environmental and social aspects - news - iinas...el orc system biogas-maize ice 106 biogas from...
TRANSCRIPT
researchsponsored by
presented at the UNIDO GEF Biofuel ConferenceVienna, March 18-19, 2013
GEF Targeted Research Project: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuel Production in Developing Countries
Environmental and Social AspectsUwe R. Fritsche
Scientific Director, IINASInternational Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy
(until March 2012 @ Öko-Institut)
researchsponsored by
IINAS Research Context• Sustainability criteria for all bioenergy www.biomassfutures.eu
• Joint Workshop series on extending the EU RED to forest bioenergywww.iinas.org/Work/Projects/REDEX/redex.html
• GBEP Indicators for Sustainable Bioenergy: http://www.globalbioenergy.org
• Resource-Efficient Bioenergy in EU27 (EEA report – forthcoming)
• Possibilities of sustainable increase of wood energy productions and its impact on developing and emerging countries for GIZ (ongoing)
• Sustainability of certified solid wood bioenergy feedstock supply chains: Ecological, operational and international policy perspectives. IEA Bioenergy Task 40 and Task 43 (ongoing)
researchsponsored by
Environment (non-GHG)– built on work for FAO (BIAS), BMU/UBA, EC and UNEP– key was to substantiate developing country scope
Social (Food, Land, Labor, Gender)– built on earlier work for BMU– using results from FAO BEFS + Thailand case study
Stationary Application (extra presentation)– comparator case to biofuels for transport– built on UNEP work and IEA BUBE– quantitative comparisons, database + tool
Oeko-Institut Work Components
researchsponsored by
Environment (indicators)
This projectwas source ofGerman co-funding fromBMU
researchsponsored by
• Resource and land use efficiency (due to limited potential)
• Air emissions (acidification, PM10 – local and regional)
• Biodiversity (“no-go” and management practices)
• Soil (organic C content, erosion)
• Water (spatially disaggregated)
Environmental Non-GHG Indicators
researchsponsored by
Environment (biodiversity)report gives general approach+ data sources for biodiversitymapping(UNEP-WCMC + IUCN)
refined in BMU projects for selected countries (BR, CN, ID, ZA)
national data for MZ (GIZ project)
approach transferable
researchsponsored by
Environment (biodiversity)
researchsponsored by
Environment (biodiversity)Example of the ENV indicator templatesfrom the GBEP Sustainability Task Force
(finalized in Nov. 2011, seeGBEP report on sustainabilityindicators )
researchsponsored by
Environment (biodiversity)Environmental
Component Applicable
to GO CHECK STOP
Conservation of areas of significant biodiversity value
All setting except those using wastes
Proven that cultivation land is not
located in area of significant
biodiversity value (GIS data + on-site
assessment)
If located in such an area:
management plan to ensure
cultivation/harvest do not interfere
with nature protection purposes
If located in such an area and
management plan is missing or not
detailed enough to demonstrate non-
interference
Promotion of agricultural practices with low negative impacts on biodiversity
Notapplicable
for low-inputsettings
Proven that cultivation practices
with low negative impacts on
biodiversity are applied (description
of management practices)
Description of management practices not
detailed enough
Description of management
practices missing
researchsponsored by
Land use of bioenergy systems
electricity from land use m2/GJel Note
el-mix EU27 0,29 Excluding transmission and distribution lignite 0,10 Lignite in Germany, new steam-turbine powerplant coal 0,06 import coal (surface mining), new steam-turbine powerplant nuclear 0,04 German supply mix, steam-turbine powerplant natural gas 0,02 EU supply mix incl. imports, new combined-cycle powerplant hydro 0,03 100 MWel run-of-river plant wind onshore 0,26 10 x 2 MWel onshore wind park solar-PV 2,7 1 kWel (peak) system, full land use solar-CSP 1,9 80 MWel concentrating solar power system in Southern Spain geothermal 1,2 1 MWel ORC system
biogas-maize ICE 106 Biogas from maize in internal combustion engine cogeneration plant (energy allocation)
