Indirect Impacts (II) of Biofuels
Methodological Framework to Address II of Biofuels in the RSB Standard
Updated February 15, 2010
Indirect Impacts of Biofuels
When any provisioning service (e.g., food production, non-food production, animal grazing, fire wood
harvesting, hunting, etc.) is displaced for biofuel production1, such provisioning service must be
replaced, to a degree, by either extensification, intensification (yield increases) or substitution with
alternate products. The extent of such replacement is conditioned by the elasticity of the demand.
Extensification will lead to a land use change of the new geographical area (indirect land use change
or iLUC). Substituting products may have associated land use requirements and may lead to iLUC. In
addition, if the supply of the provisioning service decreases while the demand remains stable, this can
lead to a price increase and potentially food insecurity in poor regions; on the other hand, increased
utilization of co-products can increase availability and decrease price of food/feed commodities.
Key indirect impacts of biofuels include iLUC and effects on food security. iLUC’s potential impacts
include effects on conservation values & ecosystem functions & services and GHG emissions (from
land use change or changes in land use practices, e.g., fertilizer use). Indirect impacts can be positive
or negative. Food insecurity, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity are examples of negative impacts;
increased food security and reduced GHG emissions through increased carbon stocks are examples of
positive impacts.
Scope of the RSB Principles & Criteria (P&C)




Liquid biofuels (for now)
Biofuel supply chain (feedstock, biofuel, blending & distribution)
P&C apply at the individual operator-level (farmers, producers, blenders)
Voluntary standard2
Options for Addressing Indirect Impacts in the RSB P&C (all options)
1. Include an iLUC factor (CO2eq/MJ) calculation in the GHG Principle
2. Set minimum blend levels of “low risk” biofuel in the final biofuel product (which is a blend
of various biofuels)
3. Labeling biofuel product as “low/mid/high indirect impacts risk”
4. Encourage other practices that lower negative indirect impacts and / or promote positive II
5. Other
Challenges:
1
Indirect impacts are not only caused by biofuels but also by other human-induced activities, for example,
agricultural production and expansion of urban lands. This could also include idle land, double cropping, and
rotation strategies that produce additional crop without land conversion (Don Scott).
2
However, the RSB Standard requires compliance with GHG regulations in the markets where the biofuel is
sold
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
Document1.docx
Page 1/8
Last saved 8-Feb-16
1. How do you calculate iLUC factor for a particular biofuel pathway? For example, what
“shock” scenario do you choose? What assumptions do you use? What is the associated
uncertainty?
2. How do we define what is “low/mid/high risk” biofuel?
Practices, Processes, and Feedstocks that May Lower Negative Indirect Impacts of Biofuels /
Promote Positive II
The following practices, processes, and feedstocks may lower indirect impacts of biofuels, i.e., iLUC
and food insecurity.
1. Biofuel production on land not currently in use3. Because this does not displace human uses
it does not cause an ILUC. Clearly, expanding production on unused land does lead to a direct
land use change (LUC). The big difference is that direct LUC is controllable (e.g. through
impact assessments and certification) and can be limited to those areas where effects are
acceptable, while the effects of indirect LUC are uncontrollable. Often an area is not
completely “unused” and a sliding scale exists between this “unused land” concept and the
“intensification” concept, see next bullet.
2. Introducing energy crop cultivation without displacing the original land use through efficiency
and productivity increases above business-as-usual (BAU). Especially in developing
countries there is a significant potential for yield improvements. The positive effects are that
using this potential reduces agricultural land requirements. Potential negative environmental
or social impacts from intensification models have to be taken into consideration as well.
3. Introducing energy crop cultivation without displacing the original land use through
integration models for increased efficiency above BAU. Integration models involve coupling
different land use activities for maximized efficiency, such as using biofuel production
residues as cattle feed, thus reducing the required cattle grazing area. Another example is the
use of cover crops as a biomass source. Similarly, the efficiency of bioenergy usage can also
be enhanced by promoting cascading use of feedstock by using it as a source for food and
material before recovering the energy content4.
4. Biofuel production from residues. Current functions and uses of these residues must be well
understood, e.g. soil enhancing functions of agricultural residues.
5. Biofuel production from feedstocks with potentially small land use requirements per unit
output. This includes aquatic biomass such as algae. Specific sustainability aspects for such
production (e.g. potential leakage and contamination of natural environments) need to be
taken into account.
6. Biofuel production that generates co-products that displace other commodities.
7. Reduction of waste through the biofuel supply chain.
8. Farming models, e.g., contract farming5.
Has been referred to as “degraded land”, “marginal land”, “waste land” or “abandoned land”.
UNEP, Bioenergy Issue Paper Series, Issue No. 1, “Land Use, Land Use Change and Bioenergy”,
5
In “contract farming”, an operator (a large mill, a large feedstock supplier, a biofuels processor for instance)
will contract local farmers to grow feedstock. The contract farmers sign a contract to provide feedstock, they are
3
4
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
Document1.docx
Page 2/8
Last saved 8-Feb-16
9. Other?
Further discussion
Proving Additionality
Practices aimed at increasing yields/efficiencies must go beyond business as usual. In addition, the
following issues should be taken into account:


“Suppressed demand”: If increased availability of food leads to increased demand, that means
that demand was previously suppressed, for example if high prices were causing people to
hunger.
