|
2. Aims and objectives
Food cultivation may not be appropriate on marginal land, for example because of public concerns over
the possible presence of soil contaminants. However, not only is marginal land a useful opportunity in
many places for biomass production, but the substitution of non-renewable inputs (such as fertilisers)
with renewable inputs (such as compost) further improves sustainability.
Other organic materials in the area such as agricultural and forestry residues can be a supplementary source of biomass.
Hence the combination of biomass cultivation and soil rehabilitation could be an integral part of land rehabilitation
and risk management in the long term. There may also be further benefits from this kind of land use, for example,
providing: a self-funding land management regime, economic activity to deprived areas, a long term improvement in
land values and environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration (substitution of fossil carbon resources,
and 'temporary' sequestration in managed soils).
Rejuvenate is exploring opportunities for combining marginal land reuse, organic matter recycling, risk management and biomass production.
Rejuvenate aims to:
- assess the feasibility of a range of possible approaches to combining risk based land management (RBLM)
with non-food crop land uses and organic matter reuse as appropriate;
- develop a decision support tool to identify marginal land for biomass reuse opportunities in the UK, Germany and Sweden; and
- assess how verification of their performance might be carried out and identifying what requirements remain for
future research, development and demonstration.
Back to top of page
3. What might be a successful approach?
The REJUVENATE team expects that a combination of considerations will allow an approximate ranking of the likely attractiveness
of different RBLM and non-food crop approaches on the basis of long term viability. The key factors are likely to be:
(a) maintenance of a productive soil (including whatever soil forming processes are needed at the beginning);
(b) local climatic and meteorological conditions;
(c) meeting crop requirements, particularly with a view to minimizing or substituting non-renewable inputs and inputs
that might have wider environmental impacts such a persistent pesticides;
(d) maximizing the "carbon value" of the soil management and production, considering permanent sequestration by the
substitution of non-renewable inputs by the biomass produced, and temporary sequestration within the managed site surface; and
(e) providing an effective means of combining non-food re-use with concerns about biodiversity and ecological impacts and
public amenity values (such as landscape and accessibility).
Back to top of page
4. The regulatory context and some questions for you!
Regulations governing restoration of marginal lands using organic waste materials vary from country to country, but two
considerations will be important: the quality of the biomass produced, and the effective management of risks to human health
and the wider environment.. The transfer of potential contaminants from the marginal land (or secondary organic matter inputs)
to biomass needs to be avoided, or at least be limited to levels tolerable by downstream biomass use (for energy, fuel or manufacturing feedstock).
This consideration is important both from a competitive product quality standpoint, and to avoid triggering a regulatory view that the
feedstock generated is a waste or its use of downstream processing needs special pollution control measures.
Risks to human health and the wider environment from the marginal land and secondary organic matter inputs must be managed to
local regulatory requirements or better. These risks might include for example toxic substance transfer to biomass, risks to
human health of toxic substances by direct contact with contaminated surfaces or via dust blow. There are also other environmental
risks such as nitrate migration to groundwater. Risk management needs will be highly site and material specific. It is also likely
that pragmatic risk management strategies will be adopted that will protect the feedstock and the environmental risks from the site,
but not necessarily lead to removal of toxic substances (except perhaps for those which are biodegradable). Pragmatism will be driven
by finding the approach that is most likely to win regulatory acceptance, and is most economically feasible, both of which are vital to
securing a rapid re-use of the marginal land.
We would be very interested to hear your opinions about the opportunities and hurdles for biomass production on degraded land, including
the re-use of organic matter. Some quick questions for you:
(a) Do you like the idea—what do you think are its strengths and opportunities?
(b) What would encourage you, or what would stop you, from producing biomass on degraded land—or using such biomass?
(c) Would you like to be kept informed about this project, or take part in some way—now or in a future project?
Please contact Prof. Paul Bardos and get involved!
Back to top of page
|
