Search

A circular, bio-based economy could provide the pathway to a sustainable future. Here we present five ecological principles to guide biomass use towards a circular bioeconomy: safeguarding and regenerating the health of our (agro)ecosystems; avoiding non-essential products and the waste of essential ones; prioritizing biomass streams for basic human needs; utilizing and recycling by-products of (agro)ecosystems; and using renewable energy while minimizing overall energy use. Implementing these principles calls for a transformation of our current economic system, including fundamental changes to policies, technologies, organizations, social behaviour and markets. Natural biomass cycling and avoidance of biomass overharvest are the basis of a sustainable food system. This study proposes five guiding principles for biomass use based on the concepts of ecology and circularity, as well as leverage points for their implementation.

The European Union (EU) envisions a shift towards a bioeconomy to address challenges such as reducing dependence on non-renewable resources, managing natural resources sustainably and food security. As a result, biomass will become an increasingly important resource in the bioeconomy. This will require careful and sustainable management especially because biomass comes from a wide variety of economic sectors and is governed by different policies. The bioeconomy will, therefore, require coherence between many different policy domains. However, little is known how policy goals in these domains interact and how these interactions may play out in different contexts. Hence, this study aims to assess coherence between bioeconomy and agro-food policies by assessing the interactions between bioeconomy and agro-food goals (i.e. trade-offs, synergies) as well as revealing knowledge gaps. Utilising qualitative content analysis, a survey and focus groups, we find that bioeconomy policy goals and agro-food policy goals are largely considered to be consistent, when considering coherence scores only, and that synergies outweigh trade-offs, both in quantity and in strength. However, all bioeconomy policy domains show some trade-offs with agro-food policy. We furthermore find disagreement (i.e. range of scores) and uncertainty in scientific knowledge-base, particularly concerning waste and bio-based industry. Disagreement surrounds the feasibility of some policy goals, such as decoupling economic growth from the environment. We conclude that a shift towards a bioeconomy will have to acknowledge the interactions between different policy goals across the different sectors and avoid ‘silo-thinking’. This can be achieved through addressing vagueness in policies and allowing integrated policies to embrace uncertainty.

In the version of this Perspective initially published, Abigail Muscat was missing a footnote designation of corresponding author, while Imke J.M. de Boer was mistakenly identified as the corresponding author. Abigail Muscat is now shown as the sole corresponding author. The original Perspective has been corrected in the online version of the article.

Developments in agriculture are a main driver for biodiversity loss, in which livestock play a major role through pastures and feed crop cultivation. Addressing biodiversity loss is challenging due to the broad definition of and the multitude of indicators for biodiversity. We reviewed scientific literature assessing effects of livestock on biodiversity in Europe, to provide an overview of general characteristics of these studies and their indicators for biodiversity. The search was performed in SCOPUS and Web of Science and yielded 857 records after deduplication, which was narrowed down to 131 articles that assessed biodiversity impacts of livestock in Europe. Analysis of these articles focused on general characteristics of the research (i.e. context, scale, species, function of livestock, approach), indicators used, and the general conclusion regarding the impact of livestock on biodiversity. The majority of articles studied biodiversity in France, UK, Italy, Germany and Spain; and studied the direct impact of grazing cattle and sheep on biodiversity at field scale. Indirect impacts of livestock on biodiversity through feed production were assessed in few studies. In about one third of the studies, the function of livestock was not related to food production, but to conservation of open landscapes through grazing. We found a large variety of indicators used to assess the impact of livestock on biodiversity. The indicators were divided in seven clusters: 1) DNA, breeds, populations, 2) abundance and richness, 3) traditional diversity indices, 4) novel diversity indices, 5) composition and function, 6) structure and habitats, and 7) qualitative scoring systems. The majority of studies included the indicators abundance and richness, although studies differed in the plant or animal species studied. Indicators used differed across scales and between functions of livestock. Studies with a conservation function of livestock more often used indicators from clusters 5 and 6 than studies with a food production function. A positive impact of livestock on biodiversity was often found in studies with a conservation function, whereas a negative impact of more intensive livestock was often found in studies with a food production function. The identified indicators for biodiversity were connected to different assumptions and values, and therefore answer different questions and present different conclusions regarding the state of biodiversity. This review provides insight in biodiversity assessments of livestock across scales and purposes; highlights that few studies linked livestock to their indirect impacts on biodiversity; and stresses that one should be critical about the indicators used for biodiversity.

