This was presented at the IFPRI Egypt Seminar held in partnership with Bibliotheca Alexandrina

1. Impacts of Climate Change on
Egypt’s cropping pattern
A crop mix optimization model
Nada Kassem
Research Assistant
Bibliotheca Alexandrina
9th May 2017 1

2. Climate Change Impacts – Sectors
affected
2
Health Urbanization
Population Biodiversity
Tourism
AgricultureWater Resources Coastal ZonesEconomy
Mutually Reinforcing and Interconnected

3. Objective
Modelling the optimal crop mix in Egypt under
different climate change scenarios
3

4. Structure
4
1. Crop Mix Optimization Model
a) Model Description
b) Scenarios
c) Base-year 2013
d) Projection 2030
3. Conclusion2. Output
a) General Description
b) Wheat Self-Sufficiency
c) Comparison with SADS
d) Visualization Tool
4. Future Work
Directions

5. Crop Mix Optimization Model
5
In the wake of Climatic Change

6. Crop Mix Optimization Model
Where:
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡: Cropping area for crop c at region r and time t (feddan)
• 𝑌𝑟𝑐𝑡: Yield for crop c at region r and time t (ton/feddan)
• 𝑃𝑐𝑡: Price for crop c at time t ($/ton)
• 𝑇𝐶𝑐𝑡: Total of irrigation and production costs for crop c at time t
($/feddan)
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥: Maximum area with irrigation potential at region r and
time t (feddan)
• 𝑤 𝑟𝑐𝑡: Water consumptive use for crop c at region r and time t
(𝑚3
/ feddan-yr)
• 𝑄 𝑟𝑡: Total available water for irrigation at region r (𝑚3
/ yr)
maximize Net revenue ($/yr) = 𝑟 𝑐[𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡. (𝑌𝑐𝑡. 𝑃𝑐𝑡 − 𝑇𝐶𝑐𝑡)]
Subject to:
• 𝑐 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝐴 𝑟𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥
• 𝑐 𝑤 𝑟𝑐𝑡. 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝑄 𝑟𝑡
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∀𝑐
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡 ≥ 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑠𝑠 for c = wheat
𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1 − 𝛿 𝐴 . 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑔
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1 + 𝛿 𝐴 . 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑔
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑔: Mean cropped land areas for crop c at region r for 4 years
preceding t =
1
4 𝑛=1
4
𝐴 𝑟𝑐(𝑡−𝑛)
• 𝛿 𝐴 : % of change in cropped land through time t with accordance to
socioeconomic needs.
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑠𝑠 : cropped land for crop c at region r and time t that achieves self-
sufficiency =
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑠𝑠
𝑌𝑟𝑐𝑡
• 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑠𝑠: self-sufficiency production of wheat defined as 50% of crop
consumption 6

7. Constraints
• Land-use constraint : 𝑐 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝐴 𝑟𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥
• Water-use constraint : 𝑐 𝑤 𝑟𝑐𝑡. 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝑄 𝑟𝑡
• Cropped Area constraint : 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡 ≤ 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∀𝑐
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1 − 𝛿 𝐴 . 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑔
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1 + 𝛿 𝐴 . 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑔
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑎𝑣𝑔: Mean cropped land areas for crop c at region r for 4 years preceding t =
1
4 𝑛=1
4
𝐴 𝑟𝑐(𝑡−𝑛)
• 𝛿 𝐴 : % of change in cropped land through time t with accordance to socioeconomic needs
• Wheat Self-Sufficiency constraint : 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡 ≥ 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑠𝑠 for c = wheat
• 𝐴 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑠𝑠 : cropped land for crop c at region r and time t that achieves self-sufficiency =
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑠𝑠
𝑌𝑟𝑐𝑡
• 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝑟𝑐𝑡,𝑠𝑠: self-sufficiency production of wheat defined as 50% of crop consumption
7

8. Assumptions
8
Assumptions
-Trees (Fruits) and Palm dates 
not included
-No intercropping and crop rotation
-Seasonality
-Use of cropped area
Data
Availability
Model
Complexity
26 examined Crops
• Cereals
• Barley; Maize; Rice; Wheat
• Legumes
• Chickpeas; Fava Beans; Lentils; Peanuts;
Sesame; Soybeans
• Sugar Crops
• Sugar Cane; Sugar Beet
• Fibers
• Cotton; Linen
• Vegetables
• Cabbage, Garlic, Green Peas, Eggplant,
Pepper, Potatoes, Onion, Tomatoes, Squash,
Watermelon

