- Email: [email protected]
Land use for integrated systems: A bioenergy perspective
Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Environmental Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev
Land use for integrated systems: A bioenergy perspective Rocio A. Diaz-Chavez Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, 313A Mechanical Engineering Building, SW7 2AZ London, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e in f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 1 September 2011 Accepted 23 March 2012
Land and the use of land provide a key link between human activity and the natural environment. Traditionally, land has been a finite environmental resource. Land has been devoted to a variety of uses, such as food, for housing, as fibre and fodder. More recently, though, the discussion over the production of bioenergy crops for biofuels or for energy generation has put forward a new paradigm of land use. This paper reviews land use from the perspective of integrated systems, the new paradigm, and how it has evolved to make a contribution towards the reduction of greenhouse gases. & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Land use Integrated systems Bioenergy Food production
1. Introduction The use of land constitutes a key link between human activity and the natural environment. Traditionally, land has been seen as a multi-functional but finite environmental resource, being used for food, housing, and for the production of fibre and fodder. More recently the discussion over the production of bioenergy crops for biofuels or for energy generation has thrown up a ‘‘new paradigm’’ for land use which entails the integration of the different uses. The use of land is one of the key drivers of global environmental changes, a change that has, in turn, influenced the ways society use land in attempting to mitigate the negative impacts of a changing climate (Lobley and Winter, 2009). There is also an increasing pressure on farmers and land managers to act as ‘carbon stewards’ and adapt land management to minimise carbon losses, and maximise carbon storage by substituting fossil fuels (Smith and Maltby, 2003). Although planning techniques and methodologies that incorporate the assessment of land availability and use have improved, there is still a need to use land more effectively. The links with
E-mail address: [email protected] 2211-4645/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.018
92
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
policy and the public participation in land use decision-making remain under scrutiny, raising questions as to whether the ‘new’ integrated systems approach really constitute a novelty or whether they have been simply ‘‘forgotten’’. This paper reviews some of the initiatives to implement an integrated systems’ approach to land use in the last few decades, and considers how the approach may be adapted to take account of new developments. 1.1. What is land and what is land for? Land may refer to urban, rural, or peri-urban land. Lobley and Winter (2009, p. 7) put forward the following definitions:
Land as a physical resource. Land cover—the biophysical attributes and human structures of the Earth’s surface. Land use—operations or activities carried out on land.
Land use encompasses anthropogenic activities that are often envisaged in planning, such as agriculture, industrial production, housing and road-building. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAOSTAT, 2011) defines agricultural land as the sum of arable land, permanent crops, permanent meadows and pasture, where arable land is the sum of temporary crops, pastures and fallow land. Although marginal land is much more difficult to define, it includes any other land not specifically designated under arable land or land under permanent crops, permanent pastures, forests and woodland, built-on areas, roads, and barren lands (BEE, 2010). Amongst the key factors that influence land use are the need for food production for a growing population, and the impacts of climate change. Population growth and food production have long been an issue in land use and are likely to remain so in the future. According to the United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA, 2011) the earth’s population is expected to reach 7 billion in 2011, rising to 8 billion by 2025. Such growth will require a higher production of crops for food, energy, fodder and fibre, and will raise questions about the energy levels needed to produce them. The growing debate on climate change has highlighted the need for research agendas to include measures for food production and energy sources that produce less emissions of greenhouse gases. According to Lobley and Winter (2009), the debate has placed a new emphasis on the role of agricultural supply-chains in reducing their contribution to climate change, as well as reasserting a similar role for multifunctional agro-environments with a focus on biodiversity and landscapes. Agricultural land has expanded in the last decades at the expense of natural environments and is now estimated to cover between 30 and 40 percent of the land surface, excluding ice cover (Lobley and Winter, 2009). This expansion has arisen from the need to meet the demands for food and fibre of the growing global population as well as from the growth of pastures for livestock production. The new possibilities that bioenergy production are said to provide have largely been based on the premise of a competition between land for food and energy crops. There are now attempts to reconcile the use of land for food and for energy crops in a sustainable manner. One of such attempts lies in linking together the integrated systems’ approach with climate change and bioenergy crop production.
2. Integrated agricultural systems, integrated farms and agroforestry systems The concept of integrated agricultural systems is not new. Combining farming with the raising of cattle for different products, for instance, is a long-established practice. However, Hendrickson et al. (2008) argue that as these systems have seen a reduction in their levels of commodity production over the last thirty years or so, so they have been used less and less, particularly in the West, where large scale systems have been favoured over family and medium size farms. The concept of integrated farms was first put forward in the 1980s, when different international programmes tried to link agriculture, forestry, food production, aquaculture, and crop biological
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
93
diversity with ecological concepts and rural development. Some of these approaches also took into account the value of traditional knowledge as applied to new agricultural systems. The main objective was to diversify and conserve the genetic resources of crops (including traditional crops) and obtain multiple products. In contrast to the Green Revolution, where one of the main aims was to obtain maximum yields, most of the integrated farms sought to improve farm management by using resources in a more efficient manner but within smaller areas with the aim of providing for a single farmer or a family unit. Integrated farming called for skills in different types of activity, as in raising livestock and poultry, in crop and vegetable farming, in growing grass and aquatic plants and also in fish farming (Morales, 1984; Altieri, 1986). During the 1980s, research on alternative forms of production examined traditional uses. Morales (1984), for instance, looked at the legacy of the Aztec production on chinampas (or floating gardens) which are still used in Mexico. Different types of production in Latin America using pre-hispanic forms of production were also examined (see Altieri, 1986; Altieri and Merrick, 1988). Edwards (1987) classified agricultural systems that require less inputs as ‘sustainable agriculture’. These were integrated systems with more intensive management than the traditional monocultures and with only slightly minor production, but still ecologically better adapted. These diversified systems included crops and livestock that coexist independently from each other. Integrating crops and livestock was also meant to minimise risk rather than recycling resources. But in an integrated system, crops and livestock are meant to interact to create a synergy, with recycling allowing the maximum use of available resources (IFAD, 2010), although land use considerations are not evident. Integrated farming was seen as playing a key role in rural development in developing countries as the species of fish, crops and livestock to be produced were to be selected according to local conditions and requirements. FAO (1979) has argued that in many developing countries, the objectives of integrated farming should be heavily oriented to economic, social and nutritional benefits, which implied the need to create farmer cooperatives or other associations (FAO, 1979). Integrated farming systems were an alternative to the Green Revolution which was already in place and aimed at developing alternatives to higher yields with the use of more agricultural inputs, such as fertilisers and pesticides. One critique of this was the loss of self-reliance and autonomy of farmers, as they would need to turn to transnational corporations for inputs, as well as losing access to native species (Altieri and Anderson, 1986). In contrast, integrated farms, in Latin America at least, were able to draw on traditional knowledge in land management. But