ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle for the US Department of Energy

Biomass Resources & Sustainability Assessment

in the United StatesIEA Bioenergy Biomass Roadmap

Workshop on Sustainability Governance Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris, France

25 April, 2017

Keith L. Kline (presenter), Matt Langholtz, Virginia Dale and Rebecca Efroymson

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Acknowledgements to Fahran Robb, US Department of Agriculture Kristen Johnson, US Department of Energy

This presentation reflects analyses and opinions of the authors. Errors or omissions are the responsibility of the presenter.

2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Key points• Biomass Resources: see BT16 in references (separate presentation)• Multiple governance systems already in place• No single method

– Variety of contexts and feedstocks– Many, small, private operators

• Focus research on priorities• Participatory process is

important to define priorities• Clarify intent of certification• Science-based assessments

– Identify good practices– New standards– Complement existing regulatory frameworks– Support improving quantification and communications for

• Adaptive management • Continual improvement

3 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Status • Systems are in place for

– monitoring, reporting, and regulating – stewardship of public forests– assure sustainable forest management – public and privately owned lands

• Examples– Forest inventories and analysis – Public lands conservation; – Monitoring harvests; tracking; permitting and/or training programs; – State-driven programs

• “best management practices”• "State Forest Action Plans“• 1,500 state government entities found to implement forest policies and programs (Ellefson

et al. 2002)• Forestry and Agriculture

– Laws and regulations related to air, water, and endangered species– Complexity due to multiple layers of authorities: federal, state, local, tribal

4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Examples of laws and regulations

5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. DOE Commitment to SustainabilityBioEnergy Technology Office (BETO) 2016 Strategic Plan

• Vision: A thriving and sustainable bioeconomy fueled by innovative technologies

• Mission: Developing and demonstrating transformative, sustainable bioenergy technologies for a prosperous nation

• Sustainability Goal: Understand and promote the positive economic, social, and environmental effects and reduce the potential negative impacts of bioenergy production activities.

• Effects and indicators are context-specific (Efroymson et al. 2011).

6 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Understanding and Enhancing Bioenergy Sustainability

Air Quality Soil QualityLandscape

Design

Water Quantity

and QualityBiologicalDiversity

Analyzing biofuel pathways to quantify progress towards reducing lifecycle emissions, and fossil energy use.Climate issues involve more than GHG emissions (latent heat, albedo…)

Developing strategies and tools for producing biomass while maintaining or enhancing soil quality.Practices for “beneficial LUC” to improve soil qualities and carbon storage capacity over time

Advancing landscape design approaches that increase biomass production while maintaining or enhancing ecosystem services and socio-economic benefits.Promote multiple benefits by considering patterns processes and relationships; Iowa project example

Assessing the water resource use and water quality of bioenergy production, and investigating opportunities for bioenergy crops to improve water quality. Special attention to freshwater: our most endangered eco-systems

Investigating relationships between bioenergy crops and biodiversity, and engaging with experts to understand and promote practices that conserve wildlife and biodiversity.Incudes LUC and effects in other nations, food security…

7 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Quantifying, enhancing, and communicating the value proposition of bioenergy

Depends on context (Efroymson et al. 2013). Analysis involves: Quantifying effects using scientific approaches

Providing decision-relevant, credible information Designing bioenergy systems that add value

8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

BT16 volume 2

• Previous Billion-Ton studies focus on quantifying potential biomass supplies.

• Vol 2 provides initial estimates of potential environmental implications and data gaps.

• Online resource to enable additional analyses and inform future R&D.

9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Primary Objectives of BT16 volume 2• Assess potential environmental

effects of land-management changes in select 2017 and 2040 agricultural and forestry supply scenarios simulated in BT16volume 1

• Focus: Crop residues, energy crops, and forest biomass.

• Identify actions and research that could enhance the benefits while minimizing potential negative impacts with respect to environmental indicators.