Animal genetic resources (AnGR) are essential for food security and the livelihoods of many pastoralists. However, the AnGR diversity is currently being eroded, as well as the traditional ecological knowledge associated to the use of indigenous breeds and their environment. The objectives of this study were to: i) inventorise indigenous breeds of cattle and their performance in selected traits, ii) analyse pastoralists’ preferences for specific breeds and reasons for that, and iii) determine whether the knowledge about breeds and their traits was transmitted across generations and was consistent across agro-ecological zones. Data were collected through focus groups discussions, and individual interviews with 72 pastoralists. Interviewees belonged to three generations and three agro-ecological zones in the periphery of the W Biosphere Reserve in Benin. From the focus groups discussions we identified the most common breeds in the region (i.e. Keteeji, Jaliji, Bodeji, Tchiwali and Gudali) and the most relevant traits (i.e. milk production, meat production, endurance and tolerance to trypanosomiasis) to assess cattle breeds according to pastoralists. Individual interviewees scored the performance of cattle breeds in the four main traits based on a three-point scale. Finally, we determined the consistency of pastoralists’ knowledge across generations and agro-ecological zones. Keteeji was valued for its endurance and tolerance to trypanosomiasis, Bodeeji was highly valued for endurance and Gudali was perceived of high value for meat and milk production, but of low value for endurance. Keteeji was the preferred breed by the majority of the pastoralists (nearly 50%), especially for the adaptive trait withstanding hunger. Gudali was the least preferred breed (11%). 80% of pastoralists selected a preferred cattle breed based on adaptive traits, i.e. withstanding hunger, intelligence (beyond obedience to herder) or withstanding disease. Pastoralists’ knowledge about breed traits did not differ among generations, but some differences appeared among agro-ecological zones. This study suggests that pastoralists prefer adaptive traits of breeds over production traits to deal with the changing and unfavourable conditions of their environment.

Intensifying animal production is generally advocated to mitigate greenhouse gases emissions associated with production of animal-source food. Sheep farming systems (SFSs) in Spain are generally considered to be pasture-based and extensive, but large differences in input utilization, land use and intensification level exist. Their environmental impacts, therefore, are expected to differ also. We used life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions of three contrasting meat-sheep farming systems in Spain, which differed in their degree of intensification (reproduction rate, land use and grazing management). The GHGs emissions of these systems varied from 19.5 to 25.9 kg CO2-eq per kg of lamb live weight, or 39.0–51.7 kg CO2-eq per kg of lamb meat, with highest values referring to the pasture-based livestock system. In addition to meat, however, these SFSs also provide other services to society (e.g. public goods such as biodiversity and landscape conservation). We valued these services for each SFSs based on agri-environmental subsidies of the EU and used farm economic values to allocate GHGs emissions of SFSs between meat and cultural ecosystem services. When accounting for multifunctionality, GHGs emission per kg of lamb live weight among the SFSs was reversed: with lowest values for the pasture-based system (13.9 kg CO2-eq per kg of lamb live weight) and highest for zero-grazing system (19.5 kg CO2-eq per kg of lamb live weight). A comparison of GHGs emissions among SFSs should account for the multifunctionality of pasture-based livestock systems.

