Keith Wiebe
International Food Policy Research Institute
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Keith Wiebe.
Environmental Research Letters | 2015
Keith Wiebe; Hermann Lotze-Campen; Ronald D. Sands; A.A. Tabeau; Dominique van der Mensbrugghe; Anne Biewald; Benjamin Leon Bodirsky; Shahnila Islam; Aikaterini Kavallari; Daniel Mason-D’Croz; Christoph Müller; Alexander Popp; Richard Robertson; Sherman Robinson; Hans van Meijl; Dirk Willenbockel
Previous studies have combined climate, crop and economic models to examine the impact of climate change on agricultural production and food security, but results have varied widely due to differences in models, scenarios and input data. Recent work has examined (and narrowed) these differences through systematic model intercomparison using a high-emissions pathway to highlight the differences. This paper extends that analysis to explore a range of plausible socioeconomic scenarios and emission pathways. Results from multiple climate and economic models are combined to examine the global and regional impacts of climate change on agricultural yields, area, production, consumption, prices and trade for coarse grains, rice, wheat, oilseeds and sugar crops to 2050. We find that climate impacts on global average yields, area, production and consumption are similar across shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP 1, 2 and 3, as we implement them based on population, income and productivity drivers), except when changes in trade policies are included. Impacts on trade and prices are higher for SSP 3 than SSP 2, and higher for SSP 2 than for SSP 1. Climate impacts for all variables are similar across low to moderate emissions pathways (RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0), but increase for a higher emissions pathway (RCP 8.5). It is important to note that these global averages may hide regional variations. Projected reductions in agricultural yields due to climate change by 2050 are larger for some crops than those estimated for the past half century, but smaller than projected increases to 2050 due to rising demand and intrinsic productivity growth. Results illustrate the sensitivity of climate change impacts to differences in socioeconomic and emissions pathways. Yield impacts increase at high emissions levels and vary with changes in population, income and technology, but are reduced in all cases by endogenous changes in prices and other variables.
The Lancet Planetary Health | 2018
Marco Springmann; Keith Wiebe; Daniel Mason-D'Croz; Timothy B. Sulser; Mike Rayner; Peter Scarborough
Summary Background Sustainable diets are intended to address the increasing health and environmental concerns related to food production and consumption. Although many candidates for sustainable diets have emerged, a consistent and joint environmental and health analysis of these diets has not been done at a regional level. Using an integrated health and environmental modelling framework for more than 150 countries, we examined three different approaches to sustainable diets motivated by environmental, food security, and public health objectives. Methods In this global modelling analysis, we combined analyses of nutrient levels, diet-related and weight-related chronic disease mortality, and environmental impacts for more than 150 countries in three sets of diet scenarios. The first set, based on environmental objectives, replaced 25–100% of animal-source foods with plant-based foods. The second set, based on food security objectives, reduced levels of underweight, overweight, and obesity by 25–100%. The third set, based on public health objectives, consisted of four energy-balanced dietary patterns: flexitarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, and vegan. In the nutrient analysis, we calculated nutrient intake and changes in adequacy based on international recommendations and a global dataset of nutrient content and supply. In the health analysis, we estimated changes in mortality using a comparative risk assessment with nine diet and weight-related risk factors. In the environmental analysis, we combined country-specific and food group-specific footprints for greenhouse gas emissions, cropland use, freshwater use, nitrogen application, and phosphorus application to analyse the relationship between the health and environmental impacts of dietary change. Findings Following environmental objectives by replacing animal-source foods with plant-based ones was particularly effective in high-income countries for improving nutrient levels, lowering premature mortality (reduction of up to 12% [95% CI 10–13] with complete replacement), and reducing some environmental impacts, in particular greenhouse gas emissions (reductions of up to 84%). However, it also increased freshwater use (increases of up to 16%) and had little effectiveness in countries with low or moderate consumption of animal-source foods. Following food-security objectives by reducing underweight and overweight led to similar reductions in premature mortality (reduction of up to 10% [95% CI 9–11]), and moderately improved nutrient levels. However, it led to only small reductions in environmental impacts at the global level (all impacts changed by <15%), with reduced impacts in high-income and middle-income countries, and increased resource use in low-income countries. Following public health objectives by adopting energy-balanced, low-meat dietary patterns that are in line with available evidence on healthy eating led to an adequate nutrient supply for most nutrients, and large reductions in premature mortality (reduction of 19% [95% CI 18–20] for the flexitarian diet to 22% [18–24] for the vegan diet). It also markedly reduced environmental impacts globally (reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 54–87%, nitrogen application by 23–25%, phosphorus application by 18–21%, cropland use by 8–11%, and freshwater use by 2–11%) and in most regions, except for some environmental domains (cropland use, freshwater use, and phosphorus application) in low-income countries. Interpretation Approaches for sustainable diets are context specific and can result in concurrent reductions in environmental and health impacts globally and in most regions, particularly in high-income and middle-income countries, but they can also increase resource use in low-income countries when diets diversify. A public health strategy focused on improving energy balance and dietary changes towards predominantly plant-based diets that are in line with evidence on healthy eating is a suitable approach for sustainable diets. Updating national dietary guidelines to reflect the latest evidence on healthy eating can by itself be important for improving health and reducing environmental impacts and can complement broader and more explicit criteria of sustainability. Funding Wellcome Trust, EAT, CGIAR, and British Heart Foundation.
