The Importance of Agriculture in the Economy: Impacts from <scp>COVID</scp>‐19

Beckman, Jayson; Countryman, Amanda M.

doi:10.1111/ajae.12212

Cited by 116 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other countries, too, monitoring capacities and legal enforcement of measures to reduce tropical deforestation have been reduced due to budget restrictions of environmental agencies or impairments to ground-based monitoring that prevents land grabs and tenure conflicts (Brancalion et al, 2020, Amador-Jiménez et al, 2020. Effects of the pandemic on trends in fire activity or forest cover changes are hard to separate from those of general political developments and environmental changes and the long-term consequences of disruptions in agricultural and forestry economic activities (e.g., Gruère and Brooks, 2020;Golar et al, 2020;Beckman and Countryman, 2021) remain to be seen.…”

Section: Final Year 2020mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Carbon Budget 2021

Friedlingstein

Jones

O’Sullivan

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data-products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the first time, an approach is shown to reconcile the difference in our ELUC estimate with the one from national greenhouse gases inventories, supporting the assessment of collective countries’ climate progress. For the year 2020, EFOS declined by 5.4 % relative to 2019, with fossil emissions at 9.5 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 (9.3 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), ELUC was 0.9 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 10.2 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1 (37.4 ± 2.9 GtCO2). Also, for 2020, GATM was 5.0 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 3.0 ± 0.4 GtC yr−1 and SLAND was 2.9 ± 1 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of −0.8 GtC yr−1. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2020 reached 412.45 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2021, suggest a rebound in EFOS relative to 2020 of +4.9 % (4.1 % to 5.7 %) globally. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2020, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows: (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra- tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2020; Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, 2018a, 2016, 2015b, 2015a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2021 (Friedlingstein et al., 2021).

show abstract

Section: Final Year 2020mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Carbon Budget 2021

Friedlingstein

Jones

O’Sullivan

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kejzar and Velic (2020) characterize the impacts of COVID-19 on supply chains in terms of the relative upstream or downstream position of an industry. Recently, Beckman and Countryman (2021) found that agricultural trade increased by 2.3 percent in 2020; but the information they present is at a highly aggregated level—and only accounts for total 2020 trade, without providing the decomposition done here. Arita, Grant and Sydow (2021) provided a preliminary “early look” assessment of the impacts on agricultural trade using quarterly country-level data on imports of agricultural and non-agricultural commodities in a non-directional framework using data through August 2020.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has global agricultural trade been resilient under coronavirus (COVID-19)? Findings from an econometric assessment of 2020

Arita¹,

Grant

Sydow³

et al. 2022

Food Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global agricultural trade, which increased at the end of 2020, has been described as “resilient” to the impacts of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic; however, the size and channels of its quantitative impacts are not clear. Using a reduced-form, gravity-based econometric model for monthly trade, we estimate the effects of COVID-19 incidence rates, policy restrictions imposed by governments to curb the outbreak, and the de facto reduction in human mobility/lockdown effect on global agricultural trade through the end of 2020. We find that while agricultural trade remained quite stable through the pandemic, the sector as a whole did not go unscathed. First, we estimate that COVID-19 reduced agricultural trade by the approximate range of 5 to 10 percent at the aggregate sector level; a quantified impact two to three times smaller in magnitude than our estimated impact on trade occurring in the non-agricultural sector. Second, we find sharp differences across individual commodities. In particular, we find that non-food items (hides and skins, ethanol, cotton, and other commodities), meat products including seafood, and higher value agri-food products were most severely impacted by the pandemic; however, the COVID-19 trade effect for the majority of food and bulk agricultural commodity sectors were found to be insignificant, or in a few cases, positive. Finally, we also examine the effects across low vs high income countries, the changing dynamics of the pandemic’s effect on trade flows, and the effects along the extensive product margins of trade.

show abstract

“…Recent research has identified key elements of the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on food demand/security and calorie intake (FAO, 2021;Laborde et al, 2021;O'Connell et al, 2021) as well as the broader implications of pandemic-induced food expenditure shocks on GDP (Beckman and Countryman, 2021). We show the potential of our approach to contribute to this research with some illustrative food demand projections.…”

Section: Food and Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 87%

Global Consumption Patterns, Quality and Food Demand

Clements

2021

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Importance of Agriculture in the Economy: Impacts from COVID‐19

Cited by 116 publications

References 30 publications

Global Carbon Budget 2021

Global Carbon Budget 2021

Has global agricultural trade been resilient under coronavirus (COVID-19)? Findings from an econometric assessment of 2020

Global Consumption Patterns, Quality and Food Demand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About