environmental dimensions of bioenergy development les dimensions environnementales du développement...

Elizabeth Marshall, Marca Weinberg, Stephanie Wunder and Timo Kaphengst

A major impetus for the developmentof bioenergy in the US and Europehas been the search for alternativesto fossil fuels, particularly those usedin transportation. While bioenergymay have the potential to be moreenvironmentally friendly in terms ofreduced greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions and pollution it may haveunintended negative environmentalconsequences, particularly relating tochanges in land use. This articleoutlines environmental concernslinked to bioenergy production. Itcompares the situation in the US andEU in terms of environmental impactsand policy approaches used toaddress these. A concluding summaryoutlines key issues to be consideredin the environmentally sustainabledevelopment of bioenergy.

Bioenergy and the environment

Biomass can be used to generatevarious forms of bioenergy, includingelectricity, heat and biofuels (liquidand gaseous). Bioenergy can beproduced from almost any kind ofbiomass: traditional commodities,such as corn (maize), rape, soybeansand sugar crops; a variety of energycrops, such as switch grass; woodybiomass from forestry and wood-based industries; farm, municipal andindustrial organic waste; and marineresources, e.g. seaweed.Consequently, the environmentalimpacts of bioenergy production canvary enormously. Biomassproduction that places additionaldemands on scarce naturalresources, particularly land andwater, and increases nutrient,

pesticide and water use can havenegative implications forenvironmental quality, biodiversityand GHG emissions. In contrast,bioenergy production can generateenvironmental benefits, e.g. whenanimal manure is used to generatebiogas rather than being applieddirectly to the land or when foodwaste is turned into energy ratherthan entering landfills.

Increased demand for bioenergyfeedstocks has implicationsthroughout the agricultural sectordue to potential competition withother crops for land and other inputs(see Figure 1 for a biofuel example).Changes in crop mix or croprotations can generate environmentalimpacts if land is reallocated fromfood and fibre production to biomassfor energy. An importantenvironmental effect can arise if landthat was previously used for otherpurposes, such as grassland,wetlands, or forests or to supportvulnerable habitats is brought intoproduction. A recent study indicatesthat direct land use changesgenerated by the production ofbiofuels can have a significant impacton GHG balances and otherenvironmental factors, such aseutrophication of water bodies(Börjesson and Tufvesson, 2011).

Effects can also be generated in otherregions as a result of changes inmarket prices or international trade(Marshall et al., 2011). Indirect landuse change (ILUC) has been thefocus of considerable debate, since itsinclusion in bioenergy assessmentscan reduce or even reverse apparent

environmental benefits, particularlyreductions in greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions in comparison to fossilfuels. For example, if increased USmaize production for ethanol reducessoybean production (and exports),changes in world prices may providean incentive to increase soybeanproduction on land previously usedas pasture in Brazil, which in turncould push cattle farming into theAmazon. The link between maizeproduction and the loss of Amazonforest would not be direct, but someform of relationship, reverberatingthrough land and commodity marketsmay exist nonetheless. Characterisingthe nature of that relationship, andquantifying the implications, is one ofthe greatest challenges in evaluatingthe environmental implications ofbiofuel policies.

Environmental implications ofbioenergy development in theUS

US bioenergy development haslargely centred on the production ofethanol from maize. Malcolm et al.(2009) use a simulation model toexamine the environmentalimplications of meeting US goals forethanol production for 2015 using asuite of indicators. The resultssuggest that farmers will respond tobiofuel targets by increasingapplications of nitrogen fertiliser andpesticides, which is likely toexacerbate nutrient leaching and run-off and increase soil erosion.Predicted impacts vary spatially andare associated with increases in totalcrop acreage as well as changes in

Environmental Dimensions of BioenergyDevelopment

Les dimensions environnementales du developpement des bioenergies

Okologische Dimensionen in der Entwicklung im Bereich Bioenergie

ª 2011 The Authors EuroChoices 10(3)ƒ 43

EuroChoices ª 2011 The Agricultural Economics Society and the European Association of Agricultural Economists

crop mix and management intensity.Figure 2 demonstrates the effects fornitrogen run-off to surface water.Results suggest substantial differencesin magnitude (illustrated by the sizeof the circles) and intensity relative tothe change in land use. Circles abovethe line indicate an intensificationeffect (the increase in nitrogen run-off is greater than that in cropacreage) and vice versa.