as this was not an alternative for the short term and although many farms in the region still rely on integrated farming, many have turned to short-term options and large monocultures as, for instance, in Argentina. The literature reporting on the success of these integrated production systems is quite limited, but some of them are still very much in use. This is the case, for instance, of the chinampas in Latin America, or integrated farms in Asia (see FAO, 1979; Bogdanski et al., 2010). In an attempt to capture the different dynamics of agricultural systems, Hendrickson et al. (2008) proposed that agricultural production should be made up of enterprises or units of economic organisation. They define enterprise as a system component that ‘‘produces an output and provides a resource from another component in the same system’’ (Hendrickson et al., 2008, p. 268). Different enterprises therefore make up an agricultural system, which is placed in a hierarchy according to five different criteria. There is the basic system, made up of one or two enterprises (e.g. corn–soybean rotation or confined animals). There is a diverse system, comprising more than three different crops or animal rearing and where activities are organised under an existing management system. These enterprises are often linked, such as mills, marketing associations or warehouses. In the dynamic system management is not predetermined, relying on the producer’s understanding of the different crops and components, requiring an yearly strategy. Integrated agricultural systems, in turn, are made up of different enterprises that interact synergistically. These include crop-livestock systems where different farm products are used as food, fodder and fertilisers. These systems require efficient management as they are not dynamic (e.g. do not change annually). The final system is the integrated and dynamic system, which contrary to the integrated system, requires a higher degree of management and understanding of the various component systems. Although this classification demonstrates the ways through which farm management may, at least in developed economies, promote better system integration and provide a framework for
94
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
sustainable agriculture, it has some shortcomings. It does not address some issues on the use of fuels for agriculture, nor how to deal with some of the production trade-offs (e.g. impact of fuel prices). It also fails to consider how bioenergy crops may be integrated or how the by-products of energy or fuel production may be utilised. Nevertheless, the classification by Hendrickson et al. (2008) is useful and might be usefully linked to the concept of agroforestry, which has a long history in traditional land-use practice and entails combining forest use and farming practices for the short-term. It was not until 1977 that agroforestry was institutionalised via the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) (Nair, 1993). Currently, agroforestry is considered an integrated land use system geared towards producing food and wood (among other products) in tropical areas, whilst in temperate areas it comprises a multifunctional system. Moreover, agroforestry has become a strategy for carbon sequestration. According to Nair et al. (2009), the potential is based on the premise of the greater efficiency of an integrated system in capturing and utilising resource than systems based on single species. Nair et al. (2009) note, that an average of 1023 million ha are said to be used in agroforestry systems globally. However, they question the robustness of this data and the methodologies from which it derives, arguing that estimates of C stock of biomass and soil C storage provide a more accurate measure. Further, Nair et al. (2009) suggest that areas containing unproductive crop, grass, along with forested and degraded lands could be integrated into agroforestry. Although the benefits of agroforestry have been disputed, new agreements on climate change signed in Durban in 2011 may bring a fresh perspective into the advantages of incorporating agroforestry into integrated systems.
3. Improvement in methodologies for land use assessment with a focus on bioenergy The debate on energy crops has focused on controversial issues, one of which is the assessment of available land and the implications for changing use. According to Watson and Diaz-Chavez (2011), a number of factors need to be taken into account for a better understanding of the implications of where to develop bioenergy projects. These include (a) the likelihood and desirability of converting land to bioenergy feedstocks, (b) the appropriateness of relevant policies, and (c) best choice of feedstocks and production systems. In addition, GIS and modelling should be used for assessing the appropriateness of tools and methods. Angelis-Dimakis et al. (2011) suggested further issues for consideration, such as land conversion costs, social concerns and environmental constraints, all of which may limit the amount of land available for energy crops. They argue that tools or methodologies need to take into account both the availability and characteristics of the land for bioenergy selection as they influence the selection of land, the changes that follow from it, as well as the impacts. An overview of tools for assessing land use for bioenergy production would focus on 1. 2. 3. 4.
Models: spatial and non-spatial models. Frameworks: ecosystem services (approach), responsible cultivation, ecosystem approach. Planning and zoning: mapping, territorial zoning. Statistical analysis and databases.
3.1. Models 3.1.1. Spatially explicit methods These are generally used for local land-use, entailing the use of a combination of sources such as satellite images, aerial photographs, remote sensing data and statistical census data. Spatially explicit methods depend on the availability and quality of satellite images and define land-use categories on an area for a defined period. To enhance their efficiency, these methods should be combined with others, such as a) Geo-statistical techniques to integrate spatial data with statistical analysis. b) Cellular automata used to analyse land-use changes at the local/regional level.
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
95
c) MODIS data, which classifies the biophysical condition of the land in a given year, rather than the land cover or land use change (Gnansounou and Panichelli, 2008). 3.1.2. Non-spatial methods Non-spatial methods focus mainly on explaining forces that drive land use change, being based on statistical analysis and regression models. Several techniques exist to aggregate or reduce the number of variables (e.g. factor analysis, principal components, canonical correlation, cluster analysis) as well as different regression techniques (e.g. linear, logistic, multinomial), with logistic regression being the most commonly used (Gnansounou and Panichelli, 2008). However, their combination with spatial analysis is essential at some stage as interlinked factors such as biodiversity conservation and expansion of urban areas will affect the results. A different approach for estimating energy crops potential is the economic modelling of the entire agricultural sector. Economic models account for biomass production for internal markets, exports and imports, and detailed costs and benefits of major farming goods. It relies on various assumptions, ranging from farming practices to macro-economic variables that relate to the agricultural sector (Angelis-Dimakis et al., 2011). 3.2. Frameworks: ecosystem services, responsible cultivation areas 3.2.1. Ecosystem services approach The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2010) sets the framework for ecosystem services. These are considered as the benefits obtained from ecosystems, which include provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that directly affect people, along with the supporting services needed to maintain other services to ecosystems. Changes in these services affect human well-being, including security, access to the products and services needed for good standard of living, as well as health, social and cultural issues (MA, 2005). According to Cotula et al. (2008), biofuels can provide valuable ecosystem services to human wellbeing, but they may also compromise other ecosystem services, such as the provision of food and freshwater. However, knowledge about the effect of biofuels on ecosystem services and biodiversity is fragmented or has only recently emerged, so much more research is required (Stromberg et al., 2010). 3.2.2. Responsible cultivation areas The Responsible Cultivation Areas (RCA) is a practical methodology used to identify concrete areas and/or production models that can be used for producing additional energy crops that are environmentally and socially responsible and have no unwanted indirect impacts (Dehue et al., 2010). This methodology includes both direct and indirect effects, based on five principles: 1. Establishment of energy crop plantations that maintains or increases High Conservation Values (Stewart et al., 2008). 2. Establishment of energy crop plantations does not lead to significant reductions in carbon stocks. 3. Establishment of energy crop plantations respects the legal land status and customary land rights. 4. Establishment of energy crop plantations does not cause unwanted indirect effects. 5. Intensification does not cause adverse environmental or social effects.