10 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

BT16 volume 2 Outline

Volum

e 2

Land Allocation and Management

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Agriculture and Forestry)

Water QualityWater Quantity

Water Consumption Footprint(Agriculture and Forestry)

Biodiversity (Agriculture and Forestry)

Air Emissions (Agriculture and Forestry)

Qualitative Analysis of Environmental Effects of Algae Production

Climate Sensitivity of Agricultural Feedstock Productivity

Strategies to Enhance Environmental Outcomes

January 2017

11 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

BT16 Vol 2 Contributors

USDOE Bioenergy Technologies OfficeKristen Johnson, Mark Elless, Alison Goss EngBT16 Feedstock Assessment Methods and Focal ScenariosCraig Brandt, Matthew Langholtz, Maggie Davis, Keith Kline, Laurence Eaton, Erin Webb, ORNLBryce Stokes, Allegheny Science & TechnologyChad Hellwinckel, University of TennesseeLand-use Change (LUC) Keith Kline, Maggie Davis, Laurence Eaton, Rebecca Efroymson, Craig Brandt, Mike Hilliard, ORNLJennifer Dunn, ANLGreenhouse Gas Emissions and Soil Organic CarbonChristina Canter, Zhangcai Qin, Hao Cai, Jennifer Dunn, Michael Wang, ANLD. Andrew Scott, USFSWater Quality-AgricultureHenriette Jager, Latha Baskaran, Jasmine Kreig, Craig Brandt, Mike Hilliard, ORNLMay Wu, Miae Ha, ANLWater Quality-ForestryBenjamin Rau, Carl Trettin, Devendra Amatya, Ernest Tollner, USFSAugustine Muwamba, U GeorgiaSudhanshu Panda, Univ of North Georgia

Project Leads and Editors: Rebecca Efroymson, Matthew Langholtz, Kristen Johnson, Bryce Stokes

Water Quantity-ForestryGe Sun, Liangxia Zhang, Benjamin Rau, USFSKai Duan, NC State UniversityWater FootprintMay Wu, Miae Ha, Sashi Yalamenchili, ANLAir QualityEthan Warner, Yimin Zhang, Daniel Inman, Annika Eberle, Dylan Hettinger, Alberta Carpenter, Garvin Heath, Dylan Hettinger, NRELBiodiversity-AgricultureHenriette Jager, Gangsheng Wang, Jasmine Kreig, Ingrid Busch, Nathan Sutton, Mark Bevelhimer, ORNLBiodiversity-ForestryDeahn Donner-Wright, USFSDarren Miller, Weyerhaeuser CompanyBently Wigley, NCASIAlgaeRebecca Efroymson, Matt Langholtz, Melanie Mayes, ORNLAndré Coleman, Mark Wigmosta, PNNLMolly Pattullo, University of TennesseeClimate Change SensitivityBen Preston, Matt Langholtz, Laurence Eaton, ORNLChris Daly, Mike Halbleib, Oregon State UniversitySynthesis, Interpretation, and Strategies to Enhance Environmental OutcomesRebecca Efroymson, Matt Langholtz, Anthony Turhollow, Keith Kline, Virginia Dale, ORNLKristen Johnson, DOECristina Negri, ANLKristen Johnson, DOEIan Bonner, MonsantoKnowledge Discovery Framework and VisualizationAaron Myers, Mike Hilliard, ORNL

12 | Bioenergy Technologies Office | Not for Public Distribution

New information products

• Fact-sheets– Overview of 2016 Billion-Ton

Report, Volume 2– Land-Use Change Implications– Effects on Air Emissions– Effects on Water Quality, Quantity,

and Consumption– Effects on Biodiversity– Effects of Algae Production

• Virtual Symposium– Presentations on each chapter– Hosted on the Bioenergy KDF:

https://bioenergykdf.net

– Register for a KDF account to receive news blast with details.

• Data Sets– Available on Bioenergy KDF– https://bioenergykdf.net/billionton2016vo

l2

13 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Chapter 3 – Land Allocation and Management

Geospatial distribution of increases in perennial cover under the base-case (BC1) 2040 scenario

504504

255

13

245

528504

221

549504

255

23

200255

(a) Agricultural Baseline 2015 2040

(b) Base-case BC12015 2040

(c) High-yield HH32015 2040

Annual Cover

Idle (13 m. rising to 23 m. acres in each case)

Perennial Cover

The BT16 assumptions hold total forestland and total agriculture lands constant throughout the 2017–2040 simulation period.

14 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

• Principal LUC is a transition of some agricultural acreage from annual cover to perennial cover (2015 ag baseline to bioenergy 2040 scenarios)

• Environmental effects vary by location, biomass type, and previous land management.

