definitions, potential use for biomass production and its ... · indonesia & malaysia...
Post on 13-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Saori Miyake, Damian Bargiel
Technische Universität Darmstadt
25 April, 2017
The EGU General Assembly 2017
Session SSS2.10: Soils of Marginal Lands, Vienna
‘Underutilised’ agricultural land: its
definitions, potential use for
biomass production and its
environmental implications
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Presentation outline
Part I: Background
Part II: “Underutilised agricultural land” for future
bioenergy crop production: Burnett River
catchment, Australia
Part III: “Abandoned agricultural land” for future
biomass production: Central and Eastern
Europe (CEE)
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Background Part I: Background
Photo source: The Washington Post
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Growing bioeconomy and LUC effects
A growing bioeconomy and demand for biomass products: environmental
and social concerns e.g. food security, land use change (LUC) effects
Figure 1: Land use change pathways in four
geographical regions. (Miyake et al. 2012)
Brazil
Cattle pasture
Forest
Savanna (Cerrado)
Soybean
Sugarcane
Past/current land-use changes
Indirect deforestation
Cropland (rubber
plantations)
Forest
Oil palm
Indonesia & Malaysia Past/current Land-use changes
USA
Cropland (soybean)
Corn
Cropland (corn)
Forest
Grassland Soybean
Lignocellulosic crops
Past/current land-use changes
Projected land-use changes
CRP land (set-aside)
Corn
Surplus cropland
Cropland (break crops)
Surplus pasture Arable energy crops
Lignocellulosic crops
Projected land-use changes
Set-aside (UK)
Rapeseed
EU
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
“Underutilised agricultural land ”
• Since late 2000s, use of agricultural lands not in production, or not
suitable for food production was suggested for future biomass
production as a way of overcoming environmental and social
challenges (e.g. Hill et al. 2006; Campbell et al. 2008; Fargione et al. 2008; Field et
al. 2008; Ramage et al. 2009)
various types/terms: marginal, underutilised, idle, unused, free, surplus,
abandoned, set-aside, degraded, fallow lands…etc. (e.g. Dauber et al., 2012)
association with non-food ‘marginal crops’ (Shortall, 2013)
• No clear or single definition - significantly vary by country and local
conditions.
• No studies had investigated into the environmental consequences.
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Part II: “Underutilised agricultural
land” for future bioenergy crop
production: Burnett River
catchment, Australia
Photo: South Barnett, Australia
Research project: “Environmental consequences of land
use changes for bioenergy crop production at a regional
scale” (2009-14)
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Research aim
• To evaluate the
environmental sustainability
of bioenergy crop
production on ‘underutilised
agricultural land’ to
determine whether the use
of such lands results in
improved environmental
outcomes than current land
uses.
Research project: “Environmental consequences of land use
changes for bioenergy crop production at a regional scale”
Marginal/ Low
productivity land
Degraded land Waste land
Fallow land
Abandoned agricultural
land
Underutilised agricultural land
Reserved land
Figure 3: Definition of ‘underutilised agricultural land’ (adapted and modified from Wiegmann et al. 2008; Miyake et al., 2015)
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Research procedure & methods
1. Developed a spatially-oriented evaluation framework - to
quantify 8 environmental indicators (water, soil &
biodiversity).
2. Applied to 6 land use
change (LUC)
scenarios in a study
region, sub-tropical
Australia.
3. Results of each
scenario compared
with a baseline
scenario (2005/06).
Figure 4: An evaluation framework. (Miyake et al., 2015)
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Case study: “Underutilised agricultural
land” in subtropical Australia - 1
• Sub-tropical climate
• Beef grazing - 75% of total area
• Due to higher rainfall, settlements and croplands (e.g.
sugarcane) are constrained to
coastal areas.
