Implications for Land Use change · 2018. 7. 14. · Implications for Land Use change Günther Fischer International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, ... on current

Implications for Land Use Implications for Land Use

changechangeGünther Fischer

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

Expert Meeting onGlobal Perspectives on Fuel

and Food Security

FAO Headquarters,

Rome, 18-20 February, 2008

OverviewOverview

�Food and Agriculture outlook; land required

�Impacts of climate change on land

�Bioenergy feedstock production in

agriculture and land competition

•Land resources

•First vs second generation feedstocks

•How much land is available without

compromising food and feed?

Food and Agriculture Outlook

Source: LUC World food system simulations of GGI scenarios, IIASA (2005).

1. Cereal production,

scenario A2r,

2000 to 2080

2. Pork & poultry production,

scenario A2r,2000 to 2080

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080

mil

lio

n t

on

sLD Cs

MDCs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080

mil

lion

to

ns

pro

tein

LD Cs

MDCs

Source: World Food System simulations of IIASA GGI scenarios, Fischer et al. (2005).


0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080

Ind

ex

(2

00

0 =

10

0)

LDCs

MDCs

86%Agriculture

85%Other meat

73%Ruminant meat

69%Cereal production

12%Arable land

2000-2050Growth of:

Index of agricultural production, IIASA A2r scenario, 2000-2080

75%

13%

12%

Sources of growth in

agricultural production,

Scenario A2r, 2000-2050

Arable land expansion

Increases in

cropping intensity

Yield increases

Intensification

Develop

ment

scenario

Ecological-Economic Analysis

Climate impact

response relations

Production Demand

TradeGlobal Food

System

World Market

Climate

model

11

22

33

44

55

66

Source: LUC World food system simulations of GGI scenarios, IIASA (2005).

3. Total agricultural

production, revised

A2r scenario,2000 to 2080

4. Cultivated land,

projected for different socioeconomic path-

ways, 1990 to 20801500

1550

1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080

mln

Ha A2r

B2

B1


0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080

Ind

ex

(2

00

0 =

10

0)

LDCs

MDCs

Source:

World Food System simulations of IIASA GGI scenarios,

Fischer et al. (2005).


75%

13%

12%

Sources of growth in agricultural production, 2000-2050

Arable land expansion

Increases in cropping intensity

Yield increases

Intensification

86%81%Agriculture

85%74%Other meat

73%68%Ruminant meat

69%62%Cereal production

12%7%Arable land

Scenario A2rScenario B1Growth 2000-2050

76%

15%

7%Arable land expansion

Increases in cropping intensity

Yield increases

Message 1:Message 1:

� While demographic growth flattens, land

demand for food and feed (based on BAU

assumptions) will continue to grow somewhat

(100 – 250 mln ha depending on scenario

assumptions).

� A substantial contribution of agricultural

biomass to energy sources would require:

(a) Focus on sustainable production increases

on current agricultural land (beyond BAU);

(b) Tapping into land resources currently not or

extensively used.

3.9

3.10

Suitability of rain-fed cereals, reference climate 1961-90.

Normalized difference index, suitability of rain-fed cereals, HadCM3-A1FI, 2080s.

Impact of climate change on land

suitability and potential production of cereals

on current rainfed cultivated land

Current c limate HadCM3 A2 2020s HadCM3 A2 2050s HadCM3 A2 2080s

Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield Area Prod Yield

mln ha mln tons t/ha % change % change % change

North America 181 1053 5.8 2 -1 -4 2 -6 -7 2 -6 -7

Europe & Russia 237 1414 6.0 2 4 3 1 7 6 -1 2 3

South America 87 623 7.1 -1 1 2 -2 0 2 -11 -9 2

Sub-Saharan Africa 188 1142 6.1 -2 0 2 -4 -1 2 -8 -5 3

Southeast Asia 48 324 6.7 3 6 3 6 11 4 -1 -1 1

South Asia 107 705 6.6 1 3 2 0 0 0 -1 -5 -4East Asia 66 391 5.9 2 5 3 1 13 12 -2 12 14

Developed 446 2586 5.8 2 2 0 3 3 0 1 -1 -1

Developing 559 3529 6.3 0 2 2 -1 2 3 -6 -5 2

World 1004 6116 6.1 1 2 1 0 2 2 -3 -3 0

Note: Results include CO2 fe rtilization and assume rat ional adapta tion and t ransfer of crop types and selection of best crop.