• General findings:– In some contexts, potential challenges or

tradeoffs for water and air goals– For most counties, potential for a substantial

increase in biomass production with negligible or desired effects on water quality, water quantity, and air pollutant emissions

– Biodiversity effects dependent on species and location

– Favorable performance of cellulosic biomass: soil organic carbon, GHG emissions, air emissions, and water quantity

• Future research, science-based monitoring, and adaptive management are needed to enhance benefits while mitigating potential negative effects.

Results—High-level

Quantitative results in BT16 volume 2 are highly dependent upon the particular scenario comparisons that are used, but the insights and general findings are relevant beyond these scenarios.

BT16 volume 2 is not a prediction or final answer but rather seeks to enable further analyses and research and facilitate efforts to enhance environmental benefits and minimize negative effects.

15 Emerging Biomass Feedstocks Forum - April 2017

Dale et al. (2015) A framework for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 9(4):435-446.

6. Determine selection criteria for indicators

7. Identify & rank indicators that meet criteria

4. Identify & assess necessary tradeoffs

Information asdetermined by • Available data• Resources needed to collect & assemble required data

9. Determine whether objectives

are achieved

No10. Assess lessons learned & identify

good practices

Yes

3. Identify & consult stakeholders1. Define goals 2. Define context

5. Determine objectives for analysis

8. Identify gaps in ability to address goals

& objectives

Determine baselines & targets

Compare to values for indicators

Conduct assessment

Feedback supports continual

improvement

Framework for Selecting Indicators

Areas of Focus:1. Multi-Stakeholder Landscape

Design Process2. Assessment of Environmental

Sustainability Indicators3. Assessment of Feedstock Supply

and Logistics4. Build a template for future

biorefinery projects.

“Enabling Sustainable Landscape Design for Continual Improvement of Operating Bioenergy Supply Systems”

Subfield Precision Business Planning

Perennial Grass for Conservation & Biomass Supply

Multi-stakeholder Outreach

Advanced Harvest & Logistics, 2nd Pass

Implementation of Conservation

Practices (Cover Crops, Buffer

Strips, etc.)

Regional Impact

Modeling & Monitoring

Advanced Harvest & Logistics, First Pass

SustainableResidue Harvest

Landscape Design: Assembling Key Pieces of the Puzzle

18 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Fuelsheds: Counties within 120 km (75 miles) of pellet mills that supply ports

Analysis of major export ports of pellets in SE USA:• Savannah: mostly intensively managed pine plantations • Chesapeake: both pine and mixed hardwoods

Each fuelshed area has an area of ~12 million ha.

Chesapeake Fuelshed:• 33 NC counties• 69 VA counties

Savannah Fuelshed:• 22 SC counties• 54 GA counties• 7 FL counties

Dale et al. (2017) Forest Ecol & Mgmt

19 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Regarding US wood pelletsDemand for pellets

• Forest management is primarily driven by local market demands: lumber and pulpwood prevail in most places.

• US pellet industry has substantially grown in the past decade as a result of European demand.

• US pellet industry is <3% of total harvest removals in the SE US and <2% of harvest value (2016).

Benefits of pellet production• Production and use of wood-based biomass for

energy can contribute to mitigating climate change.

• Markets for low-value wood create incentives for management practices that decrease risks of insect outbreaks, disease and destructive wildfire.

• Jobs Dale et al. 2017 (GCB Bioenergy)

20 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17

Results from analysis of FIA data• Both fuelsheds: Statistically significant

increases in Timberland volume in plantations Areas with large trees # standing dead trees/ha in naturally

regenerating stands• Chesapeake fuelshed: Signif. increases in Timberland volume in plantations Harvestable carbon

• Savannah fuelshed Signif. increases in

Timberland volume All carbon pools

Signif. decrease in # standing dead trees/ha in plantations in one fuelshed

• Provides empirical support of prior estimates that production of wood-based pellets in the SE US can enhance GHG sequestration.

• Calls for further study of effects on biodiversity of declines in # of standing trees/ha Note: others recommend thinning & hardwood midstory control in pine plantations to

provide habitat for declining bird species (consistence with use of biomass for energy & reducing risk of fire).

