Environmental Issues of Biofuels
Uwe R. Fritsche
Coordinator, Energy & Climate Division
Öko-Institut e.V. (Institute for applied Ecology), Darmstadt Office
presented at the Joint IEA Bioenergy ExCo/Nordic Energy Workshop
“Biofuels for Transport – Part of A Sustainable Future?”
Oslo, May 14, 2008
Öko-Institut
Research Divisions
Governance &
Environmental
Law
Energy &
Climate
Industry &
Infrastructure
Freiburg Office
Darmstadt Office
Berlin Office
Nuclear &
Plant Safety
Products &
Material Flows
private, non-profit environmental research, founded in 1977;
staff > 100 in 2006; local to global scope of (net)work
Sustainable Energy
2000
Global Primary Energy in EJ/year
1800
energy efficiency
1600
EE
geoth.
1400
solar
wind
1200
1000
solar transition
biomass
hydro
800
nuclear
600
gas
coal
bioenergy challenge
oil
400
200
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
…
2100
Source: IEA (2007), IPCC (2007), UNPD (2004) and WBGU (2003)
20000
Sustainable Bioenergy
transport fuels
other
20000
20000
World Energy Outlook
850
Global Bioenergy Potential
18000
0
700
arable land
degraded land
16000
14000
residues, wastes
550
Primary Energy Supply in
ExaJoule [EJ]
Primary Energy Supply in
million tonnes oil equivalent [MtOE]
pasture land
12000
pasture land
10000
arable land
400
degraded land
8000
residues, wastes
250
6000
4000
low
high
100
2000
0
-50
0
2005
2030-REF 2030-AP
Source: IEA (2007), and Best et al. (2008)
low
low
high
high
Environmental Issues
•
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…
Consider all Bioenergy Flows
Biodiversity & Climate Change
Source: www.eea.europa.eu
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
Examples of HNV farming which could
become „extinct“ due to direct or
indirect intensification:
Dehesas/Montados in Portugal/Spain
Source: JRC/EEA 2006 (Proceedings Sust.
Bioenergy in the Mediterranean)
Land Use and Biodiversity
Unused land
Used land
Areas of high natural conservation value (HNV)
Protected area
Degraded land
and “idle” land
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)
- 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
Global and national land cover maps
Screening with criteria
PA+HNV areas are “no-go”  other areas might
be suitable for biomass development, depending
of further qualification (water, social issues…)
satellite monitoring possible
Forests and wetlands
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
GHG Defaults incl. direct LUC
322 kg CO2-Eq./GJ
direct land use change
production of biomass
200
kg CO2-eq. per GJ biofuel
180
transport of biomass
conversion step I
humid savannah
transport betw. conv. steps
160
140
tropical
rainforest
conversion step II
transport to admixture
fossil reference:
gasoline: 85 kg/GJ
diesel: 86.2 kg/GJ
120
100
grassland
grassland
80
35%
reduction
60
40
20
0
wheat
corn
Ethanol from
sugar cane
rapeseed oil soy bean oil
FAME from
palm oil
Indirect LUC
Forests, wetlands
Deforestation,
carbon release
Protected
& other
high-nature
value areas
Food &
feed crops
Energy crops/
plantations
?
Loss of
biodiversity
„unused“ land
(marginal, degraded)
Source: based on Girard (GEF-STAP Biofuels Workshop, New Delhi 2005)
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*
kg CO2eq/GJ with iLUC factor
biofuel route, life-cycle
Rapeseed to FAME, EU
palmoil to FAME, ID
soyoil to FAME, Brazil
sugarcane to EtOH, Brazil
maize to EtOH, USA
wheat to EtOH, EU
SRC/SG to BtL, EU
SRC/SG to BtL, Brazil, tropical
SRC/SG to BtL, Brazil, savannah
including conversion/by-products,
without direct LUC
max
med
min
260
188
117
84
64
45
101
76
51
48
42
36
129
101
72
144
110
77
109
75
42
34
25
17
59
42
25
relative to fossil diesel/gasoline,
including conversion/by-products
max
med
min
201%
118%
35%
-3%
-25%
-48%
17%
-12%
-41%
-44%
-52%
-59%
50%
17%
-16%
67%
28%
-11%
26%
-13%
-51%
-61%
-71%
-80%
-32%
-51%
-71%
*= 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
Direct LUC:
indirect LUC:
A conservative:
conversion of
savannah
indirect LUC:
A conservative:
conversion trop.
rain forest
C= B + iLUC
factor
D: total
B real: replacing
soy cropping
Direct LUC:
D: total
kg CO2-Eq. per GJ Biofuel
180
D: total
land use change
A
160
production of biomass
BSO
Default
transport of biomass
140
conversion step I
transport betw. conv. steps
A
120
conversion step II
Practical
example
(non-default)
100
80
60
transport to admixture
C
A
D
B
C
20
0
C= B + iLUC
factor
B real: replacing
wheat crops
(small reduction
of soil C)
200
40
indirect LUC:
A conservative:
conversion of
pasture
C =zero
iLUC
factor
B real: conversion
of degraded
land
Direct LUC:
B
B
C
EtOH sugarcane
D
PME Palm oil
D
RME (rapeseed in EU)
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/bio