Land and biodiversity policies/Land-use regulation: Difference between revisions

From IMAGE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
|PageLabel=Targeting agricultural demand
|PageLabel=Targeting agricultural demand
|Sequence=2
|Sequence=2
|Reference=Stehfest et al., 2013;
|Description=<h2>Interventions targeting the agricultural production system</h2>
|Description=<h2>Interventions targeting agricultural demand</h2>
The production system describes the way animals are raised and crops are cultivated; for example, which and how much input is used to produce one unit of product, and the amount of wood harvested per square kilometre of forest. Those characteristics then define the environmental impacts. Several interventions may increase the efficiency of production systems, and should thus lead to a lower use of input or to a reduction in environmental impacts.
{{DisplayFigureLeftOptimalTemplate|Flowchart LBP}}<br clear="all"/>
{{DisplayFigureLeftOptimalTemplate|Flowchart LBP II}}<br clear="all"/>
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Changing consumption
|Header=Improving livestock systems
|Description=Interventions that induce shifts in consumption, for example, towards less meat-intensive diets, directly reduce the demand for animal products (figure B on the right). As a first order effect, this intervention reduces all downstream effects of production proportionally. In other words, less demand for animal products and thus less demand for feed crop production, which requires less land and water and fewer nutrients – if all other settings in the crop production system remain the same – and thus decrease the impacts on biodiversity and climate (figures B and C on the right). However, as production systems are heterogeneous across and within regions, the effects may not be proportional. If, for example, extensively farmed agricultural areas, which typically have lower yields than other agricultural lands, are abandoned first, the reduction in area will be larger. Likewise, if production would shift to regions with lower yields, less area reduction can be achieved. In addition to this heterogeneity effect, feedbacks in the economic system via price and trade may change the final impact of a demand intervention, compared to the first-order effect, especially if such interventions are only applied in certain regions. Lower demand for meat may reduce world market prices, and thus increase the demand in other regions ([[Stehfest et al., 2013]]). Although this rebound effect would reduce the environmental benefits of the intervention, the impact on human health could still be positive.
|Description=Interventions that improve livestock systems include the use of other breeds that have higher feed conversion rates, which may require another ratio of feed composites, or produce less manure. Changes in the feed conversion or composition of feed, for example, the ratio between grazing and feed crop feeding, influence the demand for grazing areas and crop areas, and therefore changing these systems will result in other environmental impacts and other patterns of agricultural land use. The amounts and quality of manure affect nitrogen emission levels and thus also both nutrient balances and climate-change impacts. In addition, biodiversity will be affected via nitrogen emissions. As a positive side effect, different production systems can have positive impacts on animal welfare, too. However, in most cases, higher animal welfare standards involve more input per unit of production ([[PBL, 2011]]). The way manure is stored and applied to the land also differs across livestock systems, and influences crop yields and emission levels. A secondary impact of increasing feed efficiencies could be that of cost reductions, leading to a similar feedback effect as described for changes in demand.
|PISet=Consumption and diet preferences;
 
For the purpose of this section, we distinguish two interventions within the cropping system:  ‘improved cropping systems or varieties’ and ‘crop and grass yields, cropping intensity’. Those two interventions are closely linked. Management in agriculture is a subtle interplay between the cultivar chosen, soil management, fertilizer and other input, and the timing and choice for each cultivation step. Here, the first interventions particularly focus on the reduction in – often negative – external effects other than the use of land. The second intervention targets concern the use of as few hectares as possible (address the amount of product per hectare).
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Improving cropping systems or varieties
|Description=Improved cropping systems or varieties could increase the efficiency of the use of inputs, including water and nutrients. Combined with an application of those inputs that are well tuned to the requirements of the crops, this would lead to fewer nitrogen emissions or less water use per tonne of crop and, ultimately, would reduce the impacts on biodiversity and climate. Such improved management could also lead to higher yields (see below). Improved systems could imply a shift in the ratio between the factors used, such as labour, capital, land, fertilizer, water and other inputs. Therefore, the cost price of agricultural products may change, resulting in other market prices and a changed consumption.
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Managing demand for bio-energy crops
|Header=Crop and grass yields
|Description=Policy interventions to manage the demand for bio-energy directly change the demand for bio-energy crops (figure A on the right). The environmental impacts, including land use, of such interventions depend on the mix of bio-energy crops, and stimulation of and/or restrictions on different bio-energy sources. Restricting the use of bio-energy directly affects the options and costs of climate policies (see also [[Climate policy]] and [[Air pollution and energy policies]]). It is important to note that the impact of reduced bio-energy demand on biodiversity can be twofold: on the one hand, more bio-energy use requires more land and therefore involves biodiversity loss (the same dynamics can be expected as described under 'shifts in consumption'). On the other hand, if policy on bio-energy use is not replaced by other (maybe more costly) climate policy measures, long-term climate change would be more severe, and thus biodiversity loss due to climate change could be greater, as well ([[Oorschot et al., 2010]]).
|Description=Yield increase can be induced by other crop varieties; for example, by increasing the potential yield or better management (thus, closing the yield gap). One should keep in mind that other – more suitable – crop varieties often also need other types of management in order to give higher yields.  
 
Several policies that affect demand have been analysed using the IMAGE model; for example, that on the reduction in the consumption of meat and dairy ([[PBL, 2011]]; [[Stehfest et al., 2013]]), restricted use of bio-energy, and reductions in losses and waste ([[PBL, 2010]]; [[PBL, 2012]]).
|PISet=Biofuel; Sustainability criteria in bio-energy production;
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Reducing food losses
|Header=Cropping intensity
|Description=Policies aimed at reducing food losses directly decrease the demand for food, in the case of waste on a consumer level, or, if post-harvest losses are reduced, decrease the amount of produce needed to fulfil the demand. This reduces the need for the production of food crops, fodder crops and animal products and therefore also reduces the environmental impacts of the production systems and the amount of agricultural land used. However, the same dynamics and second-order effects could be expected as those described under 'shifts in consumption'.
|Description=Cropping intensity can be increased by multiple cropping (more harvests per year), which depends on climatic circumstances, or by decreasing the area that is left fallow. Both interventions would decrease the required production area for all crops, but it could also, locally, increase the environmental impacts per hectare of crops. Where lower area requirements decrease biodiversity and climate impacts, the environmental impacts per hectare could increase them again. Thus, to decrease biodiversity loss, yield increases should go hand in hand with system changes, which may result in fewer negative external impacts, as described for the intervention above. Increased cropping intensity increases the risk of soil degradation if cropping rotations or soil management are not adapted, as well.  
}}
}}
[[Page has default form::ZZ_PolicyResponsePartForm| ]]
[[Page has default form::ZZ_PolicyResponsePartForm| ]]

Revision as of 11:01, 6 March 2014

Template:ZZ PolicyResponsePartTemplate Template:ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate Template:ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate Template:ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate Template:ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate

Retrieved from "https://models.pbl.nl/index.php?title=Land_and_biodiversity_policies/Land-use_regulation&oldid=17913"