Agro-forestry offers another possible approach to reduce the negative impacts
arising from land competition between bioenergy production systems and ecosystem
services (Duguma et al. 2014; Mbow et al. 2014). In agro-forestry systems, farming
practices are adapted to incorporate the multi-functional use of inputs and soil to
support tree growth on farms, including ecosystem services such as biological
nitrogen fixation (Nair et al. 2009). Feedstock production through agro-forestry
systems can be combined with improved stoves to reduce pressure on forests and
put fuelwood consumption on a more sustainable path (Iiyama et al. 2014).
Apart from reducing land competition, landscape approaches can also improve
bioenergy value chains by emphasising the utilisation of downstream products and
factoring them into the initial design of integrated systems (Dale et al. 2013). Such
approaches might incorporate broader bioeconomy and land use management perspectives when planning programmes and supporting investments to facilitate transitions away from traditional biomass and subsistence agriculture (Johnson 2017;
van de Ven et al. 2019). Furthermore, combining conservation efforts with incomegenerating activities across integrated landscapes can further offer co-benefits and
shift practices away from slash and burn agriculture Rosenzweig and Tubiello 2007;
Palm et al. 2013).
When using a landscape lens, bioenergy transitions essentially become a crosssectoral issue where linkages, synergies and conflicts across agriculture, forestry and
bioenergy systems must be addressed (Dale et al. 2013; Johnson and Jumbe 2013;
Iiyama et al. 2014). Landscape approaches can incentivise the adoption of various
good production practices that can facilitate the useful synergies and reduce the
environmental and food security trade-offs of bioenergy production (Milder et al.
2008; Ackom et al. 2013; Kline et al. 2016; see Table 2.4). It must also be noted that
the competition for land and biomass between different needs (i.e. food, feed, fibre,
fuel) is not necessarily negative. On the contrary it can have positive impact by
improving the overall land and resource utilisation efficiency towards a sustainable
bioeconomy (Johnson and Virgin 2010; Johnson 2017). The issue is thus not to
prevent land use competition but rather to ensure that such competition does not
unduly impact the more vulnerable segments of society.
2.5 Foster Synergies between Climate Change Mitigation
and Adaptation
As discussed above, modern bioenergy transitions entail multiple processes across
different scales and sectors, which collectively have diverse sustainability impacts
(Sects. 2.2 and 2.4). Similarly, bioenergy transitions can have important ramifications for climate change mitigation and adaptation in SSA. Although such synergies
between climate change adaptation and mitigation could offer an incentive to further
promote modern bioenergy transition in the continent, they have, so far, been
relatively underappreciated in the SSA context. In this sense, in those contexts that
64
F. X. Johnson et al.
arising from land competition between bioenergy production systems and ecosystem
services (Duguma et al. 2014; Mbow et al. 2014). In agro-forestry systems, farming
practices are adapted to incorporate the multi-functional use of inputs and soil to
support tree growth on farms, including ecosystem services such as biological
nitrogen fixation (Nair et al. 2009). Feedstock production through agro-forestry
systems can be combined with improved stoves to reduce pressure on forests and
put fuelwood consumption on a more sustainable path (Iiyama et al. 2014).
Apart from reducing land competition, landscape approaches can also improve
bioenergy value chains by emphasising the utilisation of downstream products and
factoring them into the initial design of integrated systems (Dale et al. 2013). Such
approaches might incorporate broader bioeconomy and land use management perspectives when planning programmes and supporting investments to facilitate transitions away from traditional biomass and subsistence agriculture (Johnson 2017;
van de Ven et al. 2019). Furthermore, combining conservation efforts with incomegenerating activities across integrated landscapes can further offer co-benefits and
shift practices away from slash and burn agriculture Rosenzweig and Tubiello 2007;
Palm et al. 2013).
When using a landscape lens, bioenergy transitions essentially become a crosssectoral issue where linkages, synergies and conflicts across agriculture, forestry and
bioenergy systems must be addressed (Dale et al. 2013; Johnson and Jumbe 2013;
Iiyama et al. 2014). Landscape approaches can incentivise the adoption of various
good production practices that can facilitate the useful synergies and reduce the
environmental and food security trade-offs of bioenergy production (Milder et al.
2008; Ackom et al. 2013; Kline et al. 2016; see Table 2.4). It must also be noted that
the competition for land and biomass between different needs (i.e. food, feed, fibre,
fuel) is not necessarily negative. On the contrary it can have positive impact by
improving the overall land and resource utilisation efficiency towards a sustainable
bioeconomy (Johnson and Virgin 2010; Johnson 2017). The issue is thus not to
prevent land use competition but rather to ensure that such competition does not
unduly impact the more vulnerable segments of society.
2.5 Foster Synergies between Climate Change Mitigation
and Adaptation
As discussed above, modern bioenergy transitions entail multiple processes across
different scales and sectors, which collectively have diverse sustainability impacts
(Sects. 2.2 and 2.4). Similarly, bioenergy transitions can have important ramifications for climate change mitigation and adaptation in SSA. Although such synergies
between climate change adaptation and mitigation could offer an incentive to further
promote modern bioenergy transition in the continent, they have, so far, been
relatively underappreciated in the SSA context. In this sense, in those contexts that
64
F. X. Johnson et al.