While early biofuels policies in the USfocused on liquid biofuels from ‘firstgeneration’ feedstocks such as maize,current policies and research effortsare being directed to ‘secondgeneration’ cellulosic technologies,‘third generation’ processes thatconvert feedstocks directly intogasoline, and the use of energy cropsand residues for electricityproduction. Because cellulosic energycrops are not currently produced on

a commercial scale, assessment ofpotential environmental impacts islargely speculative. Second generationtechnologies offer potentialenvironmental benefits over grain-based biofuel, including higher yieldper acre from a diverse array offeedstocks and perennials requiringless intensive management thanannuals. Perennial energy crops mayalso be more wildlife friendly. Cropresidues, such as wheat straw andcorn stover, can also providepotential low-cost and lower-impactenergy feedstocks. As they are co-produced with other crops they‘share’ responsibility for inputs usedand impacts generated. But removingcrop residues can have significantenvironmental effects, includingchanges in soil carbon, increased run-off and soil erosion, and increasedfertiliser applications to replace

nutrients lost through residueremoval.

The production of bioenergyfeedstocks competes for land in otheruses. One potential source of land isthat enrolled under the ConservationReserve Program (CRP). The CRP payslandowners to retire more than 31million acres (� 12.5 million hectares)of environmentally sensitive cropland.Increased demand for biofuels mayinduce landowners to bring some ofthis land back into production, whichcould negatively affect environmentalservices such as the control of soilerosion and provision of wildlifehabitat. Increasing rental rates willlikely be required under this voluntaryland retirement programme tomaintain enrolled acreage and theecosystem services it provides if highcrop prices persist (Hellerstein andMalcolm, 2011).

ƒ‘‘Les effets negatifs

et non desires du

developpement des

bioenergies sur

l’environnement, en

particulier ceux lies aux

modifications de

l’utilisation des terres,

sont difficiles a prevoir

et a controler.,,US policy approaches toaddressing potentialenvironmental impacts

To date, the most sophisticatedefforts to integrate an environmentaldimension into US biofuel policieshave been associated with theapplication of GHG reductionrequirements under California’s LowCarbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), andthe Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)component of the federal EnergyIndependence and Security Act (EISA)(see the article on biofuels in thisissue). The LCFS requires that thecarbon content of transportation fuels

Figure 1: Environmental impact of biofuel demand in the US

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

44ƒEuroChoices 10(3) ª 2011 The Authors


used in California be reduced by 10per cent by 2020. The RFS mandatesblending of fixed volumes ofrenewable fuels on an increasingannual schedule, with requirementsfor meeting category-specific GHGreduction thresholds ranging from20–60 per cent relative to fossil fuels.Ensuring compliance with the GHGrequirements drove parallel efforts by

the California Air Resources Board(CARB) and the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA), to designcarbon quantification and accountingprotocols for the production and useof biofuels. Both CARB and theUSEPA estimate that GHG emissionsfrom global indirect land-use changeinduced by changes in domestic cropproduction patterns are a significant

fraction of the total GHG emissionsassociated with biofuels (Figure 3).The figure also illustrates emissionsfrom ethanol production comparedto gasoline. It is notable that an‘average’ US ethanol plant poweredby biomass using 2012 productionand conversion technologies isestimated to generate more GHGemissions than gasoline.

