Assessing the costs of ozone pollution in India for wheat producers, consumers, and government food welfare policies

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the costs of ozone pollution in India for wheat producers, consumers, and government food welfare policies

AU - Pandey, Divya

AU - Sharps, Katrina

AU - Simpson, David

AU - Ramaswami, Bharat

AU - Cremades, Roger

AU - Booth, Nathan

AU - Jamir, Chubamenla

AU - Büker, Patrick

AU - Sinha, Vinayak

AU - Sinha, Baerbel

AU - Emberson, Lisa D.

N1 - Funding Information: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. D.P., L.D.E., and P.B. acknowledge the Norwegian Research Council–funded CiXPAG project (grant no. 244551) and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) for financial support to this study under its Gender and Social Equity program. D.P. also acknowledges the Alexander von Humboldt foundation for the postdoctoral fellowship that supported her continuing working on the manuscript at ZALF after she moved from SEI. D.S. was supported by EMEP under UNECE. Computer time for EMEP model runs was provided by the Research Council of Norway through the NOTUR project NN2890K. Additional funding for work done by K.S. was from the UK Natural Environment Research Council, as part of the SUNRISE program, a National Capability Long-Term Science–Official Development Assistance project, NEC06476. V.S. and B.S. thank the IISER Mohali Atmospheric Chemistry Facility for data and the Ministry of Education, India, and IISER Mohali for funding the facility. The funders did not interfere with the study design, analysis, and preparation of manuscript or decision to publish. Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2023 the Author(s).

PY - 2023/7/31

Y1 - 2023/7/31

N2 - We assess wheat yield losses occurring due to ozone pollution in India and its economic burden on producers, consumers, and the government. Applying an ozone flux–based risk assessment, we show that ambient ozone levels caused a mean 14.18% reduction in wheat yields during 2008 to 2012. Furthermore, irrigated wheat was particularly sensitive to ozone-induced yield losses, indicating that ozone pollution could undermine climate-change adaptation efforts through irrigation expansion. Applying an economic model, we examine the effects of a counterfactual, “pollution-free” scenario on yield losses, wheat prices, consumer and producer welfare, and government costs. We explore three policy scenarios in which the government support farmers at observed levels of either procurement prices (fixed-price), procurement quantities (fixed-procurement), or procurement expenditure (fixed-expenditure). In pollution-free conditions, the fixed-price scenario absorbs the fall in prices, thus increasing producer welfare by USD 2.7 billion, but total welfare decreases by USD 0.24 billion as government costs increase (USD 2.9 billion). In the fixed-procurement and fixed-expenditure scenarios, ozone mitigation allows wheat prices to fall by 38.19 to 42.96%. The producers lose by USD 5.10 to 6.01 billion, but the gains to consumers and governments (USD 8.7 to 10.2 billion) outweigh these losses. These findings show that the government and consumers primarily bear the costs of ozone pollution. For pollution mitigation to optimally benefit wheat production and maximize social welfare, new approaches to support producers other than fixed-price grain procurement may be required. We also emphasize the need to consider air pollution in programs to improve agricultural resilience to climate change.

AB - We assess wheat yield losses occurring due to ozone pollution in India and its economic burden on producers, consumers, and the government. Applying an ozone flux–based risk assessment, we show that ambient ozone levels caused a mean 14.18% reduction in wheat yields during 2008 to 2012. Furthermore, irrigated wheat was particularly sensitive to ozone-induced yield losses, indicating that ozone pollution could undermine climate-change adaptation efforts through irrigation expansion. Applying an economic model, we examine the effects of a counterfactual, “pollution-free” scenario on yield losses, wheat prices, consumer and producer welfare, and government costs. We explore three policy scenarios in which the government support farmers at observed levels of either procurement prices (fixed-price), procurement quantities (fixed-procurement), or procurement expenditure (fixed-expenditure). In pollution-free conditions, the fixed-price scenario absorbs the fall in prices, thus increasing producer welfare by USD 2.7 billion, but total welfare decreases by USD 0.24 billion as government costs increase (USD 2.9 billion). In the fixed-procurement and fixed-expenditure scenarios, ozone mitigation allows wheat prices to fall by 38.19 to 42.96%. The producers lose by USD 5.10 to 6.01 billion, but the gains to consumers and governments (USD 8.7 to 10.2 billion) outweigh these losses. These findings show that the government and consumers primarily bear the costs of ozone pollution. For pollution mitigation to optimally benefit wheat production and maximize social welfare, new approaches to support producers other than fixed-price grain procurement may be required. We also emphasize the need to consider air pollution in programs to improve agricultural resilience to climate change.

KW - air pollution

KW - food security

KW - ozone-flux

KW - wheat prices

KW - wheat production

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85166385080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1073/pnas.2207081120

DO - 10.1073/pnas.2207081120

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85166385080

SN - 0027-8424

VL - 120

JO - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

JF - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

IS - 32

M1 - e2207081120

ER -