Biomassapotentie Rijkswaterstaat : analyse van hoeveelheden en huidige toepassing

Het onderhoud van de terreinen die Rijkswaterstaat beheert kost geld o.a. doordat de geproduceerde biomassa moet worden verwijderd en verwerkt. Afzet naar compostering kost momenteel tot € 30 per ton (nat) aan de poort. Tegelijk is er een toenemende vraag naar biomassa voor de biobased economy waardoor er perspectief is ontstaan om biomassa tegen steeds lagere kosten af te zetten of zelfs een vergoeding te gaan ontvangen. Hiervoor is het eerst nodig inzicht te hebben in de (1) relevante arealen van Rijkswaterstaat voor de productie van biomassa en (2) de huidige potentie van deze arealen voor de productie van biomassa te kennen. Om dit in kaart te brengen zijn de arealen in direct of indirect beheer (vooral uiterwaarden) bij Rijkswaterstaat bepaald op basis van beschikbare bestanden bij Rijkswaterstaat. Daarna is per oppervlaktesoort (en vegetatie) ingeschat wat voor biomassa er geproduceerd wordt en hoeveel de huidige oogstbare biomassaproductie per ha per jaar is

Exploring future agricultural development and biodiversity in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi: a spatially explicit scenario-based assessment

Competition for land is increasing as a consequence of the growing demands for food and other commodities and the need to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. Land conversion and the intensification of current agricultural systems continues to lead to a loss of biodiversity and trade-offs among ecosystem functions. Decision-makers need to understand these trade-offs in order to better balance different demands on land and resources. There is an urgent need for spatially explicit information and analyses on the effects of different trajectories of human-induced landscape change in biodiversity and ecosystem services. We assess the potential implications of a set of plausible socio-economic and climate scenarios for agricultural production and demand and model-associated land use and land cover changes between 2005 and 2050 to assess potential impacts on biodiversity in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. We show that different future socio-economic scenarios are consistent in their projections of areas of high agricultural development leading to similar spatial patterns of habitat and biodiversity loss. Yet, we also show that without protected areas, biodiversity losses are higher and that expanding protected areas to include other important biodiversity areas can help reduce biodiversity losses in all three countries. These results highlight the need for effective protection and the potential benefits of expanding the protected area network while meeting agricultural production needs

Mapping the planet’s critical natural assets

Sustaining the organisms, ecosystems and processes that underpin human wellbeing is necessary to achieve sustainable development. Here we define critical natural assets as the natural and semi-natural ecosystems that provide 90% of the total current magnitude of 14 types of nature’s contributions to people (NCP), and we map the global locations of these critical natural assets at 2 km resolution. Critical natural assets for maintaining local-scale NCP (12 of the 14 NCP) account for 30% of total global land area and 24% of national territorial waters, while 44% of land area is required to also maintain two global-scale NCP (carbon storage and moisture recycling). These areas overlap substantially with cultural diversity (areas containing 96% of global languages) and biodiversity (covering area requirements for 73% of birds and 66% of mammals). At least 87% of the world’s population live in the areas benefitting from critical natural assets for local-scale NCP, while only 16% live on the lands containing these assets. Many of the NCP mapped here are left out of international agreements focused on conserving species or mitigating climate change, yet this analysis shows that explicitly prioritizing critical natural assets and the NCP they provide could simultaneously advance development, climate and conservation goals.We thank all the participants of two working groups hosted by Conservation International and the Natural Capital Project for their insights and intellectual contributions. For further advice or assistance, we thank A. Adams, K. Brandon, K. Brauman, A. Cramer, G. Daily, J. Fisher, R. Gould, L. Mandle, J. Montgomery, A. Rodewald, D. Rossiter, E. Selig, A. Vogl and T. M. Wright. The two working groups that provided the foundation for this analysis were funded by support from the Marcus and Marianne Wallenberg Foundation to the Natural Capital Project (R.C.-K. and R.P.S.) and the Betty and Gordon Moore to Conservation International (R.A.N. and P.M.C.)

Integrated modeling of nature’s role in human well-being: A research agenda

Integrated assessment models that incorporate biodiversity and ecosystem services could be an important tool for improving our understanding of interconnected social-economic-ecological systems, and for analyzing how policy alternatives can shift future trajectories towards more sustainable development. Despite recent scientific and technological advances, key gaps remain in the scientific community’s ability to deliver information to decision-makers at the pace and scale needed to address sustainability challenges. We identify five research frontiers for integrated social-economic-ecological modeling (primarily focused on terrestrial systems) to incorporate biodiversity and ecosystem services: 1) downscaling impacts of direct and indirect drivers on ecosystems; 2) incorporating feedbacks in ecosystems; 3) linking ecological impacts to human well-being, 4) disaggregating outcomes for distributional equity considerations, and 5) incorporating dynamic feedbacks of ecosystem services on the social-economic system. We discuss progress and challenges along each of these five frontiers and the science-policy linkages needed to move new research and information into action