Laura D’Andrea1, Enrico Ceotto2
1
Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria (CRA) - Unità di Ricerca per i Sistemi Colturali degli Ambienti caldo-aridi (SCA), via Celso Ulpiani, 5, Bari, Italy
2
Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria (CRA) - Centro di Ricerca per le Colture Industriali (CIN), via di Corticella 133, Bologna, Italy
laura.dandrea@entecra.it
Abstract
The cropland is a finite and vulnerabile resource at global scale. Many human activities compete for land use with agriculture. The objective of this study is to discuss the competition of bioenergy versus food crops for land use. Between now and 2050, the global demand for food is expected to double. Therefore, of the main argument against the diffusion of energy crops is their competition for land with food and feed crops. Because the amount of land that could be conveniently devoted to grow energy crops without detrimental effects on greenhouse gases emissions and food availability is limited, it is crucial to enhance productivity per unit land. We believe that a proper classification and quantification of “land suitable for dedicated bioenergy production” is needed.
Keywords: energy crop, food crop, sustainability
Parole chiave: colture energetiche, colture alimentari, sostenibilità
Introduction
In 2009, through Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (Renewable Energy Directive -RED), the EU adopted mandatory targets to achieve by 2020 a 20% overall share of renewable energy and a 10% share for renewable energy in the transport sector. Yet, through Directive 2009/30/EC (Fuel Quality Directive) the EU adopted a mandatory target to achieve by 2020 a 6% reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity of fuels used in transport. While the production of biofuels is growing rapidly, the main argument against the diffusion of energy crops is their competition for land with food and feed crops. The objective of this study is to discuss the competition of bioenergy versus food crops for land use.
Human activities
Cropland is a finite and vulnerabile resource at global scale. Many human activities compete for land use with agriculture. As a results, in Italy, in the period from 1971 to 2010 cultivated cropland has been reduced of about 5 million hectares. Koning et al. (2008) estimated that by 2050 human settlement (buildings, roads, parkings) requires about 50 ha per 1,000 people, so would claim 3% of all potential farmland.
Demand for food
Between now and 2050 the global demand for food is expected to double (from the actual 40 to 80 kg per capita per year of meat consumption) (Spiertz and Ewert, 2009). Moreover, the growing production of non ruminants, e.g. pigs and chicken, compared to ruminants, e.g. cattle and sheep, is shifting the demand from forages to grain crops, leading to increased pressure on arable land. Nevertheless,
Thaler et al. (2015) indicated that a shift to a healthy balanced diet would lead to a 30% reduction of land being used for agricultural production. The average amount of arable land per capita is about 0.45 ha, the question is: how much of this 0.45 ha per person for producing food, could be displaced for producing bioenergy? (Spiertz, 2009).
Biofuels “done right” and “done wrong”
Tilman et al. (2009) pointed out that society cannot afford to miss out on the benefits of biofuels “done right” while not accepting the undesirable impacts of biofuels “done wrong”. Biofuels “done right” must be derived from feedstocks produced with much lower life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions than traditional fossil. Feedstocks may be grouped in these following categories: 1) Perennial plants grown on degraded lands abandoned from agricultural use; 2) Crop residues; 3) Sustainably harvested wood and forest residues; 4) Double crops and mixed cropping systems; 5) Municipal and industrial wastes. Therefore, marginal lands have received an increased attention by the bioenergy industry as an alternative to cropland for feedstock supply.
Competition of bioenergy versus food crops for land use
Use of these abandoned lands minimizes the competition with food crops and the potential for direct and indirect land use change (DLUC and ILUC) (Popp et al., 2014). The estimated global area of abandoned agricultural is 385- 472 million hectares and showed the global potential for bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands to be about 8% of current primary energy demand, based on historical land use data, satellite derived land cover and global ecosystem modeling (Campbell et al., 2008).
Definition of marginal land
The term ‘‘marginal land’’ is often used, but there is no unique and rigorous definition of this concept in the literature. The concept of marginal lands has evolved across time, space, and discipline. The concept is often interchangeably used with other terms such as unproductive, waste, under-utilized, idle, degraded or abandoned lands. Marginal lands are typically characterized by low productivity and reduced economic return or by severe constraints for agricultural cultivation. Some lands previously cultivated are converted into marginal, due to impacts resulting from inappropriate management or external factors (e.g. climate change or soil degradation), or when excess pollution is generated by human-dominated processes (including inaccurate or illegal disposal of liquid and solidwaste). In such cases, cropping for bioenergy might be an option for land recovery.