Climate change (CC) directly impacts the economy, ecosystems, water resources, weather events, health issues, desertification, sea level rise, and even political and social stability. The effects of CC affect different groups of societies differently. In Tanzania, the effects of CC have even acquired a gender dimension, whereby women are viewed as more vulnerable than men because of socioeconomic and historic barriers. CC is largely caused by anthropogenic activities, including those that increase the concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Recent findings indicate that the livestock sector is responsible for 18 % of GHG emissions measured in the CO2 equivalent. Moreover, some gases emitted by livestock have higher potential to warm the atmosphere than CO2 and have a very long atmospheric lifetime. Methane (CH4) has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2, whereas nitrous oxide (N2O) has 296 times the GWP of CO2. It is now estimated that the atmospheric concentrations of CH4 and N2O are increasing at a rate of approximately 0.6 % and 0.25 % per year, respectively. Cattle may emit CH4 from enteric fermentation equivalent to 2–12 % of the ingested energy, whereas produced manure can emit N2O up to 1.25 % of its weight. The estimated total CH4 and N2O emissions from Tanzanian ruminants stand at 26.17 Gg and 0.57 Gg, respectively. In this paper, we first very briefly review emissions of GHGs from different livestock production systems in Tanzania with the view of identifying the main hot spots. Then, we concentrate on the available adaptation options and the limitations on the adoption of such adaptation options in Tanzania. Emission of these GHGs per unit product varies with the level of intensification, the types of livestock kept, and manure management. Intensification of livestock production reduces the size of the land required to sustain a livestock unit and frees up the land necessary for carbon sequestration. In Tanzania, such intensification could take the form of the early harvesting and storing forage for dry-season feeding. The advantage of this intervention is twofold: young harvests have higher digestibility and emit less CH4 when fed to ruminants than mature lignified forage; use of stored roughage in the dry season will reduce the desertification of rangeland and deforestation that occur when livestock search for pastureland. Dry-season supplementation of ruminants with energy and protein-rich diets will reduce CH4 emission. The chemical treatment of crops byproducts will increase the crops’ digestibility and reduce CH4 emission from ruminants. Crossbreds of indigenous and exotic breeds are more efficient converters of feed into products like meat and milk, with less GHG emitted per unit product. The use of manure for biogas production will reduce the emission of both CH4 and N2O into the atmosphere. Shifting from liquid to solid manure management has the potential to reduce CH4 emissions. Most of these interventions, however, are not cost neutral – enhancing awareness alone will not lead to their widespread adoption. In the absence of subsidies, the adoption of these interventions will depend on the relative cost of other options. Although some traditional livestock systems in Tanzania are already coping with the impact of CC, such efforts are handicapped by inadequate resources, poor coordination, and implementation of competing measures.

The concept of ‘Ecosystem Services’ (ES) focuses on the linkages between ecosystems, including agroecosystems, and human well-being, referring to all the benefits, direct and indirect, that people obtain from ecosystems. In this paper, we review the application of the ES framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems, which allows (1) regulating, supporting and cultural ES to be integrated at the same level with provisioning ES, and (2) the multiple trade-offs and synergies that exist among ES to be considered. Research on livestock farming has focused mostly on provisioning ES (meat, milk and fibre production), despite the fact that provisioning ES strongly depends on regulating and supporting ES for their existence. We first present an inventory of the non-provisioning ES (regulating, supporting and cultural) provided by pasture-based livestock systems in Europe. Next, we review the trade-offs between provisioning and non-provisioning ES at multiple scales and present an overview of the methodologies for assessing biophysical trade-offs. Third, we present non-biophysical (economical and socio-cultural) methodologies and applications for ES valuation. We conclude with some recommendations for policy design. Published

We review 75 studies on the competition for biomass and production resources such as land, water, labour and capital across food, feed and fuel production. We identified seven factors that are key to the availability and effective use of biomass and production resources. These ranged from ones related to production, such as crop yields to ones related to policy. Many of these factors resulted in trade-offs across different uses of biomass. Studies had different perspectives (e.g. economic, biophysical) on setting priorities for biomass and suggested different solutions to address competition (e.g. marginal lands). To connect these perspectives we suggest a framework that prioritises biomass and production resources for the use of human food before its use as feed or bioenergy.

