presented at the Joint IEA Bioenergy ExCo/Nordic Energy Workshop “Biofuels for Transport – Part of A Sustainable Future?”

Oslo, May 14, 2008

Uwe R. FritscheCoordinator, Energy & Climate Division

Öko-Institut e.V. (Institute for applied Ecology), Darmstadt Office

Environmental Issues of Biofuels

private, non-profit environmental research, founded in 1977; staff > 100 in 2006; local to global scope of (net)work

Öko-Institut

Research Divisions

Energy & Climate

Industry & Infrastructure

Nuclear &Plant Safety

Products & Material Flows

Governance & Environmental

Law

Freiburg OfficeDarmstadt Office

Berlin Office

Sustainable Energy

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 … 2100

Glo

ba

l Pri

ma

ry E

ne

rgy

in E

J/y

ea

r

EE

geoth.

solar

wind

biomass

hydro

nuclear

gas

coal

oil

solar transition

energy efficiency

bioenergy challenge

Source: IEA (2007), IPCC (2007), UNPD (2004) and WBGU (2003)

Sustainable Bioenergy

Source: IEA (2007), and Best et al. (2008)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

2005 2030-REF 2030-AP

Pri

mar

y E

ner

gy

Su

pp

ly in

m

illio

n t

on

nes

oil

equ

ival

ent

[MtO

E]

-50

100

250

400

550

700

850

Pri

ma

ry E

ne

rgy

Su

pp

ly in

E

xa

Jo

ule

[E

J]

transport fuels other

World Energy Outlook Global Bioenergy Potential

0

20000

low high

pasture land

arable land

degraded land

residues, wastes

0

20000

low high

pasture land

arable land

degraded land

residues, wastes

low high

• Bioenergy could have positive impacts:

– GHG reduction (through fossil-fuel substition);

– more agrobiodiversity; soil carbon increase, less erosion …

• But impacts could also be negative:

– GHG from cultivation, soil carbon, life-cycle, direct + indirect land-use changes

– Loss of biodiversity from land-use changes, water use, agrochemicals, erosion…

Environmental Issues

Consider all Bioenergy Flows

Source: www.eea.europa.eu

Biodiversity & Climate Change

Global Biomass Potential

Source: IIASA, Kraxner 2007, Rokiyanskiy et al. 2006

Global Biodiversity

Source: UNEP IMAPS

Global Loss of Forests

Source: FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment

Endangered Biodiversity

Countries with highest number of globally threatened birds

Source: Lambertini 2006

Biodiversity & Agriculture

Number of Species

New agro policies

Biodiversity and HNV Farming

Source: JRC/EEA 2006 (Proceedings Sust. Bioenergy in the Mediterranean)

Examples of HNV farming which could become „extinct“ due to direct or indirect intensification:Dehesas/Montados in Portugal/Spain

Land Use and Biodiversity

Areas of high natural conservation value (HNV)

Degraded land and “idle” land

Used landUnused land

Protected area

Potential for biomass: no competition with food, no displacement, increase organic C in soils, but: risk for biodiversity if not properly mapped

Map “key” biodiversity areas

Protected Areas (PA) HNCV Areas (not yet PA) Forests and wetlands

Global and national land cover maps

- GIS data based on LCCS, update available in March 2008 (FAO, 300 m resolution)

- National land cover mapping (high resolution)- Change detection possible for monitoring

PA+HNV areas are “no-go” other areas might be suitable for biomass development, depending of further qualification (water, social issues…)

satellite monitoring possible

Screening with criteria

Water and Soil

• Water Use of (Bioenergy) Farming Systems

– Model and data research ongoing

– Spatial data are key, but (yet) unclear

• Soil Impacts

– Mapping of biophysical soil properties

– Qualitative Impact Definition (for farming systems/AEZ)

– Quantification?

More from FAO BIAS Project (mid-2008)

Which Standards?