SRC cogen 112 Woodchips from short-rotation coppice in steam-turbine cogeneration plant (energy allocation)
bio-SNG SRC cogen 164 Biomethane from short-rotation coppice in gas-turbine cogeneration plant (energy allocation)
bio-SNG SRC CC 128 Biomethane from SRC in CC powerplant Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8; ORC= organic rankine cycle; ICE = internal combustion engine; SRC = short-rotation coppice; CC = combined-cycle
researchsponsored by
Biofuel land use efficiencyBiofuels life-cycle land use efficiency for cassava-EtOH settings GJbiofuel/ha
Country setting input level cultivation 2010 2020MZ 42 low smallholders 13MZ 43 intermediate smallholders 19TZ 44 low smallholders 19TZ 45 intermediate smallholders 38TH 46 low smallholders 64TH 47 intermediate smallholders 70MZ 48 low smallholders 19MZ 49 intermediate smallholders 38MZ 50 high plantation 48TZ 51 low smallholders 64TZ 52 intermediate smallholders 70TZ 53 high plantation 87TH 54 low smallholders 102TH 55 intermediate smallholders 108TH 56 high plantation 140
Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8
researchsponsored by
Biofuel land use efficiency
Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8
Biofuels life-cycle land use efficiency Jatropha FAME GJbiofuel/haCountry setting input level cultivation 2010 2020
TZ 26 high plantation 22TZ 27 intermediate plantation 19TZ 28 low smallholder 8TZ 29 intermediate smallholder 14ML 30 low smallholder 7ML 31 intermediate smallholder 11IN 32 low smallholder 12IN 33 intermediate smallholder 18TZ 34 high plantation 36TZ 35 intermediate plantation 31TZ 36 low smallholder 9TZ 37 intermediate smallholder 17ML 38 low smallholder 8ML 39 intermediate smallholder 13IN 40 low smallholder 14IN 41 intermediate smallholder 20
researchsponsored by
Biofuel land use efficiency
Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8
Biofuels life-cycle land use efficiency for palmoil FAME GJbiofuel/ha
Country setting input level cultivation 2010 2020
ID 19 intermediate smallholder 113ID 20 high plantation 120CO 21 intermediate smallholder 133MY 22 high plantation 140ID 23 high plantation 150MY 24 high plantation 150
Biofuels life-cycle land use efficiency for sugarcane EtOH GJbiofuel/ha
Country setting input level harvest 2010 2020
BR 8 intermediate mechanised 131BR 9 high manual 197MZ 11 intermediate manual 147MZ 12 high manual 193BR 13 intermediate mechanised 138BR 14 high mechanised 207MZ 16 intermediate mechanised 131MZ 17 high mechanised 230
researchsponsored by
Life-Cycle air emissions– generic Data from EEA, GIZ study, EM (based on US EPA
data plus a few data from developing countries)
Environment (non-GHG)
researchsponsored by
Biofuels air emissions
Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8
g/MJbiofuel
Biofuel life-cycle air emissions setting country SO2eq PM10
Soybean SVO 1 AR 0.159 0.017Soybean FAME 2 AR 0.154 0.016Sugarcane EtOH 8 BR 0.192 0.036
10 BR - 2G 0.203 0.03911 MZ 0.247 0.168
Oil palm SVO 18 ID 0.087 0.083Oil palm FAME 19 ID 0.093 0.080
21 CO 0.092 0.07222 MY 0.131 0.073
Jatropha SVO 25 TZ 0.245 0.065Jatropha FAME 26 TZ 0.476 0.058
30 ML 0.259 0.06532 IN 0.258 0.067
Cassava EtOH1 42 MZ 0.361 0.05944 TZ 0.410 0.061
SRC Eucalyptus EtOH2 57 MZ 0.681 0.045SRC Poplar BtL 63 UA 2.243 0.011Switchgrass EtOH2 67 AR 0.593 0.049Switchgrass BtL 68 AR 0.394 0.030Rice straw EtOH2 71 CN 0.521 0.039Wheat straw EtOH2 72 UA 0.448 0.034diesel, EU DE 0.048 0.004diesel, generic IN 0.282 0.043diesel, syncrude DE 0.359 0.015gasoline, EU DE 0.057 0.004gasoline, generic IN 0.104 0.021
researchsponsored by
GBEP Soil IndicatorEnvironment (soil)
no hi-res data availabilityfor SOC (see BIAS report)
erosion needs to beconsidered also, but low dataavailability
researchsponsored by
Environment (soil)Environmental
Component applicable
to GO CHECK STOP
Productive Capacity of Soil All settings
except those using
wastes; not
applicable for
conversion
Soil conservation measures are in
place guaranteeing that SOC will not
decline within the applied crop
rotation scheme
No measurements for positive SOC balance. Proof needed that cultivation or
residue extraction will not negatively affect SOC balance over crop-rotation
period.