• “Marginal” or “low
productivity” agricultural land:
poor soil (e.g. sandy soil,
rockiness, acidity), slope (>5%),
limited depth of soil. Linked to
the State government’s land
capability map. Figure 5: The Burnett River catchment (2005/06 land use)
Burnett River catchment, Qld, Australia (33,257 km2)
Land use
classification
Australia
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
• “Marginal land” in Australia: located inland
with arid/semi-arid regions. Commonly used
for grazing (55% of land).
• Since 1980s, “abandoned dryland cropping”
on ‘marginal’ land converted into beef cattle
grazing.
Dryland cropping requires intensive labour
and investment, decreased economic
profitability.
Beef cattle grazing doesn’t require hard
labour and became much profitable in
recent years. One of the greatest
environmental challenges in Aus. (e.g.
land clearing, GHG).
Photos: South Barnette, Australia
Case study: “Underutilised agricultural
land” in subtropical Australia - 2
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
LUC pathways:
• Pathway 1
• Pathway 2
• Pathway 3
Scenarios
Scenario development: LUC
pathways
Management intensity
‘Underutilised’ grazing
open areas
Pongamia
eucalypts
P1
E1 L o w
Hi g h
L o w
Hi g h
‘Underutilised’ grazing
forested areas
Pongamia
eucalypts
P2
E2
L o w
Hi g h
L o w
Hi g h
All ‘underutilised
agricultural lands’
Pongamia
eucalypts
P3
E3
L o w
Hi g h
L o w
Hi g h
Bioenergy crops
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake Figure 6: land use change scenarios for Pongamia
LUC scenarios: Pongamia
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
LUC scenarios: Eucalypts
Figure 7: Land use change scenarios for eucalypts
E1 E2 E3
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%TSS
TP
TN
Runoff volumeCA (native vegetation)
LPI (native vegetation)
Actual habitat amount
Baseline P1 (high intensity)
P2 (high intensity) P3 (high intensity)
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%TSS
TP
TN
Runoff volumeCA (native vegetation)
LPI (native vegetation)
Actual habitat amount
Baseline P1 (low intensity)
P2 (low intensity) P3 (low intensity)
Results: Pongamia scenarios
Low management intensity High management intensity
Figure 8: Overall environmental consequences of Pongamia land use change scenarios in the Burnett River catchment, Australia.
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%TSS
TP
TN
Runoff volumeCA (native vegetation)
LPI (native vegetation)
Actual habitat amount
Baseline E1 (low intensity)
E2 (low intensity) E3 (low intensity)
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%TSS
TP
TN
Runoff volumeCA (native vegetation)
LPI (native vegetation)
Actual habitat amount
Baseline E1 (high intensity)
E2 (high intensity) E3 (high intensity)
Low management intensity High management intensity
Results: eucalypts scenarios
Figure 9: Overall environmental consequences of eucalypt land use change scenarios in the Burnett River catchment, Australia.
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Key findings
• In sub-tropical Australia, only bioenergy scenario that benefited regional scale
environmental qualities was:
conversion of ‘underutilised’ grazing open areas (P1 & E1)
low management intensity.
• A policy direction of simply encouraging ‘underutilised agricultural land’ will not
necessarily result in improved environmental outcomes. Future policy should
provide more detailed prescriptions.
• Successful outcomes require careful planning & site management strategies.
• Bioenergy plantations do not alter catchment hydrology and improve water quality
(only if the management intensity is low) as replacing woody vegetation cover.
Management intensity is a crucial factor for better water and soil outcomes.
• Some species benefit from bioenergy crops in the fragmented landscape, but
bioenergy crop plantations cannot provide the same level of ecological functions
as native vegetation. Thus not a solution for threatened species in Australia.
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Background Part III: “Abandoned agricultural
land” for future biomass
production: Central and Eastern
Europe (CEE)
Photo: The County of Ostrołęka, Poland
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
• Agricultural land abandonment is a global trend (Plienlinger et al 2014).
• Increased “abandoned agricultural land” across Europe since 1950s
due to:
increasing yields on productive lands
conservation policies at national and EU levels
rising importation of agricultural products
declining viability of agriculture in marginal regions (Terres et al.,
2015).
