ec. · Web viewThe aim of the Work Package (WP) 3 of the Biomass Futures (BF) project overall...

Biomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand and Supply dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders . IEE 08 653 SI2. 529 241

Deliverable 3.4:

Biomass availability & supply analysis

Authors: IIASA: Hannes Böttcher, Stefan Frank, Petr Havlik

Contributers:Alterra: Berien ElbersenIIASA: Sylvain LeducECN: Joost van Stralen

March, 2012

Content

Content............................................................................................................................................... 2

Preface............................................................................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 4

2 Methodology............................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Linkages to other WPs.......................................................................................................................5

2.2 Model description..............................................................................................................................5

2.3 Definitions of biomass feedstocks and conversion technologies........................................................7

2.4 Applied sustainability criteria............................................................................................................8

2.5 Bioenergy demand and other background drivers...........................................................................102.5.1 Bioenergy demand............................................................................................................102.5.2 Other drivers.....................................................................................................................102.5.3 Assumptions on trade........................................................................................................11

2.6 Scenario description........................................................................................................................12

3 Results....................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Biofuel and bioenergy use...............................................................................................................143.1.1 Reference scenario base run.............................................................................................143.1.2 Sustainability scenario base run........................................................................................14

3.2 Market conditions and trade...........................................................................................................153.2.1 Reference scenario base run.............................................................................................153.2.2 Sustainability scenario base run........................................................................................16

3.3 Land use and land use change.........................................................................................................163.3.1 Reference scenario base run.............................................................................................163.3.2 Sustainability scenario base run........................................................................................193.3.3 Sensitivity analysis.............................................................................................................21

3.4 Loss of biodiversity..........................................................................................................................223.4.1 Reference scenario base run.............................................................................................223.4.2 Sensitivity analysis.............................................................................................................23

3.5 GHG emissions.................................................................................................................................233.5.1 Reference scenario base run.............................................................................................233.5.2 Sustainability scenario base run........................................................................................243.5.3 Sensitivity analysis.............................................................................................................25

3.6 Discussion and conclusions..............................................................................................................26

4 References................................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix.......................................................................................................................................... 31

2

Preface

This publication is part of the BIOMASS FUTURES project (Biomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand and Supply dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders - IEE 08 653 SI2. 529 241, www.biomassfutures.eu ) funded by the European Union’s Intelligent Energy Programme.

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

3

1 Introduction

The aim of the Work Package (WP) 3 of the Biomass Futures (BF) project overall was to provide a comprehensive strategic analysis of biomass supply options and their availability in response to different demands in a timeframe from 2010- 2030.

This report introduces the approach and assumptions that are used to assess spatially explicit biomass supply and associated impacts of increased biomass use on biophysical and economic indicators (Task 3.5). We applied integrated bio-physical process based and economic modelling to analyse the cost effectiveness of biomass supply strategies and their environmental impacts on agricultural systems, bio-energy systems, and forest ecosystems in a geographic explicit way. This task aims to contrast the supply maps developed in Task 3.4 and described in Deliverable 3.3 Availability with more detailed environmental constraints given a certain demand for certain feedstocks. Applying the GLOBIOM model, a global recursive dynamic partial equilibrium model integrating the agricultural, bioenergy and forestry sectors allows for modelling competition between feedstocks. By doing so the technical potential estimated in Deliverable 3.3 is transformed into an economic potential. Both approaches applied sustainability constraints to biomass supply that were harmonised to make estimates comparable.

Typical for this task compared to other tasks in WP 3 but also other WPs is an orientation towards impacts outside EU. Additionally, the model accounts for a wider scope of sustainability issues, addressing (direct and indirect) land use change, environmental variables (water, nitrogen, GHG emissions), and economic effects (e.g. food prices). GLOBIOM includes additional biodiversity constraints on highly biodiverse land outside the EU based on WCMC information {Kapos, 2008 #11784}. Besides general parameters which limit land use change (no grassland conversion and deforestation in EU27 etc.), conversion of cropland and ‘other natural vegetation’ to short rotation tree plantations is restricted. Through sensitivity analyses by changing assumptions on biofuel trade and other mitigation policies such as avoiding deforestation, GLOBIOM results are used to investigate competition between major land-based sectors (bioenergy, agriculture and forestry), potential leakage effects through land use and land use change as well as effects on food security and GHG emissions in order to give policy advice taking into account such global impacts.

