Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- the_complete_and_consistent_data_base_coco_for_the_national_scale [2020/02/13 09:26] – [COCO2: Estimation procedure] matsz
+++ the_complete_and_consistent_data_base_coco_for_the_national_scale [2020/02/13 10:34] – [COCO2: Final completions] matsz
@@ Line 579: / Line 579: @@
 |\(TOFACS_{m,k}\)	|Support points for total food expenditure slack|
 |\(PQ_k\)		|A priori probabilities for support points|
-|\(TOFO_{m,t}\)	|Total food expenditure and entropy variables|
+|\(TOFO_{m,t}\)	|Total food expenditure |
+|and entropy variables||
 |\(PE_{m,j,t}\)	|Probability of support points for consumer prices|
 |\(PED_{m,j,t}\)	|Probability of support points for consumer price changes|
@@ Line 661: / Line 662: @@
 ====COCO2: Final completions====
+At this point it may be motivated why there is at all a need for a COCO2 module instead of handling all further topics in COCO1, that is MS by MS. There are basially two motives:
+  * In some cases it is convenient to have the completed COCO1 results of all countries at hand for comparison purposes and in order to achieve a balanced picture across MS. This is the main motive for the assignments of consumer loss rates (Section 3.2.7.1).
+  * Whenever averages of consolidated data (from COCO1) across several or all MS are involved, a solution in a loop requires certain sequence (such as first solving for non-candidate countries to form the averages that are input to candidate countries) or is better solved in a new module like COCO2. This applies to the expenditure allocation problem (Section 3.2.5), to completions for certain feedstuffs (Section 3.2.7.2, EU averages used due to the scarcity of data), and to corrections of LULUCF coefficients (Section 3.2.7.3).
+===Assignment of consumer loss rates and nutrient intake per head ===
+Since a number of years diet shift scenarios have increase in importance and therefore the plausibility of per capita consumption projectios and hence their starting values, per capita consumption in the data base. A common yardstick to assess plausibility is nutrient (e.g. calorie) consumption per head where the nutrition literature offers guidance in terms of recommendable as well as “observed” consumption. For nutrition issues it is intake, so consumption after losses, which matters, such that the assignment of these loss rates becomes a critical element of the database. The starting values are due to an FAO study and stored in the \dat folder
+{{::code_p53.png?600|}}
+The aggregate food share (= 1-loss shares) links intake (INHA(i)) to total consumption (sum(i, HCOM(i)*foodSh(i)) / INHA(levl) and is therefore stored in the database as well.
+{{:code_p53_2.png?600|}}
+In spite of the FAO study the real loss rates are highly uncertain. Therefore they are reduced if the estimate of calorie intake based on the FAO loss rates strongly falls short of recommendations (most strongly in a set of “low calory regions”). Conversely loss rates are increased, if the estimate of calorie intake based on the FAO loss rates strongly exceeds recommendations (e.g. in Turkey).
+{{:code_p53_3.png?600|}}
+=== Completion of feed related data in coco2_feed ===
+The first sections of coco2_feed handle completions for certain by-products and other product so far ignored in coco1. These are by-products of the milling and the brewing industry and for corn gluten feed, sugarbeet pulp, manioc and fish meal where the database is completed for market balance positions production, imports, exports and feed. This relies on discontinued Eurostat tables (collected on p_feedAgri) which are extended using national data and external trade data from Comext. After completion the detailed by-products are aggregated to the CAPRI rows FENI (Rich energy fodder imported or industrial) and FPRI (Rich protein fodder imported or industrial). Based on completed data for all feedingstuffs nutrient contents for the CAPRI feed “bulks” (cereal feed FCER, protein feed FPRO etc) are assigned as an aggregate of their components.
+These completions are useful as such but they also permit a balancing of (preliminary) total nutrient supply and demand in the animal sector that ultimately serves to adjust loss rates for fodder with the help of a number of include files:
+**Include files //‘feed_decl.gms’// and //‘req_or_man_fcn.gms’//**
+These files are not only active in COCO2, but also in CAPREG, and in the baseline calibration of CAPMOD. This “reuse” of the same files in different modules is efficient and ensures consistency, but usually also requires some adaptations of set definitions:
+{{::code_p54.png?600|}}
+The previous snippet from coco2_feed gives an example that some sets (RS, R_RAGG) are assigned specifically to ensure functionality in different modules (here COCO2).
+As the name should signal file //‘feed_decl.gms’// mainly collects a number of declarations but it also specifies some bounds for process length DAYS and daily growth DAILY that are imposed throughout of CAPRI (example: maximum daily growth for male cattle = 1.5kg/day). The second include file (//‘req_or_man_fnc.gms’//) specifies the requirement functions (with the argument “req” passed on) for animal activities of CAPRI.
