Why the Debate about Land Use Change Should Not Only Focus on

Publication Date (Web): May 4, 2010 ... Luc is project manager of bioenergy at VITO, is a Belgian alternate ExCo member of IEA Bioenergy, and Belgian ...
0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size
Download PDF
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 4046–4049

Why the Debate about Land Use Change Should Not Only Focus on Biofuels1 LEEN GORISSEN* Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Mol, Belgium VEERLE BUYTAERT VITO, Mol, Belgium, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium DIETER CUYPERS TOM DAUWE LUC PELKMANS VITO, Mol, Belgium

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Extensive change of the landscape for energy production is not limited to farmland alteration.

Evidence that links increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to global climate change has amplified over the years and led to a broad scientific consensus that the climate is changing fast and will have far-reaching impacts on our planet (1). To reduce the most severe effects, a global warming limit of 2 °C or below has been adopted by more than 100 countries worldwide as the guiding principle for mitigation efforts (2). A recent study by Meinshausen et al. (2) calculated that to have a reasonable chance of keeping warming below 2 °C, the cumulative CO2 emissions from fossil resources and land use change (LUC) cannot exceed 1000 billion tonnes from 1 Editor’s Note: This manuscript was submitted prior to ES&T changing its manuscript parameters for Viewpoints. For the new format, please read the details at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/ 10.1021/es903081n.

4046

9

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 44, NO. 11, 2010

2000-2050. One third of this limit will already have been emitted by the end of 2009. This means that less than a quarter of the available and economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves can be combusted from 2009 to 2050 in order to have a fair chance of keeping warming below 2 °C. Yet at the same time, the pressure to explore and exploit untapped conventional fossil reserves and unconventional fossil resources (e.g., gas hydrates, heavy oil) has never been this great (3–6). This is mainly because of a projected increase in demand and increasing oil prices, while concerns about the sustainability of alternatives, such as biofuels complicate the transition from fossil resources. These sustainability problems of biofuels relate mostly to the negative direct and indirect effects associated with land use change (LUC). However, exploration and exploitation of fossil resources can also induce LUC (especially in the case of unconventional heavy oil resources) and pose direct and indirect threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services when the reserves are located in fragile or biodiverse areas (7, 8). In other words, LUC and associated indirect sustainability problems apply to the fossil energy sector as well as to the bioenergy sector. However, this fact receives hardly any attention in the ongoing LUC debate despite that the bulk of our energy demand (80-90%) in 2020 will still be nurtured by these fossil reserves. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines LUC as a change in the use or management of land and land cover by humans; LUC is thus directly linked to climate change. For example, land cover and LUC may have an impact on the surface albedo, evapotranspiration, sources and sinks of greenhouse gases (GHGs), or other properties of the climate system and thus may have local or global impact (1). At present, the main feedstock for bioenergy is (farmed) biomass, which influences land management/LUC. The coupling of bioenergy demand to LUC considerably impacts the climate benefit of biofuelssa topic that receives a lot of attention from scientists, policy makers, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This is an example of direct LUC: the effect of direct land conversion from native ecosystems such as forests, grasslands, or peatlands to rural or urban uses, such as agriculture or plantations. Indirect LUC (iLUC) relates to global displacement effects resulting from an increase in demand for biomass (as food, feed, fiber, energy carrier, construction material, etc.) in one part of the world that induces a shift in land use elsewhere, usually leading to the conversion of native systems into arable land (9). The ongoing discussions focus mainly on GHG emissions (due to combustion or decomposing/oxidizing carbon) induced by LUC because these emissions are considered to be one of the most important anthropogenic sources. At the same time LUC also directly or indirectly affects the life support mechanisms and services of our natural landscape by influencing ecosystem services and biodiversity. Mostly, LUC impacts on natural ecosystems are negative: conversion of natural ecosystems leads to degradation of habitat quality (e.g., pollution, invasive species etc), disturbs the essential cycles and networks of life (e.g nutrient, O2, CO2 and water 10.1021/es903036u