As described above, the work presented in this report builds on the findings from other tasks and WPs. The detailed information flows in Biomass Futures that are relevant for this task are presented in the methodology section. The section also describes in detail the involved model and basic data sets used for the analysis. Further, definitions and assumptions are introduced that are essential for the production of consistent results across the different WPs and for the interpretation of results of this particular task. The sustainability criteria applied here refer to work done under Biomass Futures’ WP 4 (Sustainability).

The results and discussion section presents the output of the model and contrasts the findings with initial assumptions and findings in other studies that are summarised in the conclusions. Finally, an appendix presents an overview of parameters of feedstocks and technologies used.

4

2 Methodology

2.1 Linkages to other WPs

This report introduces models and assumptions that are used to assess spatially explicit biomass supply and impacts of on biophysical and economic indicators associated with increased biomass use. To achieve this, the work builds on the findings from other Work Packages (WP) and tasks. Essentially it makes use of the following information:

Results from the analysis of advanced sustainability constraints analysed in WP4 (Sustainability)a. GHG emissions per feedstock and technologyb. Harmonisation of biomass categories

Demand scenarios from WP7 (Scenarios and Policy) and information on characteristics of technologies from WP5 (Energy modelling)

Comparison and harmonisation to the degree possible of conversion coefficients used within WP3 (Availability and Supply) and WP5 (Energy modelling)

Comparison of assumptions and data on agriculture in CAPRI (CAPRI projection is used in Task 3.4 (Availability)

A more detailed description of information flow between WPs and tasks in Biomass Futures can be found in Deliverable 3.5 (Summary of main outcomes for policy makers) available on the Biomass Futures website (www.biomassfutures.eu).

2.2 Model description

The Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM)1 has been developed and is used at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). GLOBIOM is a global recursive dynamic bottom-up partial equilibrium model integrating the agricultural, bioenergy and forestry sectors with the aim to provide policy analysis on global issues concerning land use competition between the major land-based production sectors. It is global in the sense that it encompasses all world regions aggregated in a way that can be altered. For the purpose of Biomass Futures, GLOBIOM covers 50 regions. These regions are a disaggregated representation of an eleven-region GLOBIOM version adapted to enable linkage with the POLES and/or PRIMES model. The disaggregation of the EU into 27 individual countries has been performed recently for the Biomass Futures project; originally five European regions were defined. Partial denotes that the model does not include the whole range of economic sectors in a country or region but focuses on agricultural and forestry production as well as bioenergy production. These sectors are, however, modelled in a detailed way accounting for about 20 globally most important crops, a range of livestock production activities, forestry commodities as well as different energy transformation pathways.

GLOBIOM disaggregates available land into several land cover/use classes that deliver raw materials for wood processing, bioenergy processing and livestock feeding. Figure 1 illustrates this structure of different land uses and commodities. Forest land is made up of two categories (unmanaged forest and managed forest); the other categories include cropland, short rotation tree plantations, grassland (managed grassland) and ‘other natural vegetation’ (includes unused grassland).

GLOBIOM is a bottom-up model with a detailed representation of land based activities and technologies. This information is provided at Simulation Unit level, which is the smallest spatial infrastructure of the model. Simulation Units are delineated from Homogenous response Units (HRU) which are pixels with the same geo-spatial characteristics such as altitude, slope and soil type (that do not change over time. due to climate change and/or management practices) and are used to form geographical clusters. On top of this layer country boundaries and a 0.5° x 0.5° grid layer is placed that contains more detailed information such as data on climate, land use/cover, etc. This information forms Simulation Units (SimU)

1 Documentation of the GLOBIOM model can be found at www.globiom.org.

5

http://www.globiom.org/

that are the basic geographical unit for the analysis. For each SimU, different management systems are distinguished. For the bulk of global crop production four management systems are available in GLOBIOM. These are irrigated, high input – rainfed, low input – rainfed and subsistence management.

The global agricultural and forest market equilibrium is computed by choosing land use and processing activities to maximize welfare (i.e. the sum of producer and consumer surplus) subject to resource, technological, and policy constraints. These constraints ensure that demand and supply for among others irrigation water and land are met but also impose exogenous demand constraints so as to reach, for instance, a certain biofuel target. Prices and international trade flows are endogenously determined for respective aggregated world regions. Imported and domestic goods are assumed to be identical (homogenous), but the modelling of trade does take into account transportation costs and tariffs. GLOBIOM includes accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and sinks from agricultural and forestry activities. This includes among others accounting for N2O emissions from fertiliser use whose intensity in turn depends on the management system.