ƒ‘‘Unbeabsichtigte

negative Umwelt-

auswirkungen in der

Entwicklung im Bereich

Bioenergie, besonders

im Hinblick auf

Landnutzungsander-

ungen, lassen sich nur

schwer voraussagen

und kontrollieren.,,US biofuel support policies alsoinclude compliance requirements forother, non-GHG-related indicators.EISA, for instance, requires thatplanted crops and crop residues usedas feedstocks be harvested from landthat during 2007 was activelymanaged, non-forested, and hadalready been cleared or cultivated.Planted trees and tree residues mustbe harvested from non-federal landthat has already been cleared and isactively managed. EISA also requiresUSEPA to assess and report toCongress every 3 years on actual orpotential environmental impacts ofmeeting the requirements of the RFS,including issues related to air, soil,and water quality; water availability;and ecosystem health and biodiversity(USEPA, 2011).

Environmental implications ofbioenergy development in theEU

Agriculture is the major user of landin the EU occupying approximately 50per cent of total land area (EU-27).Compared to the US, there is greaterdiversity in the domestic production

Figure 2: Impact of biofuel demand on nitrogen run-off in the US

Note: Size of circle represents the absolute change in the indicator, demonstratinghow much a region contributes to the national increase. The circle’s position, relativeto the diagonal line, indicates how much of the change in nitrogen run-off is causedby increases in total acreage and how much is influenced by changes in crop mix andmanagement.Source: Malcolm et al. (2009).

Debris from fire break/fuel reduction project will be used at a bioenergy plant in nearby Anderson.Copyright: Gary Kramer



of bioenergy feedstocks. The leadingdomestic sources are oil crops(mostly oilseed rape) for biodieselwith approximately 4.45 million ha in2006 ⁄ 2007, cereals (515,000 ha) andsugar beet (53,000 ha) for bioethanolas well as maize (386,000 ha) mainlyused in biogas plants. Perennialcrops, such as short rotation coppiceaccounted for less than 1 per cent ofEU bioenergy production in2006 ⁄ 2007.

Oilseed rape is mainly producedusing high nutrient and pesticideinputs with consequent risks toground and surface water. Yet, itperforms better in terms of soilerosion than maize, whose cultivationinvolves long periods of uncoveredsoil. Recommendations on bioenergycrop mixes are made by theEuropean Environment Agency basedon the natural endowment of EUregions. An expansion of perennialcrops has been recommended for theNorthern parts of Europe. In theMediterranean zone, crops withrelatively low water needs arefavoured. Throughout the EU, cereals

(excluding wheat) are generallypreferred over oilseed rape and maizefrom an environmental perspective.

One problem often associated withthe cultivation of energy crops in theEU (especially with rapeseed andmaize) is a reduction in crop

rotations and the use ofmonoculture, with increasing risk ofsoil loss and declining biodiversity.Expanding biofuel production in theEU is placing additional demands onlimited land resources andgenerating competition with food,feed, fibre and other renewablesources of energy. Estimates of theland suitable for growing energycrops in the EU range from 20 to 59million ha for a selection of studiesfrom 2001 to 2006 (Dworak et al.,2008).

Expanded EU biofuel use also hassignificant environmental impacts inother countries as biofuel imports arebeing generated to meetconsumption targets. Projections to2020 suggest that the bulk of directand indirect land use change will becaused by the production offeedstocks for biofuels used intransportation. Biodiesel and biogasfor electricity generation or heatingare likely to play a minor role. Basedon national renewable energy actionplans, Bowyer (2010) estimates thatmore than 50 per cent of thebioethanol and 41 per cent ofbiodiesel by 2020 are likely to comefrom imports from Brazil, South EastAsia and various African countries –where in many cases environmentalstandards are likely to be lower thanin the EU or only weakly enforced. Arecent IFPRI study (IFPRI, 2010) thatincludes global direct and indirect

-20000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

GHGem

ission

s(gCO

2eq/mmBtu)

Fuel produc on

Tailpipe

Other (fuel and feedstocktransport)

Interna onal farm inputs and fertN2O

Domes c farm inputs and fertN2O

Interna onal land use change

Domes c land use change

Interna onal rice methane

Domes c rice methane

Interna onal livestock

Domes c livestock

Net emissions

Figure 3: US EPA analysis of GHG emissions for various sources of fuel with2012 technologies and projected 2022 technologies

Source: EPA (2010).

