A Global Synthesis of Jatropha Cultivation: Insights ... - ACS Publications

Aug 10, 2016 - extent Jatropha cultivation has replaced specific vegetation and land use types and how the existing areas are managed. Major forms of ...
1 downloads 10 Views 1MB Size
Subscriber access provided by Northern Illinois University

Policy Analysis

A global synthesis of Jatropha cultivation: Insights into land use change and management practices. David Christopher Walmsley, Rob Bailis, and Alexandra-Maria Klein Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01274 • Publication Date (Web): 10 Aug 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on August 16, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

1

A global synthesis of Jatropha cultivation: Insights into land use change and management

2

practices.

3

4

David C. Walmsley1*, Rob Bailis2, Alexandra-Maria Klein3

5

6

1

7

1, 21335, Lüneburg, Germany

8

2

Stockholm Environment Institute, 11 Curtis Ave, Somerville MA 02144, USA

9

3

Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4,

10

Institute of Ecology, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Scharnhorst Str.

79106 Freiburg, Germany

11

12 13

*Corresponding author: D. Walmsley, Email: [email protected], phone: +49 4131 677

14

2083, fax: +49 4131 677 2849

15 16

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 2 of 37

17

Abstract

18

Despite setbacks interest in Jatropha cultivation remains high. This study addressed the question

19

to what extent Jatropha cultivation has replaced specific vegetation and land use types and how

20

the existing areas are managed. Major forms of land use change and management practices were

21

identified based on cluster analysis of data from 106 interviewee’s responses to a comprehensive

22

global survey. Of the 1.04 ×106 ha cultivated with Jatropha in 2011 40% were established on land

23

that was cleared of vegetation as a result of logging activities unrelated to Jatropha cultivation,

24

34% was defined as unused, and the remainder was attributable to areas previously used for crops

25

or animal husbandry. With the exception of croplands, these areas were dominated (90-98%) by a

26

few internationally active companies whose cultivation models were almost exclusively based on

27

outgrower schemes. Management practices were largely extensive in nature (low mechanical

28

input and infrequent use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides), and also dominated by large

29

projects. Broad surveys such as this are useful in identifying general trends in this emerging

30

global industry, but detailed case studies, particularly of large projects, are needed in order to

31

draw more informed conclusions about the site-specific impacts of Jatropha cultivation.

32

33 34

Introduction

35

Diminishing natural resources and the frequently negative impacts of current resource acquisition

36

create the need for more sustainable resource avenues. The use of biomass as a non-food

37

commodity, particularly as a substitute for fossil fuel, is therefore being increasingly promoted.1–3

38

Many concepts utilizing different sources of organic matter have been suggested4 and are

39

receiving increased interest on a commercial scale.5,6 However, increased biofuel production 2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 3 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

40

raised concerns about ecological impacts and the extent to which biofuel crops either displaced

41

food production or land providing important ecosystem functions.

42

With strong associations between common oilseed feedstocks and deforestation, such as soy in

43

the Brazilian Amazon7 and oil palm in Indonesia,8 and emerging policies to encourage or

44

mandate more sustainable alternatives,9 the biofuel industry sought novel crops. Of the many

45

feedstock crops put forward, Jatropha curcas L. (henceforth referred to as Jatropha) has a long

46

and mixed history. Originally hailed as a “miracle crop” due to its predicted high oil yield under

47

marginal conditions,10–12 Jatropha has often been classified as being an ideal “pro-poor”

48

smallholder bioenergy crop.13,14 Consequently, substantial public and private investments in

49

Jatropha cultivation schemes have taken place.15,16 However, it has become apparent that the

50

requirements necessary to obtain economically viable yields have been seriously underestimated

51

and much capital has been withdrawn.14,17–21 Despite this set back, the sustainable production of

52

biofuel and other (by)products from Jatropha, albeit under more favorable growing conditions,

53

remains a concept receiving considerable political and commercial interest.16,22–25

54

As a biofuel crop there has been particular interest in the ecological impact of Jatropha

55

cultivation. The actual environmental impact of any cash crop depends on a multitude of factors,

56

which are not exclusively associated with cultivation (e.g. transport, processing, co-products and

57

consumption). Life cycle analysis is a widely accepted method used to evaluate the impact of a

58

given product (e.g. GHG emissions for biofuel) in comparison to an alternative product (e.g.