• Agricultural land abandonment in Europe exceeded 30,000 ha/year in
2000-06.
“Abandoned agricultural land”
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Definitions: “Abandoned agricultural
land” in Europe
“Abandoned agricultural land” (Pointereau et al., 2008)
• Previously used for agriculture, but abandoned for physical, environmental and
socio-economic reasons.
• No single definition of the term, with different interpretations between each legal
or scientific text.
Definition
Administrative Farmland is abandoned if left unmanaged for more than 5 years.
Land which has not been used for agricultural production for 2 years.
Economic The land is considered as abandoned land when it is no longer used as an
economic resource.
Social Land abandoned following social and structural changes. Perception by other
social categories. Generally people do not make a difference between fellow
land and non-utilised farmland.
Landscape
ecological
Based on the description of the vegetation cover: percentage of shrubs,
bushes and trees.
Agronomic Land where farming has ceased and land which has been under-exploited.
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
• Land abandonment in Central
and Eastern Europe (CEE) is
associated with the collapse of
the Eastern Bloc in 1989.
• Extent of land
abandonment: estimates
vary largely e.g. 52.5 Mha in
2005 (Alcantara, 2013).
• Key drivers: economic and
environmental reasons, but
also political, institutional
and socio-economic
reasons
Abandoned agricultural land in CEE - 1
Collapse of the Eastern Bloc
Land reform Introduction of market economy
• Distribution &
restitution process
• Migration from rural to
urban areas
Uncertainty of legal
status of land ownership
Abolition of
state
subsidiaries
Price
liberalization
of agricultural
inputs
Decline of the agricultural sector
Economic unprofitability due to
marginal location, soil and low
productivity
Agricultural land abandonment
• Depopulation
• Loss of interest in
agriculture
Figure 10: Key drivers for agricultural land abandonment in Ukraine, Romania, Poland & Latvia
(Miyake and Wowra, under review)
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
• Strong interests in the use of these lands
for future food, feed and energy crop
production.
• Re-cultivation occurred after 2000 in high-
yielding lands (e.g. ‘Chernozem’ in Ukraine) (Smaliychuk et al, 2016)
• No study evaluated the environmental and
socio-economic effects of using these lands
for future biomass production.
Abandoned agricultural land in CEE - 2
Photos: The County of Ostrołęka, Poland
Ongoing project: ‘Environmental and
socio-economic implications of the use
of abandoned agricultural land for
future biomass production in CEE’
(October 2015 - )
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Project goal and scope
Research aim: to evaluate socio-economic & environmental implications
of scenarios with biomass crops on “abandoned agricultural lands”.
Objectives:
1. To generate a land-cover map and a map indicating “natural
succession” using remote sensing imagery;
2. To develop biomass scenarios;
3. To evaluate the scenarios.
Research scope:
• biodiversity;
• carbon (soil, biomass);
• socio-economic changes
Trade
off?
Increased
socio-
economic
opportunities?
Environ-
mental
decline?
Any scenarios that can meet two goals at
the same time??
Introduction of biomass crop
production on abandoned lands
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Study area: County of Ostrołęka, Poland
• Total area: 2,100km²
• Population: 390,000 (2015)
• Key industry (1990s- ): milk
production, largest cattle density in
Poland
• Poor soil quality: 81% (cropland), 58%
(grassland) classed into unproductive
soils.
• Strategic intervention area: high youth
unemployment rate (22% in 2014), low
income (76% of provincial average)
• Extensive agriculture and
heterogeneous agricultural
landscape: low agrochemical inputs,
high farmland biodiversity
Cropland
Grassland
Figure 12: Agricultural soil quality & Protected
areas in County of Ostrołęka (Source: IUNG, EC)
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Land-cover mapping using remote
sensing (objectives and method) - 1
Objectives:
1. To create high resolution land-cover
data for the evaluation.