The RCA concept is applied only for site selection and does not include planning and design for use and management of the site. This methodology, if applied properly, should take into account most of the sustainability requirements for policies on land use change (such as the EU Renewable Energy Directive; RED, 2009). It should also meet the criteria of bioenergy production with low risk of indirect effects. 3.2.3. The ecosystem approach The Ecosystem Approach constitutes a strategy for the management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. While similar to a
96
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
number of other holistic approaches for conservation, development and natural resource management, it has some key distinguishing features; for instance, it engages the widest range of sectoral interests (see Bogdanski et al., 2010). The approach includes twelve principles that are focused on land and resources management. However, there are no examples on its successful use for selecting suitable land for bioenergy production. 3.3. Planning and zonning Geographic Information systems (GIS) utilise different datasets and map layers according to the required purpose, but it is mostly employed for planning. A key advantage of GIS is that it represents more of an organising principle, rather than being simply a set of technologies (Diaz-Chavez, 2003, 2006). In particular, GIS greatly assists the analysis of land use changes, it allows for the integration of databases, it helps in the analysis of selected indicators, whilst also being a fast and reliable visual aid. GIS-based applications allow for the examination of spatial patterns for biomass use and can be combined with models for evaluating both potential biomass production and costs from energy crops (Angelis-Dimakis et al., 2011). The most widely used models are those that have been created by FAO and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), but most of their studies focus on agricultural markets, and so do not fully cover land use projections (Smith et al., 2010). There is considerable uncertainty over projections about competition for land in the future as well as the regional distribution of such competition. Smith et al. (2010), for instance, argue that models employed for land use assessment need to incorporate a wide range of factors, from macroeconomic indicators to local policy specifications. 3.4. Databases Different databases have been used with GIS. This method provides geographical information data on issues such as water, soil, conservation areas, agriculture land, forests, and arid lands. Watson (2007), for example, describes the methodology for combining the use of datasets with GIS (such as that ESRI and ECJRC). Sources that can be used to assess potential biomass productivity of tree species are the FAO/IIASA Agro Ecological Zones approach, while data on herbaceous species is available in the ECOCROP database (ecocrop.fao.org/) (Angelis-Dimakis et al., 2011). 3.5. Overview of the different models Different models have been used to assess land availability at the global and regional scales. The regional scale is important because it includes socio-economic and environmental conditions that are not detectable at the global level (Angelis-Dimakis et al., 2011). Most of the methods and tools reviewed above focus on land availability, the suitability for the feedstocks according to physical local conditions (e.g. water, soil, geomorphology), as well as economic circumstances. As has been shown, there is no single technique that can effectively assess the suitability of land for bioenergy purposes. Rather, a combined use of different tools and methods, entailing the linking of different types of data might prove more effective. Yet, this combined approach requires the incorporation of pivotal driving forces, such as policies, programmes and regulations. Fig. 1 shows how different data and information may be integrated for an effective and robust assessment of land use. Davis et al. (2011) argued that feedbacks to ecosystem services are the least represented in integrated assessment models (relative to effects on production and economics). Connections between regional responses of ecosystem services, including greenhouse gas mitigation and carbon sequestration, and land use change must be established if global scenarios are to be assessed. Davis et al. (2011) suggest that a wide variety of existing tools must be used in aggregate to assess land use change. A combination of productivity, biogeochemistry, economics, environmental impact and social impact models must be employed in order to clarify the potential consequences of bioenergy production in different regions of the world.
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
97
Land use for bioenergy Feedstocks (agriculture)
Models Global National
Env Soil Water
Woody biomass
Arable and permanent cropland Permanent Grassland (meadows and pasture) Degraded land Marginal land Other Residues
Biodiversity
Regulations Infrastructure Socio-economic Ecosystem assessment
Fig. 1. Integration of different information for land use assessment.
The review of land availability models that need to be incorporated into policy also have to respond to the need to increase crop production to sustain a growing population, whilst the need for other products (such as energy and fibre) need also to be taken into account. This has been a turning point in recent years, where a better use of the landscape is now also seen as an imperative along with the need to address greenhouse gases reduction. Some of the policies and concepts are not new but the emergence of the debate on climate change and the growing use of alternative fuels should enable the development of more effective approaches. The use of single models alone is not enough, thus requiring the inclusion of better environmental and agricultural management systems.
4. Competition for land and the resurgence of integrated systems Land availability is not the only factor that needs to be considered in land use planning or integrated systems. The competition for land is a key issue that draws attention to the different activities undertaken to meet human needs. Smith et al. (2010) reviewed some of the drivers and pressures that determine the competition for land. These are (i) population growth, agriculture expansion and dietary preference (including husbandry); (ii) non-food goods and services (e.g. forest products and fibre, energy crops, amenities and biodiversity protection); (iii) policies related to protectionism (e.g. trade tariffs and subsidies); and (iv) the degradation of soil that prompts search for alternative land. Additionally, the needs of sectors such as housing and the growth of urban areas need to be addressed, along with the impacts of climate change. According to El Sioufi (2011), towns and cities occupy only 2.8 percent of the earth’s surface, but since 2008 over one half of the global population is located in urban areas. Data from FAOSTAT (2011), shows that the global agricultural area has increased from around 4.5 billion ha in 1960 to nearly 4.9 billion ha in 2007. Moreover, cities are growing rapidly in developing countries where the impacts are greater in terms of poverty, natural resources and the environment. It is expected that by 2050, the urban population of the developing world will reach 5.3 billion (El Sioufi, 2011). The implications in terms of policy, governance, and technology alternatives need to be addressed in planning integrated systems that aim to both meet human needs and reduce the negative impacts. The recently released report by the FAO (Bogdanski et al., 2010) on Integrated Food Energy Systems (IFES) examined some of the problems that biomass production brought to food security. The report addressed these issues within IFES framework, noting the simultaneous production of food and energy as making up the energy component of sustainable crop intensification via the ecosystem approach. The authors reported that IFES can take two forms. In Type 1, food and biomass
98
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
production are combined to generate energy on the same plot of land, through multiple-cropping systems, or systems mixing annual and perennial crop species. In Type 2, the synergies between food crops, livestock, fish production and sources of renewable energy are to be maximised, by adopting agro-industrial technology. This will use all products to generate energy (such as gasification or anaerobic digestion) and may include the incorporation of alternative energy sources (e.g. solar and wind). The similarities to previous proposals of integrated farms should be evident, except that there is now the added dimension of alternative energy sources. Further forms of integrated systems include all the ranges of resource-saving practices that seek to obtain acceptable profits and achieve high and sustained production levels, while minimising the negative effects of intensive farming and preserving the environment. They aim to enhance biological processes to reduce soil erosion whilst at the same time increasing crop yields with intensified land use in order to improve profit and aid to reduce poverty. Hence, the system is really integrative (IFAD, 2010). Additionally, technical skills and transfer of knowledge to reproduce these systems in different parts of the world would be an asset to help improve livelihoods and allow farmers to enter new markets. According to Bogdanski et al. (2010), the development and implementation of policy are key issues. If developing countries focus their goals on integrated systems, as reviewed above, such systems may prove very effective in increasing production levels.