59

conventional fuel). Numerous life cycle analyses have been performed for Jatropha biofuel. In

60

many cases, however, land use change (LUC) was not included in the impact assessments.26

61

However, other analyses find that LUC can be a major determinant of the net carbon balance in

62

any biofuel supply chain.27,28 For policy makers interested in the climate change mitigation 3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 4 of 37

63

potential of alternative fuels, it is essential to understand how specific crops affect land use and

64

vegetation cover. Other factors such as site establishment practices, use of chemical inputs, and

65

tillage are also important determinants of mitigation potential. While several studies have looked

66

at generic cases or empirical examples of actual practices on individual farms, to the best of our

67

knowledge, there are no broad analyses addressing the questions to what extent Jatropha

68

cultivation has i) replaced specific vegetation and land use types and ii) how the existing areas

69

are managed. As a result, the size and nature of cultivation-related impacts on a global scale

70

remain unknown.

71

In this study we aim to close this knowledge-gap by using data from a recent global survey of

72

commercial Jatropha projects to assess the major forms of land use change and management

73

practices currently associated with worldwide Jatropha cultivation. We used hierarchical cluster

74

analyses to identify groups of projects with similar i) prior vegetation and land use, ii)

75

establishment practices and iii) management practices as these are important variables affecting

76

the ecological and socio-economic sustainability of biofuel production. Prior vegetation, for

77

example, indicates the extent to which direct LUC creates a “carbon debt” that affects the GHG

78

benefits of the project. Establishment and management practices also affect the “carbon debt”,

79

and other issues such as human and animal health, soil degradation and water pollution.25

80

Intensive practices will probably have higher impacts on soil C whilst burning rather than

81

utilizing biomass as some type of co-product also affects carbon dynamics as well as that of other

82

nutrients.26

83

In a second step we calculated the corresponding area associated with the respective LUC,

84

establishment and management clusters. In contrast to regional, yet more detailed case studies,

85

we are therefore able to provide some insight into sustainability issues associated with land use 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 5 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

86

and management practices of current Jatropha cultivation on a global scale and provide country-

87

specific data from the survey in the supporting information for use by others.

88

89

Materials and Methods

90

Survey data

91

In this study we used empirical data from a global survey conducted in 2011 aimed at projects

92

associated with the production of plant oil from woody shrub species in tropical to subtropical

93

regions.29 The survey was based on a standardized questionnaire29 consisting of 67, both

94

structured and unstructured, questions. We use the term “project” throughout the document to

95

refer to Jatropha cultivation activities of a given entity within a single country.

96

In order to identify as many projects as possible, a non-probabilistic mixed-method sampling

97

approach was applied30,31 based on a combination of desktop research, expert interviews, and a

98

producer survey. In total, the global study was based on information gathered in over 180

99

interviews with experts and project representatives. Desktop research drew on a wide range of

100

sources, including academic publications, reports from civil society and international

101

organizations, producer websites, professional online networks as well as industry websites and

102

studies. In order to validate the desk research and identify projects that may have been

103

overlooked more than 80 semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts, consisting of

104

representatives from non-governmental organizations, industry associations, research institutions

105

and development organizations.

106

This approach yielded a target population of 401 projects. Triangulating desktop research, expert

107

and project interviews confirmed a frame population of 260 projects (i.e. those with a chance to 5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 6 of 37

108

be selected due to the applied sampling), with the remaining 141 projects lacking valid contact

109

data. In order to avoid bias from sample drawing we applied a simple sampling method32 with all

110

projects from the frame population contacted for interviews between May and September 2011.

111

The questionnaire was sent out to the interviewees beforehand to give an overview of the survey

112

content. The majority of interviews with the 154 respondents (59%) were carried out by means of

113

computer-assisted telephone interviewing using an active PDF questionnaire whilst 10%

114

performed self-interviewing by sending back the filled-in questionnaire via e-mail. Interviewees

115

differed in terms of their professional status within the given project, with the majority (58)

116

occupying senior management positions (for a more detailed description see Tab. S1).

117

Despite the extensive research efforts combined with a mixed method sampling strategy,

118

systematic biases are possible. For example, specific groups of projects might be

119

underrepresented, e.g. “in-house projects” where oil-bearing woody shrubs are grown as part of

120

other business activities or are mixed with other types of feedstock production and are thus not

121

reported separately. In addition, some project owners or managers might prefer to fully develop

122

their projects and achieve reliable agronomic and economic results before exposing themselves to

123

the market and critical discussions which followed the first Jatropha hype.

124

In addition to sampling errors invalid answers and nonresponse must be considered.32 The

125

motivation for providing invalid answers can differ, e.g. if a respondent is not allowed to or does

126

not want to disclose figures such as acreage and investments or if social desirability leads to

127

strategic answers. If answers are expected to be systematically biased in one direction only (e.g.