 2010 American Chemical Society

Published on Web 05/04/2010

cycling), and induces habitat and biodiversity loss (10). On the other hand, ecosystems and biodiversity are also influenced by climate change leading to shifts in distribution and migration of organisms. Human-created barriers (such as roads or frequent burning) and the cultural (anthropogenic) landscape that surround fragile and biodiverse areas deplete natural corridors and ecological connectivity between current and future habitats; therefore ecosystem resilience is drastically reduced (11, 12). The above spotlights the complexity of the subject of LUC, especially because land use relates to many different sectors (energy, agriculture, industry, nature, etc.), time and spatial scales, legislation, politics, and activities in our society. Further, the main drivers triggering LUC originate from our economy and consumer behavior (1–15). LUC can thus be viewed as a persistent problem, for example, a societal problem of great complexity and magnitude for which existing approaches will not suffice (16). Because it is becoming more and more clear that land will play a crucial role in the establishment of genuinely sustainable systems, for which simplistic approaches are unlikely to deliver (17), a pluriform debate addressing all LUC drivers and implications is urgently needed. To achieve this, we need to look at LUC from a systems perspective. Here, we attempt to describe some of the risks in absence of such an integrated perspective. At this very moment, the European Commission is investigating ways to address iLUC for the biofuel policy adopted in the Renewable Energy Directive (18). An option under consideration is the inclusion of an iLUC factor for biofuel GHG calculations (19) to account for emissions from iLUC. Attributing LUC consequences to just one of many drivers, will however entail unintended side effects which should be given due respect. For instance, that the LUC debate only focuses on biofuels and not on the systemsincluding all fuel pathways and all biomass applicationssis a simplification of cause-consequence relationship (13). Simplification of complex problems gain popularity because they fit in prevalent worldviews, suggest simple solutions, and may serve the interests of critical groups (13). Such simplifications might negatively influence public support and consumer behavior, which in turn might influence investors and policy makers. What is more, holding only part of a sector (bioenergy) accountable for the negative consequences of LUC will disturb a level playing field for the renewable energy sector and affect the transition from fossil resources. Conversely, the nonrenewable (fossil) energy sector will not be affected and will benefit from such an incomplete/biased approach because of its decelerating effect on the commercialization of renewable resources. This might result in prolonging our dependency on fossil resources and increase the pressure and incentive to explore and exploit both conventional and unconventional fossil reserves. The development of a climate-friendly energy policy framework requires estimation and regulation of the combined impacts, direct and indirect effects, of all fuel pathways (20). This means that GHG emissions associated with LUC impacts of fossil exploration and exploitation need to be included and accounted for in order to implement life cycle emission regulations. Good practice therefore would advocate researching these as well, especially in cases where surface mining is involved; for example, oil shale, tar sands, and deep sea oil exploration and drilling. The importance of indirect effects has been illustrated by the recent paper of Liska and Perrin (2009), who estimated that the protection of oil supplies in the Middle East by the US military (measured as indirect military emissions) could raise the GHG intensity of gasoline from this source by roughly 2-fold. Using petroleum-based resources as a reference energy system for comparisons with bioenergy consequently necessitates a more thorough assessment of the life cycle GHG emissions from fossil resources (20).

Furthermore, the current debate about LUC by biofuels focuses predominantly on the adverse effects of GHG emissions. A focus toward GHG emission reductions, as is the case in current legislations (18, 22), is a good and sensible start, but we have to keep in mind that this is again a simplification. Climate change is one aspect of a larger problem: the deteriorating life support mechanism of our planet. LUC affects multiple key aspects of our planet’s lifesupport mechanism such as the provisioning ecosystem services (food, energy, water, medicines and genetic resources), the regulating ecosystem services (climate control, water quality, flood protection, carbon and waste sinks), and supporting ecosystem services (soil formation, pollination, nutrient cycling) (23). To come to smart land management guidelines, all relevant direct and indirect effects of LUC should be considered in unison across all drivers. Again, this can be exemplified from the energy perspective. Many of the conventional and unconventional fossil reserves are located in fragile or biodiverse areas (see Figure 1). The world’s three largest unconventional oil deposits are located in areas of high value for ecosystem integrity and biodiversity. These unconventional oil resources are roughly estimated at 1.7 trillion barrels as oil sands in Canada, 1.5 trillion barrels as oil shale in the U.S., and 1.3 trillion barrels as heavy oil in Venezuela (6, 29). The locations in the Colorado and Orinoco region are home to many threatened or endangered species (29, 30). The oil sands in Canada cover an area larger than England in the primary boreal forest, an area vital for migratory birds and an important terrestrial carbon sink (29). Land management practices associated with heavy oil exploitation (e.g., surface mining, horizontal well drilling, and drainage) have devastating effects on the land and the surrounding ecosystems (29, 30). In addition, the overlap between biodiversity hotspots and oil and gas blocks in the western Amazon is striking. Oil and gas drilling might not result in the clearing of large areas of land but will indirectly affect natural ecosystems and biodiversity by opening up (previously) inaccessible areas, fragmenting the landscape, and pressurizing the water supplies (7). Additionally, oil extraction activities have been linked to increased wildlife and wild meat trade, further affecting biodiversity (8). It therefore makes sense to expand our viewpoint of promoting the most beneficial biofuels only (from an environmental and socio-economic point of view (31)), to nonrenewable fuels as well. In this way, we can ensure that only those nonrenewable resources that entail the least harmful effects on environmental and socio-economical conditions are eligible for future exploitation. Since the window of opportunity for effective long-term action is extraordinarily narrow (32), we urgently need to approach the problem of LUC with integration, coherence, and systemic thinking. Next to cutting down GHG emissions, society needs to prioritize the protection of areas of important value for biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and ecosystem services to all kinds of exploitation. Smart land use management based on the precautionary principle is a vital part of sustaining and maintaining the life support mechanism of our planet. An integrated approach to the problem of LUC asks for a systems level redesign of our socioecological regime and economic system (33) in a way that it sustains, instead of reduces, the life support mechanism of the planet. It suggests new institutional and organizational arrangements interlinking a range of topics and policies previously addressed independently: economy, energy, climate mitigation and adaptation, agriculture, land use and management, natural resources, environment, poverty, development aid, health, and others (34). On the individual level, it calls for a re-evaluation of our priorities. As Pavan Sukhdev, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study leader, put it so aptly: “The two major challenges for society today are VOL. 44, NO. 11, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