Cultivation area on land with low SOC
(e.g., < 1%; threshold
depending on soil conditions)
Soil Erosion
Area is located in region with low
erosion risks (e.g., flat slope) and low risk of salinization (e.g., climate and
salt content of ground water
Site has risks of erosion, proof
needed on suitable soil protection
measures adapted to the site conditions
No soil conservation measures planned
researchsponsored by
• some data from joint UNEP/OEKO workshop July 2010 in Paris and respective report (2011)
• metrics require data on watershed level (see GBEP)• global data availability discussed in FAO BIAS study
Environment (water)
researchsponsored by
Environment (water)
Environmental Component
Applicable to
GO CHECK STOP
Water scarcity risk, catchment and downstream All settings
except those using wastes
No irrigation, or irrigated cultivated land not in risk area and water management plan exists
No irrigation, no data on risk area; water management plan exists
Irrigation, nodata on risk areas
Water contamination
Local/regional legal requirement met
Local/regional legal requirement unclear
Nolocal/regional legal requirement
researchsponsored by
Challenges and recommendations• lack of empirical/representative data for some life-
cycles and settings - future GEF activities should compile more comprehensive data on non-GHG emissions, and regionalized water use
• Spatially explicit data on land use, biodiversity, soil and water (high resolution maps) are key - enabling activities crucial for future GEF funding
• Priority for GEF project portfolio: best practices demonstrated by project developers
• indirect effects (biodiversity, water): see ILUC
Environment (non-GHG)
researchsponsored by
Contribution to overall project goal– 2nd “pillar” besides environment & economy
Research activities – work based on FAO (BEFS) and IFPRI; – PhD from JGSEE
Collaborating DC Partner: – JGSEE (Thailand)
Challenges– causal relation to biofuels, indirect effects– spatial/social disaggregation
Social Indicators
researchsponsored by
GBEP food security indicators used– full quantitative analysis on national level only, requires
extensive modeling (see FAO BEFS)simplified indicators for specific settings (qualitative
ranking of risk) – interaction agriculture/biofuels with income, employment,
access etc. (see FAO BEFS country studies)
Quantification of employment impacts – based on direct employment data– national input/output tables needed for indirect effects:
data availability restricted for developing countries
Social Indicators
researchsponsored by
Social: Food Security
Social Component
applicable to GO CHECK STOP
Food security –
tier 1 (feedstock
level)
All settings
Non-ediblefeedstock grown on marginal land not
in competition with food/feed, or
intercropping or agroforestry or
unused/underused marginal land
Non-ediblefeedstock grown on
marginal land for which
competition is unclear
Edible feedstock, ornon-ediblefeedstock
grown on land in competitionwith food/feed
researchsponsored by
Social: Land TenureSocial
Component Applicable to GO CHECK STOP
Land rights
All settings except those using wastes
Titles, contracts or other formal registration of land tenure held by actors in a national or local registry, traditional land rights are recognized and upheld/defended by formal legal system
Titles, contracts or other formal registration of land tenure subject to negotiations
No titles, contracts or other formal registration of land tenure available, no or unclear recognition of traditional land rights
Public land allocation
Procedure follows due process Procedure unclear
No procedure if dispute between public and traditional land access/ownership/rights
Dispute settlement
Effective access to fair adjudication, including court system or other dispute resolution processes
Access to settlement unclear; adjudication system possibly unfair, any open disputes are unresolved
No access, no evidence of effective and fair judicial processes can be demonstrated
Inclusion of landless people
No restriction on access Access unclear No access, uncompensated
displacement risk
researchsponsored by
Social: Labor
Social component Applicable to GO CHECK STOP
ILO standard on wages
All settings
Fully implemented in country, enforced & monitored on project level
Implemented in country, enforcement & monitoring on project level unclear
Not implemented in country or noenforcement & monitoring on project level
ILO standards on labour
ILO standards on discrimination
ILO standards on health & safety
Scheme of small-scale farmers
Smallholder or outgrowerschemes
Centralised outgrowerscheme, use of non-local workforce
researchsponsored by
Social: EmploymentDirect employment
Feedstock Country jobs/ha/yr jobs/TJPalm ID 0.38 3.4Palm MY 0.30 2.4Sugarcane BR 0.27 1.6Sugarcane MZ 0.14 0.9Sugarcane MZ 0.23 1.2Sugarcane MZ 0.23 1.5Sugarcane MZ 0.23 1.1
Jatropha IN, low input 0.11 9.7
Jatropha IN, intermed. 0.28 16.5Cassava MZ, low input 0.32 24.9Cassava MZ, intermed. 0.37 19.3Cassava TZ 0.24 9.3Cassava TZ 0.28 7.2Cassava TH 0.11 1.8Cassava TH 0.11 1.6
researchsponsored by
Challenges and recommendations• Food security needs national data, project-level
approach should be tested• Land tenure: VGGT (Voluntary Guidelines on Tenure
of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security - CFS) should be tested
• Labor: ILO standards sufficient• Employment: data for developing countries lacking,
GEF should consider enabling activities• Overall: priority for residues/wastes
Social Indicators