9. Time Frame
9
From 2013
(Base year)
To 2030
(Projection)
Iteration

10. Base-year 2013
10

11. 11
National Level Output t= 2013
Total Actual Net Revenue Total Proposed Net Revenue
8,989,196,722 USD 10,594,402,940 USD
18%
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Thousandsfeddan
Actual Optimal

12. Regional Classification
12
Upper Egypt
15%
Middle Egypt
19%
East Delta
15%
West Delta
19%
Middle Delta
32%
Upper Egypt
Middle Egypt
East Delta
West Dealta
Middle Delta
Source: Ministry of Agriculture Economic Affairs Sector

13. 13
Regional Level Output-t = 2013
Upper EgyptEast Delta
Middle Delta West Delta
Middle Egypt

14. Inputs: Climate Change
Projection to 2030
14

15. Climate Change Scenarios
Socio-economic Indicators CO2 Emission Climate Model (Atmosphere & Ocean)
IPCC AR4 IPCC AR5
IPCC Special Report on
Emission Scenarios
(SRES Storylines)
General Circulation
Model (GCM)
Shared Socio-economic
Pathway (SSP)
Representative
Concentration Pathway
(RCP)
Dynamic Downscaling Statistical Downscaling
15

16. National Projection
2013 - 2030
16
IPSL RCP 2.6 SSP1
Wheat Self-SufficiencyNo Self-Sufficiency Constraint
IPSL RCP 2.6 SSP2 IPSL RCP 8.5 SSP3
Optimistic Scenario Moderate Scenario Pessimistic Scenario
HGEM RCP 2.6 SSP1 HGEM RCP 2.6 SSP2 HGEM RCP 8.5 SSP3

17. 17
Average Annual Projected Temperature
21.40
21.60
21.80
22.00
22.20
22.40
22.60
22.80
23.00
23.20
23.40
23.60
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
IPSL RCP 2.6 IPSL RCP 8.5 HGEM RCP 2.6 HGEM RCP 8.5
Temperature in
Degrees Celsius
Difference between the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios of the two GCMs
Source: CGIAR, Marksim weather file generator

18. 18
Projection Methodology
Variable Source Projection Methodology Validation Methodology
Pct : Crop Price
FAO,
Ministry of Agriculture
IMPACT Model and Time-
Series Regression
IMPACT Prices
TCct : Total cost CAPMAS
Time-Series Regression
and Price Growth Rates -
Yrct : Crop Yield
Ministry of Agriculture,
CAPMAS
Time-Series Multiple
Regression
IMPACT Yields and
Expert Judgment
Wrct : Crop consumptive
water use
Ministry of Agriculture,
Ministry of Water resources
and Irrigation
CropWat 8.0 Software
developed by FAO
Pedology and
Hydrology experts
Qrt : Quantity of water
available for irrigation
Ministry of Agriculture,
CAPMAS
Literature Review
(previous studies) -
Art,max : Maximum cropping
area
Ministry of Agriculture,
CAPMAS
Time-Series Regression
Sustainable Agriculture
Development Strategy
(SADS)

19. Cropping Area at time t (Arct)
• Historical Cropping Area 1968-2013 (CAPMAS)
• Time-series Regression performed
• 26 chosen crops account for 74% of the total cropping area
 Projected Maximum Area of the 26 Crops = (74%) * (Total Projected
Area)
19

20. 20
Cropping Area at time t (Arct)
(1968-2030)
18.4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
MillionsFeddan

21. Wrc : is defined as the water use of the crop from the time of planting up
until its harvesting date.
Projection Methodology:
Cropwat8.0 software developed by FAO calculates crop water
requirements based on different modules concerning soil, climate and crop
management.
The crop water consumptive use is developed under four emission
scenarios:
IPSL RCP 2.6 - IPSL RCP 8.5 - HGEM RCP 2.6 - HGEM RCP 8.5
Crop Water Consumptive Use (Wrc)
21

22. 22
Crop Water Consumptive Use (Wrc)
2.2
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubicmeter
Sugar beet
9.14
9.16
9.18
9.2
9.22
9.24
9.26
9.28
2015 2020 2025 2030
Thousandscubicmeter
Sugarcane
1.71
1.72
1.73
1.74
1.75
1.76
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubicmeter
Watermelon
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
4.28
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubicmeter
Rice
2.55
2.56
2.57
2.58
2.59
2.6
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubicmeter
Fava
4.59
4.6
4.61
4.62
4.63
4.64
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubicmeter
Tomato