2. To test to map areas with ‘natural
succession’ due to land
abandonment, which can be used
for biomass production.
Source: IUNG
Figure 13: Landscape mosaic: The County of Ostrołęka
Visual interpretation of Google Earth
Ground Truth (April 2016)
Acquisition of Sentinel 2A images
Classification: Maximum Likelihood Classifier
• Unsupervised classification
• Definition of land cover classes
• Supervised classification
Step1: Land-cover Base Map
Step 2: Land-cover map with ‘abandoned
agricultural land’
Post-processing e.g. forest, road, settlements, water
Co-occurrence analysis: Haralick
texture features (GLCM)
Co-occurrence maps
Figure 14: Procedure for land-cover mapping
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Land-cover mapping using remote
sensing (method) - 2
Method 1 (classification):
Visual interpretation of
natural successions: Google
Earth
Ground truth (5-7 April,
2016): 88 plots (all classes)
Sentnel 2A Satellite Images
(10m x 10m):
Spectral bands: Band2 (Blue),
3 (Green), 4 (Red), 8 (NIR)
5 Images: 24 March, 9 June,
28 August, 7 September and
17 October, 2016
Classification: Maximum
Likelihood Classifier
Mixed up areas with
trees and extensive
grassland = Higher
probability of being
abandoned land
Figure 15: An example of classification results, County of Ostrołęka, Poland
Road
Legend
Example 1
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Figure 16 An example of co-occurance analysis results, County of Ostrołęka, Poland
Mapping abandoned agricultural land
(method and preliminary result) - 1
Methods (co-occurrence analysis)
to identify abandoned agricultural
lands:
Sliding Window of size 3 x 3, 5 x 5
and 7 x 7. Only two land cover
classes (i.e. trees/shrubs/trees and
extensive grassland) considered
Different statistics of Haralick
features tested. Best results
delivered by ‘entropy’.
Next steps: setting of a threshold for
Co-occurrence, applying Majority
Filter on co-occurrence maps,
validation of co-occurrence maps
based on field surveys
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Mapping abandoned agricultural land
(examples) - 2
Example 2
Example 3
Orthophotograph Land cover classification Co-occurance analysis Ground truth
Figure 17: Examples of results of land-cover classification and co-occurance analysis, County of Ostrołęka, Poland
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Land management strategies for
abandoned agricultural land
Abandoned
agricultural
land
Feasibility of
restoration of
agriculture in
the region
NO
YES
Proximity/connectivity to
the protected areas,
forests and HNV farmlands
Local conservation policy
Potential for new
agricultural-based industry
Infrastructure (e.g. road)
Socio-economic trends
Soil productivity
Topography Climate
Land use
“Re-wilding”
Restoration of
traditional
agriculture (e.g. semi-natural
grassland, HNV)
Re-cultivation
(food crops)
Re-cultivation
(biomass crops)
Combined approach
Local factors to consider Land management directions
Marginal
Productive
Introduction of biomass
crops: Requires
considerations for
different production
intensity & system for
biomass production.
Figure 18: Land management options for abandoned agricultural land in Europe.
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Future works: possible biomass
production scenarios and evaluations
Scenario 2
Intensive grass
production
Biodiversity ↓ Carbon ?
Economic opportunity ↑↑
Biodiversity ↓↓↓↓
Carbon emission ↑↑↑↑
Scenario 3
Intensive SRC
production
Biodiversity ↓ Carbon ?
Economic opportunity ↑↑
Scenario 4
SRC integrated
with extensive
grassland (silvo-
pastoral agroforestry)
Biodiversity ↑↑ Carbon ↓
Economic opportunity ↑
Scenario 1 (baseline)
No change Expected effects
Biodiversity → Carbon ↓
Economic opportunity ↓
Current land use
‘underutilised
agricultural land’ with
natural succession
Figure 19: Possible scenarios
Vegetation
clearing
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Conclusion
• No clear definition of the terms ‘underutilized agricultural lands’, as
significantly vary by country and local conditions.