+Requirement functions are specified that determine:
+  * ENNE	Net energy for ruminants as sum of
+    * NEL	net energy for lactation (cows, ewes, goats)
+    * NEM	net energy for maintenance (cows, calves, bulls, heifers, ewes, goats)
+    * NEA	net energy for activity (cows, calves, bulls, heifers, ewes, goats)
+    * NEP	net energy for pregnancy (cows)
+    * NEG	net energy for growth (calves, bulls, heifers)
+  * ENMC	Net energy chicken
+  * ENMP	Net energy pigs
+  * CRPR   crude protein (all categories) and LISI lysine aminoacid (sows, poultry)
+  * DRMA dry matter (all categories with min and max requirements)
+  * Various fiber measures (irrelevant for COCO2)
+There are three main sources for these functions:
+  * IPCC 2006 guidelines for the estimation of emissions ([[http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf]])
+  * Kirchgessner Tierernährng, 7th edition,  1987
+  * CAPRI working paper 97-12 ([[http://www.ilr.uni-bonn.de/agpo/publ/workpap/pap97-12.pdf]])
+These functions are one the one hand quite complex. They are composed of various parts that finally give the requirements, for example for energy, as a function of various parameters that may be specific to the region (often the final weights, process length, daily growth) or uniform across regions (carcass ratio). In spite of several components these are typically linked in a straightforward fashion as will be illustrated with a relatively easy example (energy for maintenance of heifers for fattening).
+As a starting point, the daily growth from COCO is forced into the range defined in //‘feed_decl.gms’//. At the same time regions with a stocking rate above the MS average are assumed to rely on more intensive technologies, such that their daily growth is also above average (but within the range [\(DAILY_{lo},DAILY_{up}\)]). This is irrelevant in COCO (r=MS, no subnational regions) but relevant for CAPREG and CAPMOD calling the same //‘req_or_man_fnc.gms’//:
+\begin{align}
+\begin{split}
+&dailyIncrease_r^{HEIF}\\
+&= min [DAILY_{up}^{HEIF},max(DAILY_{lo}^{HEIF},\frac {stockingrate_r} {stockingrate_{MS}} DAILY_{MS}^{HEIF})]
+\end{split}
+\end{align}
+The daily increase is then used to determine the process length (rearrangement of equation below with empty days EDAYS = 0)
+\begin{align}
+\begin{split}
+&fatngday_r^{HEIF}\\
+&= min [DAYS_{up}^{HEIF},max\{DAYS_{lo}^{HEIF},\\
+& \quad (BEEF_r^{HEIF}/carcassSh_{HEIF}-startWgt_{HEIF})/dailyIncrease_r^{HEIF}\}]
+\end{split}
+\end{align}
+The daily increase and process length may be conbined to estimate the mean live weight,
+\begin{equation}
+meanWgt_r^{HEIF}=startWgt_{HEIF}+\frac {dailyIncrease_r^{HEIF}\cdot fatngdays_r^{HEIF}} 2
+\end{equation}
+which in turn is the last information to estimate energy requirements for maintenance according to the IPCC guidelines:
+\begin{equation}
+NEM_r^{HEIF}=(meanWgt_{HEIF})^{0.75}\cdot 0.322 \cdot fatngdays_r^{HEIF}
+\end{equation}
+Other energy requirements (for growth and activity) are calculated in a similar fashion as well as those for other animals. Important aspects to note are
+  * Fixed bounds for DAYS and DAILY ensure reasonable requirements, but require that the same constraints are anticipated in COCO and CAPREG to avoid inconsistencies.
+  * Regional coefficients are derived from the MS level information
+**Include file //‘coco2_gras.gms’//**
+With animal requirements specified the results of COCO1 for grass, other fodder and as a last resort cereals might be revised in terms of losses on farm to achieve an acceptable relationship of energy and protein requirements of total herds compared to the intake with feed. For gras and other fodder on arable land the contents may be adjusted in certain limits as well. The corrections do not eliminate the typical oversupply of nutrients compared to the requirements based on the literature, but they should give reasonable starting values for the feed allocation addressed in module CAPREG.
+===Compare COCO1 results with UNFCCC and compute correction factors in coco2_lulufc_carbon===
+In COCO1, an assignment of LULUCF effects (totals and per ha) has taken place, mostly relying on IPCC coefficients. These assignments are compared in coco2_lulucf_carbon with the reportings from EU MS to UNFCCC. For forestry and any transitions involving forestry, the standard IPCC reporting appears rather coarse, as it implies, for example, that management of forest land remaining forest has zero carbon effects. By contrast most EU countries report that there is still a considerable gain in biomass from forest management because the forests have not yet achieved a stable state (as implied by IPCC standard methodology).
+To pick up the detailed knowledge of management practices, disturbances, age and species structure embededed in the country level UNFCCC reporting the forest management coefficients per ha for the remaining class (FORFOR) have been already adopted in COCO1. Here we also compute correction factors for the default per ha effects from transitions involving forestry. These are ultimately stored on the data(.) array unloaded in the main result file to be used in LULUCF accounting of CAPMOD.
+===Complete prices for vegetable oil in coco2_oil_price===
+The EU prices for vegetable oils relevant for biofuel processing functions are assigned using prices from a USDA source. These assignments refer to prices at the wholesale level (relevant for the processing industry), not to consumer prices which have been determined previously.
+After this last include file the completions in module COCO2 are finished and the main output file (coco2_output.gdx) is unloaded. This file is loaded in subsequent modules (main use in CAPREG, but also in CAPTRD for nowcasting and in CAPMOD for update of LULUCF coefficients).