ORNL will focus analysis on an organism that may be affected by such declines

Conclusions

Dale et al., and Parish et al. data, (2017) Forest Ecol & Mgmt

21 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17

132.

0

128.

4

126.

4

124.

3

127.

9

131.

7

134.

1

136.

2

136.

0

129.

8

138.

5

133.

8

135.

6

135.

8

137.

2

0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.6 2.7 4.2 5.4

114.

0

113.

5

114.

5

115.

5

118.

1

120.

6

113.

5

109.

0

83.6

69.9

73.2

76.8

79.3

82.6

84.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

30020

00

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Rem

oval

s (gr

een

MT)

Year

Pulpwood Pellets Sawtimber

Dale et al. (2017; Forest Ecol & Mgmt)

Wood based pellets are <3% of wood products from SE US

?

22 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Biomass stranded without markets eventually burns, decays and reduces incentives tokeep private lands forested

When assessing effects of woody biomass use, the counterfactual or reference scenario should be based on historical conditions (e.g., FIA data) and realistic assumptions for future projections and risks of disturbances (e.g., Southern Forest Futures Report, Wear & Greis, 2013; Wear & Coulston, 2015).

23 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17

What have we learned?• Sustainability concerns

– Concerns about biodiversity, GHG emissions, loss of old growth & bottom land forests

– EU requiring certification of wood used for energy

• Owners of SE US forests– 85% are owned private nonindustrial (e.g.,

families)– Family landowners make decisions based on

immediate needs (e.g., health care, education)

• Mills that export pellets require feedstock to originate from sites supervised by logging professionals trained in wildlife habitat conservation, water quality, & other BMPs.

– Logger training is a component of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s (SFI’s) certified Fiber Sourcing Standard.

– 92% of certified acres in the SE US are certified to SFI or ATFS

ORNL’s Bioenergy Study Tour brought diverse stakeholders together to ask hard questions

Ref: Dale + 34 coauthors 2017 GCB-Bioenergy

ASTM E3066 (2017): “Sustainability does not imply a steady state or an absolute value; for human activity to be “sustainable,” change or adaptation over time is required.”

24 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Causal Analysis(Efroymson et al. 2016 in Land Use Policy)

Standard Practice Guide forEvaluating Relative SustainabilityASTM International E-3066-2017 Committee E-48: Energy and chemicals from biomass

Phot

o cr

edit:

Orb

iter N

ews

Dec

. 22,

201

0

Criteria for assessing standards:• Clearly stated goals • Priorities defined by local stakeholders • Applies indicators that are

• Relevant and useful • Capture intended criteria or effect in timely manner

• Quantifiable using a citable standard method of measurement

• Verifiable by third parties • Practical, doable without undue burden and expense• Comparable across different contexts• Information can be shared in as close to real time as

feasible (transparency) • Periodic review to verify & enhance utility, validity and

the cost-effectiveness of the system

(Source: Kline et al., USIALE 2017)

28 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

How to set standards for food security? International workshop set forth key issues

• Frame the problem: Ask the questions that matter

• Identify synergies –Flex crops can be used for food or fuel– Rural infrastructure supports

food & fuel– Energy for food production,

processing, transport and use– Sustainable resource

management • Consider alternate paradigms and perspectives

– Workshop & GCB-Bioenergy, Food Security and Bioenergy (Kline et al., 2016)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12366/full

29 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

A plea: Can we please focus more on quantifiable attributes of water, forests, human welfare, biodiversity… and less on paperwork?

Thank you!

P.S. Keeping scales in context: From 3000 million to 4600 million hectares (up to 46 million km2) of global land area burns every year (Randerson et. al., 2012; Giglio et al. 2010; Doerr and Santin 2016), an area that dwarfs any estimated global land area to be dedicated to bioenergy crops.

Thanks!

See CBES website for• Reports • Forums on current topics

New publications:• Renewable wood pellets from the SE USA

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12445/full

• Reconciling food security and biofuels, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12366/full

• Wood pellets impact on forests https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1UxyW1L~GwCo5V

Center for Bioenergy Sustainability http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/

This research is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bio-Energy Technologies Office and performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by the UT-Battelle, LLC, for DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. The views in this presentation are those of the author/presenter who is responsible for any errors or omissions.