5. Final remarks Policies should focus on the possibilities of production from land and ecosystems to contribute to varied demands (for fibre, food, fodder and fuel), especially in countries where poverty, food insecurity and energy demands represent a risk. Some challenges still remain for decision-makers and practitioners. One of these is to involve small farmers so as to increase the productivity of traditional farming systems, adopting an effective integrated system that produces usable biomass while conserving natural resources, thereby making it a sustainable system. The use of modelling tools is still subject to critique yet they are useful for envisaging possible scenarios. But to be reliable, they need to take into account a number of issues, particularly the use of comparable criteria for different regions, the quality of the databases employed in the model, and the fieldwork data. Hanson and Franzluebbers (2008) argue that agricultural systems are influenced by social, political, economic, environmental and technological issues. Yet, it can be argued that, if acknowledged, the benefits of integrated agricultural systems may also influence political systems. Some of the technical aspects that still require improvement include modelling for the assessment of land under integrated agricultural systems and their management in the field along with detailed information, such as the species chosen for use. Nair et al. (2009), for instance, encountered problems when trying to estimate the area under agroforestry systems due to the lack of proper procedures to delineate the area when trees and crops are mixed. An additional problem is the selection of trees and the manner in which to combine them, as this will influence the quality and quantity of biomass returned to the soil. Finally, a better understanding of ways of using and managing resources might improve the decision-making process, especially for large scale production systems at the regional and national levels. The time frame under which integrated agricultural systems operates has to take into account the long-term benefits to avoid the problems arising from decisions taken for the short-term. The possibilities offered by the integrated systems under a ‘‘new’’ paradigm of implementation will only be achievable through more robust decision-making processes, including multi-disciplinary policy making that addresses local and regional differences and challenges. References Altieri, M., 1986. Bases ecolo´gicas para el desarrollo de sistemas agrı´colas alternativos para campesinos de Latinoame´rica. /http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Altieri-basesecol.sist-campesinos-1986pdfS (accessed on June 2011). Altieri, M., Anderson, M.K., 1986. An ecological basis for the development of alternative agricultural systems for small farmers in the Third World. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1, 30–38.
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
99
Altieri, M., Merrick, L., 1988. Agroecology and in situ conservation of native crop diversity in the Third World. In: Wilson, E.O., Peter, F.M. (Eds.), Biodiversity. , National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp. 361–369. Angelis-Dimakis, A., Biberacher, M., Dominguez, J., Fiorese, G., Gadocha, S., Gnansounou, E., Guariso, G., Kartalidis, A., Panichelli, L., Pinedo, I., Robba, M., 2011. Methods and tool to evaluate the availability of renewable energy sources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 1182–1200. BEE, 2010. Status of Biomass Resources Assessment. Biomass Energy Europe Project D3.6.IFEU, Heidelberg, Germany. Bogdanski, A., Dubois, O., Jamieson, C., Krell, R., 2010. Making Integrated Food-Energy Systems Work for People and Climate: An Overview. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. Cotula, L., Dyer, N., Vermeulen, S., 2008. Fueling exclusion? The Biofuels Boom and Poor People’s Access to Land. IIED, London. Davis, S., House, J., Diaz-Chavez, R., Molnar, A., Valin, H., DeLucia, E., 2011. How can land-use modelling tools inform bioenergy policies? Interface Focus 11 212–223. Dehue, B., Meyer, S., Van de Staaij, J., 2010. Responsible Cultivation Areas: Identification and Certification of Feedstock Production with a Low Risk of Indirect Effects. ECOFYS, Utrecht, Netherlands. Diaz-Chavez, R., 2003. Sustainable Development Indicators for Peri-Urban Areas: A Case Study of Mexico City. Ph.D. Thesis. EIA Unit IBS. University of Wales Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth. Diaz-Chavez, R., 2006. Measuring sustainability in peri-urban areas: case study of Mexico City. In: Simon, D., Thompson, D. (Eds.), The Peri-Urban Interface: Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use. , Earthscan, London, pp. 246–261. Edwards, C., 1987. The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2, 148–152. El Sioufi, M., 2011. Land and Climate Change in a New Urban World. UNHabitat Urban World Cities and Land Rights, vol. 3, (1), pp. 5–7. FAO, 1979. Aquaculture Development in China Report on an FAO/UNDP Aquaculture Study Tour to the People’s Republic of China. /http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5686E/x5686e00.htm#ContentsS (accessed on June 2011). FAOSTAT, 2011. FAO Statistics. /http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspxS (accessed on July 2011). Gnansounou, E., Panichelli, L., 2008. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. EPFL-ENAC LASEN, Lausane. Hanson, J., Franzluebbers, A., 2008. Principles of integrated agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (4), 263–264. (special issue). Hendrickson, J., Hanson, J., Tanaka, D., Sassenrath, G., 2008. Principles of integrated agricultural systems: introduction to processes and definitions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 4, 265–271. (special issue). IFAD, 2010. Integrated Crop-livestock Farming Systems. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome. /http:// www.ifad.org/lrkm/factsheet/IntegratedCrop.pdfS (accessed on June 2011). Lobley, M., Winter, M., 2009. Introduction: knowing the land. In: Winter, M., Lobley, M. (Eds.), What is Land for? The food, Fuel and Climate Change Debate. , Earthscan, London, pp. 1–20. MA, 2005. Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being. /http://millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.htmlS (accessed on September 2009). MA, 2010. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. /http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.htmlS (accessed on June 2010). Morales, H.L., 1984. Chinampas and integrated farms. In: Di Castri, F., Baker, F.G.W., Hadley, M. (Eds.), Ecology in Practice. , UNESCO, Paris, pp. 188–195. Nair, P.K.R., 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (pp. 3–12). Nair, P.K.R., Mohan, R., Kumar, B., Nair, V.D., 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 1. (published online 9 December 2008). RED, 2009. Renewable Energy Directive. DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Smith, R.D., Maltby, E., 2003. Using the Ecosystem Approach to Implement the Convention Biological Diversity Key Issues and Case Studies. IUCN. /http://data.iucn.org/dbtwwpd/edocs/CEM-002.pdfS. Smith, P., Gregory, P.J., Van Vuuren, D., Obersteiner, M., Havlı´k, P., Rounsevell, M., Woods, J., Stehfest, E., Bellarby, J., 2010. Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 65, 2941–2957. Stewart, C., George, P.G., Rayden, T., Nussbaum, R., 2008. Good Practice Guidelines for High Conservation Value Assessments: A Practical Guide for Practitioners and Auditors. Proforest, Oxford. Stromberg, P., Gasparatos, A., Lee, J., Garcia-Ulloa, J., Koh, L., Takeuchi, K., 2010. Impacts of Liquid Biofuels on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. UNU-IAS Policy Report, Japan. UNDESA, 2011. World Population Prospects, The 2010 Review. /http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/faq.htmS (accessed on November 2011). Watson, H.K., 2007. First Task Report on WP1: Current Land Use Patterns and Impacts, UKZN COMPETE Report to WIP—Renewable Energies. /www.compete-bioafrica.netS. Watson, H., Diaz-Chavez, R., 2011. An assessment of the potential of drylands in eight sub-Saharan African countries to produce bioenergy feedstocks. Interface Focus 1, 263–270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2010.0022. (published online before print February 2, 2011).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Environmental Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev
Land use for integrated systems: A bioenergy perspective Rocio A. Diaz-Chavez Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, 313A Mechanical Engineering Building, SW7 2AZ London, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e in f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 1 September 2011 Accepted 23 March 2012
