Linking carbon stock change from land-use change to consumption of agricultural products: Alternative perspectives

• Published in: Journal of environmental management 2016-11, Vol.182, p.542-556
• Main Authors: Goh, Chun Sheng, Wicke, Birka, Faaij, André, Bird, David Neil, Schwaiger, Hannes, Junginger, Martin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agriculture; Agriculture - methods; Biofuel; Biofuels; Carbon; Carbon - analysis; Carbon Sequestration; Carbon stock; Climate Change; Conservation of Natural Resources; Consumption; Crops, Agricultural; Glycine max; International trade; Land degradation; Land use; Land-use change; Meat; Palm Oil; Plant Oils; Time Factors
• ISSN: 0301-4797; 1095-8630
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.004

Agricultural expansion driven by growing demand has been a key driver for carbon stock change as a consequence of land-use change (CSC-LUC). However, its relative role compared to non-agricultural and non-productive drivers, as well as propagating effects were not clearly addressed. This study contributed to this subject by providing alternative perspectives in addressing these missing links. A method was developed to allocate historical CSC-LUC to agricultural expansions by land classes (products), trade, and end use. The analysis for 1995–2010 leads to three key trends: (i) agricultural land degradation and abandonment is found to be a major (albeit indirect) driver for CSC-LUC, (ii) CSC-LUC is spurred by the growth of cross-border trade, (iii) non-food use (excluding liquid biofuels) has emerged as a significant contributor of CSC-LUC in the 2000's. In addition, the study demonstrated that exact values of CSC-LUC at a single spatio-temporal point may change significantly with different methodological settings. For example, CSC-LUC allocated to ‘permanent oil crops’ changed from 0.53 Pg C (billion tonne C) of carbon stock gain to 0.11 Pg C of carbon stock loss when spatial boundaries were changed from global to regional. Instead of comparing exact values for accounting purpose, key messages for policymaking were drawn from the main trends. Firstly, climate change mitigation efforts pursued through a territorial perspective may ignore indirect effects elsewhere triggered through trade linkages. Policies targeting specific commodities or types of consumption are also unable to quantitatively address indirect CSC-LUC effects because the quantification changes with different arbitrary methodological settings. Instead, it is recommended that mobilising non-productive or under-utilised lands for productive use should be targeted as a key solution to avoid direct and indirect CSC-LUC. •The expansion of non-productive land was the key driver of CSC-LUC in 1995–2010.•CSC-LUC associated with export increased from