Severe sheet and rill erosion on highly erodible soils in Cass County, Iowa after heavy rains. The field had no protection against soil erosion. Copyright: Lynn Betts



land use change concludes that goingbeyond a 5.6 per cent share ofbiofuels in transport fuel in the EUcould cause significant environmentalharm globally.

EU bioenergy policy and themitigation of environmentalimpacts

The heart of Europe’s climate andenergy policy is the EU RenewableEnergy Directive of 2009, which setstargets for the use of renewableenergy and for bioenergy. It specifiesthat the EU as a whole must ensurethat 20 per cent of total energyconsumption will be from renewablesources by 2020. It specificallypromotes the use of renewable energyin the transport sector, requiring 10per cent of all transport fuels bedelivered from renewable sources by2020 in all Member States, withprovisos that production is sustainableand that second generation fueltechnologies are available.

In order to ensure sustainability thedirective requires that all biofuelsmust reduce GHG emissions by atleast 35 per cent compared to fossilfuel, increasing to 50 per cent in 2017and 60 per cent in 2018. Biomasscannot be derived from naturalforests, protected areas andgrasslands with high biodiversity

value and may not be produced onland with high carbon stocks, such aswater-rich areas (e.g. peatlands) orpermanently forested areas (see thearticle on biofuels in this issue). Theauditing of sustainability is done byEU Member States, which can defineadditional requirements. Variousschemes for biofuel certification havebeen developed, such as the ISCC(International Sustainability andCarbon Certification). As of June 2011seven schemes had been approved bythe European Commission.

ƒ‘‘Unintended

negative environmental

effects of bioenergy

development,

particularly relating to

land use change, are

difficult to predict and

hard to control.,,Since mandatory consumption targetswere agreed for biofuels, there hasbeen growing doubt about theirenvironmental implications and thishas affected public support. Concernshave been raised by studies showingthat the EU methodology forassessing sustainability does not

capture indirect land use change.Institutions such as the EuropeanEnvironment Agency as well asnumerous environmental NGOs arecritical of the current biofuel policy,demanding stronger sustainabilityrequirements and a reduction orsuspension of the 10 per centconsumption target for 2020. TheEuropean Commission is currentlyworking on an improved assessmentof indirect land use change (ILUC),which may result in amendments toEU legislation (see the article onbiofuels by Miranda, Swinbank andYano in this issue).

A parallel European policy debate –although not as prominent as theILUC discussion centres on theextension of sustainability criteria tothe use of solid and gaseous biomasssources in electricity, heating andcooling. The European Commission iscurrently evaluating the need forlegislative proposals involving bindingand specific sustainability criteria forbiomass used for electricitygeneration and heating. A report isexpected to be issued on this by theend of 2011.

Balancing direct and indirectenvironmental impacts

In addition to other concerns, suchas the security of energy supplies, the

Residue management on cornfield showing 70% residue for erosion control. Copyright: Jeff Vanuga



search for environmentally friendlyalternatives to fossil fuels, particularlythose used in transportation, hasbeen a factor in the development ofbioenergy in the US and Europe.However, unintended negativeenvironmental effects of bioenergydevelopment, particularly relating toland use change, are difficult topredict and hard to control. Althougheconomic theory suggests that themost efficient way to address thesewould be to include the full costs ofexternalities in energy prices, inpractice this would be very difficult toachieve. In light of this, recentexperience on both sides of theAtlantic suggests that concerns aboutadditional environmental pressuresfrom bioenergy policies might beaddressed through the followingmeasures.

• An integrated evaluation ofenvironmental effects: while mostof the effort has been directed toestimating the effect of biofuels onGHG emissions, a comprehensiveevaluation would consider otherenvironmental impacts. Theseinclude effects on soil productivity,water quantity and quality,biodiversity and ecosystemresilience, and wildlife habitatquality and quantity. Such anevaluation would also be appliedto the production and use of allforms of biomass, not just biofuels.

