities of extreme weather events, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 4 Köhler, J.H. (2002). Modelling technological change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 3 Gough, C., Shackley, S., Cannell, M.G.R. (2002). Evaluating the options for carbon sequestration, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 2 Warren, R. (2002). A blueprint for integrated assessment of climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 1

Page 223