This community is in archive. Visit community.xprize.org for the current XPRIZE Community.
Including Land Use as a Criteria Item for Sustainable Production
nmgraham
Posts: 66 XPRIZE
In order to assess the sustainability of products that innovators may submit to this competition, we are developing a set of criteria to define the Life Cycle Assessment from cradle to gate in order for applicants to advance in the competition. Currently this assessment will include both Global Warming Potential (GWP) and water usage. We also have a criteria item that looks at the renewability and ethicality of the raw material, aka sustainability of feedstock for scale.
Should we add land use to the assessment for applicants to advance in the competition?
Agricultural land use is one of the largest contributors to habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss, as well as being a major source for environmental pollutants if the land is not managed properly. Should we add land usage to our Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or is it adequately addressed through the flexible material renewability criteria? why? If land is added to the LCA, do we risk limiting certain innovators? What would need to be considered to make sure land use is properly covered in our current criteria?
Should we add land use to the assessment for applicants to advance in the competition?
Agricultural land use is one of the largest contributors to habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss, as well as being a major source for environmental pollutants if the land is not managed properly. Should we add land usage to our Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) or is it adequately addressed through the flexible material renewability criteria? why? If land is added to the LCA, do we risk limiting certain innovators? What would need to be considered to make sure land use is properly covered in our current criteria?
1
Comments
THE PROPOSED SOLUTION
Half the earth's surface, the oceans, are still in a hunter-gatherer existence (and suffering from over-fishing). Consider moving a portion of the ocean surface to husbandry. Let's consider the prospects. About 80% of the ocean's surface contains very little life because required mineral nutrients are missing--those are primarily iron, phosphorus, and nitrogen. (These "ocean deserts" do have plenty of water and sunshine.) This mineral deficiency ONLY EXISTS AT THE SURFACE, in the photic zone. At a depth of 800 meters, ocean water is loaded with just the right mixture of nitrogen and phosphorus to create abundant life. (Read, for example, Chemical Oceanography by Wallace S. Broecker.) The sea floor is rich in iron and ultramafic mineral.
Here in the presently less productive parts of the oceans are widely-recognized potential solutions to---
(1) improved ocean health
(2) a new, large-scale food supply
(3) a partial solution to climate change--a productive ocean can vastly increase CO2 uptake
(4) ocean acidification--ultramafics and photosynthesis increase ocean pH.
We learn to manage the oceans even better than we have managed the land.
/Ernie Rogers
The area and quality of land available is critical to survival and quality of life. Land provides an area to capture sunlight and rainfall [two fundamental resources], supports ecosystems and agriculture, provides habitat, and underpins the infrastructure and activities of human civilisation. However, the availability of good quality land continues to be under threat. There are issues with: pollution; soil degradation and erosion; flooding; water availability, quality and demand; mono-culture plantations; and the destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity.
We should be aware that unconventional approaches to the production of food, materials, packaging and other products may arise in an XPRIZE challenge and so any assessment framework should support their evaluation too. For example, an industrial type approach might use buildings, renewable energy, nutrients, and a water supply (but no soil) - such as modern hydroponics. Or a similar approach might grow products in a vat. Different contexts may also appear, such as "growing" products in facilities in a desert [lots of renewable sunshine energy in the hot ones], or in the oceans.
On the subject of oceans, we have to be particularly careful that we don't repeat the (land based) mistakes of the past at sea, because its (potential) pollution and ecosystem disruption might initially be less apparent to us land dwellers. This could mean we are late to ring the alarm bells and take action [again]. But more importantly, it is very difficult to control what happens in the oceans - once the genie is out of the bottle. I would suggest that we adopt the Precautionary Principle.
@eakinyi @LHanson @Joanne @Utobou @kjbradford @marsxr @bngejane @renskelynde @kcamphuis @ricardoyudi @NoraEatREAL @neillk @jcoonrod @FranckSaintMartin @Olawale @LaurenTurk @yusuke @janetlee @brandonkion @SteveK8 @ethan @ymedan - here is our new topic around Land Use, would love to see any input you might have!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subak_%28irrigation%29?wprov=sfla1
LCA's mostly use the metric of "Land Occupation" (units = m2), where "greater land occuption" is "worse" because so much of agriculture is so damaging to ecosystems. In general, the Land Occupation metric is a good start because "m2" is tangible, easy to understand, and easily comparable across projects. HOWEVER, what's actually important is the impact of that Land Occupation and it's temporal-spatial context.
Example:
- The environmental impact of 1000 m2 of chemical-heavy corn production is often decreased soil health, damage to biodiversity, and some GHG emissions.
- The impact of 1000m2 of organically managed multi-strata agroforestry systems producing a starch crop (like breadfruit or chestnuts) is often increased soil health, greater biodiversity, and potentially GHG sequestration.