23. 23
Prices ($/Ton)
Hypothetical No-Climate Change Scenario
Population and Income
Growth
Technological
Advancements
Increase in Demand of the
different Crops
Reduction of Cost 
Increase in Supply
Price
Increase
Historical Time-Series data (1965-2013) - FAO
Time-series Regression
Domestic Egyptian Prices Projection
Price
Decrease

24. International Model for Policy Analysis of
Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT)
24
Source: Robinson, S., Mason-D'Croz, D., Sulser, T., Islam, S., Robertson, R., Zhu, T., Gueneau, A., Pitois, G.
and Rosegrant, M.W., 2015. The international model for policy analysis of agricultural commodities and trade
(IMPACT): model description for version 3.

25. 25
Prices ($/Ton)
Domestic Prices World Prices
Statistical Relationship
Time-series historical
Regression
IMPACT Multi-Market
Model
No Climate
Change Scenario
Six Climate
Change Scenarios

26. 26
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Barley Maize Rice Wheat
$/ton
2015 2020 2025 2030
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Faba Chick peas Lentils Peanuts Soybeans Cotton Linen Sesame
$/ton
2015 2020 2025 2030
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
$/ton
2015 2020 2025 2030
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Sugar beet Sugar cane
$/ton
2015 2020 2025 2030
Prices ($/Ton)
Cereals
Vegetables Legumes and Fibers
Sugar Crops

27. Total irrigation and other production cost
per crop (TCct)
Definition: Production, Transportation & Irrigation Costs
27
Costs Projection
Time-series historical
Regression
No Climate
Change Scenario
Price Projection
Application of Crop-
specific growth rates
IMPACT Multi-Market
Model
Six Climate
Change Scenarios
Assumption: The effects of CC on costs = Effects of CC on prices

28. 28
Costs ($Feddan)
Cereals
Vegetables Legumes and Fibers
Sugar Crops
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
ThousandsUSD
2013 2015 2020 2025 2030
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
ThousandsUSD
2013 2015 2020 2025 2030
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Barley Maize Rice Wheat
ThousandsUSD
2013 2015 2020 2025 2030
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Sugar beet Sugar cane
ThousandsUSD
2013 2015 2020 2025 2030

29. 29
Historical Yield Data
• Time-series Yield  FAO
• Time-series Production &
Area Data
• CAPMAS
• Ministry of Agriculture
Historical Yield
Regression
Yield Projection under the different Climate Change Scenarios
Yield (Yrct)
Projected Weather Data
• MarkSim Weather Generator
(DSSAT)  different scenario
Historical Weather Data
Monthly Historical Weather Data
(1960)
• World Bank
• KNMI – Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute
Minimum, Mean and Maximum
Temperature
Projected
Prices

30. 30
Yield (TonFeddan)
Cereals
Vegetables Legumes and Fibers
Sugar Crops
0
5
10
15
20
25
2013 2015 2020 2025 2030
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Barley Maize Rice Wheat
2013 2015 2020 2025 2030
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2013 2015 2020 2025 2030
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sugar beet Sugar cane
2013 2015 2020 2025 2030

31. Water Available for Irrigation (Qrt)
31
• Total Water available for 26 Crops at all three levels (High Dam, Canal, Field) (CAPMAS)
• Assumption:
– Qrt = 𝒄 (Actual Wrct in 2013) ∗ (Actual Arct 2013)  37,502,252,044 m3
– Water available for irrigation  held constant
• Literature Review
– Beynene, T., Lettenmaier, D. & Kabat, P., 2010. Hydrologic Impcats of Climate Change on the Nile River Basin: implications of the 2007 IPCC scenarios. Climatic
change, 100(3-4), pp. 433-461.
– Conway, D., Krol, M., Alcamo, J. & Hulme, M., 1996. Future availability of water in Egypt: The interaction of global, regional and basin scale driving forces in the Nile
Basin. Ambio, 25(5), pp. 336-342.
– Strzepek, K. et al., 2011. Climate variability and change: a basin scale indicator approach to understanding the risk to water resources development and
management, Washington: World Bank.
– Strzepek, K., Yates, D. & El Quosy, D., 1996. Vulnerability assessment of water resources in Egypt to climatic change in the Nile Basin.. Climate Research, 6(2), pp.
89-95.