Land and the use of land provide a key link between human activity and the natural environment. Traditionally, land has been a finite environmental resource. Land has been devoted to a variety of uses, such as food, for housing, as fibre and fodder. More recently, though, the discussion over the production of bioenergy crops for biofuels or for energy generation has put forward a new paradigm of land use. This paper reviews land use from the perspective of integrated systems, the new paradigm, and how it has evolved to make a contribution towards the reduction of greenhouse gases. & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Land use Integrated systems Bioenergy Food production
1. Introduction The use of land constitutes a key link between human activity and the natural environment. Traditionally, land has been seen as a multi-functional but finite environmental resource, being used for food, housing, and for the production of fibre and fodder. More recently the discussion over the production of bioenergy crops for biofuels or for energy generation has thrown up a ‘‘new paradigm’’ for land use which entails the integration of the different uses. The use of land is one of the key drivers of global environmental changes, a change that has, in turn, influenced the ways society use land in attempting to mitigate the negative impacts of a changing climate (Lobley and Winter, 2009). There is also an increasing pressure on farmers and land managers to act as ‘carbon stewards’ and adapt land management to minimise carbon losses, and maximise carbon storage by substituting fossil fuels (Smith and Maltby, 2003). Although planning techniques and methodologies that incorporate the assessment of land availability and use have improved, there is still a need to use land more effectively. The links with
E-mail address: [email protected] 2211-4645/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.018
92
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
policy and the public participation in land use decision-making remain under scrutiny, raising questions as to whether the ‘new’ integrated systems approach really constitute a novelty or whether they have been simply ‘‘forgotten’’. This paper reviews some of the initiatives to implement an integrated systems’ approach to land use in the last few decades, and considers how the approach may be adapted to take account of new developments. 1.1. What is land and what is land for? Land may refer to urban, rural, or peri-urban land. Lobley and Winter (2009, p. 7) put forward the following definitions:
Land as a physical resource. Land cover—the biophysical attributes and human structures of the Earth’s surface. Land use—operations or activities carried out on land.
Land use encompasses anthropogenic activities that are often envisaged in planning, such as agriculture, industrial production, housing and road-building. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAOSTAT, 2011) defines agricultural land as the sum of arable land, permanent crops, permanent meadows and pasture, where arable land is the sum of temporary crops, pastures and fallow land. Although marginal land is much more difficult to define, it includes any other land not specifically designated under arable land or land under permanent crops, permanent pastures, forests and woodland, built-on areas, roads, and barren lands (BEE, 2010). Amongst the key factors that influence land use are the need for food production for a growing population, and the impacts of climate change. Population growth and food production have long been an issue in land use and are likely to remain so in the future. According to the United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs (UNDESA, 2011) the earth’s population is expected to reach 7 billion in 2011, rising to 8 billion by 2025. Such growth will require a higher production of crops for food, energy, fodder and fibre, and will raise questions about the energy levels needed to produce them. The growing debate on climate change has highlighted the need for research agendas to include measures for food production and energy sources that produce less emissions of greenhouse gases. According to Lobley and Winter (2009), the debate has placed a new emphasis on the role of agricultural supply-chains in reducing their contribution to climate change, as well as reasserting a similar role for multifunctional agro-environments with a focus on biodiversity and landscapes. Agricultural land has expanded in the last decades at the expense of natural environments and is now estimated to cover between 30 and 40 percent of the land surface, excluding ice cover (Lobley and Winter, 2009). This expansion has arisen from the need to meet the demands for food and fibre of the growing global population as well as from the growth of pastures for livestock production. The new possibilities that bioenergy production are said to provide have largely been based on the premise of a competition between land for food and energy crops. There are now attempts to reconcile the use of land for food and for energy crops in a sustainable manner. One of such attempts lies in linking together the integrated systems’ approach with climate change and bioenergy crop production.
2. Integrated agricultural systems, integrated farms and agroforestry systems The concept of integrated agricultural systems is not new. Combining farming with the raising of cattle for different products, for instance, is a long-established practice. However, Hendrickson et al. (2008) argue that as these systems have seen a reduction in their levels of commodity production over the last thirty years or so, so they have been used less and less, particularly in the West, where large scale systems have been favoured over family and medium size farms. The concept of integrated farms was first put forward in the 1980s, when different international programmes tried to link agriculture, forestry, food production, aquaculture, and crop biological
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
93
diversity with ecological concepts and rural development. Some of these approaches also took into account the value of traditional knowledge as applied to new agricultural systems. The main objective was to diversify and conserve the genetic resources of crops (including traditional crops) and obtain multiple products. In contrast to the Green Revolution, where one of the main aims was to obtain maximum yields, most of the integrated farms sought to improve farm management by using resources in a more efficient manner but within smaller areas with the aim of providing for a single farmer or a family unit. Integrated farming called for skills in different types of activity, as in raising livestock and poultry, in crop and vegetable farming, in growing grass and aquatic plants and also in fish farming (Morales, 1984; Altieri, 1986). During the 1980s, research on alternative forms of production examined traditional uses. Morales (1984), for instance, looked at the legacy of the Aztec production on chinampas (or floating gardens) which are still used in Mexico. Different types of production in Latin America using pre-hispanic forms of production were also examined (see Altieri, 1986; Altieri and Merrick, 1988). Edwards (1987) classified agricultural systems that require less inputs as ‘sustainable agriculture’. These were integrated systems with more intensive management than the traditional monocultures and with only slightly minor production, but still ecologically better adapted. These diversified systems included crops and livestock that coexist independently from each other. Integrating crops and livestock was also meant to minimise risk rather than recycling resources. But in an integrated system, crops and livestock are meant to interact to create a synergy, with recycling allowing the maximum use of available resources (IFAD, 2010), although land use considerations are not evident. Integrated farming was seen as playing a key role in rural development in developing countries as the species of fish, crops and livestock to be produced were to be selected according to local conditions and requirements. FAO (1979) has argued that in many developing countries, the objectives of integrated farming should be heavily oriented to economic, social and nutritional benefits, which implied the need to create farmer cooperatives or other associations (FAO, 1979). Integrated farming systems were an alternative to the Green Revolution which was already in place and aimed at developing alternatives to higher yields with the use of more agricultural inputs, such as fertilisers and pesticides. One critique of this was the loss of self-reliance and autonomy of farmers, as they would need to turn to transnational corporations for inputs, as well as losing access to native species (Altieri and Anderson, 1986). In contrast, integrated farms, in Latin America at least, were able to draw on traditional knowledge in land management. But as this was not an alternative for the short term and although many farms in the region still rely on integrated farming, many have turned to short-term options and large monocultures as, for instance, in Argentina. The literature reporting on the success of these integrated production systems is quite limited, but some of them are still very much in use. This is the case, for instance, of the