It is common knowledge that climate change has a vital influence on agriculture. The research article ‘World Trade as the Adjustment Mechanism of Agriculture to Climate Change’ by Roxana Julia and Faye Duchin suggests the use of trade as a mechanism of economic adjustment to this influence. The authors of the article apply a model of the world economy that is able to reflect changes in comparative advantage. The research conducted allows the authors to state that “trade makes it possible to satisfy the world demand for agricultural goods under the changed physical conditions. However, access to food decreases in some regions of the world.” (Roxana & Duchin, 2007, p. 393) Also, the research has shown that there are areas of concern in relying on trade as a mechanism mentioned above.
The significant value of the article under consideration consists in the authors’ presenting a new methodological framework for the evaluation of a trade as the stated mechanism and its use for analysis of changes in comparative advantage in response to the impacts of climate change.
The authors have adequately found a correlation between the world trade model (WTM) and the use of climate-sensitive lands. The application of the spatial analogs approach is beneficial if compared to simpler alternatives, as “it treats agricultural land as a climate-sensitive factor of production based on plausible and documented relationships. Availability of suitable land constrains agricultural production possibilities in the WTM, with impacts on a region’s comparative advantage.” (Roxana & Duchin, 2007, p. 397)
The use of the World Trade Model with Climate-Sensitive Land (WTMCL) is carefully explained by the authors and appears to be useful for further research in the field under analysis. The accuracy of the model is sustained by the use of the General Algebraic Modeling System optimization software.
But several points raise some uncertainty: are all the assumptions made suitable for the database? Are our preliminary database and simplified assumptions sufficient enough for the prototype implementation? These are the questions we would like to get the answers to.
Also, we would like the authors to be more specific about the difference between the three climate change scenarios that they resort to, as it would sufficiently contribute to the reader’s understanding of the problem.
The fact that the current study differs from some other studies in the results achieved makes the reader seek more proof of the accuracy of the suggested framework. If we consider, for example, the work of Darwin et al. ‘World agriculture and climate change: economic adaptations,’ the results that it presents contradict to the one we get in the ‘World Trade’: with the rate of average warming agricultural prices are expected to continue to follow the downward path observed in the twentieth century. The results differ because both studies use the same biophysical assumptions but different economic modeling frameworks.
We cannot but admit the appropriateness of the main restrictions of the paper that are outlined and corresponding perspectives of further research that are proposed. Though capturing the most significant structural linkages among climate change and global agriculture as well as evaluating the role of trade as an adjustment mechanism here is professionally performed by the authors, further research that will be supported by a more detailed, well-documented database for this inquiry should become one of the main concerns for those engaged in the study of Ecological Economics as a whole and the current problem, in particular.
References
Roxana, J. & Duchin, F. (2007). World trade as the adjustment mechanism of agriculture to climate change. Climatic Change, 82, 393–409.