128

exaggeration of social and environmental commitment), interpretations have to be made with

129

care. This might have been the case for certain issues addressed in this study, e.g. establishment

130

on pristine forest or on previously used (as opposed to unused) land. 6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 7 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

131

As the main objective of this study was to assess the land use implications of operational Jatropha

132

projects we removed eight projects that did not produce Jatropha as a main crop. In addition, we

133

also removed those that were not fully operational at the time, were dedicated primarily to

134

research and development, as well as those with an unclear status or incomplete interviews. This

135

led to a final dataset of 106 fully operational Jatropha projects (Tab. S2) which were associated

136

with 84 parent companies, 33 of which stated that they were active in multiple countries.

137

Nonresponse errors affect the survey quality if they are caused by systematic biases, i.e. if the

138

nonresponding units or items differ from the sample in specific, systematic ways.33 The projects

139

from our final dataset were fairly equally distributed, with 43%, 32% and 31% situated in Africa,

140

Asia and Latin America, respectively (Fig. 1). This distribution pattern was very similar to that of

141

the complete frame population indicating there was no evidence of unit nonresponse error; at

142

least in terms of location, which was the only variable for which such a comparison was possible.

143

Due to the fact that our analysis is on a global level (i.e. we do not analyze subsamples of the

144

dataset, e.g. continents or different cultivation models) systematic item non-response errors are

145

irrelevant.

146

The 106 fully operational Jatropha projects included 32 projects that also cultivated additional

147

species, albeit to a lesser extent (secondary species in a spatially separate location), as well as 48

148

projects that grew Jatropha in combination with other crops (mixed cropping). Fourteen

149

additional projects stated that they grew Jatropha in a silvo-pastoral system. Jatropha plants were

150

mainly cultivated in rows only (n=63), six projects grew Jatropha purely as field boundary crops

151

(hedges) and 21 projects stated that they cultivated Jatropha both in hedges and rows.

152

7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 8 of 37

153

Analyses

154

For the questions relevant to our study multiple responses were possible, which made it

155

impossible to calculate areas associated with specific answers. We classified projects into

156

subgroups by means of cluster analysis to overcome this problem. This is a commonly used

157

multivariate data exploration technique, helping to reveal the characteristics of structures or

158

patterns present in the data.34 We used R version 3.1.135 to conduct an agglomerative hierarchical

159

cluster analysis based on Euclidean distances and Ward’s method (package ‘cluster’, ‘function

160

‘agnes’)36 with the intent of minimizing within-group variation and maximizing dissimilarities

161

between groups.37 This method uses a bottom-up approach by initially clustering single elements

162

(in this case projects) based on the minimum variance criterion and subsequently clusters the

163

prior aggregates until one cluster remains. The variables used for cluster analyses were the

164

answers provided by interviewees in the check boxes of the relevant questions, with a checked

165

box referring to a “yes” and a blank box to a “no”. For means of analyses these answers were

166

encoded as a one and a zero, respectively.

167

We chose three categories: i) prior vegetation/ prior land use, ii) site establishment and iii) site

168

management for individual cluster analyses as these generally have the most impact on

169

sustainability issues directly linked to Jatropha cultivation and also because adequate data was

170

available. Prior vegetation refers to the type of vegetation prior to establishment of the Jatropha

171

plants whilst the term “prior land use” is independent of vegetation type and simply refers to how

172

the land was used prior to establishment of the Jatropha plants. In contrast, site establishment and

173

management practices both refer to processes directly related to Jatropha cultivation with site

174

establishment referring to initial “once off” actions required for establishing the site whilst

175

management practices such as fertilization are continuous processes occurring at a rate 8 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 9 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

176

determined by the field manager or farmer. We would like to note that initial cluster analyses

177

with all possible combinations of these categories did not lead to meaningful results, so we

178

performed separate cluster analyses for each of the aforementioned categories.

179

The relevant questions and response options for the three categories are provided in the

180

supporting information (Fig. S1).

181

We applied hierarchical cluster analysis as it is commonly used across a wide range of

182

disciplines, well understood and readily interpretable.38 The agglomerative coefficient measures

183

the clustering structure of the dataset; whereby “a value close to 1 indicates that a clear

184

structuring has been found, while a value of 0 indicates that a clear structure is missing and the

185

data represents one big cluster”.39 The results of the cluster analyses are presented as

186

dendrograms, with “height” on the y-axis indicating the level of similarity with which any two

187

clusters were joined.