• Derivation of a comprehensivepicture of the environmentalimpacts of national consumptiontargets for bioenergy, including theeffects of imports and indirect landuse change.

• Revision of national targets in thelight of a comprehensiveevaluation of sustainability.

• International harmonisation inaccounting for ILUC and GHGemissions: national targets will, tosome extent, ‘export’ environmentalimpacts to other countries.

• A focus on integrating energy,agricultural, environmental andinternational trade policies todevelop the use of renewables in asustainable way.

Disclaimer

Views expressed in this article arethose of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect those of theEconomic Research Service or the USDepartment of Agriculture.

Further Reading

n Börjesson, P. and Tufvesson, L.M. (2011). Agricultural crop-based biofuels – resource efficiency and environmental performanceincluding direct land use changes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19: 108–120.

n Bowyer, C. (2010). Anticipated Indirect Land Use Change Associated with Expanded Use of Biofuels and Bioliquids in the EU – An

Analysis of the National Renewable Action Plans. Institute for Environmental Policy, London.

n Dworak, T., S. Schlegel, T. Kaphengst, C. Laizet, M. Guilet, E. Kaditi, F. Brouwer, G. Woltjer, P. Nowicki and Z. Karaczun (2008). EU

Bioenergy Policies and their effects on rural areas and agriculture policies. Report to the European Commission. Berlin: EcologicInstitute. Available online at: agrinergy.ecologic.eu ⁄ download ⁄ Survey_Impacts_Biomass_production_EU.pdf.

n European Environmental Agency (2007). Estimating the Environmentally Compatible Bioenergy Potential from Agriculture. EEATechnical Report No. 12 ⁄ 2007, Copenhagen.

n Hellerstein, D. and S. Malcolm (2011). The Influence of Rising Commodity Prices on the Conservation Reserve Program. EconomicResearch Report 110, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available online at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR110/ERR110.pdf.

n IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) (2010). Global Trade and Environmental Impact Study of the EU Biofuels

Mandate. Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/biofuelsreportec.pdf.

n Malcolm, S., M. Aillery and M. Weinberg (2009). Ethanol and a Changing Agricultural Landscape. Economic Research Report 86,Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err86.

n Marshall, E., M. Caswell, S. Malcolm, M. Motamed, J. Hrubovcak, C. Jones and C. Nickerson (2011). Measuring the Indirect Land-Use

Change Associated With Increased Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Review of Modeling Efforts: Report to Congress, AdministrativePublication No. AP-054, Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Available online at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP054/.

n US Environmental Protection Agency (2010). EPA Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Renewable Fuels Standard Program (RFS2),Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf.

n US Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Biofuels and the Environment: the First Triennial Report to Congress (External

Review Draft), Washington, DC. Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=217443 .

Elizabeth Marshall, Economic Research Service, USDA, USA.Email: [email protected]

Marca Weinberg, Economic Research Service, USDA, USA.Email: [email protected]

Stephanie Wunder, Ecologic Institute, Germany.Email: [email protected]

Timo Kaphengst, Ecologic Institute, Germany.Email: [email protected]



summary

summaryEnvironmentalDimensions ofBioenergy Development

A major impetus for thedevelopment of bioenergy in

the US and Europe has been thesearch for alternatives to fossil fuels,particularly those used intransportation. While bioenergy hasthe potential to be moreenvironmentally friendly, particularlyin terms of reducing greenhouse gasemissions, it may also haveunintended negative consequences.Characterising and quantifying therelationship between bioenergyproduction and the environmentposes a considerable challenge. Muchof the focus has been on theimplications of expanded use ofbiofuels. The US and EU have dealtwith the challenges posed by biofuelpolicies in different ways and thereare concerns that the accounting ofenvironmental effects remainsincomplete. The development ofintegrated assessments covering suchfactors as soil productivity, waterquantity and quality, biodiversity andecosystem resilience, and wildlifehabitat, in addition to greenhouse gasemissions could provide a morecomprehensive picture of theenvironmental implications ofbioenergy development. Incombination with an improvedassessment of the effects of indirectland use change in other countriesand an expansion of sustainabilitycriteria to biomass production ingeneral, this could help in integratingenergy, agricultural, environmentaland international trade policies todevelop renewable energy in asustainable way.