It is possible within the model to convert one land cover or use to another. The arrows on the left-hand side of Figure 1 indicate the initial land category and therefore show the way in which land cover/use can change (i.e. unmanaged forest can be converted into managed forest or cropland). The greenhouse gas consequences from land use change are derived from the carbon content of above- and below-ground living biomass of the respective land cover classes.

Figure 1. GLOBIOM land use and product structures (Havlík et al. 2011). Note: The arrows on the left represent the direction where a given land use/cover type can expand given the current constraints in the model.

The model is recursive dynamic in the sense that changes in land use made in one period alter the land availability in the different categories in the next period. Land use change is thus transmitted from one period to the next. As GLOBIOM is a partial equilibrium model, not all economic sectors are modelled explicitly. Instead, several parameters enter the model exogenously and are pre-determined including wood and food demand which in turn are derived from changes over time in gross domestic product (GDP), population (same projections as used in PRIMES) and food (calorie) consumption per capita (projections according to FAO (2006)). Changes in these prescribed input data are the underlying driver of the model dynamics. The base year for the model is the year 2000, the model horizon in Biomass Futures is 2030. In relation to yield development, GLOBIOM typically assumes 0.5 % autonomous

6

technological progress in crop improvement. In addition, the possibility to shift between management systems as well as the relocation of crops to more productive areas also provides for regional average yield changes. When it comes to ‘bioenergy dynamics’, projections from the POLES model2 (for regions outside Europe) and the PRIMES model (for EU 27 countries) on regional biomass demand in heat and power (BIOINEL), direct biomass use i.e. for cooking (BIOINBIOD) and liquid transport fuel use (BFP1 and BFP2 or first and second generation biofuels, respectively) over the next two decades are implemented in GLOBIOM as target demands or minimum demand constraints.

In order to improve representation of bilateral trade flows in GLOBIOM we have included both tariffs and transportation costs differentiated among partners and products. The tariffs come from the MAcMap database (Bouët et al. 2008). Tariffs on ethanol and biodiesel in OECD countries are taken from the Global Subsidies Initiative (Steenblik 2007). In the absence of exhaustive information on transportation costs we have computed them using the coefficients between freight rates and distance and the ratio weight over value of the good that have been estimated by Hummels (2001). Trade calibration method proposed by Jansson and Heckelei (2009) is applied to reconcile observed bilateral trade flows, regional net trade, prices and trading costs for the base year. Together with improvements of transportation costs this results in better estimates on the development of bilateral trade flows in the future especially for those products related to bioenergy.

Land rental prices have been implemented to further disaggregate the cost structure in the model and land use change elasticities have been revised and adapted based on historic land use change data according to FAO. Moreover, to improve accuracy of GHG emissions nitrogen input coefficients from EPIC have been harmonized with IFA (International Fertilizer Industry Association) data on global fertilizer use per crop species. This results in improved soil N2O emissions which are calculated using the IPCC tier 1 approach using adjusted EPIC fertilizer data. Emissions related to fertilizer production have been introduced in the model. Emissions from fertilizer production are calculated using RFA (Gallagher 2008) emission coefficients on emissions from fertilizer production and total fertilizer use based on harmonized EPIC data.

The GLOBIOM model is described in some greater detail in a Policy Briefing document “Modelling biomass supply options with GLOBIOM: A non-technical introduction” available on the Biomass Futures’ webpage (www.biomassfutures.eu).

2.3 Definitions of biomass feedstocks and conversion technologies

The biomass categories covered by Biomass Futures are introduced in Deliverable 3.3 (based on harmonised BEE Method Handbook (BEE 2010)). The supply models build on these categories. However, the models applied in WP3 and WP5 represent the biomass categories and technology chains with varying degree of detail. Table 1 lists parameters and level of detail for GLOBIOM.

The integration of biomass supply from different feedstocks and demand for bioenergy requires also an appropriate representation of bioenergy technologies that transform biomass into energy. The description of technologies is also task of WP2 (Demand analysis) and WP5 (Energy modelling). To assess the energy potential of biomass feedstocks, account for competition between them and to model land use change, trade and leakage associated with bioenergy scenarios, however, technologies play a role also in the supply analysis. Within Biomass Futures they were harmonised to the degree possible to ensure consistency and comparability of model results across WPs.