chinampas in Latin America, or integrated farms in Asia (see FAO, 1979; Bogdanski et al., 2010). In an attempt to capture the different dynamics of agricultural systems, Hendrickson et al. (2008) proposed that agricultural production should be made up of enterprises or units of economic organisation. They define enterprise as a system component that ‘‘produces an output and provides a resource from another component in the same system’’ (Hendrickson et al., 2008, p. 268). Different enterprises therefore make up an agricultural system, which is placed in a hierarchy according to five different criteria. There is the basic system, made up of one or two enterprises (e.g. corn–soybean rotation or confined animals). There is a diverse system, comprising more than three different crops or animal rearing and where activities are organised under an existing management system. These enterprises are often linked, such as mills, marketing associations or warehouses. In the dynamic system management is not predetermined, relying on the producer’s understanding of the different crops and components, requiring an yearly strategy. Integrated agricultural systems, in turn, are made up of different enterprises that interact synergistically. These include crop-livestock systems where different farm products are used as food, fodder and fertilisers. These systems require efficient management as they are not dynamic (e.g. do not change annually). The final system is the integrated and dynamic system, which contrary to the integrated system, requires a higher degree of management and understanding of the various component systems. Although this classification demonstrates the ways through which farm management may, at least in developed economies, promote better system integration and provide a framework for
94
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
sustainable agriculture, it has some shortcomings. It does not address some issues on the use of fuels for agriculture, nor how to deal with some of the production trade-offs (e.g. impact of fuel prices). It also fails to consider how bioenergy crops may be integrated or how the by-products of energy or fuel production may be utilised. Nevertheless, the classification by Hendrickson et al. (2008) is useful and might be usefully linked to the concept of agroforestry, which has a long history in traditional land-use practice and entails combining forest use and farming practices for the short-term. It was not until 1977 that agroforestry was institutionalised via the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) (Nair, 1993). Currently, agroforestry is considered an integrated land use system geared towards producing food and wood (among other products) in tropical areas, whilst in temperate areas it comprises a multifunctional system. Moreover, agroforestry has become a strategy for carbon sequestration. According to Nair et al. (2009), the potential is based on the premise of the greater efficiency of an integrated system in capturing and utilising resource than systems based on single species. Nair et al. (2009) note, that an average of 1023 million ha are said to be used in agroforestry systems globally. However, they question the robustness of this data and the methodologies from which it derives, arguing that estimates of C stock of biomass and soil C storage provide a more accurate measure. Further, Nair et al. (2009) suggest that areas containing unproductive crop, grass, along with forested and degraded lands could be integrated into agroforestry. Although the benefits of agroforestry have been disputed, new agreements on climate change signed in Durban in 2011 may bring a fresh perspective into the advantages of incorporating agroforestry into integrated systems.
3. Improvement in methodologies for land use assessment with a focus on bioenergy The debate on energy crops has focused on controversial issues, one of which is the assessment of available land and the implications for changing use. According to Watson and Diaz-Chavez (2011), a number of factors need to be taken into account for a better understanding of the implications of where to develop bioenergy projects. These include (a) the likelihood and desirability of converting land to bioenergy feedstocks, (b) the appropriateness of relevant policies, and (c) best choice of feedstocks and production systems. In addition, GIS and modelling should be used for assessing the appropriateness of tools and methods. Angelis-Dimakis et al. (2011) suggested further issues for consideration, such as land conversion costs, social concerns and environmental constraints, all of which may limit the amount of land available for energy crops. They argue that tools or methodologies need to take into account both the availability and characteristics of the land for bioenergy selection as they influence the selection of land, the changes that follow from it, as well as the impacts. An overview of tools for assessing land use for bioenergy production would focus on 1. 2. 3. 4.
Models: spatial and non-spatial models. Frameworks: ecosystem services (approach), responsible cultivation, ecosystem approach. Planning and zoning: mapping, territorial zoning. Statistical analysis and databases.
3.1. Models 3.1.1. Spatially explicit methods These are generally used for local land-use, entailing the use of a combination of sources such as satellite images, aerial photographs, remote sensing data and statistical census data. Spatially explicit methods depend on the availability and quality of satellite images and define land-use categories on an area for a defined period. To enhance their efficiency, these methods should be combined with others, such as a) Geo-statistical techniques to integrate spatial data with statistical analysis. b) Cellular automata used to analyse land-use changes at the local/regional level.
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
95
c) MODIS data, which classifies the biophysical condition of the land in a given year, rather than the land cover or land use change (Gnansounou and Panichelli, 2008). 3.1.2. Non-spatial methods Non-spatial methods focus mainly on explaining forces that drive land use change, being based on statistical analysis and regression models. Several techniques exist to aggregate or reduce the number of variables (e.g. factor analysis, principal components, canonical correlation, cluster analysis) as well as different regression techniques (e.g. linear, logistic, multinomial), with logistic regression being the most commonly used (Gnansounou and Panichelli, 2008). However, their combination with spatial analysis is essential at some stage as interlinked factors such as biodiversity conservation and expansion of urban areas will affect the results. A different approach for estimating energy crops potential is the economic modelling of the entire agricultural sector. Economic models account for biomass production for internal markets, exports and imports, and detailed costs and benefits of major farming goods. It relies on various assumptions, ranging from farming practices to macro-economic variables that relate to the agricultural sector (Angelis-Dimakis et al., 2011). 3.2. Frameworks: ecosystem services, responsible cultivation areas 3.2.1. Ecosystem services approach The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2010) sets the framework for ecosystem services. These are considered as the benefits obtained from ecosystems, which include provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that directly affect people, along with the supporting services needed to maintain other services to ecosystems. Changes in these services affect human well-being, including security, access to the products and services needed for good standard of living, as well as health, social and cultural issues (MA, 2005). According to Cotula et al. (2008), biofuels can provide valuable ecosystem services to human wellbeing, but they may also compromise other ecosystem services, such as the provision of food and freshwater. However, knowledge about the effect of biofuels on ecosystem services and biodiversity is fragmented or has only recently emerged, so much more research is required (Stromberg et al., 2010). 3.2.2. Responsible cultivation areas The Responsible Cultivation Areas (RCA) is a practical methodology used to identify concrete areas and/or production models that can be used for producing additional energy crops that are environmentally and socially responsible and have no unwanted indirect impacts (Dehue et al., 2010). This methodology includes both direct and indirect effects, based on five principles: 1. Establishment of energy crop plantations that maintains or increases High Conservation Values (Stewart et al., 2008). 2. Establishment of energy crop plantations does not lead to significant reductions in carbon stocks. 3. Establishment of energy crop plantations respects the legal land status and customary land rights. 4. Establishment of energy crop plantations does not cause unwanted indirect effects. 5. Intensification does not cause adverse environmental or social effects.
