ISSUE

PAPER
BIOENERGY ISSUE PAPER SERIES NO. 1
Land is facing increasing pressure from competing uses, of which bioenergy is one. The
enhanced competition for land increases the risk of land use changes, which may lead to negative
environmental and socio-economic impacts. Overall participatory land use planning and man-
agement – both on policy and project level – are needed to manage these competing uses. In terms
of bioenergy, such an approach can help to identify “go” areas and thereby ensure sustainable
bioenergy production and manage risks. risks.

Land Use, Land Use Change

and Bioenergy
THE CURRENT PICTURE AND FUTURE TRENDS
Despite the recent expansion of large scale bioenergy
investments, feedstock production for energy purposes
only represents 2.3% of the land currently under agricul-
tural production (Ravindranath et al., 2009)1. However,
with many national government mandates and volume
targets in place, the sector is predicted to grow consider-
ably, occupying a larger percentage in the myriad of land
uses worldwide. Global estimates for the amount of land
which will be required for future bioenergy production
ranges from 118 to 508 Mha or up to 36% of the current
arable land by 2030 (Ravindranath et al., 2009)2.
As bioenergy production represents only one piece in the
patchwork of land uses worldwide, other global trends
need to be looked at to put bioenergy into perspective.
Increases in demand for land are predicted due to an
increase in human settlements and infrastructures as well
as socio-economic activities like agriculture, silviculture
and industrial production. Current and future trends like
projected population growth of 36% between 2000 and
2030, changes in consumption patterns towards more ani-
mal based nutrition and climate change will also impose
pressure on land and other natural resources.
Although, yield improvement potentials do exist and may
assist in reducing the pressure on land, these potentials
are limited to a certain extent and areas (e.g. developing
countries, especially Africa)3.
As arable land is limited, predicted additional demand for
land adds pressure and evokes land use changes (see Box
1) thus generating the potential for environmental and
social problems and high opportunity costs4.
IMPACTS FROM LAND USE CHANGE
Land use change (LUC) leads to a number of potential en-
vironmental and socio-economic impacts. Of environmen-
tal threats, LUC caused by bioenergy expansion has the
potential to endanger areas of high conservation value if
feedstock production encroaches onto these lands. Reduc-
tion in species richness and composition, the introduction
of energy crops if they turn out to be invasive in a given
context, increased prevalence of fertilizers and loss of eco-
system services resulting from bioenergy production all
affect ecosystem integrity and the biodiversity of an area.
Moreover, water and air pollution as well as soil erosion
are other likely impacts. To the same effect, unsustainable
land conversions have been shown to cause a net increase
in GHG emissions, compared to traditional fossil fuels, due
to releasing carbon stock in soils.
Box 1: LUC/ILUC in the Bioenergy Context
In general, the conversion of land (e.g. pasture land,
forests, wetland or degraded land) into agricultural
land for bioenergy production is known as (direct) land
use change (LUC) as its utilization and land coverage
changes.
Indirect land use change (iLUC) occurs, when feed
stock production for energy purposes displaces food,
fodder and fibre production on land already under
production, which then will be displaced to remote
areas and might cause land use changes as well.
The potential risks of LUC are not only related to environ-
mental risks, but also include social risks. One of the most
debated social risks that bioenergy-introduced LUC can
contribute to is the impact on food security and livelihood
activities. As bioenergy production increases, it threatens to
compete for arable lands that could also be suitable for agri-
cultural food crops, resulting in the potential risk of driving
down potential supply5. Moreover, energy crop production
may encroach to areas already utilized for extensive land
use forms such as subsistence agriculture or collection of
medical plants which are often crucial to rural communities.
Insecure land tenure, especially in rural areas, may further
increase the negative socio-economic impact.
Alternatively, LUC due to energy crop cultivation can have
positive impacts as well, depending on the former land
use. If managed sustainably, the use of degraded or mar-
ginal land for bioenergy might have positive impacts due to
improved soil quality, increased carbon stocks, and habitat
restoration.
It should be noted that although direct LUC is relatively
straight forward to identify on a project level, indirect LUC
from increased bioenergy production is more difficult to
assess as it may not only occur within a region but also
countrywide and across borders and continents. In this
sense, because iLUC is a result of larger macroeconomic
market dynamics, the relationship between the potential
displacement and bioenergy production is hard to quantify,
although current research suggests that it does pose envi-
ronmental and social risks including biodiversity loss and
GHG increases.
IDENTIFYING SUITABLE AND
AVAILABLE LAND FOR BIOENERGY
The limiting factor for the growth of feedstock for energy
purposes will be inhibited by the amount of suitable and
available land for sustainable cultivation which is affected
by trends in climate change, diets, and competing uses of
biomass. Even though promoting sustainable use of bio-
mass resources can reduce the amount of land needed, there
will regardless still be land expansion in the short term.
Thus, it is essential to identify areas which can be catego-
rized as appropriate or “go” areas for bioenergy production,
and conversely “no go” areas for bioenergy production (see
Box 2).
To reduce the impacts associated with bioenergy production
and land use change, the utilization of degraded or marginal
land has been introduced as a sustainable option for bioen-
ergy production. Even though both of these terms have no
singular or composite definition, they are commonly associ-
ated with land that is not currently under intensive produc-
tion due to its low soil fertility and production. These lands
are not considered to be in competition with other land uses,
which prevents competition with food, fodder and fibre pro-
duction while improving the GHG balance of biofuels.
Because of this, several standards and policies have begun
to integrate degraded lands as “go” areas for bioenergy
production. To the same extent, biodiverse or high value
conservation (HCV) areas are considered “no-go” areas, in
hopes that it will prevent biodiversity loss due to biofuel
production. Policies such as the EU-RES Directive and
product standards have been targeting these “go” and “no-
go” areas as sustainable options that should be used to meet
modern bioenergy
demands. Howev-
Box 2: “Go” / “No-go” Areas
er, a growing body
of work suggests “Go” areas for bioenergy produc-
that the solution tion are areas identified as land that is
might not be that biophysically suitable and available for
simple. sustainable production of feedstock for
energy purposes, considering compo-
Degraded or nents such as its prior socio-economic
marginal land can use and environmental value.
still contain high
In contrary, so called “no-go” areas
amounts of biodi-
comprise land which is unsuitable and
versity leading to unavailable for sustainable bioenergy
negative environ- production due to the high negative
mental impacts environmental and/or socio-economic
when taken into impacts (opportunity costs). Some of
agricultural pro- these areas might be wetland and peat
duction. It can also land due to high carbon stocks, or land
occur that the land currently used for food production. In