Table 1: Technologies represented in GLOBIOM.

Feedstock Process Product Energy value GJ/t(m3) feedstock

Emission saving from fossil fuel displacement kg

2 Taken from the 2010 POLES (Prospective Outlook on Long-Term Energy Systems) baseline scenario. See http://www.enerdata.net/enerdatauk/solutions/energy-models/poles-model.php for POLES documentation.

7

http://www.enerdata.net/enerdatauk/solutions/energy-models/poles-model.php

CO2/MJWood Gasification Methanol 3.375Wood Gasification Heat 0.75Wood Fermentation Ethanol 2.175Wood Fermentation Heat 2.08Wood Fermentation Electricity 1.15Wood Fermentation Gas 1.65Wood Combustion Heat 5.0Wood Combustion Electricity 2.5Corn CornToEthanol Ethanol 8.3 -0.30Sugar cane SugcToEthanol Ethanol 1.7 -0.10Wheat WheatToEthano

lEthanol 7.8 -0.19

Soybean SoyaToFame FAME 6.0 -0.23Palm oil PalmoilToFame FAME 5.6 -0.22Rapeseed RapeToFame FAME 15.2 -0.62

The base year of different datasets used for the analysis of availability and supply of biomass varies. The base year of the analysis is therefore an average of the base years used. Where available the most recent data are used. Currently the integrated land use model GLOBIOM uses the year 2000 as base year, which minimises the variability of base years in the data sets used because many data sets with base year 2000 exist. Also this is consistent with the energy model PRIMES and its biomass model (applied in Work Package 5).

2.4 Applied sustainability criteria

In the framework of the Biomass Futures project a detailed analysis was provided on how sustainability criteria may constrain the biomass feedstock availability (see results of WP4 and Deliverable 3.3). In this report the focus is on the integration of sustainability criteria into the dynamic integrated land use model GLOBIOM that are consistent with analyses done in other tasks and WPs.

The consideration of sustainability constraints in WP3 is implemented at two levels. Deliverable 3.3 assesses the effect of sustainability constraints on the potential supply of biomass for energy purposes at the level of basic environmental indicators. They address, depending on the type of biomass feedstock and targeted area criteria focusing on, e.g.:

Risk for increased input use with adverse effects on environmental quality (e.g. nitrogen pollution, soil degradation, depletion of water resources, etc.)

Risk for disturbance of soil structure (compaction) Nutrient depletion in case of too much removal

The use of an integrated land use model allows the inclusion of additional criteria that can only be assessed in an integrated framework. These include economic criteria and criteria related to direct and indirect land use change effects (e.g. leakage). Table 2 presents sustainability criteria in the RED that are explicitly addressed by the integrated land use model.

Table 2: Sustainability criteria integrated into GLOBIOM.

Sustainability criteria

8

RED, Article 17.2 The greenhouse gas emission saving from the use of biofuels and bioliquids shall at least be 35%. With effect from 1 January 2017, the greenhouse gas emission saving from the use of biofuels and bioliquids shall be at least 50%;

RED, Article 17.3 Biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land with high biodiversity value namely primary forests and other wooded land, areas designated or highly biodiverse grassland;

RED, Article 17.4 Biofuels and bioliquids shall not be made from raw material obtained from land with high carbon stock namely wetlands and continuously forested areas;

To address Article 17.2 we implemented the GHG mitigation target indirectly into GLOBIOM by using NUTS2 GHG mitigation potentials for selected bioenergy processing pathways calculated in Deliverable 3.3 (Availability). The calculation of the mitigation potential per NUTS2 region and feedstock is based on GEMIS data and land based emissions (for the methodology and data used see Deliverable 3.3).

NUTS2 mitigation potentials were used to exclude certain biofuel processing paths in the model that do not comply with the minimum GHG emission saving target specified in RED Article 17.2. If not a single NUTS2 region in member state does reach the mitigation target for certain pathway i.e. corn ethanol, we exclude the pathway in GLOBIOM for that particular country. By doing so we create a stencil that we put over all the processing technologies at the EU country level in the model.

To address Article 17.3 we use high nature value (HNV) farmland areas to identify agricultural production on highly biodiverse areas in Europe (Article 17.3). Paracchini et al. (2011) define HNV farmland as agricultural land having:

a high share of semi natural vegetation; a mosaic of low intensity agriculture and natural and structural elements; a population of rare species or a high proportion of European or World populations.

