issue paper - land use and bioenergy

8/7/2019 Issue Paper - Land Use and Bioenergy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/issue-paper-land-use-and-bioenergy 1/4

PAPER ISSUE

BIOENERGY ISSUE PAPER SERIES NO. 1

Land Use, Land Use Change

and Bioenergy THE CURRENT PICTURE AND FUTURE TRENDS

Despite the recent expansion of large scale bioenergyinvestments, feedstock production for energy purposesonly represents 2.3% of the land currently under agricul-tural production (Ravindranath et al., 2009) 1. However,with many national government mandates and volumetargets in place, the sector is predicted to grow consider-ably, occupying a larger percentage in the myriad of landuses worldwide. Global estimates for the amount of landwhich will be required for future bioenergy productionranges from 118 to 508 Mha or up to 36% of the currentarable land by 2030 (Ravindranath et al., 2009) 2.

As bioenergy production represents only one piece in the patchwork of land uses worldwide, other global trendsneed to be looked at to put bioenergy into perspective.Increases in demand for land are predicted due to anincrease in human settlements and infrastructures as wellas socio-economic activities like agriculture, silvicultureand industrial production. Current and future trends like

projected population growth of 36% between 2000 and2030, changes in consumption patterns towards more ani-mal based nutrition and climate change will also impose

pressure on land and other natural resources.

Although, yield improvement potentials do exist and mayassist in reducing the pressure on land, these potentialsare limited to a certain extent and areas (e.g. developingcountries, especially Africa) 3.

As arable land is limited, predicted additional demand for land adds pressure and evokes land use changes (see Box1) thus generating the potential for environmental andsocial problems and high opportunity costs 4.

IMPACTS FROM LAND USE CHANGE

Land use change (LUC) leads to a number of potential en-vironmental and socio-economic impacts. Of environmen-tal threats, LUC caused by bioenergy expansion has the

potential to endanger areas of high conservation value if feedstock production encroaches onto these lands. Reduc-tion in species richness and composition, the introductionof energy crops if they turn out to be invasive in a givencontext, increased prevalence of fertilizers and loss of eco-system services resulting from bioenergy production allaffect ecosystem integrity and the biodiversity of an area.Moreover, water and air pollution as well as soil erosionare other likely impacts. To the same effect, unsustainableland conversions have been shown to cause a net increase

Land is facing increasing pressure from competing uses, of which bioenergy is one. Theenhanced competition for land increases the risk of land use changes, which may lead to negativeenvironmental and socio-economic impacts. Overall participatory land use planning and man-

agement – both on policy and project level – are needed to manage these competing uses. In termsof bioenergy, such an approach can help to identify “go” areas and thereby ensure sustainablebioenergy production and manage risks. ri sks.



in GHG emissions, compared to traditional fossil fuels, dueto releasing carbon stock in soils.

The potential risks of LUC are not only related to environ-mental risks, but also include social risks. One of the mostdebated social risks that bioenergy-introduced LUC cancontribute to is the impact on food security and livelihoodactivities. As bioenergy production increases, it threatens tocompete for arable lands that could also be suitable for agri-cultural food crops, resulting in the potential risk of drivingdown potential supply 5. Moreover, energy crop productionmay encroach to areas already utilized for extensive landuse forms such as subsistence agriculture or collection of medical plants which are often crucial to rural communities.Insecure land tenure, especially in rural areas, may further increase the negative socio-economic impact.

Alternatively, LUC due to energy crop cultivation can have positive impacts as well, depending on the former landuse. If managed sustainably, the use of degraded or mar-ginal land for bioenergy might have positive impacts due toimproved soil quality, increased carbon stocks, and habitatrestoration.

It should be noted that although direct LUC is relativelystraight forward to identify on a project level, indirect LUC

from increased bioenergy production is more dif cult toassess as it may not only occur within a region but alsocountrywide and across borders and continents. In thissense, because iLUC is a result of larger macroeconomicmarket dynamics, the relationship between the potentialdisplacement and bioenergy production is hard to quantify,although current research suggests that it does pose envi-ronmental and social risks including biodiversity loss andGHG increases.

IDENTIFYING SUITABLE ANDAVAILABLE LAND FOR BIOENER GY

The limiting factor for the growth of feedstock for energy purposes will be inhibited by the amount of suitable andavailable land for sustainable cultivation which is affected

by trends in climate change, diets, and competing uses of biomass. Even though promoting sustainable use of bio-mass resources can reduce the amount of land needed, therewill regardless still be land expansion in the short term.Thus, it is essential to identify areas which can be catego-rized as appropriate or “go” areas for bioenergy production,and conversely “no go” areas for bioenergy production (seeBox 2).

