Sustainability assessment framework for agro-bioenergy land use

Abstract:

Sustainability assessments are often either seen as a political negotiation or brokerage process, or an entirely scientific enterprise. While the outputs of sustainability assessment as a political negotiation/brokerage process is usually purely stakeholder based, qualitative and lacking in scientific depth (not evidence-based), the outputs of sustainability assessment as a scientific enterprise is usually quantitative, evidence-based but less practicable in reality. Circumspectly speaking, elements of both are important and needed to bridge the gap between society and science in policy making. With regards to agro-bioenergy land use (which is a hot topic globally), this study attempts to bridge the gap between sustainability assessment as a political negotiation/brokerage process, and sustainability assessment as a scientific enterprise by suggesting a methodological pathway for adapting highly quantitative, evidence-based life cycle assessment indicators to mostly qualitative, stakeholder-chosen but difficult-to-quantify ecosystem services or land use function indicators (i.e. depending on the choice of the land use assessment framework deployed-ecosystem services vs. land use functions). This methodological pathway can be operationalized by (i) taking an inventory of stakeholder’s most valued or cherished environmental, economic, social and/or cultural priorities (defined in accordance with ecosystem services and/or land use function framework boundaries), (ii) identifying the relevant agro-bioenergy related life cycle assessment indicator frameworks (namely the energy return on energy invested-EROEI, greenhouse gas accounting-GHG, human appropriation of net primary production-HANPP and resource footprint-RF indicator) that touch on identified environmental, economic, social and/or cultural stakeholder priorities, (iii) creating acceptable life cycle thinking templates, for integrating often ignored or generalized local and regional agronomic factors that touch on stakeholder priorities, into relevant agro-bioenergy related life cycle assessment indicator framework (e.g. inclusion of human and animal labour touches on local and regional employment, consideration of irrigation and tillage effects and incorporation of alternative agricultural input supply chains-fertilizers: synthetic fertilizer vs. biogas digestate vs. animal manure , seed sown-organic vs. hybrid vs. transgenic, pesticides-organic vs. synthetic etc. touches on energy, environmental and financial costs of production), (iv) adoption of derivable or derived indicators from the new system boundaries created (as a result of the assimilation of relevant local and regional agronomic factors) for subsequent connection of qualitative, stakeholder-chosen, ecosystem services/land use function indicators to quantitative, evidence-based life cycle assessment indicators.