By using information on land cover (CLC 2000) and additional information on high biodiversity areas as NATURA 2000, important bird areas, prime butterfly areas and national biodiversity datasets they produce a HNV farmland distribution map that gives the probability to find HNV farmland in a certain area. To determine European HNV farmland in our datasets we follow the approach suggested by Hellmann and Verburg (2009) and interpret the probability as the actual HNV farmland area in this grid cell i.e. 30% probability translates into 30% HNV area in a grid cell.

To identify highly biodiverse areas outside Europe data from UNEP-WCMC has been used. In the Carbon and Biodiversity Report (Kapos et al. 2008) global terrestrial biodiversity areas are identified by overlapping six priority schemes (Conservation International’s Hotspots, WWF Global 200 terrestrial and freshwater eco-regions, Birdlife International Endemic Bird Areas, WWF/IUCN Centres of Plant Diversity and Amphibian Diversity Areas). Here we assume that areas where four or more priority schemes overlap are highly biodiverse and therefore excluded from conversion.

In the base year 2000 7.8% of global forests, 5.2% of natural vegetation and 8.2% of grasslands are considered highly biodiverse according to our definition. While highly biodiverse primary forests and other natural vegetation are mainly located in Latin America, Sub Saharan Africa and Asia, a major share of highly biodiverse grasslands appears in Europe due to HNV farmland classification. Designated highly biodiverse forest and grassland area are within the ranges specified in other sources. FAO (2011) reports 7.4% of global forests designated under conservation of biodiversity in 2000 while Hoekstra et al. (2007)find 4.6% of temperate and 11.9% of tropical grasslands, savannahs and shrub lands under conservation.

To address Article 17.4, we assume that deforestation is not allowed in EU countries (for any reason, including also biofuel production) through strict laws on land use change. Since this cannot be assumed

9

for countries outside EU we use a different approach to address Article 17.4 with respect to imports to EU. The GLOBIOM model is here used to perform a series of sensitivity runs to assess the impact of trade and quantify the emissions from land use change associated with imports to EU countries, rather than theoretically excluding crops and pathways that violate the sustainability criteria, which is technically not feasible. Details about the implementation of these sensitivity runs are presented in Section 2.6.

2.5 Bioenergy demand and other background drivers

2.5.1 Bioenergy demand

For European bioenergy demand we take projections from the PRIMES Reference Scenario 2030 for the years 2000 and 2010. Bioenergy demand for the year 2020 is taken from the NREAP targets for 2020. For the year 2030 we extrapolate NREAPs relative to the development in the PRIMES Reference Scenario between 2020 and 2030. European bioenergy mandates implemented in GLOBIOM include first and second generation biofuels as well as biomass for heat and electricity production. Technologies represented in GLOBIOM include ethanol made from sugarcane, corn and wheat, and biodiesel made from rapeseed, palm oil and soybeans. Biomass for second generation biofuels is used either from existing forests, wood processing residues or from short rotation tree plantations. Bioenergy demand for the rest of the world is directly taken from the POLES Reference scenario (Russ et al. 2009). Bioenergy demand from POLES is in GLOBIOM imposed as an exogenous constraint. Bioenergy demand is at the regional resolution delivered by POLES, and four types of bioenergy are differentiated – BFP1 (first generation biofuels), BFP2 (second generation biofuels), BIOINEL (heat and electricity generation), and BIOINBIOD (direct biomass use).

From 2000 until 2030 global biofuel demand rises to 2.1 EJ and 1.1 EJ respectively for ethanol and biodiesel (Figure 2). Especially European biodiesel demand is driven by an ambitious European biofuel mandate. As a consequence, the share of European biodiesel demand in total global biodiesel demand increases from 42% in 2000 to 74% in 2030. European ethanol share is also rising to 13% of total ethanol demand in 2030 but remains rather modest since other countries such as Brazil and the U.S. continue as well to expand their ethanol production. Total European bioethanol and biodiesel demand in 2030 amounts to 0.29 EJ and 0.88 EJ respectively.

2000 2010 2020 20300.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Global EthanolGlobal BiodieselEU27 EthanolEU27 Biodiesel

Cons

umpti

on in

EJ

Figure 2: Global and EU biofuel demand in the Reference scenario in EJ for biodiesel and ethanol.

