• Energy Research

The rapid expansion of biofuel production and consumption has raised concerns over the social and environmental sustainability of biofuel feedstock production, processing and trade. The European Union (EU) has thus balanced its commitment to biofuels as one option for meeting its renewable energy targets with sustainability criteria for economic operators supplying biofuels to member states. Seven voluntary “EU sustainability schemes” were approved in July, 2011 as a means to verify compliance. While mandated sustainability criteria have a strong environmental focus, a number of these voluntary schemes have social sustainability as a significant component of the requirements put forward for achieving certification. As several of these voluntary schemes are incipient, thereby limiting evidence on their effectiveness in practice, this analysis is based on a comparative analysis of the substantive content or ‘scope’ of these schemes and the likely procedural effectiveness of the same. Findings show that while some schemes have considerable coverage of social sustainability concerns, poor coverage of some critical issues, the presence of schemes lacking any social sustainability requirements, and gaps in procedural rules are likely to undermine the likelihood that social sustainability is achieved through these schemes or the EU sustainability policies lending credibility to them.

The rapid expansion of biofuel production and consumption has raised concerns over the social and environmental sustainability of biofuel feedstock production, processing and trade. The European Union (EU) has thus balanced its commitment to biofuels as one option for meeting its renewable energy targets with sustainability criteria for economic operators supplying biofuels to member states. Seven voluntary “EU sustainability schemes” were approved in July, 2011 as a means to verify compliance. While mandated sustainability criteria have a strong environmental focus, a number of these voluntary schemes have social sustainability as a significant component of the requirements put forward for achieving certification. As several of these voluntary schemes are incipient, thereby limiting evidence on their effectiveness in practice, this analysis is based on a comparative analysis of the substantive content or ‘scope’ of these schemes and the likely procedural effectiveness of the same. Findings show that while some schemes have considerable coverage of social sustainability concerns, poor coverage of some critical issues, the presence of schemes lacking any social sustainability requirements, and gaps in procedural rules are likely to undermine the likelihood that social sustainability is achieved through these schemes or the EU sustainability policies lending credibility to them.

AbstractWe use an attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and simulation modelling to assess the effect of improved feeding practices and increased yields of feed crops on milk productivity and GHG emissions from the dairy sector of Tanzania’s southern highlands region. We calculated direct non-CO2 emissions from dairy production and the CO2 emissions resulting from the demand for croplands and grasslands using a land footprint indicator. Baseline GHG emissions intensities ranged between 19.8 and 27.8 and 5.8–5.9 kg CO2eq kg−1 fat and protein corrected milk for the Traditional (local cattle) and Modern (improved cattle) sectors. Land use change contributed 45.8–65.8% of the total carbon footprint of dairy. Better feeding increased milk yields by up to 60.1% and reduced emissions intensities by up to 52.4 and 38.0% for the Traditional and Modern sectors, respectively. Avoided land use change was the predominant cause of reductions in GHG emissions under all the scenarios. Reducing yield gaps of concentrate feed crops lowered emissions further by 11.4–34.9% despite increasing N2O and CO2 emissions from soils management and input use. This study demonstrates that feed intensification has potential to increase LUC emissions from dairy production, but that fertilizer-dependent yield gains can offset this increase in emissions through avoided emissions from land use change.

AbstractWe use an attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and simulation modelling to assess the effect of improved feeding practices and increased yields of feed crops on milk productivity and GHG emissions from the dairy sector of Tanzania’s southern highlands region. We calculated direct non-CO2 emissions from dairy production and the CO2 emissions resulting from the demand for croplands and grasslands using a land footprint indicator. Baseline GHG emissions intensities ranged between 19.8 and 27.8 and 5.8–5.9 kg CO2eq kg−1 fat and protein corrected milk for the Traditional (local cattle) and Modern (improved cattle) sectors. Land use change contributed 45.8–65.8% of the total carbon footprint of dairy. Better feeding increased milk yields by up to 60.1% and reduced emissions intensities by up to 52.4 and 38.0% for the Traditional and Modern sectors, respectively. Avoided land use change was the predominant cause of reductions in GHG emissions under all the scenarios. Reducing yield gaps of concentrate feed crops lowered emissions further by 11.4–34.9% despite increasing N2O and CO2 emissions from soils management and input use. This study demonstrates that feed intensification has potential to increase LUC emissions from dairy production, but that fertilizer-dependent yield gains can offset this increase in emissions through avoided emissions from land use change.

In the context of globalization, market liberalization, and deregulation, many African governments are embracing the potential of private agricultural investment to address structural issues within their agricultural economies. Sustainably integrating these investments into target landscapes, however, poses a number of governance challenges since it requires careful reconciliation of competing needs, priorities, and land uses. This paper examines the effectiveness of existing policy arrangements in managing these conflicts within two environmentally significant investment landscapes, the Oban-Korup Forest Block, Nigeria, and Lower Baro-Akobo River Basin, Ethiopia. Findings reveal that investments tend to conflict with socially and environmentally valuable land uses, largely as a result of institutional failings. The paper identifies a number of underlying institutional challenges that need to be addressed in order to achieve sustainable development objectives within Africa’s many emerging investment landscapes. Findings have relevance for the development of sustainable landscape governance systems and the alignment of global governance innovations with landscape-level policy arrangements.

In the context of globalization, market liberalization, and deregulation, many African governments are embracing the potential of private agricultural investment to address structural issues within their agricultural economies. Sustainably integrating these investments into target landscapes, however, poses a number of governance challenges since it requires careful reconciliation of competing needs, priorities, and land uses. This paper examines the effectiveness of existing policy arrangements in managing these conflicts within two environmentally significant investment landscapes, the Oban-Korup Forest Block, Nigeria, and Lower Baro-Akobo River Basin, Ethiopia. Findings reveal that investments tend to conflict with socially and environmentally valuable land uses, largely as a result of institutional failings. The paper identifies a number of underlying institutional challenges that need to be addressed in order to achieve sustainable development objectives within Africa’s many emerging investment landscapes. Findings have relevance for the development of sustainable landscape governance systems and the alignment of global governance innovations with landscape-level policy arrangements.