In the land use management framework of Food and Agricultural Organization, United Nation (FAO, 1993), marginal land was described as the lands with limitations such as soil loss, wetlands, soil salinization, unfit for crop cultivation or production. Marginal farming land and prime farming land are commonly used for farming suitability assessment in the US (USDA-NRCS, 2010).
Sustainable bioenergy production
A proper classification and quantification of “land suitable for dedicated bioenergy production” is needed. A number of studies indicated that bioenergy crop production on marginal lands can benefit environmental quality, ecosystem service and sustainability. Environmental quality could increase wildlife habitat, improve water quality, reduce erosion, enhance ecological functions and increase carbon sequestration in soils. Ecosystem services can minimize the potential of long-term carbon debt and biodiversity loss in comparison to land clearing (Tilman et
al., 2009). Nevertheless, low-productive land are often
characterized by high carbon stock and high level of biodiversity, that should be preserved.
The concept of marginality can be studied at the level of integrated systems, by combining the various factors affecting marginality: environmental factors (slopes, soil fertility and other land use limitations), demographic factors (active, density and migration of population), economic factors (employment, infrastructure etc.), cultural and psychological factors. A number of variables quantifying economic, demographic and environmental factors are used to compute a number of indicators of relative marginality, but cultural and other factors linked to the perception of marginality are difficult to quantify (Bertaglia et al., 2007).
Liu et al. (2011), used the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threat (SWOT) analysis to investigate the current state of energy crop growing on marginal land and identify future action needed regarding economic viability, environmental impact, and social development. Kang et al., (2013) classified land resources into four categories of marginal land using suitability and limitations
associated with major management goals, including 1) physically, 2) biologically, 3) environmentally-ecologically, and 4) economically marginal land. A total 30 variables are initially identified to quantify land functions associated with current land use management goals. Twenty-one of them are currently applied because the data for the other nine variables are not available to be effectively quantified using existing databases.
References
Andreoli, M., Tellarini, V., 1998. Marginality and development in Italy: a study review. Perceptions of marginality. In: Jussila, H., Leimgruber, W., Majoral, R. (Eds.), Theoretical Issues and Regional Perceptions of Marginality in Geographical Space. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 101–121. Bertaglia M., Joost S., Roosen J., Econogene Consortium, 2007.
Identifying European marginal areas in the context of local sheep and goat breeds conservation: A geographic information system approach.
Agricultural Systems, 94: 657–670.
Campbell J.E., Lobell D.B., Genova R.C., Field C.B., 2008. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci.
Technol.; 42:5791-5794.
European Commission. 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. Brussels, Belgium; 2009.
European Commission. Directive 2009/30/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 on amending directive 98/70/EC as Regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending council directive 1999/32/ec as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing directive 93/12/ EEC. Brussels, Belgium; 2009.
Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations (FAO), 1993. FESLM: an international framework for evaluating sustainable land management. World Resources Report 73. FAO, Rome, Italy. Kang S., Post W., Wang D., Nichols J., Bandaru V., West T., 2013.
Hierarchical marginal land assessment for land use planning. Land
Use Policy, 30: 106–113.
Koning N.B.J., Van Ittersum M.K., Becx G.A., Van Boekel M.A.J.S., Brandenburg W.A., Van Den Broek J.A., Goudriaan J., Van Hofwegen G., Jongeneel R.A., Schlere J.B., Smies M., 2008. Long term global availability of food: continued abundance or new scarcity? NJAS – Wageningen J Life Sci 55: 229–292.
Liu T.T., McConkey B.G., Ma Z.Y., Liu Z.G., Li X., Cheng L.L., 2011. Strengths, weaknessness, opportunities and threats analysis of bioenergy production on marginal land. Energy Procedia, 5: 2378– 2386.
Popp J., Lakner Z., Harangi-Rákos M., Fári M., 2014. The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32: 559–578.
Spiertz J.H.J., 2009. Nitrogen, sustainable agriculture and food security. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. doi:10.1051/agro/2008064
Spiertz J.H.J., Ewert F., 2009. Crop production and resource use to meet the growing demand for food, feed and fuel: opportunities and constraints. NJAS Wageningen J Life Sci 56–64:281–300.
Thaler S., Zessner M, Weigl M., Rechberger H., Schilling K., Kroiss H., 2015. Possible implications of dietary changes on nutrient fluxes, environment and land use in Austria. Agricultural Systems, 136: 14– 29.
Tilman D., Socolow R., Foley J.A., Hill J., Larson .E, Lynd L., Pacala S., Reilly J., Searchinger T., Somerville C., Williams R., 2009. Beneficial biofuels: The food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science, 325: 270–271.
United States Department of Agriculture- Natural Resources Conservation Services (USDA-NRCS), 2010. National Soil Survey Handbook 430- VI. Available online at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/