Acknowledgements: Kristen Johnson, Jim Spaeth, Alison Goss-Eng and the great team at USDOE BETO; Fahran Robb, Chuck Corr, Paul Trupo, Chris Farley, Jessica Marcus and others on US TAG ISO PC248; Fred Ghatala (Waterfall group-Canada), Diego Goldin (INTA-Argentina), Michael Wang (ANL), Siwa Msangi, International Food and Policy Research Institute; Glaucia M. Souza, University of São Paulo; Matt Langholtz, Maggie Davis, Rebecca Efroymson and Virginia Dale, Center for Bioenergy Sustainability; Jeremy Woods, Imperial College London; Patricia Osseweijer and Joy S. Clancy, The Netherlands; Jorge Antonio Hilbert, Argentina; Harriet K. Mugera, World Bank; Patrick C. McDonnell, Mexico; Francis X. Johnson, ICRAF Kenya; Helena Chum (NREL), Patrick Lamers (INL); Papers supported by: US Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), the US National Science Foundation (NSF IIA #1243444) PIRE for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy in Pan America and ORNL. And the USFS Southern Research Station in Knoxville for help querying and interpreting the FIA data for forestry analysis.

31 | Bioenergy Technologies Office | Not for Public Distribution

Thank You

A few supplemental slides and references follow.

For more information on BT16 Volume 2, visit:https://bioenergykdf.net

32 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

References• Dale VH, KL Kline, ES Parish, AL Cowie, TC Smith, NS Bentsen, G Berndes, et al., 2017. Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from

the southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12445. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12445/full• Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic

sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014• Dale VH, Kline KL, Marland G, Miner RA. 2015. Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-derived bioenergy. Frontiers in Ecology and the

Environment 13(6):297-299. • Dale VH, Parish ES, Kline KL, Tobin E (2017) How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States? Forest

Ecology and Management 396: 143-149. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.022 https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1UxyW1L~GwCo5V• Dale VH and KL Kline. 2017. Interactive Posters: A valuable means for enhancing communication and learning about productive paths toward sustainable

bioenergy. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:243-246. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1753 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1753/epdf • Doerr SH, Santın C. 2016. Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371:20150345.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345• Efroymson RA et al. 2013. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environ Mgmt 51(2): 291-306.

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/Publications/Efroymsonetal2012biofuelindicatorcontextEMfinal10%201007_s00267-012-9907-5.pdf• Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Angelsen A, Verburg PH, Dale VH, Langeveld JWA, McBride A (2016) A causal analysis framework for land-use change and the

potential role of bioenergy policy. Land Use Policy (59) 516–527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.009• Giglio L., J. T. Randerson, G. R. van derWerf, P. S. Kasibhatla, G. J. Collatz, D. C. Morton, and R. S. DeFries. Assessing variability and long-term trends in

burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products. Biogeosciences, 7, 1171–1186, 2010.• Kline KL, Msangi S, Dale VH, Woods J, Souza G, Osseweijer P, Clancy J,Hilbert J, Johnson F, McDonnell P, Mugera H (2016) Reconciling food security and

bioenergy: priorities for action. Global Change Biology-Bioenergy. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12366 • Koponen K, Soimakallio S, Kline KL, Cowie A, Brandão M (Resubmitted 2017) Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy - choice of reference system.

RSER-D-16-02849R1 Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews • McBride A et al. (2011) Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.• Randerson JT, Chen Y, Van Der Werf GR, Rogers BM, Morton DC. 2012 Global burned area and biomass burning emissions from small fires. J. Geophys.

Res. Biogeosci. 117, G04012• U.S. Department of Energy. 2017. 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 2: Environmental

Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios from Volume 1. RA Efroymson, M. H. Langholtz, K.E. Johnson, and B. J. Stokes (Eds.), ORNL/TM-2016/727. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 642p. doi 10.2172/1338837. https://www.bioenergykdf.net/billionton2016vol2

• U.S. Depart of Energy (DOE) 2016. 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic Availability of Feedstocks. M. H. Langholtz, B. J. Stokes, and L. M. Eaton (Leads), ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 448 pg.

