Protocols for spatial analysis to be implemented in the domain editor by WP5 - Allocation of farm types spatially including the new Member states

Agricultural and Food Policy, Environmental Economics and Policy, Land Economics/Use, Production Economics,

Prospects of Bioenergy Cropping Systems for A More Social-Ecologically Sound Bioeconomy

The growing bioeconomy will require a greater supply of biomass in the future for both bioenergy and bio-based products. Today, many bioenergy cropping systems (BCS) are suboptimal due to either social-ecological threats or technical limitations. In addition, the competition for land between bioenergy-crop cultivation, food-crop cultivation, and biodiversity conservation is expected to increase as a result of both continuous world population growth and expected severe climate change effects. This study investigates how BCS can become more social-ecologically sustainable in future. It brings together expert opinions from the fields of agronomy, economics, meteorology, and geography. Potential solutions to the following five main requirements for a more holistically sustainable supply of biomass are summarized: (i) bioenergy-crop cultivation should provide a beneficial social-ecological contribution, such as an increase in both biodiversity and landscape aesthetics, (ii) bioenergy crops should be cultivated on marginal agricultural land so as not to compete with food-crop production, (iii) BCS need to be resilient in the face of projected severe climate change effects, (iv) BCS should foster rural development and support the vast number of small-scale family farmers, managing about 80% of agricultural land and natural resources globally, and (v) bioenergy-crop cultivation must be planned and implemented systematically, using holistic approaches. Further research activities and policy incentives should not only consider the economic potential of bioenergy-crop cultivation, but also aspects of biodiversity, soil fertility, and climate change adaptation specific to site conditions and the given social context. This will help to adapt existing agricultural systems in a changing world and foster the development of a more social-ecologically sustainable bioeconomy

How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?

International audienceTo evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014-2020) to determine the budgetallocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 001%-074% of the total CAP budget and to 004%-248% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets.Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts. Editor's Choic

Rapportage werkzaamheden kennissysteem Beheer-op-Maat 2019

Het kennissysteem voor Agrarisch Natuurbeheer, Beheer-op-Maat (BoM), is in 2019 op een aantal aspecten aangepast aan de wensen van de gebruikers (beheercollectieven). De kaartlagen die aan de basis staan van het kennissysteem – de openheid van het landschap, de bodemvochtigheid, de aanwezigheid van verstorende bronnen en de zwaarte van het gewas – zijn geactualiseerd en/of verfijnd. Daarnaast is de kentallenanalyse toegevoegd. De kentallenanalyse geeft voor een werkgebied naar keuze de belangrijkste kentallen omtrent de effectiviteit van het weidevogelbeheer weer. De kentallen worden daarbij gepresenteerd in de vorm van figuren, met als doel in één oogopslag inzicht te geven in de knelpunten en verbetermogelijkheden omtrent het weidevogelbeheer in een specifiek gebied. De gebruikersvriendelijkheid van het systeem is verbeterd door de gebruikersaccounts te koppelen aan gebiedsbegrenzingen zoals die worden toegepast in de boerenlandvogelmonitor van LandschappenNL. Ten slotte zijn belangrijke stappen gezet voor de uitbreiding van het kennissysteem naar de overige leefgebiedtypen: open akkers, droge dooradering en natte dooradering

Logistical case study for the AragÓn region using the locagistics tool

LocaGIStics is a support tool for the design of regional biomass delivery chains. It enables to further design and evaluate regional biomass delivery chains that are e.g. the result of initial planning by an energy company or a biobased producer. These general plans are translated in several biomass delivery designs using the variation in logistical concepts covering transport, pre-treatment and conversion options. The performance of every chain design can then be analyzed by comparing the different biomass delivery chains on the following environmental and economic indicators. A regional case study was performed in Aragón (Spain) using the LocaGIStics tool. In this case study maps were used where the biomass availability is specified for 2.5 x 2.5 grid cells. Data about the logistical components were supplied partly by the energy supplying company that was involved. This paper shows the main outcomes of this case study

Supply costs, energy use, and GHG emissions of biomass from marginal lands in Brittany, France

Growing energy crops on marginal lands is an option to increase current bioresources while avoiding the food vs fuel dilemma. Yet, little is known about the extent and characteristics of marginal lands, and about how growing energy crops on such lands will impacts productivity, supply chains, and the environment. This study combined a geographic information system, a crop growth model, life cycle assessment, and a logistics model to (i) quantify and map marginal lands (ii) estimate the yields of miscanthus grown thereon (iii) assess the impact on supply chain and the environment of miscanthus from marginal lands in Brittany. Three miscanthus harvest forms (chips, bundles, and bales) and three logistics scenarios (no storage, one storage point, and two storage points) were studied. It showed that 57544 ha of marginal lands are available in Brittany and that rooting (55%) and salinity (34%) were the dominant marginality factors of these lands. Miscanthus yields on these lands varied from 0 to 21 t DM ha−1 y−1, depending on marginality constraints. Despite the low energy use (311–604 MJ t−1 DM) and GHG emissions (6–19 kg CO2-eq t−1 DM), the delivery costs were too high (81–108 € t−1 DM). Bales were the cheapest and most environmental-friendly biomass form, as was the logistics configuration with no storage point. Sourcing biomass from marginal lands offers a solution for sustainable biofuel production in Brittany. However, economic incentives are needed to encourage production on marginal lands given the high delivery costs of biomass