To reduce the impacts associated with bioenergy productionand land use change, the utilization of degraded or marginalland has been introduced as a sustainable option for bioen-ergy production. Even though both of these terms have nosingular or composite de nition, they are commonly associ -ated with land that is not currently under intensive produc-tion due to its low soil fertility and production. These landsare not considered to be in competition with other land uses,which prevents competition with food, fodder and bre pro -duction while improving the GHG balance of biofuels.

Because of this, several standards and policies have begunto integrate degraded lands as “go” areas for bioenergy

production. To the same extent, biodiverse or high valueconservation (HCV) areas are considered “no-go” areas, inhopes that it will prevent biodiversity loss due to biofuel

production. Policies such as the EU-RES Directive and product standards have been targeting these “go” and “no-go” areas as sustainable options that should be used to meetmodern bioenergydemands. Howev-er, a growing bodyof work suggeststhat the solutionmight not be thatsimple.

Degraded or marginal land canstill contain highamounts of biodi-versity leading tonegative environ-

mental impactswhen taken intoagricultural pro-duction. It can alsooccur that the landis already in physi-cal or spiritual usefor livelihood sup-

port of local com-munities causingnegative social and

economic impactswhen communities are displaced from the area.

Yet, a common de nition of degraded and marginal land doesnot exist and there is no prescriptive way of identifying areasthat are suitable on a global or even regional scale. These

Box 2: “Go” / “No-go” Areas

“Go” areas for bioenergy produc-tion are areas identi ed as land that is

biophysically suitable and available for sustainable production of feedstock for energy purposes, considering compo-nents such as its prior socio-economicuse and environmental value.

In contrary, so called “no-go” areascomprise land which is unsuitable andunavailable for sustainable bioenergy

production due to the high negativeenvironmental and/or socio-economicimpacts (opportunity costs). Some of these areas might be wetland and peatland due to high carbon stocks, or landcurrently used for food production. Incase of doubt, areas should be classi edas “no-go” unless proven otherwise.This precautionary approach can help

prevent negative impacts.



complexities make it dif cult to prevent all of the potentialconsequences when labelling and utilizing these lands.Therefore internationally agreed upon de nitions on de -graded and marginal lands are needed for the identi cationof sustainable land for bioenergy production. As well, acomprehensive approach is necessary and pertinent to reduceoverall pressure on land in order to mitigate the negative en-vironmental and social impacts of LUC, and to de ne areas

appropriate for energy crop cultivation. This has to be doneon a national or regional level as a project based approachmay not be considered suf cient to address these larger con-textual dynamics.

REDUCING PRESSURE ON LAND & LAND USECHANGE FROM BIOENERGY

Because of these growing concerns, decision makers are presented with several questions on ways to reduce the pres-sure that bioenergy presents on land. How can we mitigateimpacts due to bioenergy-driven LUC? What tools, best

practices and processes are available?

Both long-term measures and intermediary solutions canlimit land use and LUC from bioenergy production. The

rst thing to consider are ways of reducing the amount of land needed for feedstock production for energy purposes

production be-fore promoting a

process to identifyappropriate landsfor expansion.Therefore, opti-mizing rst landuse in a sustain-able way and sup-

porting alternativesolutions to reducedemand should beadvanced.

Long term reduc-

tions of land usecan be realised

by rst reducingoverall energy

consumption including transportation (e.g. by modal shiftsto less energy-consuming means of transportation). Second,the ef ciency of feedstock production can be enhanced byincreasing yields (particularly in developing countries wherethere is the potential to increase yields), promoting sustain-able agriculture and restoring formerly degraded land. Third,the ef ciency of bioenergy usage can be augmented by op -

timizing the use of waste and residues, promoting cascadinguse of feedstock by using it as a source for food and material before recovering the energy content, applying stationaryuses of bioenergy or enhanced fuel ef ciency in transporta -tion as well as considering different pathways 6.

In an intermediary sense, other measures can be taken toconfront the risks associated with direct and indirect LUCand bioenergy expansion, including the appropriate identi -cation of suitable and available land. To ensure sustainablefeedstock production, potential areas for bioenergy develop-

ment need to be identi ed through a comprehensive, cross-sectoral, multi-level and participatory approach. Suitability (biophysical) and availability assessments (ac-tual land use pattern) can be used to choose the right kindsof land with the least amount of risk on local communitiesand the environment and therefore providing the lowest op-

portunity costs. Various tools and processes covering one or more of the above mentioned aspects have been developed

by several stakeholders (see Box 3).

Economic incentives from governments might be an op-tion to encourage the use of land identi ed as appropriatefor bioenergy production as well, including options such as

providing subsidies for producers that want to sustainablyutilize degraded land for production (Searchinger, 2009) 7.