� While atmospheric changes (CO2 fertilization)

may initially increase productivity of current

agricultural land, climate change, if not halted,

will have a clearly negative impact in the

second half of this century.

� Impacts of climate change on increasing net

irrigation water demand could be as large as

changes projected due to socio-economic

development in 2000-2080 (~400 Gm3 vs

~600 Gm3, compared to 1350 Gm3 in 2000).

• The role of bio-energy has been strongly enhanced by its consideration in the climate changeclimate change debate, as well

as opportunities it may create for rural developmentrural development and

improved energy securityenergy security.

•• Land use competitionLand use competition with food and feed production is

considered a potential key barrierkey barrier to exploiting the bio-

energy production potential.

Current LUC projects:Current LUC projects:

��Global Assessment of BioGlobal Assessment of Bio--energy Potentialsenergy Potentials

��Renewable Fuels for a Sustainable Europe (REFUEL)Renewable Fuels for a Sustainable Europe (REFUEL)

��Effective and LowEffective and Low--disturbing Biodisturbing Bio--fuel Policies (ELOBIO)fuel Policies (ELOBIO)

BioBio--energy Production & Food Security & energy Production & Food Security &

Land Competition:Land Competition:

BIOBIO--FUEL DEVELOPMENTFUEL DEVELOPMENTUnde fine d

No co nst rain ts

Slig ht con stra ints

Mo der ate co nstr aint s

Se ver e t em per atu re

Se ver e m ois tur e

Se ver e w etn ess

Se ver e t err ain

Se ver e s oil

Wate r

Urb an

EUROPEEUROPE

• Feedstock potential• Food/feed consumption

• Land use change• Production costs

• Stakeholder needs/barriers• Road map• Policy recommendations

Feedstock groups:Feedstock groups:•• Oil cropsOil crops

Rapeseed; Sunflower; Soybean; Oilpalm;

Jatropha

•• Sugar cropsSugar crops

Sugarcane; Sugar beet; Sweet sorghum

•• Starch cropsStarch cropsWheat; Rye; Triticale; Maize; Sorghum;

Cassava

•• Herbaceous Herbaceous lignocellulosiclignocellulosic plantsplants

Miscanthus; Switchgrass; Reed canary grass

•• Woody Woody lignocellulosiclignocellulosic plantsplants

Poplar; Willow; Eucalyptus

BioBio--fuel fuel

FeedstocksFeedstocks

•• FAO and IIASAFAO and IIASA have developed a spatial analysis systemspatial analysis system that enables rational landrational land--use planninguse planning on the basis of an inventory of land resources and evaluation of biophysical limitations and production potentials of land.

• The AEZ methodologyAEZ methodology follows an environmental approach; it provides a standardized frameworkstandardized framework for analyzing synergies and trade-offs of alternative uses of agroalternative uses of agro--resourcesresources (land, water,

technology) for producing food and energy, while preserving preserving environmental quality.environmental quality.

Current LUC projects:Current LUC projects:

�� Global Agricultural Zones Assessment (GAEZ 2007)Global Agricultural Zones Assessment (GAEZ 2007)

�� Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD)Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD)

�� Exploiting Information on Global Environmental Risks Exploiting Information on Global Environmental Risks ––Agriculture (EIGERAgriculture (EIGER--AgriAgri))

Land Resources & AgroLand Resources & Agro--ecological Zoning:ecological Zoning:

Global AgroGlobal Agro--ecological Zones Methodologyecological Zones Methodology

Environmental

resources database including climate,

soil, terrain, and land cover, comprising

2.2 million grid cells,

assessing the

agricultural potential

of 28 cropsat three levels of

farming technology.

