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

From IMAGE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ZZ_PolicyResponsePartTemplate
{{ZZ_PolicyResponsePartTemplate
|PageLabel=Targeting agricultural demand
|PageLabel=Targeting agricultural demand
|Sequence=3
|Sequence=5
|Description=<h2>Interventions targeting the forestry sector</h2>
|Reference=UNEP-WCMC, 2008; Overmars et al., 2012;
{{DisplayFigureLeftOptimalTemplate|Flowchart LBP III}}<br clear="all"/>
|Description=<h2>Land-use regulation</h2>
Demand and production technology determine the overall demand for agricultural and forestry land. However, land-use pattern and size of agricultural areas may also be influenced by regulating the amount of land available for certain purposes. The allocation of specific land uses can be influenced by restrictions imposed by land-use regulation, which can be implemented in several ways.
{{DisplayFigureLeftOptimalTemplate|Flowchart LBP IV}}<br clear="all"/>
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Changing wood consumption
|Header=Land-use planning
|Description=Interventions that target shifts in the consumption of forest products directly influence the demand for wood and, therefore, also affect the need to take forestry areas into production ([[PBL, 2010]]). This demand increase could be in industrial round wood or paper, but also in the use of wood as a traditional biomass. As a first-order effect, an intervention to change the demand for industrial products reduces all downstream effects of production proportionally. Exact data on the use of wood for traditional biomass as yet is unavailable, and estimates vary greatly, partly due to their varying focus on use or production. Those estimates range from approximately 1300 Mt/yr ([[FAO, 2013a]]) to approximately 2400 Mt/yr ([[IEA, 2012]]). Thus, a considerable part of the total wood use can be attributed to fuel wood. A decrease in the use of wood for traditional biomass has fewer direct impacts on the IMAGE biodiversity results than decreases in other uses, since only part of the production is harvested in industrial forestry activities (see [[Forest management]]). Large amounts of fuel wood are collected or produced on areas smaller than are included in the level of detail of the IMAGE framework, such as orchards or road sides. This implies that interventions related to this kind of use do not completely show up in biodiversity impacts.  
|Description=Land-use planning, such as the application of zoning laws or cadastres, assign areas to certain land uses. This could include natural corridors that are interwoven with agricultural land use. The purpose, in this case, would be to limit the impact on biodiversity in large agricultural areas and to connect the individual spots that are rich in biodiversity. Land-use planning directly influences the land-use pattern, which in turn determines the impacts on climate and biodiversity and could enhance the use of available ecosystem functions. Restricting the availability of land for agriculture could affect land prices and, therefore, decrease the relative costs of other production factors, i.e. labour and capital, or other inputs. In this way, such an intervention may induce changes in the production system (figure B on the right) and in impacts on biodiversity and climate, also on that level.  
|PISet=Sustainability criteria in bio-energy production;
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Managing bio-energy demand
|Header=Land-use regulation
|Description=Bio-energy demand will impact the demand for forestry products from the energy sector. The same effects as described under the shifts in consumption may also be expected here. The ultimate impact on biodiversity will depend on the sustainability criteria, the management practices, and the regions in which the wood will be harvested.  
|Description=Land-use regulation could also include economic instruments. In such cases, certain land uses that also provide ecosystem services could generate additional returns via  [[HasAcronym::REDD+]] schemes or payments for ecosystem services. Such payments would place a value on ecosystem services that do not have a market value at the moment. These ecosystem services would then compete with other economic activities over the same piece of land. In this way, this intervention restricts the land available for agriculture or forestry, which will affect land prices and, therefore, decrease the relative costs of using any of the other production factors, i.e. labour and capital, or input, or reduce consumption. Adaptations in the production system can be induced in this way (figure B on the right), and consequently change the impacts on biodiversity and climate on that level. Compared to the other two interventions mentioned here, the outcome of this intervention, ultimately, will be the most uncertain for impacts on biodiversity and climate change, since the areas excluded from agriculture and the final land-use pattern are the result of individual decisions. Zoning could be a way to reduce this level of uncertainty.
|PISet=Avoiding deforestation; REDD policies;
}}
}}
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
{{ZZ PolicyInterventionSetTemplate
|Header=Improving forest management
|Header=Expansion of bio-reserves
|Description=Improving forest management will impact the area needed to meet the demand as well as the impact of wood harvest on biodiversity loss. A system of Reduced Impact Logging ([[HasAcronym::RIL]]), which relates to several improvements that can be implemented within selective logging management, could reduce harvest damage, stimulate regrowth and maintain biodiversity ([[Putz et al., 2012]]). In addition, the establishment of dedicated wood plantations could decrease the size of the natural forest area needed for wood harvest, since wood productivity is higher in those plantation areas. However the biodiversity values of those areas are relatively low.
|Description=Expansion of bio-reserves should result in higher biodiversity values, if their locations are carefully chosen. The impact on climate resulting from the protection of those areas depends on the carbon content of the standing biomass. Most of the hot spots for biodiversity protection also have a high carbon content ([[UNEP-WCMC, 2008]]). The impact of this intervention on agricultural production depends on the productivity level in these areas. Restricting the amount of land available for agriculture could affect land prices. Consequently, the same impacts as described in land-use planning could be expected.
 
Agricultural expansion in forest areas results in wood harvest. Declining the rate of agricultural expansion, therefore, leads to fewer wood products and, thus, to an increase in the area needed for forestry in order to meet the wood demand ([[PBL, 2010]]); see [[Forest management]]). Options for alternative forest management have been evaluated in the report Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies ([[PBL, 2010]]).
Expansion of bio-reserves has been analysed in several PBL reports ([[PBL, 2010]]; [[PBL, 2012]]). An evaluation of costs and CO2 emission reductions via  [[HasAcronym::REDD+]] schemes can be found in [[Overmars et al., 2012]].
|PISet=RIL techniques; Sustainable forest management;
}}
}}
[[Page has default form::ZZ_PolicyResponsePartForm| ]]
[[Page has default form::ZZ_PolicyResponsePartForm| ]]

Revision as of 11:48, 6 March 2014

Template:ZZ PolicyResponsePartTemplate 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=17919"