presented at the Joint IEA Bioenergy ExCo/Nordic Energy Workshop Biofuels for Transport – Part of A Sustainable Future? Oslo, May 14, 2008 Uwe R. Fritsche Coordinator, 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 Office Darmstadt Office Berlin Office

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

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

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: 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 S ust. 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. CO 2 from direct land-use change Protection of natural habitats No relevant reduction of biological/ecosystem diversity

35% reduction kg CO 2 -eq. per GJ biofuel 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 oilpalm oil wheat tropical rainforest humid savannah grassland GHG Defaults incl. direct LUC

Indirect LUC Source: based on Girard (GEF-STAP Biofuels Workshop, New Delhi 2005) Food & feed crops Protected & other high-nature value areas Energy crops/ plantations Lossof 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 CO 2 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

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 S ust. Bioenergy in the Mediterranean)

More Information