Hermele Land Matters Final 20

Land Matters Agrofuels, Unequal Exchange, and Appropriation of Ecological Space Hermele, Kenneth 2012 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Hermele, K. (2012). Land Matters: Agrofuels, Unequal Exchange, and Appropriation of Ecological Space. Human Ecology Division, Lund University. Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 LAND MATTERS LAND MATTERS Agrofuels, Unequal Exchange, and Appropriation of Ecological Space Kenneth Hermele All electronic links confirmed in June 2012. Copyright © Kenneth Hermele Human Ecology Division, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lund University ISBN 978-91-7473-349-5 ISSN 1403-5022 Printed in Sweden on Lessebo Linné (Svanenmärkt) by Media-Tryck, Lund University, 2012 2 To the memory of my parents Perla Hermele, Königsberg 1923 – Netanya 2002 Arthur Hermele, Berlin 1922 – Stockholm 1996 & to Ingrid, my love 3 4 Table of Contents The Argument: The Return of Malthus 9 PART I. LAND USE AND AGROFUELS 13 1. The Importance of Land 15 2. Land Use Scenarios for Agrofuels and Nine Billion People 35 3. Regulating Land Use for Agrofuels: A Case Study of Brazil 65 PART II. ECOLOGICALLY UNEQUAL EXCHANGE 107 4. Framing Unequal Exchange 109 5. The Importance of Measures 125 6. Measures and Interpretations of Ecologically Unequal Exchange 149 PART III. APPROPRIATION OF ECOLOGICAL SPACE 173 7. From Environmental Load Displacement to Land Grabbing 175 8. The Argument Revisited: The Return to the Land 191 References 217 Thanks 237 5 6 Tables 1.1. Global land use 2009-2010 12 1.2. Socio-ecological metabolic regimes compared 31 2.1. Global potential of biomass for energy 2050 45 2.2. Current and future blending targets and mandates 47 2.3. Land area required to meet 10 % blending requirement by 2030 48 2.4. Ethanol potential and share of today’s global petrol use 48 2.5. What if? Share of global crop and pasture land areas to satisfy human diets 2010-2050 55 2.6. Differences in metabolic profiles c 2000 58 A.1. Land area required per 1,000 kcal of various foods 62 A.2 - A.6. Land area required for various diets and calorie intakes 62-63 3.1. Sugarcane cultivation and Brazil’s land area 87 3.2. Feedstock performance with direct land use change included 93 3.3. Biodiversity impact of land use change 96 4.1. Transport of bulk commodities c 1960 and c 2000 123 5.1. Conceptual differences between environmental and ecological economics 126 5.2. A comparison of measures of ecological exchange 147 6.1. Share of embodied HANPP in biomass trade 2000 153 6.2. Measuring ecologically unequal exchange 155 6.3. Ecological footprints: Rule and exception 2006 155 6.4. Water footprint. Top ten plus Sweden exporters and importers 1997-2001 156 6.5. Top five global exporters of key agricultural products 2001-2003 170 7.1. Appropriated ecological space in the South 183 7.2. Distribution of ecological loads caused 1961-2000 and suffered until 2100 185 7.3. Verified land grabs 2000-2010 188 8.1. Net imports of fossil fuels and the land areas needed to replace it 2007 193 8.2. Total use of fossil and nuclear energy and the land areas needed to replace it 2007 194 8.3. Three agro-regimes since 1945 195 8.4. Cropland expansion 1700-1980 207 7 Figures 1.1. Mountain top removal 19 1.2. Global materials extraction 1900-2005. 32 2.1. Food price index 1990-2012 36 2.2. World energy supply 2009 41 2.3. Global use of biomass for energy c 2000 41 3.1. Sugarcane field treated with the Monsanto herbicide Roundup 65 3.2. Female cane cutter in the smoking field 70 3.3. The cutters’ performance is measured and registered by the foreman 73 3.4. Male cane cutter 74 3.5. The harvester cuts the cane into short stubs 77 3.6. The tractor loads the cane onto the trucks for transport to the mill 77 3.7. At the mill, the truck unloads and the cane is washed 78 3.8. Brazilian vegetation zones (biomes), c 1500 80 3.9. Transformations in the ownership of land over time in the Amazon 90 3.10. Where sugarcane is grown – and not – according to UNICA 94 3.11. An expanding universe of certification schemes – according to UNICA 99 3.12. Sugarcane field after burning and cutting 105 4.1. Historical terms-of-trade 1900-2008 with a forecast for 2015 115 5.1. Human appropriation of net primary production 