Land Use/Biodiversity + GHG reduction have global scope + global conventions “WTO compatible“ EU currently implements these standards in mandatory certification schemes for biofuels

Standards: EU

• RES + FQ Directive proposals establish mandatory sustainability requirements for production of biofuels

• Minimum GHG reduction, incl. CO2 from direct land-use change

• Protection of natural habitats

• No “relevant” reduction of biological/ecosystem diversity

35% reduction

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

kg C

O2-

eq. p

er G

J b

iofu

el

direct land use change

production of biomass

transport of biomass

conversion step I

transport betw. conv. steps

conversion step II

transport to admixture

322 kg CO2-Eq./GJ

fossil reference: gasoline: 85 kg/GJ diesel: 86.2 kg/GJ

Ethanol from

corn sugar cane

FAME from

rapeseed oil soy bean oil palm oilwheat

tropicalrainforest

humid savannah

grasslandgrassland

GHG Defaults incl. direct LUC

Indirect LUC

Source: based on Girard (GEF-STAP Biofuels Workshop, New Delhi 2005)

Food & feed crops

Protected& otherhigh-nature value areas

Energy crops/ plantations

Loss of biodiversity

Forests, wetlands

Deforestation,carbon release

„unused“ land(marginal, degraded)

?

GHG from indirect LUC

• Displacement = generic problem of restricted system boundaries

– Accounting problem of partial analysis („just“ biofuels, no explicite modelling of agro + forestry sectors)

– All incremental land-uses imply indirect effects

• Analytical and political implications

– Analysis: which displacement when & where?

– Policy: which instruments? Partial certification schemes do not help, but have „spill-over“ effects

Indirect GHG: „iLUC Factor“

Accounting for CO2 from indirect land-use change using the “iLUC factor“ (aka “risk adder“) in GHG balances of biofuels*

*= By-product allocation using lower heating value; iLUC factor is zero for residues/wastes and for biocrops from unused/degraded lands

biofuel route, life-cycle max med min max med minRapeseed to FAME, EU 260 188 117 201% 118% 35%palmoil to FAME, ID 84 64 45 -3% -25% -48%soyoil to FAME, Brazil 101 76 51 17% -12% -41%sugarcane to EtOH, Brazil 48 42 36 -44% -52% -59%maize to EtOH, USA 129 101 72 50% 17% -16%wheat to EtOH, EU 144 110 77 67% 28% -11%SRC/SG to BtL, EU 109 75 42 26% -13% -51%SRC/SG to BtL, Brazil, tropical 34 25 17 -61% -71% -80%SRC/SG to BtL, Brazil, savannah 59 42 25 -32% -51% -71%

relative to fossil diesel/gasoline,

including conversion/by-products, without direct LUC including conversion/by-products

kg CO2eq/GJ with iLUC factor

EtOH sugarcane RME (rapeseed in EU)

A conservative: conversion of savannah

B real: replacing soy cropping

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

kg C

O2-

Eq

. per

GJ

Bio

fuel

PME Palm oil

Direct LUC:

A

B

A

A

C

C

C

B

B

C= B + iLUC factor

indirect LUC:

D

D: total

Direct LUC:

C =zero iLUC factor

indirect LUC: Direct LUC:

C= B + iLUC factor

indirect LUC:

land use change

production of biomass

transport of biomass

conversion step I

transport betw. conv. steps

conversion step II

transport to admixture

A conservative: conversion trop. rain forest

B real: conversion of degraded land

A conservative: conversion of pasture

B real: replacing wheat crops (small reduction of soil C)

BSO Default

Practical example (non-default)

D

D

D: total

D: total

GHG from LUC: Default vs. real

Conclusions

• GHG emissions become key issue in biofuels trade; certification needed up from 2010 for EU market access; will become linked to CDM

• GHG must include (real) direct land-use changes, and GHG from indirect LUC need „risk hedging“

• Methods for verification of GHG from direct LUC need elaboration and harmonization

• GHG limits for biofuels also reduce (but not avoid) risk of negative biodiversity impacts; mapping of HNV areas (also in degraded lands) needed

• Soil/water restrictions need more attention, but bioenergy also opportunity

Conclusions (2)

• So far, only few developing countries deal with life-cycle GHG emissions of biofuels, and biodiversity + social issues (BR, MZ…)

• Need to actively support countries in dealing with sustainability standards, and certification; role UNEP/GBEP Task Forces

• Biogas/biomethane have low GHG profile, but often ignored need more attention

Sustainable Biomass

Good practice: Agroforestry in Southern Ruanda – food, fiber and fuel from integrated systems

More than Jatropha…

Source: JRC/EEA 2006 (Proceedings Sust. Bioenergy in the Mediterranean)

More Information

www.oeko.de/service/biowww.oeko.de/service/bio