How can climate policy benefit from comprehensive land‐use approaches?

Abstract

Schemes that reward developing countries for mitigating greenhouse‐gas (GHG) emissions through forest preservation and restoration are becoming more common. However, efforts to reduce GHG emissions must also consider food production. This creates an apparent conflict, given that agricultural production – a key driver of GHG emissions as a consequence of forest clearance – will increase as human populations continue to grow. We propose that a mosaic of small patches of forest mixed with cropland enables sustainable intensification of agriculture by minimizing soil degradation. Economic analyses of this mixed land‐use concept suggest an improvement of long‐term economic performance of 19–25% relative to conventional industrial agriculture with large‐scale monocropping. Adopting this approach requires farm management plans, landscape zoning, and new instruments to finance sustainable agriculture. We conclude that climate policy and food production can be reconciled through an integrative landscape concept that combines this more sustainable method of agricultural intensification with the reforestation of abandoned lands.

Importance of biophysical effects on climate warming mitigation potential of biofuel crops over the conterminous United States

“…The proposed CWMP here covered carbon fluxes, carbon storage, and surface energy change, which presents a complete perspective of evaluating climate mitigation of biofuel crops (Anderson et al ., ; Knoke et al ., ). CWMP of both cellulosic crops and corn significantly increased when accounting for both biogeochemical and biophysical, rather than just biogeochemical, effects.…”

Between land sharing and land sparing – what role remains for forest management and conservation?

“…For this purpose, instead of establishing direct mixtures of trees and crops, as in the land sharing concept, mixing different crops or woodlots on individual parcels ("compartments") of 5-10 ha, as proposed by Knoke et al (2012), could be considered. This approach can reduce erosion and optimise the use of land resources by assigning the most appropriate use to each parcel based on heterogeneous site conditions.…”

“…Also, forest harvest schedules are more adaptable to market conditions than those of annual crops (Knoke and Wurm 2006). In fact, in a retrospective simulation study, Knoke et al (2012) showed that the compartment approach using mixed parcels of different agricultural uses, agroforestry and afforestation on degraded areas was competitive with pure soy monoculture in terms of net revenues once the trees were mature enough for commercial harvest (after 8 years). Including afforestation considerably helped insulate total farm income from the effects of the price volatility common to agricultural commodities.…”

Managing a second‐generation crop portfolio through sustainable intensification: Examples from the USA and the EU

“…The concept of sustainable intensification depends in part on location, as reflected in the ongoing debate of land sharing and land sparing . In the developing world, increasing the land area used for farming would likely come from clearing native landscapes and have negative environmental impacts, leading some to conclude that land should be ‘spared’ for conservation, and agriculture improved on existing farmland . Indeed, considerable opportunity exists for increasing productivity, particularly in parts of South America, West Africa, and Eastern Europe .…”