Nature Climate Change | 2018
Tomoko Hasegawa; Shinichiro Fujimori; Petr Havlik; Hugo Valin; Benjamin Leon Bodirsky; Jonathan C. Doelman; Thomas Fellmann; Page Kyle; Jason F.L. Koopman; Hermann Lotze-Campen; Daniel Mason-D’Croz; Yuki Ochi; Ignacio Perez Dominguez; Elke Stehfest; Timothy B. Sulser; A.A. Tabeau; Kiyoshi Takahashi; Jun’ya Takakura; Hans van Meijl; Willem Jan van Zeist; Keith Wiebe; Peter Witzke
Food insecurity can be directly exacerbated by climate change due to crop-production-related impacts of warmer and drier conditions that are expected in important agricultural regions1–3. However, efforts to mitigate climate change through comprehensive, economy-wide GHG emissions reductions may also negatively affect food security, due to indirect impacts on prices and supplies of key agricultural commodities4–6. Here we conduct a multiple model assessment on the combined effects of climate change and climate mitigation efforts on agricultural commodity prices, dietary energy availability and the population at risk of hunger. A robust finding is that by 2050, stringent climate mitigation policy, if implemented evenly across all sectors and regions, would have a greater negative impact on global hunger and food consumption than the direct impacts of climate change. The negative impacts would be most prevalent in vulnerable, low-income regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where food security problems are already acute.Economy-wide GHG emissions reductions may negatively affect food security. Stringent mitigation policies, modelled as carbon prices, are shown to lead to an increase in production costs, food prices and the population’s risk of hunger.
Nature | 2017
Alessandro De Pinto; Keith Wiebe; Pablo Pacheco
Technological innovation in oil-palm farming could help both to boost yields of palm oil and to reduce deforestation, but only if higher productivity causes palm-oil prices to drop sufficiently to discourage additional cultivation. If prices stay high, the demand for land is likely to go up in the push for ever-larger profits.
Research Evaluation | 2018
Athanasios Petsakos; Guy Hareau; Ulrich Kleinwechter; Keith Wiebe; Timothy B. Sulser
This article examines how the estimated impacts of crop technologies vary with alternate methods and assumptions, and also discusses the implications of these differences for the design of studies to inform research prioritization. Drawing on international potato research, we show how foresight scenarios, realized by a multi-period global multi-commodity equilibrium model, can affect the estimated magnitudes of welfare impacts and the ranking of different potato research options, as opposed to the static, single-commodity, and country assumptions of the economic surplus model which is commonly used in priority setting studies. Our results suggestthatthe ranking oftechnolo- gies is driven by the data used for their specification and is not affected by the foresight scenario examined. However, net benefits vary significantly in each scenario and are greatly overestimated when impacts on non-target countries are ignored. We also argue that the validity of the singlecommodity assumption underpinning the economic surplus model is case-specific and depends on the interventions examined and on the objectives and criteria included in a priority setting study.
Nature Climate Change | 2017
Marco Springmann; Daniel Mason-D’Croz; Sherman Robinson; Keith Wiebe; H. Charles J. Godfray; Mike Rayner; Peter Scarborough
Archive | 2015
Sherman Robinson; Daniel Mason-D'Croz; Shahnila Islam; Nicola Cenacchi; Bernardo Creamer; Arthur Gueneau; Guy Hareau; Ulrich Kleinwechter; Khondoker Abdul Mottaleb; S Nedumaran; Ricky Robertson; Mark W. Rosegrant; Gbegbelegbe Sika; Timothy B. Sulser; Keith Wiebe
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A | 2018
Cynthia Rosenzweig; Alex C. Ruane; John M. Antle; Joshua Elliott; Muhammad Ashfaq; Ashfaq Ahmad Chatta; Frank Ewert; Christian Folberth; Ibrahima Hathie; Petr Havlik; Gerrit Hoogenboom; Hermann Lotze-Campen; Dilys S. MacCarthy; Daniel Mason-D'Croz; Erik Mencos Contreras; Christoph Müller; Ignacio Perez-Dominguez; Meridel Phillips; Cheryl H. Porter; Rubi Raymundo; Ronald D. Sands; Carl-Friedrich Schleussner; Roberto O. Valdivia; Hugo Valin; Keith Wiebe
Global Food Security | 2016
Shahnila Islam; Nicola Cenacchi; Timothy B. Sulser; Sika Gbegbelegbe; Guy Hareau; Ulrich Kleinwechter; Daniel Mason-D'Croz; S Nedumaran; Richard Robertson; Sherman Robinson; Keith Wiebe
Food Policy | 2017
Molly E. Brown; Edward R. Carr; Kathryn Grace; Keith Wiebe; Chris Funk; Witsanu Attavanich; Peter Backlund; Lawrence Buja