9

4047

FIGURE 1. Overview of the spatial locations of the world’s three largest unconventional oil deposits and also large conventional oil and gas reserves (leased and not yet leased) in the western Amazon in relation to country level biodiversity and number of overlapping global biodiversity priorities (5–8, 21, 24–29). Country level biodiversity is represented by an index based on species diversity in the four terrestrial vertebrate classes and vascular plants using national biodiversity indices. The smaller map represents high priority global biodiversity areas and zero extinction sites (dots). Both maps are developed by UNEP-WCMC 2008 (21). UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

learning the nature of value and finding the value of nature.” (23) Strategic governance, tactical management, multilateral measures, and governmental leadership by example are requisite to induce the required societal behavioral change (35, 36). Without such changes, economic and individual interests will dominate the decisions that affect LUC. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether we will be satisfied with short-term success in a failing world. All authors are part of the research unit Transition Energy and Environment of VITO. Leen Gorissen is a biologist with a Ph.D. in ecology, evolution, and behaviour. Her research focuses on systemic sustainability interlinking with land use, bioenergy, ecosystems, biodiversity, climate change, and transition management. Veerle Buytaert and Dieter Cuypers are bioscience engineers specialized in land and forest management. Veerle investigates the sustainability of bioenergy systems and Dieter works on the interface of land use, forest ecosystems, and climate change. Tom Dauwe is a biologist with a Ph.D. in ecotoxicology. His research focuses on climate change with an emphasis on the role of deforestation and forest degradation. Luc Pelkmans is a mechanical engineer specializing in energy technology. His research focus has been on policy impact and sustainability analysis, mainly regarding biofuels and bioenergy. Luc is project manager of bioenergy at VITO, is a Belgian alternate ExCo member of IEA Bioenergy, and Belgian representative on IEA Bioenergy Task 40. Please address correspondence regarding this article to [email protected].

Acknowledgments We thank E. Lambin, F. Nevens, L. Blyth, and K. Schoeters for valuable comments on earlier drafts and all colleagues 4048

9

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 44, NO. 11, 2010

at the Flemish Institute for Technological Research for the many discussions and views about this topic.

Literature Cited (1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007; available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm. (2) Meinshausen, M.; Meinshausen, N.; Hare, W.; Raper, S. C.; Frieler, K.; Knutti, R.; Frame, D. J. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature 2009, 458, 1158–1163. (3) U. S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030; DOE/EIA-0383; U. S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2009. (4) Unconventional Fossil-Based Fuels. Economic and Environmental Trade-offs; Technical Report TR580; RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, 2008; Available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/ technical_reports/TR580. (5) From Resources to Reserves: Oil and Gas Technologies for the Energy Markets of the Future; International Energy Agency: Paris, 2005; available at http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_ Desc.asp?PUBS_ID)1568. (6) Kja¨rstad, J.; Johnsson, F. Resources and future supply of oil. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 441–464. (7) Finer, M.; Jenkins, C. N.; Pimm, S. L.; Keane, B.; Ross, C. Oil and Gas projects in the Western Amazon: Threats to wilderness, biodiversity and indigenous peoples. PLoS One 2008, 3, e2932. (8) Suarez, E.; Morales, M.; Cueva, R.; Utreras Bucheli, V.; ZapataRios, G.; Toral, E.; Torres, J.; Prado, W.; Vargas Ollalla, J. Oil

(9)

(10) (11)

(12) (13)