Humanity’s growing demand for food, feed, bioenergy and biomaterials put pressure on agroecosystems and the biosphere. If these trends continue, the capacity of agroecosystems to feed the planet while also providing for humanity’s energy and material needs is at risk. This demand cause interactions and trade-offs between different biomass uses, competition for biomass and other natural and economic resources. Governing these interactions is difficult, because of the inherent complexity of these interactions but also due to the diversity of biomass resources, the diversity of policy domains and institutions that are needed to govern them. However, there is limited knowledge on the interactions between different biomass uses and how these may result in trade-offs and synergies. Furthermore, little is known how these trade-offs and synergies may affect policy coherence and what solutions are needed to achieve more sustainable biomass use. With its leading role in bioenergy and bioeconomy policy, the European Union (EU) plays a key role in debates surrounding biomass. This thesis, therefore, aims to advance the theoretical and empirical understanding of the governance of biomass with the ultimate aim of improving the governance process at the science-policy interface, taking the EU as a case study.Chapter 2 provides an overview of the driving factors behind the growing demands for biomass as well as the trade-offs and synergies across different biomass uses. To do this, we conducted a systematic review of 75 studies that looked at competition between biomass uses and the resources that support them (i.e. water, land, labour and capital). We found seven factors that drive the availability of biomass and resources namely: increased bioenergy demand, increased crop yields, increase of human-edible feed, amount of animal-source food in human diets, efficiency of food supply chains, type of bioenergy feedstock and implementation of land-use policies. These shaped the biophysical option-space, determining which interactions (neutral), trade-offs (negative) and synergies (positive) between food, feed, fuel goals. We found that the majority of the effects implied trade-offs. For example, the factor of increasing bioenergy demand resulted in trade-offs with other natural resources such as increased land-use and land-use change, increased water consumption, and increased nitrogen demand. It also resulted in trade-offs with economic resources, leading to increasing food prices and higher land rents. A diversity of solutions was recommended by the literature to deal with these trade-offs and these ranged from production-side, governance, losses and wastes and consumption-side solutions. We found that these different types of solutions came from different disciplinary perspectives, each setting different priorities for biomass. To connect these perspectives, we suggested a framework where priority is given to basic human needs for the consumption of biomass.Given the many trade-offs between biomass uses, it is difficult for policies to manage issues that cut across different policy domains. Given these trade-offs, biomass will become an increasingly important resource in the bioeconomy and will require careful and sustainable management. The bioeconomy will therefore require coherence between many different policy domains. In chapter 3 we conducted a study of policy coherence between these policy domains. To do this we conducted a qualitative content analysis of 41 EU policy documents across 5 policy domains, namely agro-food, bio-based industry, waste, energy and environment. Coherency was measured by using a survey and focus groups based on expert opinion across scientific fields. We utilised both a coherency score using a 7-point Likert scale and measures of confidence and disagreement. The results of the survey indicate that bioeconomy policy goals and agro-food policy goals are largely considered to be consistent and that synergies outweigh trade-offs, both in quantity and in strength. However, there was disagreement and mixed confidence among respondents on whether different goals were synergistic or conflicting. Digging further into the results using focus groups, we found uncertainty and context dependencies in the scientific knowledge-base, particularly concerning waste and bio-based industry. We categorised these uncertainties into five types, and distinguish between ambiguity, which arises from different incommensurable ways of framing a problem and vagueness which leaves concepts undefined. We conclude that a shift towards a bioeconomy will have to acknowledge the interactions between different policy goals across the different sectors and avoid ‘silo-thinking’. This can be achieved through overcoming vagueness in policies, such as having clear cascading guidelines for biomass.Building on the findings of chapter 2, where we found that marginal lands was recommended as a solution to food-feed-fuel competition, in chapter 4 we conducted a framing analysis of the narrative frames surrounding marginal lands in EU science and policy-making. We wanted to know how different scientific and policy stakeholders looked at marginal lands and what problems and solutions marginal lands address. We found a total of eight frames utilised by a diversity of actors: i) the Sustainable Bioenergy frame ii) the Precautionary Principle frame iii) the Marginal Land Critique frame iv) the Food Security frame v) the Land Rights frame vi) the Rural Development frame vii) the Ecosystem Restoration frame and viii) the Low-Cost Livestock frame. We related these to four debates taking place in the EU related to land use; discussions about the effect of indirect-land use change, biofuels, rural development and the sustainability of food systems. Rather than overcoming debates about land use, marginal lands are subject to the same competing claims as productive land. We argued that the ambiguity of the term ‘marginal land’ is a type of uncertainty that results from multiple ways of framing an issue, leaving no clear idea of what is the problem or what should be done about it. Deliberative approaches are needed where framing debates can form the starting point. Given the many trade-offs that arise due to growing demands, a sustainable way of utilising biomass is needed. In chapter 5 we suggested that a circular bio-based economy could provide a pathway to more sustainable use of biomass. Here we presented five ecological principles to guide biomass use towards a more circular bioeconomy: 1) safeguarding and regenerating the health of our agroecosystems; 2) avoiding the production of non-essential products and waste of essential ones; 3) using biomass streams for basic human needs; 4) utilising and recycling all by-products of agroecosystems, and 5) prioritising renewable energy and minimising energy use. We also identified institutional, technological, organisational, behavioural, cultural and market barriers that may halt the required transformation. For each set of barriers, we identified opportunities for change which were leverage points that can bring about transformative change. By involving stakeholders, leaving room for ambiguity, having an ambitious vision for change and a mix of top-down and bottom-up governance approaches, these principles can be operationalised.Chapter 6 brings the insights of the preceding chapters together by answering three questions. First, what are the key interactions, trade-offs and synergies in biomass uses in both science and policy? I argued that high demands, particularly for bioenergy and animal-source food, limit the biophysical option space, resulting in multiple trade-offs. Bioenergy and agricultural systems are closely interconnected and the diversion of high-value biomass streams to bioenergy can cause negative environmental impacts. Furthermore, the solutions recommended for biomass competition, such as marginal lands, remain unclear. By looking at policy coherence, I showed a policy of biomass cascading and renewable energy policies are a source of trade-offs as well as key synergies. My second question was, how can science and policy deal with complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty? Here I suggested that defining between different types of uncertainty can lead to understanding which uncertainties can be reduced and which require different approaches. These approaches include changing models of scientific advice and changing modes of governance. Third, what practical steps can be made towards more sustainable use of biomass? I suggested practical ways forward in relation to more sustainable use of biomass, such as taking a more integrated view of biomass and defining a cascading principle for biomass emerging from our ecological principles in Chapter 5. Moving towards a more sustainable use of biomass will not be easy and will require a societal transition. By redefining what we value, directing biomass towards human needs and paying as much attention to the social foundation as to the biophysical boundaries, humanity can change its relationship with the biosphere and continue to develop and thrive for generations to come.