- Both show "1000 m2" of Land Use. But the latter is healing the land, while the former degrades it. In many degraded agricultural and rangelands around the world, we want MORE "Land Occupation" if the impact is regenerative.
In either scenario, the preceding land use must be taken into account:In summary: Land Use should be included, but needs an "impact modifier" on a spectrum from "Degenerative" to "Regenerative" impact.
A few references for further reading:
If land use impact, is judged by the XPRIZE team to be a relatively minor contribution, given other factors of the challenge's evaluation then perhaps a simplistic evaluation mechanism can be developed for this aspect. [I'll give this some more thought.]
On the other hand, a successful XPRIZE solution might well result in widespread, global, adoption. That means a significant amount of land would be used for this new solution, and factors that were overlooked in a simplistic evaluation might in reality become significant issues. So, in my mind with the precautionary principle hat on, I would be tempted to recommend that this is evaluated in a detailed and professional manner. For example, consult experts in this area to assist in the evaluation, e.g. specialists at the United Nations, national bodies, and/or universities.
With regard to an accurate and thorough evaluation, the scenario could be even more complex! As mentioned in an above post, radical innovations might use factory type production facilities that occupy relatively little land (which sounds good). However, those facilities might be dependent on external resources, utilities and services: energy supply; water supply; initial construction materials and services; transport of materials; etc. The life cycle assessment of these external factors should be taken into account also.
[1] Land Use in Life Cycle Assessment: Global Characterization Factors Based on Regional and Global Potential Species Extinction
Laura de Baan, Christopher L. Mutel, Michael Curran, Stefanie Hellweg, and Thomas Koellner
Environmental Science & Technology 2013 47 (16), 9281-9290
DOI: 10.1021/es400592q
So here's an unconventional, thinking out of the box, type approach that may be a useful addition (irrespective of the level of detail used in the evaluation). Revisiting the circular / recycling diagram made me wonder if we could add additional criteria to the challenge that mean the evaluation is a little easier, whilst still allowing a broad range of solutions across various contexts.
What if we specified a closed system that was fully dependent on effective recycling of all (key) resources?
Nothing is perfect and we couldn't recycle 100% of resources over the long term. So we might specify the recycling of a percentage of all the key resources (e.g. at least 95%). Typically, recycling requires an area of land (e.g. compost heap, digging organic waste into the soil, or allowing the species within an ecosystem to break it down naturally). So a proposed solution might be required to demonstrate this aspect of the overall process, or at least account for it using accepted evaluation practices. In other words, a real solution would require land use for the growing / production and the recycling. We would also want to be mindful of the process' impact over time, e.g. on soil quality, biodiversity, and other aspects of the environment (local and global).
We might also specify that solutions should provide and support the highest quality ecosystems with good biodiversity [perhaps based on the best native examples within each region currently, or over the past 100 years]. So land use might include areas for growing / production, recycling and rich ecosystems. [Note: a smart solution might be able to combine all three modes homogeneously.] This means, for example, that if land use changed to agricultural use under this new approach that the land might benefit from enhanced levels of ecosystem quality and biodiversity - depending on what its previous state was.
For example, changing desert in this way would offer significant benefits. (However, implementing the solution in virgin rain-forest might see a net lowering of ecosystem quality, but still experience a better level than today's approach of slash, burn and mono-culture plantations / livestock farming. But perhaps rain-forests should remain as protected regions anyway.)
Similarly, new solutions deployed in urban areas would be expected to bring those benefits of enhanced levels of ecosystem quality and biodiversity.
In a traditional sense, allocating only part of the "agricultural" or urban land to the growing of food (and other parts to high quality ecosystems) is economically inefficient and sometimes unfeasible. So the innovative challenge here would be for XPRIZE participants to find out how to provide all of these benefits in a way that is socio-economically and environmentally sustainable. Those solutions might be different for different contexts (urban, rural, desert and at sea).
@Ethan - very interesting to rethink how to assess land, definitely lots to unpack there. Thanks for the links!
I'm curious to get your views on a specific question. We have another criterion, renewable resource material to ensure sustainable feedstock at scale; can this criterion sufficiently account for land challenges? Or land assessment via the LCA (possibly revised to reflect the complexity) is warranted in addition?
Like the "Land occupation" metric, "Renewable resource material" should be assessed on a spectrum of what a material's actual impacts are. It's not the material itself that determines this - it is HOW the material is produced.
That said, some materials (e.g. ones from perennial tree crops) will have a better chance having net-positive impacts than others (e.g. annual tillage crops, fossil-based petrochemicals). HowGood has created rapid assessment proxy systems based on this concept that are very useful and can be backed up by hard outcomes-based data.
and thank you for the input!