• Wear, DN and JW Coulston 2015. From sink to source: Regional variation in U.S. forest carbon futures. Sci. Rep. 5, 16518; doi:10.1038/srep16518 • Weir D, Greis J. The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report Gen. Tech. Pre. SRS-178. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service,

Research and Development, Southern Research Station, 2013. 553 pg.

33 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17

Environmental indicators for bioenergy sustainability & associated ecosystem services

Category Ecosystem service: type

Sustainability Indicator

Soil quality

Supporting & regulating service: soil quality

Total organic carbon (TOC)Total nitrogen (N)Extractable phosphorus (P)Bulk density

Water quality and quantity

Provisioning service: drinking water; Regulating service: water purificationCultural service:recreation

Nitrate concentration in streamsTotal phosphorus (P) concentration in streamsSuspended sediment concentration in streamsHerbicide concentration in streams Peak storm flowMinimum base flowConsumptive water use (incorporates base flow)

Produc-tivity

Provisioning services: food, feed, fiber and fuel

Yield

Green-house gases

Regulating services:carbon sequestration & climate regulationCrosscutting: agrochemical use, feedstock transport/treatment and biofuel combustion.

CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2 and N2O)

Air quality

Provisioning service: clean air

Tropospheric ozoneCarbon monoxideTotal particulate matter <2.5μm diameter (PM2.5)Total particulate matter <10μm diameter (PM10)

Bio-diver-sity

Diverse services depending on species & context: for example pollination, seed dispersal, pest mitigation;Supporting service:habitat

Presence of taxa of special concernHabitat area of taxa of special concern

McBride et al. (2013) & Dale et al. (in review)

34 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17

Socioeconomic indicators for bioenergy sustainability & associated ecosystem service Category Ecosystem

service: typeSustain-ability Indicator

Social well-being

Cultural services: jobs & family income; Provisioning service: food

Employment Household incomeWork days lost due to injury

Food security Energy security

Provisioning service: energy

Energy security premiumFuel price volatility

External trade

Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber

Terms of tradeTrade volume

Dale et al. (2015 & in review)

Resourceconserva-tion

Provisioning services:fuel, chemicals, plastics

Depletion of non-renewable energy resources Fossil Energy Return on Investment (fossil EROI)

Social accepta-bility

Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber

Public opinionTransparencyEffective stakeholder participationRisk of catastrophe

Profita-bility

Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber

Return on investment(ROI)Net present value

(NPV)

Can barriers to acceptance of biomass for energy be overcome?

Photo by Kline: LUC near Tampa, FL

IEA Economist (L.Varro)*:“not optimistic [about supply of] genuinely sustainable biomass”

Science-based information is required to guide decisions and address such concerns:

– Define Indicators (McBride et al. 2011; Dale et. al. 2014)

– Apply Causal Analysis (Efroymson et al. 2016; Kline et al. 2016)

– Apply Standard Procedures (ASTM 3066a - 2017)

*http://www.endseurope.com/article/46959/iea-not-optimistic-about-future-role-of-bioenergy

36 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Define StandardsWhat is a standard?• A standard is a document

that (in theory):– Provides consistency

• In requirements• In guidelines• In specifications

– Can be used to ensure consistent and appropriate• Materials• Products• Processes• Services

Why develop standards? • Comparable assessment• Help ensure products and

services are “fit for purpose”• Reduce costs by minimizing

waste and errors; increasing productivity

• Goal: Facilitate free and fair global trade– Access to new markets – “Level the playing field” for

new entrants – But may also pick winners

and losers

Source: adapted from www.ios.org

“No” because –1. Nothing can ensure sustainability.2. There are many opportunities for

substitution in markets 3. Transaction costs for certification,

monitoring and verification are high relative to premium on products

4. Uncertainties about sustaining political will and market advantage

5. Even well-designed schemes can be “gamed”

6. It only takes a few well-publicized cases to undermine public trust and credibility.

IEA Bioenergy Joint Task Meeting Question*: Can certification ensure more sustainable outcomes?

Photo VH Dale, 2016: Logging residues in East TN left to rot or burn because there is no market for biomass-bioenergy.

Source: Adapted from Kline for IEA Joint Task 38-40-43 presentation on LUC: http://ieabioenergy-task38.org/workshops/campinas2011 (also see CBES website)

Can standards-based policies facilitate the transition toward sustainability?