32. Output - Climate Change
Projection
32
National Level

33. 33
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Thousands
2013
2015
2020
2025
2030
IPSL Optimistic Scenario
Optimal Crop Mix
ThousandFeddan

34. 34
Optimal Crop Mix
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2013
2015
2020
2025
2030
IPSL Pessimistic Scenario
ThousandFeddan

35. 35
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
BillionsUSD
Total Net Revenue

36. General Trends
36
General
Trends
High Net
Revenue &
Low Water
Consumptive
Use
Average Net
Revenue &
Very Low
Water
Consumptive
Use
High Net
Revenue &
High Water
Consumptive
Use
Increasing
Crops
-Watermelon
-Garlic
- One-Cut-
Clover
-Cabbage
-Sugar Beet
-Wheat
-Tomatoes
General
Trends
High Net
Revenue &
High Water
Consumptive
Use
Low Net
Revenue &
Low Water
Consumptive
Use
No
Comparative
Advantage
Decreasing
Crops
-Multi-cut
clover
-Onion
-Eggplant,
-Sugar
Cane
-Cotton
-Barley
-Chick
Beans
-Fava
Beans
-Lentils
-Soybeans
-Maize
-Peanuts
-Rice
Optimal Cropping Areas allocated to the different crops

37. 37
-
5
10
15
20
HundredsUSD
Watermelon
Increasing crops
High Net Revenue & Low Water Consumptive Use
Average Net Revenue & Very Low Water Consumptive Use
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
HundredsUSD
Sugar beet
Net Revenue Feddan WrcFeddan
High Net Revenue & High Water Consumptive Use
-
10
20
30
40
HundredsUSD
Tomatoes
1.72
1.73
1.74
1.75
1.76
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubic
meter
Watermelon
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubicmeter
Sugar beet
4.58
4.6
4.62
4.64
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubic
meter
Tomatoes

38. 38
Decreasing crops
Net Revenue Feddan WrcFeddanLow Net Revenue & Low Water Consumptive Use
High Net Revenue & High Water Consumptive Use
No Comparative Advantage
-
2
4
6
8
10
HundredsUSD
Rice
-
1
2
3
4
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
HundredsUSD
Fava
-
5
10
15
20
25
HundredsUSD
Sugarcane
4.2
4.22
4.24
4.26
4.28
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubic
meter
Rice
9.14
9.19
9.24
9.29
2015 2020 2025 2030
Thousandscubic
meter
Sugarcane
2.54
2.55
2.56
2.57
2.58
2.59
2.6
2015 2020 2025 2030
ThousandsCubic
meter
Fava

39. Wheat Self-Sufficiency Constraint
39
Comparison: Wheat Self-Sufficiency Constraint & No Wheat Self-Sufficiency
(Optimal area in 2030)
IPSL Optimistic Scenario
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
2,200,000
2,400,000
2,600,000
2,800,000
3,000,000
3,200,000
3,400,000
3,600,000
3,800,000
4,000,000
4,200,000
Wheat Sugar beet Squash Potatoes Multi-cut clover One-cut clover Green Peas Cabbage
Wheat Self-Sufficiency
No wheat Self-suficiency
Feddan
NR increased by13% without wheat self-sufficiency constraint

40. Comparison Optimal Crop Mix with
SADS 2030
40
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
ThousandsFeddan
IPSL Optimistic Scenario
Optimal 2030Area SADS Area

41. Conclusion
1. Parameters’ increase resulting from Climate Change
Prices; Costs; Yields; Water Consumptive Use; Cropped Area
2. Optimal Crop Mix reflecting these changes
Net Revenue doubling from roughly 12 million $ in 2013 to
approximately 24 million $ in 2030
3. Results reflect balance between Net Revenue, Water Use and Productivity
Increase of high value crops that use minimal irrigation water
4. Slight variations between the different scenarios
5. Decrease in Net Revenue resulting from Wheat Self-Sufficiency Constraint
6. Several results – justifiable
Others – further investigation
41

42. Future Plans
42
Inundation (GIS) Salinization Groundwater Table Rise
Sea Level Rise Scenario
Seasonality
Regions
Addition of Crops
Addition of Scenarios
Expansion of Study Period – Beyond 2030

43. 43
Thank You