(14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

(19) (20) (21) (22) (23)

industry, wild meat trade and roads: indirect effects of oil extraction activities in a protected area in north-eastern Ecuador. Anim. Conserv. 2009, 12, 364–373. Ravindranath, N. H.; R.; Fargione, J.; Canadell, J. G.; Berndes, G.; Woods, J.; Watson, H.; Sathaye, J. Greenhouse gas implications of land use change and land conversion to biofuel crops. In Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions with Changing Land Use; Howarth, R. G., Bringezu, S., Eds; SCOPE Island Press: New York, 2009; pp 111-125. A Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, 2005. Migratory Species and Climate Change: Impacts of a Changing Environment on Wild Animals; UNEP-CMS: Bonn, Germany, 2006; available at http://www.cms.int/publications/pdf/CMS_ CimateChange.pdf. Guevara, S.; Laborde, J. The landscape approach: designing new reserves for protection of biological and cultural diversity in Latin America. Environ. Ethics 2009, 30, 251–262. Lambin, E. F.; Turner, B. L.; Geist, H. J.; Agbola, S. B.; Angelsen, A.; Bruce, J. W.; Coomes, O. T.; Dirzo, R.; Fischer, G.; Folke, C.; et al. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environ. Change 2001, 11, 261–269. Butler, R. A.; Laurance, W. F. New strategies for conserving tropical forests. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 469–472. Hertwich, E. G.; Peeters, G. P. Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6414–6420. Loorbach, D. Transition Management, New mode of governance for sustainable development. PhD dissertation, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 2007. Towards Sustainable Production and Use of Resources: Assessing Biofuels; UNEP: Paris, 2009; available at http://www.unep.fr/ scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf. European Commission. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. Available at http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri)OJ:L:2009:140:0016: 0062:EN:PDF. European Commission. Preconsultation on indirect land use change. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/ consultations/2009_07_31_iluc_pre_consultation_en.htm (2009). Liska, J.; Perrin, R. K. Indirect land use emissions in the life cycle of biofuels: regulations versus science. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref 2009, 10, 1002. Carbon and biodiversity: A Demonstration Atlas; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, U.K., 2008; available at http://www.unep.org/pdf/ carbon_biodiversity.pdf US Energy independence and Security Act 2007. Public law 110140, 2007. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Interim Report; European Communities: Cambridge, U.K., 2008; available at http://www.teebweb.org/InformationMaterial/TEEBInterimReport/tabid/1278/language/en-US/Default.aspx.

(24) Fossil Fuel Resources and Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic. UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library, 2007. Available at http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/fossil-fuel-resourcesand-oil-and-gas-production-in-the-arctic. (25) Dew, J. L.; Greenberg, J. A.; Franzen, M.; Di Fiore, A. Road to extinction: GIS modelling of road development and hunting pressure on Amazonian primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2003, 36, 89. (26) Mena, C. F.; Barbieri, A. F.; Walsh, S. J.; Erlien, C. M.; Holt, F. L.; Bilsborrow, R. E. Pressure on the Cuyabeno wildlife reserve: development and land use/cover change in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon. World Dev. 2006, 34, 1831–1849. (27) San Sebastian, M.; Hurtig, A. K. Oil exploitation in the Amazon basin of Ecuador: a public health emergency. Pan. Am. J. Publ. Health 2004, 15, 205–211. (28) Thomsen, J. B.; Mitchell, C.; Piland, R.; Donnaway, J. R. Monitoring impact of hydrocarbon exploration in sensitive terrestrial ecosystems: perspectives from Block 78 in Peru. In Footprints in the Jungle; Bowles, I. A., Prickett, G. T., Eds; Oxford University Press: New York, 2001. (29) Leaton J.; Baines C.; O’Shea N.; Footitt A. Unconventional Oil. Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel?; WWF-UK and the Cooperative Bank: Surrey and Manchester, U. K., 2008; available at http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/scraping_barrell. pdf. (30) Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species within the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Study Area. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement; U.S. Bureau of Land Management: Phoenix, AZ, 2007; available at http://ostseis.anl.gov/ documents/dpeis/vol3/OSTS_DPEIS_vol3_App_E.pdf. (31) Tilman, D.; Socolow, R.; Foley, J. A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd, L.; Pacala, S.; Reilly, J.; Searchinger, T.; Somerville, C.; et al. Beneficial biofuelssThe food, energy and environment trilemma. Science 2009, 325, 270–271. (32) Parry, M.; Lowe, J.; Hanson, C. Overshoot, adapt and recover. Nature 2009, 458, 1102–1103. (33) Beddoe, R.; Costanza, R.; Farley, J.; Garza, E.; Kent, J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Martinez, L.; McCowen, T.; Murphy, K.; Myers, N.; et al. Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions and technologies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009, 106, 2483–2489. (34) Agriculture at a crossroad, Synthesis report; I.A.A.S.T.D., 2009. Available at http://www.agassessment.org. (35) Van der Brugge, R.; van Raak, R. Facing the adaptive management challenge: Insights from transition management. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 33. (36) Loorbach, D. Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 2010, 23, 161–183.

ES903036U

VOL. 44, NO. 11, 2010 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

9

4049