The RCA concept is applied only for site selection and does not include planning and design for use and management of the site. This methodology, if applied properly, should take into account most of the sustainability requirements for policies on land use change (such as the EU Renewable Energy Directive; RED, 2009). It should also meet the criteria of bioenergy production with low risk of indirect effects. 3.2.3. The ecosystem approach The Ecosystem Approach constitutes a strategy for the management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. While similar to a
96
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
number of other holistic approaches for conservation, development and natural resource management, it has some key distinguishing features; for instance, it engages the widest range of sectoral interests (see Bogdanski et al., 2010). The approach includes twelve principles that are focused on land and resources management. However, there are no examples on its successful use for selecting suitable land for bioenergy production. 3.3. Planning and zonning Geographic Information systems (GIS) utilise different datasets and map layers according to the required purpose, but it is mostly employed for planning. A key advantage of GIS is that it represents more of an organising principle, rather than being simply a set of technologies (Diaz-Chavez, 2003, 2006). In particular, GIS greatly assists the analysis of land use changes, it allows for the integration of databases, it helps in the analysis of selected indicators, whilst also being a fast and reliable visual aid. GIS-based applications allow for the examination of spatial patterns for biomass use and can be combined with models for evaluating both potential biomass production and costs from energy crops (Angelis-Dimakis et al., 2011). The most widely used models are those that have been created by FAO and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), but most of their studies focus on agricultural markets, and so do not fully cover land use projections (Smith et al., 2010). There is considerable uncertainty over projections about competition for land in the future as well as the regional distribution of such competition. Smith et al. (2010), for instance, argue that models employed for land use assessment need to incorporate a wide range of factors, from macroeconomic indicators to local policy specifications. 3.4. Databases Different databases have been used with GIS. This method provides geographical information data on issues such as water, soil, conservation areas, agriculture land, forests, and arid lands. Watson (2007), for example, describes the methodology for combining the use of datasets with GIS (such as that ESRI and ECJRC). Sources that can be used to assess potential biomass productivity of tree species are the FAO/IIASA Agro Ecological Zones approach, while data on herbaceous species is available in the ECOCROP database (ecocrop.fao.org/) (Angelis-Dimakis et al., 2011). 3.5. Overview of the different models Different models have been used to assess land availability at the global and regional scales. The regional scale is important because it includes socio-economic and environmental conditions that are not detectable at the global level (Angelis-Dimakis et al., 2011). Most of the methods and tools reviewed above focus on land availability, the suitability for the feedstocks according to physical local conditions (e.g. water, soil, geomorphology), as well as economic circumstances. As has been shown, there is no single technique that can effectively assess the suitability of land for bioenergy purposes. Rather, a combined use of different tools and methods, entailing the linking of different types of data might prove more effective. Yet, this combined approach requires the incorporation of pivotal driving forces, such as policies, programmes and regulations. Fig. 1 shows how different data and information may be integrated for an effective and robust assessment of land use. Davis et al. (2011) argued that feedbacks to ecosystem services are the least represented in integrated assessment models (relative to effects on production and economics). Connections between regional responses of ecosystem services, including greenhouse gas mitigation and carbon sequestration, and land use change must be established if global scenarios are to be assessed. Davis et al. (2011) suggest that a wide variety of existing tools must be used in aggregate to assess land use change. A combination of productivity, biogeochemistry, economics, environmental impact and social impact models must be employed in order to clarify the potential consequences of bioenergy production in different regions of the world.
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
97
Land use for bioenergy Feedstocks (agriculture)
Models Global National
Env Soil Water
Woody biomass
Arable and permanent cropland Permanent Grassland (meadows and pasture) Degraded land Marginal land Other Residues
Biodiversity
Regulations Infrastructure Socio-economic Ecosystem assessment
Fig. 1. Integration of different information for land use assessment.
The review of land availability models that need to be incorporated into policy also have to respond to the need to increase crop production to sustain a growing population, whilst the need for other products (such as energy and fibre) need also to be taken into account. This has been a turning point in recent years, where a better use of the landscape is now also seen as an imperative along with the need to address greenhouse gases reduction. Some of the policies and concepts are not new but the emergence of the debate on climate change and the growing use of alternative fuels should enable the development of more effective approaches. The use of single models alone is not enough, thus requiring the inclusion of better environmental and agricultural management systems.
4. Competition for land and the resurgence of integrated systems Land availability is not the only factor that needs to be considered in land use planning or integrated systems. The competition for land is a key issue that draws attention to the different activities undertaken to meet human needs. Smith et al. (2010) reviewed some of the drivers and pressures that determine the competition for land. These are (i) population growth, agriculture expansion and dietary preference (including husbandry); (ii) non-food goods and services (e.g. forest products and fibre, energy crops, amenities and biodiversity protection); (iii) policies related to protectionism (e.g. trade tariffs and subsidies); and (iv) the degradation of soil that prompts search for alternative land. Additionally, the needs of sectors such as housing and the growth of urban areas need to be addressed, along with the impacts of climate change. According to El Sioufi (2011), towns and cities occupy only 2.8 percent of the earth’s surface, but since 2008 over one half of the global population is located in urban areas. Data from FAOSTAT (2011), shows that the global agricultural area has increased from around 4.5 billion ha in 1960 to nearly 4.9 billion ha in 2007. Moreover, cities are growing rapidly in developing countries where the impacts are greater in terms of poverty, natural resources and the environment. It is expected that by 2050, the urban population of the developing world will reach 5.3 billion (El Sioufi, 2011). The implications in terms of policy, governance, and technology alternatives need to be addressed in planning integrated systems that aim to both meet human needs and reduce the negative impacts. The recently released report by the FAO (Bogdanski et al., 2010) on Integrated Food Energy Systems (IFES) examined some of the problems that biomass production brought to food security. The report addressed these issues within IFES framework, noting the simultaneous production of food and energy as making up the energy component of sustainable crop intensification via the ecosystem approach. The authors reported that IFES can take two forms. In Type 1, food and biomass
98
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
production are combined to generate energy on the same plot of land, through multiple-cropping systems, or systems mixing annual and perennial crop species. In Type 2, the synergies between food crops, livestock, fish production and sources of renewable energy are to be maximised, by adopting agro-industrial technology. This will use all products to generate energy (such as gasification or anaerobic digestion) and may include the incorporation of alternative energy sources (e.g. solar and wind). The similarities to previous proposals of integrated farms should be evident, except that there is now the added dimension of alternative energy sources. Further forms of integrated systems include all the ranges of resource-saving practices that seek to obtain acceptable profits and achieve high and sustained production levels, while minimising the negative effects of intensive farming and preserving the environment. They aim to enhance biological processes to reduce soil erosion whilst at the same time increasing crop yields with intensified land use in order to improve profit and aid to reduce poverty. Hence, the system is really integrative (IFAD, 2010). Additionally, technical skills and transfer of knowledge to reproduce these systems in different parts of the world would be an asset to help improve livelihoods and allow farmers to enter new markets. According to Bogdanski et al. (2010), the development and implementation of policy are key issues. If developing countries focus their goals on integrated systems, as reviewed above, such systems may prove very effective in increasing production levels.