Undefined

SI > 75 : Very high

SI > 63 : High

SI > 50 : Good

SI > 35 : Medium

SI > 20 : Moderate

SI > 10 : Marginal

SI > 0 : Very marginal

Not suitable

Water

Source: GAEZ 2007, IIASA-LUC/FAO

Suitability for rainSuitability for rain--fed sugarcane fed sugarcane

production, high input levelproduction, high input level

Note: calibration of GLC2000 class weights starts from estimated reference weights and is based on an iterative scheme to match national / sub-national statistics of year 2000 (FAO

AT2015/2030 adjusted cultivated land).

N ot present

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water

Spatial Distribution and Intensity (percent) Spatial Distribution and Intensity (percent)

of Cultivated Land, year 2000of Cultivated Land, year 2000

Note: calibration of GLC2000 class weights starts from estimated reference weights and is based on an iterative scheme to match national / sub-national statistics of year 2000

(FRA2000 and FRA2005).

Not present

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water

Spatial Distribution and Intensity (percent) Spatial Distribution and Intensity (percent)

of Forests, year 2000of Forests, year 2000


Where is the Land Suitable for Sugarcane?Where is the Land Suitable for Sugarcane?

Note: the table shows land assessed as very suitable or suitable for rainfed sugarcane cultivation in ( i) current cultivated

land and for land respectively classified as (ii) forest, (iii) woodland/scrubland/grassland, and ( iv) other land cover.

According to FAO there were about 20 mln ha under sugarcane in year 2003.

Land cover Total of which ----------------- VS+S ------------------

in 2000 Cultivated VS+S Forest Wood/Grass Other LC

Land mln ha mln ha mln ha mln ha

World 1563 66 160 75 3

Developed 591 1 1 0 0

Developing 972 65 159 74 3

Centr.Amer&Carrib. 43 9 8 4 1

South America 129 22 67 37 1

Sub-Saharan Africa 225 17 77 29 1

Southeast Asia 98 11 4 2 0

South Asia 229 3 1 0 0

Other Developing 247 2 2 1 0

0

342

684

1026

1368

1711

2053

2395

2737

3079

3421

3763

4105

4447

4789

5132

5474

5816

6158

6500


Suitability for rainSuitability for rain--fed palm oil fed palm oil

production, high input levelproduction, high input level

Note: map shows potential palm oil production per unit area of 5’ grid cell


Where is the Land Suitable for Where is the Land Suitable for OilpalmOilpalm??

Land cover Total of which ----------------- VS+S ------------------

in 2000 Cultivated VS+S Forest Wood/Grass Other LC

Land mln ha mln ha mln ha mln ha

World 1563 50 337 56 3

Developed 591 0 0 0 0

Developing 972 50 337 56 3

Centr.Amer&Carrib. 43 4 5 2 0

South America 129 5 227 22 1

Sub-Saharan Africa 225 8 68 17 0

Southeast Asia 98 31 28 12 1

South Asia 229 1 0 0 0

Other Developing 247 1 8 3 0

Note: the table shows land assessed as very suitable or suitable for rainfed oilpalm cultivation in (i) current cultivated land

and for land respectively classified as (ii) forest, (iii) woodland/scrubland/grassland, and ( iv) other land cover.

According to FAO there were about 11.4 mln ha under oil palm in year 2003 (of which 9.5 mln in three countries:

Malaysia, Niger ia, Indonesia).