2000 145 6.1. Ecological footprints of trade 2006 150 6.2. Water footprint balances of 13 world regions, average 1995–1999 151 6.3. Physical trade balances of industrialised, transition and developing countries 1962-2005 152 6.4. CO2 emissions embodied in trade 2001 for top 15 emitters globally 154 6.5. Physical trade balances 2005 157 6.6. Physical trade balances of 16 fast growing economies 2005 158 6.7. Carbon footprint in trade from net exporters to net importers 162 7.1. Shipbreaking Alang-Sosiya, India 2009 179 7.2. Shipbreaking Chittagong, Bangladesh 2000 179 7.3. Known and suspected routes of e-waste dumping 181 7.4. Guiyu e-waste dismantling, China 181 8.1. Land use change for agriculture 1980-2000 208 8 The Argument: The Return of Malthus This study deals with land-based resources and the role they play in today’s and tomorrow’s global socio-ecological metabolic regime.1 I set out recognizing that Thomas Robert Malthus was wrong when he posited a contradiction between population increase and agricultural growth, and I conclude that he may well be proven right in the future. It is a commonplace to say that Malthus was wrong, but too often his thoughts are dismissed out of hand without pondering why he erred. Thinking about the “why” helps us understand that he was not so much wrong as too late and too early in his prediction. He was too late, because he did not see that the global socio-ecological metabolism was about to shift from land-based resources to fossil fuels, which did away with the limit to agricultural growth, at least temporarily; and he was too early to witness that fossil fuels would come up against their own limits in terms of supply as well as in terms of global warming. The last two hundred years, say from 1798 when Malthus anonymously published his Essay on the Principle of Population, until 1992 when the 1 A society’s metabolic flows are variously labelled “socio-economic” and “socio-ecological” in the literature. Since I consider the economy a social entity, I feel that the concept “socio- economic” is redundant; “socio-ecological”, on the other hand, underlines that a society’s metabolism is best understood by studying the social (including the economy) as well as the ecological spheres. Hence, from now on, socio-ecological metabolic flows. The term “regime” also needs specifying. I use “regime” loosely throughout this study, as do many of the sources I rely on, giving it a fluid meaning. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines regime as “a mode of rule or governance”, and I use it as synonymous with ”system”, “profile” or “complex”, other equally imprecise but useful concepts. Thus, I use “regime” in relation to climate politics (climate regime), to describe the gradual shifts over time in the use of land (agro-regimes), as well as in order to capture the dominating energy and resource flows of a society (socio-ecological metabolic regime). 9 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, was launched, constitute an exception to the predominance of land-based resources, a respite created by reliance on fossil fuels. This way out of the Malthusian trap was complemented by the appropriation of space – land areas – overseas reached via trade and colonial occupation. This exceptional period could be prolonged if we replace oil by coal or other fossil fuels, but I will rule out this option for climate reasons. Likewise, I will disregard the appropriation of new forested land areas anywhere on the globe on the same ground: deforestation is one of the main drivers of climate change. As a consequence, we as a global society are limited to the land areas which already have been cleared for human use. With these self-imposed limitations, peak oil coexists with peak soil: today’s five billion hectares of crop lands and pastures have to suffice for the global socio-ecological metabolic needs of renewable resources for the production of food, feed, fibres, and fuels. However, to make do with this land area – five billion hectares – will not be easy as a number of drivers are increasing the quest for these very same land areas: economic, demographic, dietary, and environmental needs all operate in the same direction, and they all require more land areas to be met.

Load more