Beneficial land-use change in Europe: deployment scenarios for multifunctional riparian buffers and windbreaks

The land sector needs to increase biomass production to meet multiple demands while reducing negative land use impacts and transitioning from being a source to being a sink of carbon. The new Common Agricultural Policy of the EU (CAP) steers towards a more needs-based, targeted approach to addressing multiple environmental and climatic objectives, in coherence with other EU policies. In relation to this, new schemes are developed to offer farmers direct payments to adapt practices beneficial for climate, water, soil, air and biodiversity. Multifunctional biomass production systems have potential to reduce environmental impacts from agriculture while maintaining or increasing biomass production for the bioeconomy across Europe. Here, we present the first attempt to model the deployment of two such systems, riparian buffers and windbreaks, across >81.000 landscapes in Europe (EU27 + UK), aiming to quantify the resulting ecosystem services and environmental benefits, considering three deployment scenarios with different incentives for implementation. We found that these multifunctional biomass production systems can reduce N emissions to water and soil loss by wind erosion, respectively, down to a “low” impact level all over Europe, while simultaneously providing substantial environmental co-benefits, using less than 1% of the area under annual crops in the EU. The GHG emissions savings of utilizing the biomass produced in these systems for replacing fossil alternatives, combined with the increases in soil organic carbon, correspond to 1-1,4% of total GHG emissions in EU28. The introduction of “eco-schemes” in the new CAP may resolve some of the main barriers to implementation of large-scale multifunctional biomass production systems. Increasing the knowledge of these opportunities among all EU member states, before designing and introducing country-specific Eco-scheme options in the new CAP, is critical.

[1]  Ipcc.  Global Warming of 1.5°C , 2022 .

[2]  Yunshi Wang,et al.  A hybrid life cycle assessment of the large-scale application of electric vehicles , 2020 .

[3]  D. Thrän,et al.  Recent Developments in Low iLUC Policies and Certification in the EU Biobased Economy , 2020, Sustainability.

[4]  S. Clark.  Organic Farming and Climate Change: The Need for Innovation , 2020, Sustainability.

[5]  Inaiê Takaes Santos,et al.  Confronting governance challenges of the resource nexus through reflexivity: A cross-case comparison of biofuels policies in Germany and Brazil , 2020 .

[6]  Esther S. Parish,et al.  Multifunctional perennial production systems for bioenergy: performance and progress , 2020, WIREs Energy and Environment.

[7]  C. Cederberg,et al.  Towards better representation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment , 2020, Nature Sustainability.

[8]  R. Lal.  Soil organic matter content and crop yield , 2020, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

[9]  G. Kirk,et al.  The greenhouse gas impacts of converting food production in England and Wales to organic methods , 2019, Nature Communications.

[10]  F. Creutzig,et al.  The role of electric vehicles in near-term mitigation pathways and achieving the UK’s carbon budget , 2019, Applied Energy.

[11]  R. Ceulemans,et al.  Biodiversity in short-rotation coppice , 2019, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

[12]  W. Anderson,et al.  Evaluation of miscanthus productivity and water use efficiency in southeastern United States. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[13]  G. Berndes,et al.  Beneficial land use change: Strategic expansion of new biomass plantations can reduce environmental impacts from EU agriculture , 2019, Global Environmental Change.

[14]  T. Beringer,et al.  Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change , 2018, Nature.

[15]  I. Ciampitti,et al.  GIS approach to estimate windbreak crop yield effects in Kansas–Nebraska , 2018, Agroforestry Systems.

[16]  M. Trnka,et al.  Water requirements of short rotation poplar coppice: Experimental and modelling analyses across Europe , 2018 .

[17]  G. Berndes,et al.  Carbon footprints and land use of conventional and organic diets in Germany , 2017 .

[18]  B. Mola‐Yudego,et al.  Impact of Populus Plantations on Water and Soil Quality , 2017, BioEnergy Research.

[19]  M. Khanna,et al.  The social inefficiency of regulating indirect land use change due to biofuels , 2017, Nature Communications.

[20]  A. Ferrarini,et al.  Multiple ecosystem services provision and biomass logistics management in bioenergy buffers: A state-of-the-art review , 2017 .

[21]  G. Busch.  A spatial explicit scenario method to support participative regional land-use decisions regarding economic and ecological options of short rotation coppice (SRC) for renewable energy production on arable land: case study application for the Göttingen district, Germany , 2017 .

[22]  Stefano Amaducci,et al.  Impacts of willow and miscanthus bioenergy buffers on biogeochemical N removal processes along the soil–groundwater continuum , 2017 .

[23]  M. Touvier,et al.  Dietary intakes and diet quality according to levels of organic food consumption by French adults: cross-sectional findings from the NutriNet-Santé Cohort Study , 2016, Public Health Nutrition.

[24]  J. Dauber,et al.  Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment , 2016, Ambio.

[25]  E. Lin,et al.  Simulating the impact of flooding on wheat yield – Case study in East China , 2016 .

[26]  R. Newman.  Promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources , 2014 .

[27]  Jenny M. Jones,et al.  Miscanthus combustion properties and variations with Miscanthus agronomy , 2014 .

[28]  Tommy Dalgaard,et al.  Buffers for biomass production in temperate European agriculture: A review and synthesis on function, ecosystem services and implementation , 2013 .

[29]  Pål Börjesson,et al.  Bioenergy and land use change - state of the art. , 2013 .

[30]  M. Weih,et al.  Environmental Impacts of Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) Grown for Biomass on Agricultural Land , 2012, BioEnergy Research.

[31]  B. Mola‐Yudego,et al.  Impact of Willow Short Rotation Coppice on Water Quality , 2012, BioEnergy Research.

[32]  A. Bolte,et al.  Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) Plantations Provide Additional Habitats for Vascular Plant Species in Agricultural Mosaic Landscapes , 2012, BioEnergy Research.

[33]  Fayçal Bouraoui,et al.  Changes of nitrogen and phosphorus loads to European seas , 2012 .

[34]  Emilio Padoa-Schioppa,et al.  Influence of Landscape Elements in Riparian Buffers on the Conservation of Semiaquatic Amphibians , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[35]  Gail Taylor,et al.  Yield and spatial supply of bioenergy poplar and willow short-rotation coppice in the UK. , 2008, The New phytologist.

[36]  Robert J. Naiman,et al.  Fire in the Riparian Zone: Characteristics and Ecological Consequences , 2007, Ecosystems.

[37]  X. H. Zhou,et al.  Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems , 2004, Agroforestry Systems.

[38]  G. DeBoe.  Economic and environmental sustainability performance of environmental policies in agriculture , 2020 .

[39]  V. Masson‐Delmotte,et al.  Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems , 2019 .

[40]  Ioannis Dimitriou,et al.  Poplar and willow plantations on agricultural land in Sweden: Area, yield, groundwater quality and soil organic carbon ☆ , 2017 .

[41]  D. G. Galindo,et al.  A spatial data base on sustainable biomass cost-supply of lignocellulosic biomass in Europe - methods & data sources , 2017 .

[42]  L. Tahvanainen.  Allometric relationships to estimate above‐ground dry‐mass and height in Salix , 1996 .