Transcript Measuring Biodiversity and Socio-Economic Impacts

www.aidenvironment.org
Biodiversity and socio-economic impacts of
trade-oriented agro-commodity production
systems
UNEP 28 November 2007
Jan Joost Kessler
AIDEnvironment
[email protected]
1
Objectives of the study
• To assess the biodiversity and socio-economic impacts of the Dutch
/ EU trade and consumption of certain agro-commodities
• To develop a suitable methodology to do so
• Focus at agro-commodities for which NL is important consumer and
the most important producer countries:
–
–
–
–
soy (in Argentina and Brazil)
palm oil (in Indonesia and Malaysia)
beef (in Argentina and Brazil)
coffee (in Honduras and Vietnam)
2
Assessment of biodiversity impacts
1. Selection of administrative units in countries where
production is concentrated
2. Insight in production systems
3. Data on land-use dynamics / expansion for agrocommodities in recent 5-8 years (= study period)
4. Calculation of 5 indicators based on concept of Natural
Capital Index
3
Natural Capital Index = quantity x quality
4
The decline of NCI as land-use intensifies
Biodiversity ( NCI)
100%
Literature review
- Tropical & temperate regions
- Plants, insects, birds, other vertebrates
selective
logging
secondary
vegetation
50%
plantation
mean species abundance
pristine
forest
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
pasture
cropland
plantations
agroforestry
0%
secondary
forest
degraded
selective
logging
primary
forest
0
5
Reference data on NCI decline for land-use
Main GLC 2000 class
Sub category
Description
NCI loss by class (%)
Forests (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10)
Primary vegetation
(forest)
Minimal disturbance, where flora and fauna
species abundance are near pristine
0
Slightly disturbed or
managed forest
Extractive use like hunting, selective
logging, timber extraction and re-growth
30
Secondary forests
Natural regrowth
50
Forest plantation
Planted forest often with exotic species
80
Primary vegetation (grass
/ shrublands)
Grassland or shrubs dominated vegetation
(e.g. steppe, tundra or savannah)
0
Livestock grazing
Grasslands with wildlife replaced by grazing
livestock
30
Man-made pastures
Forests and woodlands converted to
grasslands for livestock grazing.
90
Mosaic: cropland / forest
(17)
Agroforestry
Agricultural production intercropped with
(native) trees.
50
Cultivated and managed
areas (16, 18)
Low input agriculture
Extensive resource-use and low external
input agriculture
70
Intensive agriculture
High external input agriculture, dependent
on external inputs and/or irrigation.
90
Shrubs and grasslands (11,
12, 13, 14, 15)
6
Biodiversity indicators used in study
Indicators
Description of relevance
B0. Area increase agro-commodity
Area change used for agro-commodity production in study period
B1. Growth factor commodity crop
area
The ratio between B0 and original production area.
B2. NCI in the production area
compared to the national average
The NCI in 2000 (taking into account different types of land use) in the
production areas as compared to the national average.
B3. Loss of biodiversity due to the
commodity
NCI loss in the study period as a result of the commodity expansion.
B4. Relative contribution of the
commodity to overall
biodiversity loss
NCI loss by the commodity during the study period as a proportion of
overall NCI decline by land-use
B5 Ecological claim (overall
biodiversity loss)
Overall biodiversity loss from natural ecosystems with corrections for
the original land use and multiplier effects.
7
Example of results for soy in Brazil
Country and production
areas
B0: Area
increase by
commodity
(x 1000 ha)
B1: Growth
factor
commodity
(%)
B2: NCI in
production
area in 2000*
(in % NCI)
B3: NCI loss
by commodity
(% NCI)
B4: Part of
commodity to
NCI loss
(in %)
B5:
Ecological
claim
(in km²)
Soy Brazil
962
0.24
−−
1
1
1,656
Paraná
1,801
0.45
−−
1
2
2,065
Mato Grosso
2,940
0.56
+
3
17
31,552
Goiás
1,470
0.55
−−
4
10
13,311
Tocantins
233
0.92
+
1
5
2,407
Maranhão
253
0.74
=
1
3
2,480
Piauí
143
0.93
=
1
2
1,400
9,860
0.46
76%
1
3
65,498
Rio Grande do Sul
Total Brazil
8
Biodiversity loss from soy in Brazil and Argentina
before 1995 (yellow) and between 1995-2004 (red)
9
Some conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B0: Expansion of selected commodities in selected production areas
during study period was 28 m ha, and about 67 m ha in the countries.
B1: Soy showed the highest growth factors (80-90%). Low growth factors
occur in established region. Growth factors are highest in frontier regions.
B2: In expansion and frontier areas NCI is often higher than the national
average.
B3: NCI loss by commodity is generally not high (1-5%), because areas
are large.
B4: The contribution from commodity production during the study period to
overall biodiversity loss by land-use may be more than 10%.
B5: reflects the ecological impacts in terms of area with 100% NCI loss,
which may be quite high. Corrected for multiplier effects.
Total biodiversity loss caused by the commodities in selected areas in the
study period corresponds to 154,000 km² (= four times the Netherlands).
Multiplier effects are macro-level changes due to the agro-commodity, e.g.
displacement of people or expansion as a result of food competition.
10
Assessment of socio-economic impacts
Indicators
E. Economic
E1. Per capita gross domestic product (national and administrative units)
E2. Employment rate
S. Social
S1. Food security, child mortality
S5. Poverty (index)
V. Vulnerability
V1. Conflicts
V2. Inequality
11
Assessment of socio-economic impacts
Economic / Profit
Commodity, country
and production regions
GDP /
capita
Employmt.
rural/urban
Social / People
Food
security
Poverty /
HPI
Vulnerability / people
Conflicts
Inequality
/ Gini
Planet
NCI
change
Soy
Brazil
Established
Expansion
Frontier
Legend:
better or similar starting situation, with favourable or similar rate of change
better or similar starting situation, with unfavourable rate of change
worse starting situation, with favourable or similar rate of change
worse starting situation, with unfavourable rate of change
12
Main conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
Considerable loss of NCI by agro-commodities, mainly in
expansion and frontier areas, can be roughly quantified by using
NCI and reference data
Loss of NCI by production and trade of agro-commodities is not, or
not sufficiently compensated by improvement of socio-economic
well-being, especially in frontier areas
The methodology allows one to assess these changes at subnational level, especially for selected areas where statistics are
available – assessments at national level would not be useful
Major risks now with expansion of biofuels (e.g. palmoil)
Doubts about theory of export-oriented growth?
13
Thank you
14