is already in physi- case of doubt, areas should be classified
cal or spiritual use as “no-go” unless proven otherwise.
This precautionary approach can help
for livelihood sup-
prevent negative impacts.
port of local com-
munities causing
negative social and
economic impacts
when communities are displaced from the area.
Yet, a common definition of degraded and marginal land does
not exist and there is no prescriptive way of identifying areas
that are suitable on a global or even regional scale. These
complexities make it difficult to prevent all of the potential
consequences when labelling and utilizing these lands.
Therefore internationally agreed upon definitions on de-
graded and marginal lands are needed for the identification
of sustainable land for bioenergy production. As well, a
comprehensive approach is necessary and pertinent to reduce
overall pressure on land in order to mitigate the negative en-
vironmental and social impacts of LUC, and to define areas
appropriate for energy crop cultivation. This has to be done
on a national or regional level as a project based approach
may not be considered sufficient to address these larger con-
textual dynamics.
REDUCING PRESSURE ON LAND & LAND USE
CHANGE FROM BIOENERGY
Because of these growing concerns, decision makers are
presented with several questions on ways to reduce the pres-
sure that bioenergy presents on land. How can we mitigate
impacts due to bioenergy-driven LUC? What tools, best
practices and processes are available?
Both long-term measures and intermediary solutions can
limit land use and LUC from bioenergy production. The
first thing to consider are ways of reducing the amount of
land needed for feedstock production for energy purposes
production be-
fore promoting a
process to identify
appropriate lands
for expansion.
Therefore, opti-
mizing first land
use in a sustain-
able way and sup-
porting alternative
solutions to reduce
demand should be
advanced.
Long term reduc-
tions of land use
can be realised
by first reducing
overall energy
consumption including transportation (e.g. by modal shifts
to less energy-consuming means of transportation). Second,
the efficiency of feedstock production can be enhanced by
increasing yields (particularly in developing countries where
there is the potential to increase yields), promoting sustain-
able agriculture and restoring formerly degraded land. Third,
the efficiency of bioenergy usage can be augmented by op-
timizing the use of waste and residues, promoting cascading
use of feedstock by using it as a source for food and material
before recovering the energy content, applying stationary
uses of bioenergy or enhanced fuel efficiency in transporta-
tion as well as considering different pathways6.
Box 3: Tool-Box
The Global HCVF Toolkit (HCV Resource Network)
provides guidance on how to identify, manage and monitor
High Conservation Value Forests (HCVFs). For more infor-
mation see: http://hcvnetwork.org
The Automatic Land Evaluation System (Cornel Uni-
versity) is a computer program that allows land evaluators
to build expert systems to evaluate land on a project or
regional scale. For more information see http://www.css.
cornell.edu/landeval/ales/ales.htm
The Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA,
FAO) helps assessing land degradation on drylands as well
as the biophysical and socio-economic impacts and causes
of degradation on various land resources. For more infor-
mation see: http://www.fao.org/nr/lada
Module 1 of the Bioenergy and Food Security Project
(BEFS, FAO) provides the methodology for a suitability
and availability assessment for bioenergy feedstock pro-
duction. For more information:
http://www.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befs
An overview of existing participatory planning tools can
be found on the IAPAD website:
http://www.iapad.org/toolbox.htm
Tools to facilitate the inventory of GHG-emissions caused
by land use changes are e.g. the IPCC Guidelines for
national greenhouse gas inventories (http://www.ipcc.
ch), the UNFCCC methodological approaches (http://www.
unfccc.org), the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP)
framework methodology for GHG lifecycle analysis (http://
www.globalbioenergy.org), and the Sentemovem/Ecofys tool
(http://www.sentemovem.nl/gave_english)
In an intermediary sense, other measures can be taken to
confront the risks associated with direct and indirect LUC
and bioenergy expansion, including the appropriate identifi-
cation of suitable and available land. To ensure sustainable
feedstock production, potential areas for bioenergy develop-
ment need to be identified through a comprehensive, cross-
sectoral, multi-level and participatory approach.
Suitability (biophysical) and availability assessments (ac-
tual land use pattern) can be used to choose the right kinds
of land with the least amount of risk on local communities
and the environment and therefore providing the lowest op-
portunity costs. Various tools and processes covering one or
more of the above mentioned aspects have been developed
by several stakeholders (see Box 3).
Economic incentives from governments might be an op-
tion to encourage the use of land identified as appropriate
for bioenergy production as well, including options such as
providing subsidies for producers that want to sustainably
utilize degraded land for production (Searchinger, 2009)7.
 Comprehensive land use planning (guidelines) needs to agricultural production in general. For example, intercrop-
take into account all competing land uses ping and agroforestry have the potential to
and users in an area to make informed safeguard biodiversity and provide habitat in
decisions, to solve land use conflicts and some instances. These, and other forms of sus-
to ensure sustainable development. Thus, tainable agriculture, reduce the overall need
the whole process has to be carried out for agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and
through a cross-sectoral and participa- water that affect surrounding ecosystems and
tory approach, to enhance coherence of put constraints on natural resources.
all relevant sectoral policies, and ensure
the involvement and the approval of Even though indirect land use change is more
different stakeholders. This includes difficult to assess, tools and resources do exist
cross-sectoal conversations with different that should account for the degree to which
government ministries and other public production displaces former land uses (see
institutions, private sector, as well as lo- Box 3). These methodologies should be quan-
cal communities and other groups. tified in the planning process, as a means to
mitigate potential negative changes, particu-
In this respect, land suitability and avail- larly for GHG balances and biodiversity.
ability mapping should not only consist of
top-down data gathering and mapping but As choices about sustainable bioenergy pro-
also integrate a bottom-up approach to pre- duction can be seen as balancing trade-offs,
vent negative impacts on the local environ- maximizing the benefits of biofuel production
ment, surrounding communities and stake- is possible through these strategic choices on
holders. Ground proofing of the results and both a policy and project level. In an effort
participatory mapping - to comprise e.g. land to reduce risks, ensuring that unsustainable
tenure issues and customary rights - need to LUC and iLUC can be mitigated, should be
be part of the land identification process (see part of any overall land planning and man-
Box 3). agement strategy. Several avenues can be
approached and considered in an effort to
Aspects of sustainable land management need to be integrat- do so in order to promote social development and protect the
ed seeing that appropriate agricultural practices are crucial not environment.
only to feedstock production for energy purposes but also to