188

As the identification of relevant clusters is subjective, the ability of a specific answer to define a

189

given cluster was assessed by means of indicator species analysis,40 using the ‘labdsv’ package

190

(function ‘indval’).41 In this analysis an indicator value of a variable is calculated as the product

191

of the relative frequency (“fidelity”) and relative abundance (“exclusivity”) of a given variable

192

within a cluster. Values range from 0 to 1, with the latter indicating that the variable (in this case

193

answer) of interest is a perfect indicator of the cluster (i.e. all projects within the cluster are

194

associated with the indicator variable which is exclusive to the cluster). The significance of the

195

indicator value was determined using the probability of obtaining as high an indicator value as

196

observed over 1000 iterations.41 As the original application of the indicator species analysis and

197

its description in the ‘labdsv’ package are associated with species assemblages in ecology40,41 we

198

present the formulae for calculating the relative frequencies and abundancies within the ‘labdsv’ 9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 10 of 37

199

package using the terms from our analysis (equation 1 and 2, respectively). For better comparison

200

we include the original terms used in the ‘labdsv’ in italics within parenthesis. Note that in

201

contrast to the original application for species assemblages the abundance of an answer within a

202

project (compared to a species within a sample) can only take on the values zero or one.

203

For a cluster c in set K where:

204

, presence/absence (1/0) of answer (species) i in project (sample) j

205

, abundance of answer “yes” (species) i in project (sample) j

206

 number of projects (samples) in cluster c

207

Equation 1:

relative frequency: , =

∑∈ , 

(∑∈ %, )/  (*+((∑∈( %, )/ ( )

relative abundance: #, = ∑)

208

Equation 2:

209

With regards to prior vegetation, land use, establishment and management practices we found no

210

indication of significant differences between those projects that cultivated Jatropha in boundary

211

(hedges) or in mixed cropping systems and those that did not (Chi2 test). Therefore, we did not

212

distinguish between such systems in this study.

213

As questions allowed for multiple answers we were only able to attribute the corresponding area

214

of a project to a given answer (e.g. “degraded land”) when a single answer was provided. In order

215

to provide some insight into the extent of area associated with the different land use types and

216

management practices at different geopolitical scales we calculated an “area range” by summing

217

the minimum and maximum area for each project over countries and continents, which were

218

calculated as follows. For those cases in which more than one answer was given, we set the 10 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 11 of 37

Environmental Science & Technology

219

minimum area per answer to 1 ha, assuming this to be a conservative estimate of the average

220

minimum size of a cultivated plot. Accordingly, we calculated the maximum area by subtracting

221

1 ha from the total area per project. For projects were only one answer was given minimum and

222

maximum values were identical. While the actual area lies somewhere within the range provided,

223

we considered it important to present these estimates and add the data to the supporting

224

information for possible further use by others (figures S3-S5 and tables S4-S8).

225 226

Results

227

Prior Vegetation and Land Use

228

In total, information from 95 projects on both the prior vegetation and land use type was available

229

(90% response rate, Tab. S3). The four main clusters identified were generally characterized by

230

their prior land use and to a lesser extent prior vegetation type. Accordingly, the clusters were

231

named for the prior land use which was most representative, i.e. “Grazing”, “Crops”, “Unused”,

232

and “Logged” (Tab. 1; Fig. 2a). The latter encompassed only nine projects two of which belonged

233

to one large parent company active in Asia. In this context, the term “Logged” mainly refers to

234

previously logged land with only two projects reporting an actual removal of trees as a direct

235

consequence of Jatropha establishment. Therefore, the Logged cluster can best be described as

236

small group of projects primarily located on degraded land that was cleared of vegetation as a

237

result of logging activities unrelated to Jatropha cultivation.

238

“Degraded land” was the most frequent prior vegetation type occurring in 66% of all projects. It

239

was not a significant cluster indicator, however, as it was fairly equally distributed across clusters

240

with the exception of the Crops cluster where it was less common but nonetheless still occurred

241

in 50% of projects. In contrast, the most frequently named prior land use “unused” (34 projects) 11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

Page 12 of 37

242

was a perfect indicator for the identically named cluster. The Unused cluster can therefore best be

243

described as large group of projects exclusively located on formerly unused land, often with

244

degraded savannah or shrubland (defined as an area where shrubs without a definite crown are

245

the dominant vegetation, see Fig. S1) as prior vegetation.

246

The prior land use variable husbandry/pasture best characterized the Grazing cluster. The

247

remaining projects with husbandry/pasture as a prior land use were found solely within the Crops

248

cluster. Unsurprisingly, there were strong positive correlations between food crops, non-food

249

crops and farmland (Chi2, p