You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators.
Description:
<div class="page_standard"> <h2>Interventions targeting agricultural demand</h2> {{DisplayFigureLeftOptimalTemplate|Flowchart Land and biodiversity policies (A)}} Several policies that affect demand have been analysed using the IMAGE framework , for example, reduction in meat and dairy consumption ([[Stehfest et al., 2009]]; [[PBL, 2011]]; [[Stehfest et al., 2013]]), restricted use of bioenergy, and reductions in losses and waste ([[PBL, 2010]]; [[PBL, 2012]]). </div> {{#default_form:PolicyResponsePartForm}}
Label for policy intervention set:
Policy intervention set description: {{DisplayFigureTemplate|Flowchart Land and biodiversity policies (B)}} Interventions that induce shifts in consumption, for example to less meat-intensive diets, directly reduce the demand for animal products (Figure A). As a first order effect, this intervention reduces all upstream effects of production proportionally. Thus, they lead to less demand for animal products and less demand for feed crop production, which in turns 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 (Figure B). However, as production systems are heterogeneous between 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 area reduction will be larger. Likewise, if production shifts 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 applied in certain regions only. Lower demand for meat may reduce world market prices, and thus increase demand in other regions (Stehfest et al., 2013). Although this rebound effect would reduce the environmental benefits of the intervention, the impact on food security could be positive.
Consists of policy interventions: Afforestation policiesAgricultural trade policiesApply emission and energy intensity standardsAvoiding deforestationCapacity targetsCarbon taxChange in grazing intensityChange market shares of fuel typesChange the use of electricity and hydrogenChanges in consumption and diet preferencesChanges in crop and livestock production systemsChanges in feed rationClimate change adaptationClosing the yield gapEffort- or burden-sharing of emission reductionsEmission trading policyEnergy tax or subsidiyEnlarge protected areasExcluding certain technologiesExpanding Reduced Impact LoggingFinancing climate policyHydropowerImplementation of biofuel targetsImplementation of land use planningImplementation of sustainability criteria in bio-energy productionImprove behaviourImprove quality of accessImproved irrigation efficiencyImproved manure storageImproved rainwater managementImprovement of feed conversionImproving energy efficiencyIncrease access to foodIncrease access to waterIncrease forest plantationsIncrease natural carbon storageIncreased livestock productivityIncreased storage capacityIntegrated manure managementIntensification or extensification of livestock systemsIntensification/extensification of livestock systemsMitigate environmental changesMore sustainable forest managementNon-CO2 taxation policiesProduction targets for energy technologiesProvision on improved stoves for traditional bio-energyREDD policiesReducing health riskReduction of waste/lossesReduction proposals (pledges)Restrictions on fuel tradeSanitation measuresSubsidies on modern energy
Policy intervention set description: Policies aimed at reducing food losses, either via reduced waste at the consumer level, or via reduced post-harvest losses decrease demand for food. This reduces the need to produce food crops, fodder crops and animal products and thus also reduces the environmental impacts of production systems and the area of agricultural land used. However, the same dynamics and second-order effects could be expected as those described under 'shifts in consumption'.
Policy intervention set description: Policy interventions to manage demand for bioenergy directly change demand for bioenergy crops (Figure A). The environmental impacts of such interventions, including land use, depend on the mix of bioenergy crops, and stimulation of and/or restrictions on bioenergy sources. Restricting the use of bioenergy directly affects the options and costs of climate policies (Component [[Climate policy]]). The impact of reduced bioenergy demand on biodiversity can be twofold. More bioenergy requires more land and thus involves biodiversity loss (the same dynamics can be expected as under 'shifts in consumption'). However, if policy on bioenergy 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 also be greater ([[Oorschot et al., 2010]]).
Policy intervention set description:
Add another policy intervention set
Save page Cancel