The competition for land has become an issue of major concern and cause of conflict, especially between pastoralists and crop farmers, but also between pastoralists and nature conservation institutions. The Biosphere Reserve of W in Benin Republic (WBR) and its surrounding lands are located in the agro-pastoral contact zone in West Africa, enabling competition for land, and affecting the relations between pastoralism and its environment. The general aim of this thesis, therefore, was to understand the relations between pastoralism and its changing natural environment. In terms of land use change, cropland area around WBR expanded, whereas grazing area reduced. Population growth and rising demand for food crops and cash crops were the indirect causes of this loss of grazing lands. Competing claims over land existed between crop farmers and pastoralists, among crop farmers, and among crop farmers, pastoralists, and the WBR authority due to past expropriation, unfair and incomplete implementation of the WBR regulations and the increasing shift of pastoral lifestyle to crop farming. In terms of effects of grazing on plant communities, highly grazed sites had more species diversity than lowly grazed sites. This suggests that the current level of grazing was not damaging plant communities’ diversity. Annual species dominated the surveyed vegetation, suggesting that restoration of grazing lands with perennials requires human intervention. Herding involves taking decisions and moving of livestock in search for feed. Herding decisions are based on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of soil, forage and livestock. Pastoralists identified five different soils, which they selected for herding at different times of the year. Perennial grasses were perceived of high nutritional quality, whereas annuals were of low nutritional quality. Afzelia africana had high perceived quality for milk production, whereas Khaya senegalensis had the highest perceived quality for meat production, health and strength. In decision making for herding, pastoralists used a holistic approach, combining TEK about soil, vegetation and livestock, in a structured and prioritised reasoning. Changes in the pastoral system can lead to changes in desired livestock traits, which may lead to loss of indigenous breeds. Keteeji was valued for its endurance and tolerance to trypanosomiasis, Bodeeji was highly valued for endurance and Gudali was perceived of high value for meat and milk production, but of low value for endurance. To deal with the changing and unfavourable conditions of their environment, pastoralists preferred cattle breeds performing well on adaptive traits i.e. withstanding hunger, intelligence, and withstanding disease. Our results suggest that pastoralism is under pressure and that its survival depends on policies. In the pessimistic scenario, i.e. without any change, pastoralists will use, likely, the stepping-out strategy in the future. In the optimistic scenario, two possible institutional interventions could help maintaining pastoralism in the region: payments for ecosystem services provided by pastoralism, and association of pastoralism with nature conservation. In practice, however, the implementation of these two interventions is very challenging, which implies an increasing vulnerability of pastoralists and pastoral lifestyle.