Box 3: Tool-Box

The Global HCVF Toolkit (HCV Resource Network) provides guidance on how to identify, manage and monitor High Conservation Value Forests (HCVFs). For more infor-mation see: http://hcvnetwork.org

The Automatic Land Evaluation System (Cornel Uni-

versity) is a computer program that allows land evaluatorsto build expert systems to evaluate land on a project or regional scale. For more information see http://www.css.cornell.edu/landeval/ales/ales.htm

The Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA,FAO) helps assessing land degradation on drylands as wellas the biophysical and socio-economic impacts and causesof degradation on various land resources. For more infor-mation see: http://www.fao.org/nr/lada

Module 1 of the Bioenergy and Food Security Project(BEFS, FAO) provides the methodology for a suitabilityand availability assessment for bioenergy feedstock pro-duction. For more information:http://www.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befs

An overview of existing participatory planning tools can be found on the IAPAD website:http://www.iapad.org/toolbox.htm

Tools to facilitate the inventory of GHG-emissions caused by land use changes are e.g. the IPCC Guidelines fornational greenhouse gas inventories (http://www.ipcc.ch), the UNFCCC methodological approaches (http://www.

unfccc.org), the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP)framework methodology for GHG lifecycle analysis (http://www.globalbioenergy.org), and the Sentemovem/Ecofys tool(http://www.sentemovem.nl/gave_english)



Comprehensive land use planning (guidelines) needs totake into account all competing land usesand users in an area to make informeddecisions, to solve land use con icts andto ensure sustainable development. Thus,the whole process has to be carried outthrough a cross-sectoral and participa-tory approach , to enhance coherence of all relevant sectoral policies, and ensure

the involvement and the approval of different stakeholders. This includescross-sectoal conversations with differentgovernment ministries and other publicinstitutions, private sector, as well as lo-cal communities and other groups.

In this respect, land suitability and avail-ability mapping should not only consist of top-down data gathering and mapping butalso integrate a bottom-up approach to pre-

vent negative impacts on the local environ-ment, surrounding communities and stake-holders. Ground proofng of the results and

participatory mapping - to comprise e.g. landtenure issues and customary rights - need to

be part of the land identi cation process (seeBox 3).

Aspects of sustainable land management need to be integrat-ed seeing that appropriate agricultural practices are crucial notonly to feedstock production for energy purposes but also to

agricultural production in general. For example, intercrop- ping and agroforestry have the potential tosafeguard biodiversity and provide habitat insome instances. These, and other forms of sus-tainable agriculture, reduce the overall needfor agricultural inputs such as fertilizers andwater that affect surrounding ecosystems and

put constraints on natural resources.

Even though indirect land use change is moredif cult to assess, tools and resources do existthat should account for the degree to which

production displaces former land uses (seeBox 3). These methodologies should be quan-ti ed in the planning process, as a means tomitigate potential negative changes, particu-larly for GHG balances and biodiversity.

As choices about sustainable bioenergy pro-duction can be seen as balancing trade-offs ,

maximizing the bene ts of biofuel productionis possible through these strategic choices on both a policy and project level. In an effortto reduce risks, ensuring that unsustainableLUC and iLUC can be mitigated, should be

part of any overall land planning and man-agement strategy. Several avenues can beapproached and considered in an effort to

do so in order to promote social development and protect theenvironment.

AVENUES FOR SUSTAINABLE BIOFUEL PRODUCTION

- Create comprehensive land use planning and management systems to ensure an overall framework for an informeddecision making process towards sustainable land use and bioenergy development.

- Undertake a multi-level planning process to guarantee the best possible results through capturing all availableknowledge and data on the different involved levels (i.e. globally, regionally, and locally).

- Ensure a participatory approach to achieve a more informed decision making process and an overall agreed andsupported solution through community involvement and stakeholder consultations.

- Support overall reductions in bioenergy feedstock demand through promoting greater ef ciency in technologies,end-use, and feedstock choices.

- Promote sustainable agricultural management practices that reduce the need for agricultural inputs and resourcesand increase biodiversity.

LOOKINGAHEAD:

1

For the full report of the International SCOPE Biofuels Project see http://cip.cornell.edu/biofuels/ 2 Estimates are based on different scenarios and feedstock in which the authors project the land requirements to meet a 10% global supply of biofuels in the total global fuel supply.3 For more information see International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management et al.,2009 (www.unep.fr)4 According to the FAO, land use change is the change in the “arrangements, activities, and nputs that people undertake in a certain land cover types” (FAO/ UNEP, 1999). Although

LUC has generally agreed upon de nitions, the de nition for iLUC has not reached scienti c consensus.5 Current research suggests that the degrees to which these two relationships affect each other is nominal as other forces such as future market speculations and an increase in demand affected food

prices to a greater degree.6 For more information see International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management et al., 2009 (www.unep.fr)7 For the full report of the International SCOPE Biofuels Project see http://cip.cornell.edu/biofuels/

issue paper - land use and bioenergy

Documents