“Future demand”. Converting land for biofuel production makes this land unavailable for
future food production and thus would lead to “future indirect impacts” if future demand
increases would have converted that land to food production.
Yield Increases and Increased Efficiency Models
Increases of yields or processing efficiencies for food and feed that are not attributable to biofuels will
not “free up” any land. Rather, this is business as usual that slows the growth of land demand for
agriculture, but is independent of biofuels and biofuels should not get any credit for this (Joe Fargione,
personal communication, January 20, 2010).
However, if improved infrastructure and other factors create markets for biofuel crops, this may lead
to yield increases above business as usual, because farmers now have a market for their product that
did not exist before. Such yield increases would qualify, in our minds, as an indirect impacts reduction
practice.
Even if yield increases take place, “this scheme displaces uses that could occur (if land is upgraded to
biofuel capability), so iLUC is back, with no way to attribute it to the fuel. Why not upgrade land to
grow food instead of biofuel, and get negative ILUC?” (Michael O’Hare, personal communication,
January 15, 2010).
However, it can be argued that some instances of improved efficiency would not have occurred under
a business as usual conditions; for example, an agricultural integration project may have been
triggered by biofuel development, in which case it could be argued that such feedstock sourcing
practice does results in reduced risk for iLUC (Richard Plevin, personal communication, January 18,
2010).
Land previously not in use
An example of this category is land that has been fallow for a number of years (CDB, 2010). In
addition, land is rarely not “in use”; a process must be implemented to identify and reduce the risk of
potentially displacing existing uses (IUCN).
usually given a set price, and often the operator provides them with loans or inputs like fertilizer, seeds, and in
some cases logistical support, like tractors, etc. Contract farming is also known as “outgrower schemes”
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
Document1.docx
Page 3/8
Last saved 8-Feb-16
“If land can economically produce a biofeedstock for fuel […] then from that moment (when the
biofeedstock is viable) it almost certainly could grow a food crop, and growing the biofuel instead of
the food/feed/fiber will cause ILUC […] Biofuel from formerly waste land is biofuel from land that
could produce food and should have an ILUC carbon "charge" like any other biofuel.” (Michael
O’Hare, personal communication, January 20, 2010).
Producers should only be rewarded if they can prove positive contributions as a result of the land use
change (e.g., increase productivity, restore previously degraded land) (Avery Cohen, personal
communication, January 27, 2010).
How do we Quantify Low/Mid/High Risk of Indirect Impacts?
Example: Semi-quantitative method
[a. Parameters that directly affect the risk of indirect impacts]
[b. Semi-quantitative method to convert parameters into a 0-100 scale of indirect impacts risk]
[c. Definition of what constitutes low/mid/high risk, e.g., 0-20 low, 20-80 mid, 80-100 high]
“Low/Mid/High-Risk” Biofuel
Parameters that affect risk of indirect impacts:







% biofuel feedstock from land currently not used
% biofuel feedstock from increased yield
% biofuel feedstock from increased productivity
% biofuel feedstock from residues
Relative yield vs. unit cultivated area (low/mid/high)
% of equivalent feedstock / biofuel gain from biofuel feedstock co-products (% based on land
use requirements of displaced products)
% of equivalent feedstock / biofuel gain from reduced waste throughout biofuel supply chain
Food Security
Investment in agriculture generally increases food security by increasing yield, soil fertility, efficiency
of harvest, and food distribution (Don Scott, personal communication, January 26, 2010).
Proposed methodology
1. Option A: For agricultural feedstock, calculate an ILUC value for greenhouse gas emissions
on the assumption that the use of 1 hectare of agricultural land for biofuel production entails
the use of roughly xx hectare as agricultural land (CDB, 2010). Option B: For agricultural
feedstock, assign 100% indirect impacts risk value on the assumption that the use of xx
hectare of agricultural land for biofuel production entails the use of roughly xx hectare as
agricultural land.
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
Document1.docx
Page 4/8
Last saved 8-Feb-16
2. Vary the application of the iLUC factor (Option A) or % indirect impacts risk (Option B)
according to the following:
a. Yield and productivity increases in excess of business as usual (BAU). This includes
productivity increases through agricultural integration models. This also includes a
reduction of waste through the biofuel supply chain.
i. credit proportionally to %yield/productivity increase above BAU
b. Feedstock production on degraded land / land not currently in use6 / polluted land /
land not fit for food production
i. credit proportionally according to % land falling into this category
c. Co-products
i. Credit according to their displaced land use requirement;
3. For feedstock production from residues: calculate iLUC value based on the substitution
effects of the residue. Some residues may be true waste, in which case a zero iLUC value can
be assigned.