Crop Yields (U.S.) Fuel Yields

Biomass yield: 5 dry ton/acre Cellulosic ethanol from RBAEF

Corn yield: 160 bushel/acre Corn ethanol: 2.8 gal/bushel

Soy yield: 42 bushel/acre Soy oil: 18% of bean (dry basis)

Biodiesel yield: 0.95 kg/kg soy oil

Comparative Land Productivity of Biofuel Options

Bio

fuel

Yie

ld (

GJ f

uel/

ha)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

EtO

H+

FT

EtO

H+

FT

134

402

89

16

CellulosicEthanol

Ethanol fromCorn/Maize

(kernels)

Biodiesel

(soy)

Near-term

productivity

Long-term

productivity

0,00

7,98

15,97

23,95

31,94

39,92

47,91

55,89

63,88

71,86

79,84

87,83

95,81

103,80

111,78

119,77

127,75

0,00

12,50

25,00

37,50

50,00

62,50

75,00

87,50

100,00

112,50

125,00

137,50

150,00

162,50

175,00

187,50

200,00

Bio-fuel Feedstock Yield Potential(a) Attainable energy yields of (1st generation)

starch crops, sugar crops and oil crops

(GJ/ha, biofuel equiv.)

(b) Attainable energy yields of (2nd generation)

woody and herbaceous lignocellulosic

feedstocks (GJ/ha, biofuel equiv.)

Source: Land Use Change and Agriculture Program, 2007

GHG GHG

AvoidanceAvoidance

GHG Reduction and Environmental ImpactsGHG Reduction and Environmental Impacts


� Conventional agricultural feedstocks

perform inadequately for environmental

criteria, especially if cultivation leads to

additional conversion of grassland or forest.

� Only second generation ligno-cellulosic

technologies (also recycling and using

wastes) hold a promise of doing much

better (both land use efficiency and GHG

savings).

12%

28%

34%

26%

Cropland

Forests

Grass/Woodland

Other

Cropland 1562 mln ha

Forests 3744 mln ha

Grass/woodland 4560 mln ha

Other land 3443 mln ha

TOTAL 13309 mln ha

Estimated Use of Land (excl. Antarctica) Estimated Use of Land (excl. Antarctica)

in 2000in 2000

Global Use of Global Use of

Arable Land, Arable Land,

year 2000year 2000

Land in consumption Worldmln ha

Crops (excl feed) 1005.4

Cereals 536.9Other crops 468.5

Feed use 514.1

Cereals 214.2Other crops 94.4Fodder crops 205.5

of whichRuminants 307.7Other livestock 206.4

48%

24%

28%

Cereals

Other crops

Fodder crops

51%46%

3%

Cereals

Other crops

Fodder crops

MDCs:619 mln ha

LDCs:900 mln ha


Total land ...Total land ...

Not present

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water

Note: The map indicates the share of each grid-cell that is available for use.


... subtracting built... subtracting built--up areasup areas

Not present

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water



... subtracting cultivated land... subtracting cultivated land

Not present

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water



... subtracting forest areas... subtracting forest areas

Not present

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water



... excluding non... excluding non--vegetated vegetated

areasareas

Not present

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water



... excluding protected areas... excluding protected areas

Undefined

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water

Protected


... subtracting land with steep ... subtracting land with steep

slopesslopes


Undefined

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water

Protected


... excluding climatically ... excluding climatically

unsuitable or very marginal areasunsuitable or very marginal areas


Undefined

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water

Protected

Unproductive

Very marginal Note: The map indicates the share of each grid-cell that is available for use.

13.1 12.9

11.4

7.6

4.5

3.1

3.7

1.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

1 2 3 4 5

10**

9 h

ec

tare

Built-up

Crops

Fores t

Unvegetated

Grass/Shrub

Very marginal

12%

Unproductive

22%

Too steep

11%Protected

9%

Lives tock&

Bioenergy

46%

1 ... Total land (excl. Antarctica and Greenland)

2 ... excluding built-up land

3 ... excluding arable and perennial cropland

4 ... excluding forests

5 ... excluding barren land & water

Source: IIASA-LUC, 2007

How much land is available?

