||capita (Herrero_et al._,<br>2014)|low yield growth in least<br>advanced countries||
|---|---|---|---|
|**Food demand**<br>**projections**|FAO diet projections<br>for SSP4 (Alexandratos<br>and Bruinsma, 2012)<br>and authors’ own<br>assumptions for SSP5<br>based on scenario<br>narratives|Diets follow similar<br>patterns as projected by<br>FAO, in particular<br>consumption of meat<br>remains stable in<br>developed regions, and diet<br>remain mostly vegetarians<br>in India|Food consumption around<br>the world converges to<br>Western diet types, with<br>higher intake of meat and<br>milk than in SSP4.|
|**Trade policies**|Authors’ own<br>assumption based on<br>scenario narratives|Trade barriers increase<br>considerably compared to<br>today’s situation between<br>all large regions of the<br>world|Trade costs remain<br>unchanged compared to<br>today’s situation|
|**Food waste**|Authors’ own<br>assumption based on<br>scenario narratives|Constant waste level in<br>supply chain and food<br>consumption|Constant waste level in<br>supply chain and increased<br>waste in food consumption|

Income elasticities for food demand per capita are calibrated for SSP4 on food consumption projections from FAO (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012) using GDP assumption from the same source. Therefore, food demand calculated for SSP4 takes into account the specificities of the population and GDP per capita development of this scenario. For SSP5, income elasticity patterns are changed to represent a nutrition transition in developing countries with a catching up in the long run of developing regions towards level of consumption of animal products in developed regions, which leads for instance to higher poultry meat demand for India. Additionally, the level of waste on the food consumption side is adjusted to the narrative of each scenario, and we assume fixed domestic waste level in SSP4 at the historical levels and increased domestic waste for SSP5.

Trade assumptions are also varied depending on the SSP. For SSP5, the narrative specifies that global cooperation favors trade and we keep the standard trade specification of GLOBIOM, reproducing current levels of tariffs and trade cost progressively decreasing over time. For SSP4, however, cooperation between countries is low and economic integration fails with many regions becoming isolated. This leads to higher trade costs in our scenario which significantly restricts expansion of trade in the baseline as well as the capacity to adapt to climate or policy shocks.

# **3.2. Climate change impact scenarios**

The most recent generation of climate change scenarios available at the time of this study corresponds to the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) (Taylor _et al._ , 2011). In CMIP5, more than 50 climate models were used to simulate four radiative forcing scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs). The four RCPs cover a range of radiative forcing, going from 2.6 to 8.5 W/m<sup>2</sup> in the year 2100 (van Vuuren _et al._ , 2011). Depending on the climate model, these levels of radiative forcing would spread the global temperature increase above the pre‐industrial levels, from below 1 °C for RCP2.6 to about 7 °C for RCP8.5, the median across the models for the latter RCP8.5 being just below 5 °C (Rogelj _et al._ , 2012).

The ISI‐MIP provided impact modelers with spatially interpolated and bias‐corrected climate datasets for all four RCPs and for five GCMs (GFDL‐ESM2M, HadGEM2‐ES, IPSL‐CM5A‐LR, MIROC‐ESM‐CHEM, 11