Les dimensionsenvironnementales dudeveloppement desbioenergies

La recherche d’alternatives auxcarburants fossiles, en

particulier ceux utilisés dans lestransports, a créé un élan majeurpour le développement desbioénergies aux États-Unis et enEurope. Les bioénergies peuventdevenir plus respectueuses del’environnement, en particulier entermes de réduction des émissions degaz à effet de serre, mais ellespeuvent également avoir desconséquences négatives non désirées.Caractériser et quantifier la relationentre la production de bioénergies etl’environnement représente un déficonsidérable. On s’est beaucouppréoccupé des incidences d’uneaugmentation de l’utilisation desbiocarburants. Les États-Unis etl’Union européenne ont abordédifféremment les défis posés par lespolitiques en matière debiocarburants et l’on s’inquiète que laprise en compte des effetsenvironnementaux reste incomplète.Le développement d’évaluationsintégrées considérant, en sus desémissions de gaz à effet de serre, desfacteurs tels que la productivité dessols, la quantité et la qualité de l’eau,la biodiversité et la résistance desécosystèmes, et les habitats naturelspourrait offrir une image pluscomplète des incidencesenvironnementales du développementdes bioénergies. Combiné à uneévaluation améliorée des effets deschangements indirects d’usage desterres dans les autres pays et àl’emploi d’un plus grand nombre decritères de durabilité pour laproduction de biomasse en général,ceci pourrait aider à intégrer lespolitiques en matière d’énergie,agriculture, environnement etcommerce international pour undéveloppement des énergiesrenouvelables qui se fasse de manièredurable.

OkologischeDimensionen in derEntwicklung im BereichBioenergie

In den USA und in der EUbesteht eine der

Haupttriebfedern für die Entwicklungim Bereich Bioenergie unter anderemin dem Wunsch nach Alternativen zufossilen Brennstoffen, vor allem fürden Bereich Transportwesen. Obwohlsich Bioenergie alsumweltfreundlicher erweisen könnte– besonders im Hinblick auf dieSenkung von Treibhausgasemissionen– könnten damit auch unbeabsichtigtenegative Auswirkungen einhergehen.Es stellt eine besondereHerausforderung dar, die Beziehungzwischen Bioenergieerzeugung undUmwelt zu identifizieren und zuquantifizieren. Bei den Auswirkungendrehte es sich bislang überwiegendum die verstärkte Verwendung vonBiokraftstoffen. Die USA und die EUhaben sich den Herausforderungender Biotreibstoffpolitik unterschiedlichgestellt, und es werden Bedenkenlaut, dass die Bilanzierung derUmweltauswirkungen unvollständigbleibt. Die Entwicklung einesintegrativen Bewertungsmodells, dasneben Treibhausgasemissionen auchFaktoren wie Flächenproduktivität,Wassermenge und -beschaffenheit,Biodiversität und Widerstandsfähigkeitdes Ökosystems, sowie Lebensraumfür Wildtiere aufgreift, könnte einumfassenderes Bild von denUmweltauswirkungen in derEntwicklung im Bereich Bioenergieliefern. Ein nachhaltiger Weg hin zuerneuerbaren Energien könnte durchdie Integration von Energie-, Agrar-,Umwelt- und internationalenHandelspolitiken entwickelt werden,wenn ebenfalls die Auswirkungenindirekter Landnutzungsänderungenin anderen Ländern und grundsätzlicheine Ausweitung der Kriterien derNachhaltigkeit bezogen auf dieErzeugung von Biomasseberücksichtigt würden.



environmental dimensions of bioenergy development les dimensions environnementales du développement...

Documents