“Yes, if” 1. Developed with users as a cost-

effective tool that meets their needs

2. Provide feedback to guide production toward continual improvement from users’ perspectives

3. Designed to adapt to changing contexts and priorities

4. Are Inclusive rather than exclusive5. Are broadly supported (civil society,

government, producers, business, and financial markets)

Source: Adapted from Kline for IEA Joint Task 38-40-43 presentation on LUC: http://ieabioenergy-task38.org/workshops/campinas2011 (also see CBES website)

DOE-BETO Bioenergy research at ORNL:

Enable long-term supply of renewable biomass for clean, domestic bioenergy

• Advance common definitions of environmental & socioeconomic costs & benefits of bioenergy systems

• Quantify opportunities, risks, & tradeoffs associated with bioenergy production in specific contexts

• Support efforts to improve sustainability assessment via agreements on definitions, criteria, baseline, targets & a manageable set of relevant indicators

• Support improved standards, recognizing that certification ≠ sustainability

Related reading• Dale B et al. 2014. Take a closer look: biofuels can support environmental, economic and social goals. ES&T48(13):7200-7203• Dale VH et al. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014• Dale VH et al. 2016. Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171.

http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1364032115014215• Dale VH et al.(Submitted 2016 for Biomass & Bioenergy Special Issue on Biofuels and Ecosystem Services) Selecting indicators of changes in ecosystem services

due to cellulosic-based biofuels in the midwestern US. • Efroymson RA et al. 2013. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environmental Management 51(2): 291-306.

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/Publications/Efroymsonetal2012biofuelindicatorcontextEMfinal10%201007_s00267-012-9907-5.pdf• FAO (2015a) Hunger Map 2015. FAO Statistics Division, Rome. Available: http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/• FAO (2015b) Forty-second Session Report, Committee on World Food Security, Rome, Italy, 12-15 October 2015. Global Strategic Framework for Food Security &

Nutrition (GSF) Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-mo187e.pdf Last Accessed 10/10/2015.• FAO, IFAD, WFP (2013) The State of Food Insecurity (SOFI) in the World 2013 -The multiple dimensions of food security. And FAO, IFAD, WFP (2014) SOFI

Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. FAO Rome. And FAO, IFAD, WFP (2015) SOFI Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. FAO, Rome, Italy

• Kline KL, Dale VH (2008) Biofuels, causes of land-use change, and the role of fire in greenhouse gas emissions. Science, 321, 199.• Kline KL, Dale VH, Lee R, Leiby P (2009) In Defense of Biofuels, Done Right. Issues in Science and Technology, 25(3), 75-84• Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC (2011) Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 4488-4491• Kline KL (2014) Advanced School on Present and Future of BioEnergy, ESPCA–FAPESP–University of Campinas, 10-17 October, 2014. Campinas, SP Brazil. • Kline KL et al. (2016) Reconciling biofuels and food security: priorities for action. GCB-Bioenergy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12366/full• McBride A et al. (2011) Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.• Parish ES et al. (2012) Multimetric spatial optimization of switchgrass plantings across a watershed. BioFPR. 6(1):58-72• Parish ES, Kline KL, Dale VH, Efroymson RA, et al., (2013) Comparing Scales of Environmental Effects from Gasoline and Ethanol Production. Environmental

Management 51(2):307-338• REN 21 Renewables (2016) and (2014) Global Status Report Paris, REN21 Secretariat. http://www.ren21.net/status-of-renewables/global-status-report/• IRENA (Jeff Skeer) (2016) Boosting Biofuels: Sustainable paths to greater energy security. www.irena.org• Rainforest Alliance (2008) Impact of FSC Certification on Deforestation and the Incidence of Wildfires in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. http://www.rainforest-

alliance.org/forestry/documents/peten_study.pdf• Roser M (2015) Our World in Data. www.OurWorldinData.org • Souza GM, Victoria RL, Joly CA and Verdade M, editors 2015. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Bioenergy & Sustainability: bridging

the gaps. SCOPE 72. Paris, France and Sao Paulo, Brazil. ISBN: 978-2-9545557-0-6. http://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/index.php• Sumner DA (2009) Recent commodity price movements in historical perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5) 1250-1256• Thurow R, Kilman S (2009) Enough: Why the World’s Poor Starve in an Age of Plenty. BBS Public Affairs, New York.• UNEP (2016) Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools. Working Group on Land and Soils, International