• The environmental implications of biomass production on these land are
highly controversial. They are significantly different depending on local
conditions.
• Thus we need further evaluations – more trial sites in various locations to
obtain field data.
• Highly interdisciplinary research area - research cooperation and
collaborations across countries and disciplines are essential to provide
future policy direction.
• Future biomass production scenarios: low-impact crops and production
system in consideration of climate, land use, local biophysical conditions
and relevant policies (e.g. conservation) within a regional/ landscape
planning framework.
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Acknowledgement
Australia
• Australian Postgraduate Award (APA)
• Ann Peterson, Carl Smith, Clive McAlpine, Marguerite Renouf (University of Queensland)
• David Waters and David Burton (Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines [DNRM])
• Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA)
• Peter Gresshoff and Paul Scott (ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrative Legume Research, The University
of Queensland), David Lee (Forest Industries Research Centre, University of Sunshine Coast)
• Ian Crosthwaite (BGA AgriServices) and Damien O’Sullivan (former Queensland Economic Development
and Innovation [DEEDI])
Europe
• EGU Early Career Scientist's Travel Support
• The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
• Liselotte Schebek, Jan Mizgajski (Technische Universität Darmstadt, FG Stoffstrommanagement und
Ressourcenwirtschaft)
• Anna Tamm, Pouya Hedayati (TU Darmstadt, Institut für Geodäsie)
• Stanisław Kubeł, Aldona Kuciej (District Office in Ostrołęka, Poland)
• Rafał Pudełko (Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, Poland)
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
References
• Alcantara, C, et al. 2013, ‘Mapping the extent of abandoned farmland in Central and Eastern Europe using MODIS time series
satellite data’, Environmental Research Letters 8:1-9.
• Dauber et al. 2012, “Bioenergy from “surplus land”, environmental and socio-economic implications”, BioRisk7: 5-50.
• IEA 2011, Technology roadmap: Biofuels for transport, International Energy Agency, Paris.
• Miyake, S. et al. 2012, ‘Land-use and environmental pressures resulting from current and future bioenergy crop expansion: A
review’, Journal of Rural Studies 28: 650-8.
• Miyake, S, 2013, Environmental Consequences of Land use Changes for Bioenergy Crop Production at a Regional Scale (PhD
thesis), School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland.
• Miyake, S et al. 2015, ‘Environmental implications of using ‘underutilised agricultural land’ for future bioenergy crop production’,
Agricultural Systems 139: 180-195.
• Miyake, S. et al. 2016 ‘Biodiversity and Socio-economic implications of the use of abandoned agricultural land for future biomass
production in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)’, Conference proceeding of 24th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition
(EUBCE), pp. 1422-1430.
• Plienlinger, T. et al 2014, ‘The impact of land abandonment on species richness and abundance in the Mediterranean Basin: A
Meta-Analysis’, PLoS ONE 9.
• Pointereau, P. et al. 2008, Analysis of farmland abandonment and the extent and location of agricultural areas that are actually
abandoned or are in risk to be abandoned, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and
Sustainability.
• Shortall, OK 2013, ‘”Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions’, Energy Policy: 62: 19-27.
• Statistical Yearbook 2015, Masovian Voivodeship/ Mazovia Province.
• Terres, J.M. et al. 2015, ‘Farmland abandonment in Europe: Identification of drivers and indicators, and development of a composite
indicator of risk’, Land Use Policy 49: 20-34.
• Wiegmann, K. et al. 2008 “Degraded land and sustainable bioenergy feedstock production – Issue paper”, the Joint international
workshop on high nature value criteria and potential for sustainable use of degraded lands, Paris.
25.04.2017 l Technische Universität Darmstadt l Saori Miyake
Saori Miyake
Institute IWAR
Technische Universität Darmstadt
E-mail: S.Miyake@iwar.tu-darmstadt.de
Tel: +49 6151 16-20732
Thank you! vielen Dank!
どうもありがとうございました。
top related