Other methodological considerations:
 Producers’ indirect impacts risk will be taken into account in the RSB Operator Risk
Assessment, which has an impact on frequency of audits and other certification aspects.
 Producers who do not take actions to reduce the risk of causing iLUC should not qualify for
certification.
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
Document1.docx
Page 5/8
Last saved 8-Feb-16
Other relevant information
“Approximately two-thirds of changes in land use, expressed as loss of forestation, nature reserves and
natural grassland, is related to subsistence farming and firewood gathering” (FAO, 2005). Poverty and
the need for food are both major drivers of deforestation. Strategies that address poverty and (rural)
development are fundamental to preventing large-scale land conversion. On this point, the cultivation
of perennial crops (grasses and trees) can be beneficial, as they store more carbon in the soil than
annual agricultural crops do. Moreover, environmental performance improves and thanks to mixed
types and planting (agroforestry systems), biodiversity benefits. This way, bioenergy crops can help to
enhance biodiversity and reduce poverty” (CDB, 2010).
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
Document1.docx
Page 6/8
Last saved 8-Feb-16
APPENDICES
A1. Existing (Published) iLUC Factors:
1. Corn ethanol,
a. 27 g/MJ-fuel, US, 30 years annualized, iLUC (Source: Hertel et al, 2010)
b. 30 g/MJ-fuel, US, 30 years annualized, iLUC (Source: LCFS, March 2009)
c. 104 g/MJ-fuel (Searchinger et al., 2008)
2. Sugarcane ethanol,
a. 46 g/MJ-fuel, Brazil, 30 years annualized, iLUC (Source: LCFS, March 2009)
3. Soybean biodiesel
a. 62 g/MJ-fuel, US, 30 years annualized, iLUC (Source: LCFS, December 2009a)
Parameters affecting iLUC factor modeling in GTAP and other models:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Baseline year (LCFS, March 2009)
Fuel production increase (LCFS, March 2009)
Land use change (LCFS, March 2009)
Crop yield elasticity (LCFS, March 2009)
Elasticity of crop yields with respect to area expansion (LCFS, March 2009)
Elasticity of harvested acreage response (LCFS, March 2009)
Elasticity of land transformation across cropland, pasture and forest land (LCFS, March 2009)
Trade elasticity of crops (LCFS, March 2009)
Production period (O’Hare)
A2. Parameters that Affect iLUC and Food Security
iLUC (Sources: E4Tech, December 2009; Ecofys, 2008)
1. Feedstock production and processing
a. Feedstock crops:
i. Average Yield increases of feedstock crop
1. Note: “producing feedstock from underutilized land” would be
addressed by this parameter
ii. Area increases of feedstock crop (assess yield of new land)
iii. Type of displaced land use
1. Note: “producing feedstock from degraded land” would be addressed
by this parameter
iv. Substitution of feedstock crop (by other products) in non-biofuel market
(determine types of substituting products [substituting feedstock crop]and
iLUC impacts)
b. Non-agricultural feedstock: determine types of substituting products (substituting nonag feedstock)and iLUC impacts
c. Reduced waste / increased efficiency of supply chain for feedstock
d. Avoidance of iLUC from co-products (determine types of substituted products and
iLUC impacts)
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
Document1.docx
Page 7/8
Last saved 8-Feb-16
i. Note: “producing biofuels from agricultural-bioenergy integration models”
falls in this category (e.g., integration of sugarcane and cattle fed with
sugarcane residues)
2. Biofuel production
a. Average Yield increases of biofuel production
b. Reduced waste / increased efficiency of supply chain
c. Avoidance of iLUC from co-products (determine types of substituted products and
iLUC impacts)
3. Biofuel blending, distribution
a. Reduced waste / increased efficiency of supply chain
Food Security
1.
2.
3.
4.
Price of food
Availability of food
Income of population
Income of (biofuel) farmers
REFERENCES
CDB, 2010: Committee for biomass sustainability matters, The Netherlands. “Recommendation on
Indirect Land Use Change”, January 2010. http://www.corbey.nl/index.asp?page_id=150
E4tech, December 2009: “Causal-descriptive modelling of the indirect land use change impacts of
biofuels”, December 2009
Ecofys, 2008: “Practical solutions to prevent ILUC in the RTFO”, Ecofys Draft for Workshop Oct
2008
Hertel et al, 2010: Hertel, Golub, Jones, O’Hare, Plevin, Kammen:“Global Land Use and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Impacts of U.S. Maize Ethanol: Estimating Market-Mediated Responses”, BioScience,
March 2010
LCFS, March 2009: “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons: Proposed Regulation to Implement
the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Vol 1”, March 5, 2009
LCFS, December 2009a: “Detailed California-Modified GREET Pathway for Conversion of Midwest
Soybeans to Biodiesel”, December 14, 2009
Searchinger et al., 2008: “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through
Emissions from Land-Use Change”, Science 29 February 2008, Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1238 - 1240
Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels
Document1.docx
Page 8/8
Last saved 8-Feb-16