LOOKING
AHEAD:
AVENUES FOR SUSTAINABLE BIOFUEL PRODUCTION
- Create comprehensive land use planning and management systems to ensure an overall framework for an informed
decision making process towards sustainable land use and bioenergy development.

- Undertake a multi-level planning process to guarantee the best possible results through capturing all available
knowledge and data on the different involved levels (i.e. globally, regionally, and locally).

- Ensure a participatory approach to achieve a more informed decision making process and an overall agreed and
supported solution through community involvement and stakeholder consultations.

- Support overall reductions in bioenergy feedstock demand through promoting greater efficiency in technologies,
end-use, and feedstock choices.

- Promote sustainable agricultural management practices that reduce the need for agricultural inputs and resources
and increase biodiversity.

1
For the full report of the International SCOPE Biofuels Project see http://cip.cornell.edu/biofuels/
2
Estimates are based on different scenarios and feedstock in which the authors project the land requirements to meet a 10% global supply of biofuels in the total global fuel supply.
3
For more information see International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management et al.,2009 (www.unep.fr)
4
According to the FAO, land use change is the change in the “arrangements, activities, and nputs that people undertake in a certain land cover types” (FAO/ UNEP, 1999). Although
LUC has generally agreed upon definitions, the definition for iLUC has not reached scientific consensus.
5
Current research suggests that the degrees to which these two relationships affect each other is nominal as other forces such as future market speculations and an increase in demand affected food
prices to a greater degree.
6
For more information see International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management et al., 2009 (www.unep.fr)
7
For the full report of the International SCOPE Biofuels Project see http://cip.cornell.edu/biofuels/

For more information on the Bioenergy Issue Paper Series, please contact Punjanit Leagnavar at: punjanit.leagnavar@unep.org.