5. Final remarks Policies should focus on the possibilities of production from land and ecosystems to contribute to varied demands (for fibre, food, fodder and fuel), especially in countries where poverty, food insecurity and energy demands represent a risk. Some challenges still remain for decision-makers and practitioners. One of these is to involve small farmers so as to increase the productivity of traditional farming systems, adopting an effective integrated system that produces usable biomass while conserving natural resources, thereby making it a sustainable system. The use of modelling tools is still subject to critique yet they are useful for envisaging possible scenarios. But to be reliable, they need to take into account a number of issues, particularly the use of comparable criteria for different regions, the quality of the databases employed in the model, and the fieldwork data. Hanson and Franzluebbers (2008) argue that agricultural systems are influenced by social, political, economic, environmental and technological issues. Yet, it can be argued that, if acknowledged, the benefits of integrated agricultural systems may also influence political systems. Some of the technical aspects that still require improvement include modelling for the assessment of land under integrated agricultural systems and their management in the field along with detailed information, such as the species chosen for use. Nair et al. (2009), for instance, encountered problems when trying to estimate the area under agroforestry systems due to the lack of proper procedures to delineate the area when trees and crops are mixed. An additional problem is the selection of trees and the manner in which to combine them, as this will influence the quality and quantity of biomass returned to the soil. Finally, a better understanding of ways of using and managing resources might improve the decision-making process, especially for large scale production systems at the regional and national levels. The time frame under which integrated agricultural systems operates has to take into account the long-term benefits to avoid the problems arising from decisions taken for the short-term. The possibilities offered by the integrated systems under a ‘‘new’’ paradigm of implementation will only be achievable through more robust decision-making processes, including multi-disciplinary policy making that addresses local and regional differences and challenges. References Altieri, M., 1986. Bases ecolo´gicas para el desarrollo de sistemas agrı´colas alternativos para campesinos de Latinoame´rica. /http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Altieri-basesecol.sist-campesinos-1986pdfS (accessed on June 2011). Altieri, M., Anderson, M.K., 1986. An ecological basis for the development of alternative agricultural systems for small farmers in the Third World. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1, 30–38.
R.A. Diaz-Chavez / Environmental Development 3 (2012) 91–99
99
Altieri, M., Merrick, L., 1988. Agroecology and in situ conservation of native crop diversity in the Third World. In: Wilson, E.O., Peter, F.M. (Eds.), Biodiversity. , National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp. 361–369. Angelis-Dimakis, A., Biberacher, M., Dominguez, J., Fiorese, G., Gadocha, S., Gnansounou, E., Guariso, G., Kartalidis, A., Panichelli, L., Pinedo, I., Robba, M., 2011. Methods and tool to evaluate the availability of renewable energy sources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, 1182–1200. BEE, 2010. Status of Biomass Resources Assessment. Biomass Energy Europe Project D3.6.IFEU, Heidelberg, Germany. Bogdanski, A., Dubois, O., Jamieson, C., Krell, R., 2010. Making Integrated Food-Energy Systems Work for People and Climate: An Overview. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. Cotula, L., Dyer, N., Vermeulen, S., 2008. Fueling exclusion? The Biofuels Boom and Poor People’s Access to Land. IIED, London. Davis, S., House, J., Diaz-Chavez, R., Molnar, A., Valin, H., DeLucia, E., 2011. How can land-use modelling tools inform bioenergy policies? Interface Focus 11 212–223. Dehue, B., Meyer, S., Van de Staaij, J., 2010. Responsible Cultivation Areas: Identification and Certification of Feedstock Production with a Low Risk of Indirect Effects. ECOFYS, Utrecht, Netherlands. Diaz-Chavez, R., 2003. Sustainable Development Indicators for Peri-Urban Areas: A Case Study of Mexico City. Ph.D. Thesis. EIA Unit IBS. University of Wales Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth. Diaz-Chavez, R., 2006. Measuring sustainability in peri-urban areas: case study of Mexico City. In: Simon, D., Thompson, D. (Eds.), The Peri-Urban Interface: Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use. , Earthscan, London, pp. 246–261. Edwards, C., 1987. The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2, 148–152. El Sioufi, M., 2011. Land and Climate Change in a New Urban World. UNHabitat Urban World Cities and Land Rights, vol. 3, (1), pp. 5–7. FAO, 1979. Aquaculture Development in China Report on an FAO/UNDP Aquaculture Study Tour to the People’s Republic of China. /http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5686E/x5686e00.htm#ContentsS (accessed on June 2011). FAOSTAT, 2011. FAO Statistics. /http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspxS (accessed on July 2011). Gnansounou, E., Panichelli, L., 2008. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. EPFL-ENAC LASEN, Lausane. Hanson, J., Franzluebbers, A., 2008. Principles of integrated agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems (4), 263–264. (special issue). Hendrickson, J., Hanson, J., Tanaka, D., Sassenrath, G., 2008. Principles of integrated agricultural systems: introduction to processes and definitions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 4, 265–271. (special issue). IFAD, 2010. Integrated Crop-livestock Farming Systems. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome. /http:// www.ifad.org/lrkm/factsheet/IntegratedCrop.pdfS (accessed on June 2011). Lobley, M., Winter, M., 2009. Introduction: knowing the land. In: Winter, M., Lobley, M. (Eds.), What is Land for? The food, Fuel and Climate Change Debate. , Earthscan, London, pp. 1–20. MA, 2005. Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being. /http://millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.htmlS (accessed on September 2009). MA, 2010. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. /http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.htmlS (accessed on June 2010). Morales, H.L., 1984. Chinampas and integrated farms. In: Di Castri, F., Baker, F.G.W., Hadley, M. (Eds.), Ecology in Practice. , UNESCO, Paris, pp. 188–195. Nair, P.K.R., 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (pp. 3–12). Nair, P.K.R., Mohan, R., Kumar, B., Nair, V.D., 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 1. (published online 9 December 2008). RED, 2009. Renewable Energy Directive. DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Smith, R.D., Maltby, E., 2003. Using the Ecosystem Approach to Implement the Convention Biological Diversity Key Issues and Case Studies. IUCN. /http://data.iucn.org/dbtwwpd/edocs/CEM-002.pdfS. Smith, P., Gregory, P.J., Van Vuuren, D., Obersteiner, M., Havlı´k, P., Rounsevell, M., Woods, J., Stehfest, E., Bellarby, J., 2010. Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 65, 2941–2957. Stewart, C., George, P.G., Rayden, T., Nussbaum, R., 2008. Good Practice Guidelines for High Conservation Value Assessments: A Practical Guide for Practitioners and Auditors. Proforest, Oxford. Stromberg, P., Gasparatos, A., Lee, J., Garcia-Ulloa, J., Koh, L., Takeuchi, K., 2010. Impacts of Liquid Biofuels on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. UNU-IAS Policy Report, Japan. UNDESA, 2011. World Population Prospects, The 2010 Review. /http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/faq.htmS (accessed on November 2011). Watson, H.K., 2007. First Task Report on WP1: Current Land Use Patterns and Impacts, UKZN COMPETE Report to WIP—Renewable Energies. /www.compete-bioafrica.netS. Watson, H., Diaz-Chavez, R., 2011. An assessment of the potential of drylands in eight sub-Saharan African countries to produce bioenergy feedstocks. Interface Focus 1, 263–270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2010.0022. (published online before print February 2, 2011).