Undefined

Not suitable

Unproductive

Very marginal

Marginal

Moderately suitable

Suitable

Very suitable

Water


Climatic suitability for herbaceous Climatic suitability for herbaceous

and woody and woody lignocellulosiclignocellulosic plantsplants

Reference climate, 1970 - 2000

Lower HigherPot.Yield

Distribution of Forests by Land Productivity Classes


Distribution of Arable Land by Productivity ClassesDistribution of Grass/Shrub/Woodland by Productivity Classes


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

of

lan

d in

bio

-pro

du

cti

vit

y c

las

s

Other

Forest

Arable

Grass/Shrub


Distribution of Major Land Uses by Productivity Classes

0

100

200

300

400

500

600m

illio

n h

ec

tare

s

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

10 0

12 0

14 0

16 0

mill

ion

he

cta

res

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

mill

ion

he

cta

res

Unde fined

Not su itable

Unproductive

Ve ry marginal

Marg inal

Moderately su it able

Su itable

Very suitable

Water

Protected

Be low threshold


Climatic suitability for herbaceous Climatic suitability for herbaceous

and woody and woody lignocellulosiclignocellulosic plants plants ……

…… on available grasson available grass--

scrubscrub--wood landwood land

Reference climate, 1970 - 2000

None

< 1

1 - 5

5 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 200

> 200

Water

Distribution of ruminant livestock, Distribution of ruminant livestock,

year 2000 (cattle equiv. per kmyear 2000 (cattle equiv. per km22))

Source: FAO, 2005, modified by IIASA-LUC, 2007.

Note: Ruminants include cattle, sheep and goat. To calculate ruminant density, a weight of 1.0 was used for cattle and of 0.2 for aggregating sheep and goat.

None

< 1

1 - 5

5 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 50

50 - 100

100 - 200

> 200

Water

Undefined

< 10%

10% - 30%

30% - 50%

50% - 70%

70% - 90%

> 90%

Water

Pro tected

Unproductive

Very marginal

Source: GAEZ 2007, IIASA-LUC/FAO and FAO, 2005.

Density of ruminant livestock (cattle equiv./ha)

Intensity of grass/scrub/wood land (percent)

Lower HigherPot.Yield0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

10 0

12 0

14 0

16 0

mil

lion

ca

ttle

eq

uiv

.

Grass<33%

Grass>33%

Distribution of Ruminants by Land Productivity Classes


Distribution of Pot. Production by Productivity Classes

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

mill

ion

to

ns

Prot/S teep

Cold/Dry

Useable

Distribution of Grass/Scrub/Woodland by Productivity Classes

Lower HigherPot.Yield0

100

200

300

400

500

600

mil

lion

he

cta

re

Prot/Steep

Cold/Dry

Useable

• The charts show the distribution of grass-scrub-

wood-land areas and potential production by bio-

productiviy class.

• Protected land and land with steep slopes is shown in red; Very low productive areas are

indicated as grey.

• Number of cattle, sheep and goat is shown by bio-

productivity class respectively for areas where grass/scrub/woodland cover exceeds 1/3 of total

(green) and for less than 1/3 (yellow).

� Excluding from a total land area (excl. Antarctica & Greenland) of 13.1

billion hectares current cultivated land, forests, built-up land, water and

unvegetated land (desert, rocks, etc,) results in some 4.5 billion hectare

(35%).

� Excluding from these lands the very low and unproductive areas (e.g.

tundra, arid land) a remaining area of 2.1 billion hectares is estimated

(currently grassland & pastures, shrubs and woodland).

� Constructing detailed country-level livestock feed balances, we estimate

that in year 2000 about 60-70 percent of the available biomass was used

for animal feeding.

� Hence with current use, the land potentially available for bioenergy

production is 600 – 800 million hectare, with a wide range of productivity.

How much land is available?


http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUChttp://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC

Documents

Implications for Land Use change · 2018. 7. 14. · Implications for Land Use change Günther Fischer International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, ... on current