Resource Panel (IRP UNEP). Herrick, JE, O Arnalds, B Bestelmeyer, S Bringezu, G Han, MV Johnson et al. , ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9 • USDA Economic Research Service (2015) Definitions of Food Security: Ranges of Food Security and Food Insecurity. U.S. Department of Agriculture• Woodall et al. 2015. Monitoring Network Confirms Land-Use Change is a Substantial Component of the Forest Carbon Sink in eastern United States

Related reading cont• Arezki et al. 2014. Understanding international commodity price fluctuations. Journal of International Money and Finance 42 (2014) 1–8• Babcock, B. A. (2011 June). The impact of US biofuel policies on agricultural price levels and volatility. International Centre for Trade and

Sustainable Development (35)• Cowie A, Berndes G, and Smith T. 2013. On the timing of greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of forest based bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy ExCo: 2013:04

www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/on-the-timing-of-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-benefits-of-forest-based-bioenergy. Viewed 31 May 2015.• Charles, C. (2012 April). Should we be concerned about competition between food and fuel? International Institute for Sustainable Development.• de Gorter, H., & Just, D. R. (2010). The social costs and benefits of biofuels: The intersection of environmental, energy and agricultural policy.

Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.• Economic Research Service, Amber Waves, 10(2 (June)), 2012.• Durham, C., Davies, G., & Bhattacharyya, T. (2012, June). Can biofuels policy work for food security? Department for Environment Food and Rural

Affairs.• FAO, IFAD, IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, IFPRI, and the UN HLTF. (2011, June 2). Price volatility in food and agricultural

markets: Policy responses. Policy Report for the G-20 .• King R (Oxfam), Kelbert A (IDS), Chisholm N (University College Cork), Hossain N (IDS). 2014. Help Yourself - Food Rights and Responsibilities: Year 2

findings from Life in a Time of Food Price Volatility. Joint Agency Research Report. www.ids.ac.uk and www.oxfam.org• Kline KL, Msangi S, Dale VH, Woods J, Souza G, Osseweijer P, Clancy J,Hilbert J, Johnson F, McDonnell P, Mugera H (2016) Reconciling food security

and bioenergy: priorities for action. Global Change Biology-Bioenergy. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12366 • Leonardo WJ, Florin MJ, van de Ven GWJ, Udo H, Giller KE Leonardo et al., 2015. Which smallholder farmers benefit most from biomass production

for food and biofuel? The case of Gondola district, central Mozambique Biomass and Bioenergy 83:257-268 • Locke, A., Wiggins, S., Henley, G., & Keats, S. (2013 April). Diverting grain from animal feed and biofuels. London : Overseas Development Institute.• McPhail, Lihong Lu, & Du, X. (2012). Ethanol Strengthens the Link Between Agriculture and Energy Markets. • Peterka, A. (2012 31-July). Livestock groups urge EPA to waive ethanol mandate. Governors' Biofuels Coalition.• Schafer, E. (2012 8-March). Proposed RFS changes spark food vs. fuel debate. Feed & Grain.• Sepp S. 2014. Multiple-household fuel use; a balanced choice between firewood, charcoal and LPG. Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (www.giz.de/hera), Eschborn, Germany, on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). http://www.eco-consult.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Multiple-Household_Fuel_Use.pdf

• Thornhill S, Vargyas E, Fitzgerald T, Chisholm N (2016) Household food security and biofuel feedstock production in rural Mozambique and Tanzania.Food Security 8:953-972.

• Tyner, W. E., Taheripour, F., & Hurt, C. (2012 16-August). Potential impacts of a partial waiver of the ethanol blending rules. Farm Foundation and Purdue University.

• Wright, B. (2011, February). Biofuels and food security: Time to consider safety valves? . IPC Policy Focus, International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council.

• 2016 Billion-Ton Report. Volume 2: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy. Volume 2. Environmental Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios: https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/downloads/2016-billion-ton-report-volume-2-environmental-sustainability-effects

• BT16 Resource Assessment for US biomass supplies volume 1: https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/2016-billion-ton-report