Yield risks in global maize markets: Historical evidence and projections in key regions of the world

Villoria, Nelson B.; Chen, Bowen

doi:10.1016/j.wace.2018.01.003

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, positive deviations from trend abroad are associated with less variable prices, which is not the case for positive domestic yield shocks. Given the lack of correlation of yield shocks among exporters and between exporters and importers (appendix figure A7), our results are supportive of the fact that most of the time countries use foreign supplies as a way of stabilizing their markets (Badiane andOdjo 2016, Villoria andChen 2018).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Foreign yield shocks and domestic price variability: the case of maize in developing countries

Chen

Villoria

2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International trade helps to smooth food price swings caused from seasonal imbalances between domestic supply and demand. Trade also increases the possibility of importing price volatility from abroad. This concern looms large in the face of increased crop yield variability associated with climate change. We assess the extent to which maize yield shocks in exporting countries exacerbate the intra-seasonal variability of maize prices in a cross section of 75 markets in Africa, Asia, and Latin American countries during 2000-2018. We ﬁnd that extreme below-trend reductions in maize yields in exporting countries are associated with increased intra-annual maize price variability in the focus countries. In contrast, above-trend maize yields in exporting countries are associated with reduced variability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Foreign yield shocks and domestic price variability: the case of maize in developing countries

Chen

Villoria

2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Price effects, such as higher food prices and price spikes, are mentioned in 43% of papers (Benzie et al, 2019; Jerneck & Olsson, 2008; Magnan et al, 2015; Schenker & Stephan, 2014). 28% of papers highlight global systemic risks, like simultaneous production shocks (Tigchelaar et al, 2018; Villoria & Chen, 2018) and global breadbasket failures (Gaupp et al, 2020). Macroeconomic damage, as well as supply chain/trade disruption are mentioned in 25% and 18% of the papers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is broad agreement in the agriculture sample that protectionist policies like export bans can exacerbate supply disruptions and may lead to global food price spikes—as was the case in the wake of the 2006–2008 global food crisis (e.g., Baldos & Hertel, 2015; Chen et al, 2012; Tigchelaar et al, 2018). Many scholars also conclude that trade liberalization may be a highly effective adaptation option (e.g., Baldos et al, 2019; Brown et al, 2017; Fuss et al, 2015; Lybbert et al, 2014; Villoria & Chen, 2018; Xie et al, 2019). Others noted the “double‐edged” nature of trade liberalization (e.g., Ouraich et al, 2019), or pointed to its limits especially with regard to the high geographical concentration of production or the danger of simultaneous production shocks and global bread‐basket failures (Gaupp et al, 2020; Puma et al, 2015; Tigchelaar et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptation to transboundary climate risks in trade: Investigating actors and strategies for an emerging challenge

Bednar–Friedl

Knittel

Raich

et al. 2022

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing recognition that international trade can transmit climate risks across borders, requiring new forms of and approaches to adaptation. This advanced review synthesizes knowledge on how, by whom and where adaptation actions can be taken in the agriculture and industrial sectors to reduce these transboundary climate risks (TCRs). We find a material difference in the literature on TCRs in agriculture as compared with industrial sectors. Operational and market risks, in particular reductions in food availability, dominate in agriculture, while supply chain and trade‐related risks are highlighted for industry. While the origin of the risk (source) is the primary target of adaptation to agricultural TCRs, the general governance structure, such as UNFCCC and WTO deliberations, are important targets in both sectors. Adaptation at the country of destination and along the trade network is of minor importance in both sectors. Regarding the type of adaptation option, agriculture heavily relies on trade policy, agricultural adaptation, and adaptation planning and coordination, while in industry knowledge creation, research and development, and risk management are seen as essential. Governments and the international community are identified as key actors, complemented by businesses and research as critical players in industry. Some measures, such as protectionist trade policies and irrigation, are controversial as they shift risks across countries and sectors, rather than reduce them. While more research is needed, this review shows that a critical mass of evidence on adaptation to TCRs is beginning to emerge, particularly underscoring the importance of international coordination mechanisms. This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Institutions for Adaptation Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

show abstract

“…Nesse sentido, apesar da área ter expandido em 14% no Paraná, desde a década de 1970, os Estados de Santa Catarina e Rio Grande do Sul obtiveram redução de 38,7% e 56,2%, respectivamente. A oscilação da área cultivada, variando em cada região, ocorreu a partir de diversos fatores, como: i) as condições edafoclimáticas (ALBUQUERQUE et al, 2013); ii) a percepção de riscos dos produtores (ASSEFA et al, 2017); e iii) questões macroeconômica e microeconômica (ASSEFA et al, 2017;VILLORIA;CHEN, 2018). A partir disso, ocorreram transformações relacionadas ao panorama da "área cultivada de milho" no cenário brasileiro (Tabela 1).…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

O Potencial Produtivo Brasileiro: Uma Análise Histórica Da Produção De Milho

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O milho é o cereal mais produzido no mundo, possuindo relevante papel no agronegócio brasileiro, como na geração de renda e emprego em todas as regiões do país. Dessa forma, o artigo tem por objetivo analisar a evolução da área cultivada, produção, produtividade e a estabilidade produtiva do milho nas diferentes regiões do Brasil. Os dados de produção, produtividade e área foram obtidos junto aos dados históricos da Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (CONAB). Os dados analisados compreendem os anos de 1977 a 2017, sendo divididos em três períodos: i) 1977 a 1990; ii) 1991 a 2004; e iii) 2005 a 2017. A estabilidade da produtividade foi estimada pelo coeficiente de variação (CV). Os resultados destacam as mudanças que ocorreram no período, como: i) a expansão de 49,08% da área destinada ao cultivo de milho; ii) o aumento da produção, a partir do aumento da área e da produtividade; iii) o aumento da produtividade ao longo dos três períodos, com destaque para os Estados do Sul, Centro-Oeste e Sudeste; e iv) a instabilidade da produtividade ao longo dos anos e nas diferentes regiões.

show abstract

Yield risks in global maize markets: Historical evidence and projections in key regions of the world

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

Foreign yield shocks and domestic price variability: the case of maize in developing countries

Foreign yield shocks and domestic price variability: the case of maize in developing countries

Adaptation to transboundary climate risks in trade: Investigating actors and strategies for an emerging challenge

O Potencial Produtivo Brasileiro: Uma Análise Histórica Da Produção De Milho

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About