10

2.5.2 Other drivers

As GLOBIOM is a partial equilibrium model, several parameters enter the projections as exogenous drivers. Wood and food demand is driven by gross domestic product (GDP) and population changes. In addition, food demand must meet minimum per capita calorie intake criteria, which are differentiated with respect to the source between crop and livestock calories. Demand is calculated for the different world regions on the basis of projections of regional per capita calorie consumption by source (vegetal, meat, milk and eggs). The regional population and GDP development is taken from POLES (Russ et al. 2009). All scenarios applied in this report build on the same macro projections of GDP and population.

European data on GDP and population reflect the recent economic downturn, followed by sustained economic growth resuming after 2010. This data is entering GLOBIOM that uses these projections to translate them into demand for timber and agricultural commodities. The GDP and population data dataset was also consistently used in the PRIMES biomass model that provided bioenergy projections to GLOBIOM. The data for population and GDP development in EU countries for both, the base year 2007 (prior to the financial and economic crisis for comparison) and 2009 (used for this study) are displayed in Table 3. Population change is driving food and wood demand. Wood demand is further adjusted according to GDP change.

Table 3: Development of total population and GDP per capita.

2000 2010 2020 2030Population [Million] World 6,098 6,889 7,657 8,293

EU27 482 501 516 522GDP per capita [1000 USD] World 7.34 8.99 11.49 14.11

EU27 21.05 22.84 27.61 32.40

Other important global drivers of the results and crucial underlying assumptions in GLOBIOM are calorie consumption and yield growth. Calorie consumption per capita was derived from projections according to FAO (2006). We assume 0.5 % autonomous yield increase per year due to technical progress. Autonomous yield increase is only one of three components of the yield change in GLOBIOM. The other two components are management system change (intensification) and shift of the production to more or less yielding zones (re-allocation). It was found that the 0.5 value enables best to reproduce recent total yield changes according to an analysis of FAOSTAT data. Disaggregated data which would enable to define the autonomous yield growth in a less arbitrary and more differentiated way (by region and crop) is not available.

2.5.3 Assumptions on trade

In order to better represent potential impacts of bioenergy imports to Europe in the rest of the world, we restricted imports of biofuels and biomass for bioenergy purposes (energy wood and biomass from short rotation plantations). Trade flows of these products are limited to relative shares per region based on expert knowledge. This is necessary to accommodate potential constraints on trade flows that cannot be explicitly taken into account by the model such as infrastructure and capacities of infrastructure e.g. harbours, trade barriers etc. Table 4 presents the relative shares of exporting regions in 2020 and 2030 to Europe which have been implemented in the model i.e. Brazil is expected to supply 65% of total ethanol imports to EU in 2020.

Table 4: Restriction of exporting regions to Europe based on Fritsche (2011).

Exporting region 2020 2030Energy wood biomass Brazil 20% 20%

USA & Canada 65% 62%

11

Africa 6% 10%Russia 9% 8%

Ethanol Brazil 65% 65%Africa 5% 20%other Latin America 15% 10%other South East Asia

15% 5%

Biodiesel USA & Canada 20% 5%Indonesia/Malaysia 40% 50%Africa 5% 15%other Latin America 35% 30%

2.6 Scenario description

Definitions, assumptions and background drivers discussed above are combined in two alternative scenarios” Reference and Sustainability scenario. These scenarios have been commonly elaborated in WP7 (Scenarios and policies) to assess the impacts of biofuels and related policies implementing different sets of sustainability criteria on bioenergy demand. The ‘Reference’ scenario represents the current legal framework related to the bioenergy sector in EU countries including NREAP targets and RED sustainability criteria. This scenario reflects present developments and provides an outlook on how bioenergy markets could develop towards 2020 and 2030. Important driving forces are macro-economic developments (population, GDP growth) as well as projected bioenergy demand (Primes Reference Scenario, NREAPs, POLES). The ‘Sustainability’ scenario applies more stringent and/or more comprehensive sustainability criteria than those that have been introduced by the RED at present. The aim of the scenario is to analyse effects of a more constrained biomass supply in Europe and the rest of the world. The scenarios are described in detail in a Biomass Futures Policy Briefing document “Introducing the Biomass Futures scenarios” available on the webpage (www.biomassfutures.eu).

The structure and nature of the GLOBIOM model requires specific interpretation and implementation of the general assumptions. An application of the RED sustainability criteria to imports requires tracing back the geographical origin of biomass. The specific history of a single ton of biomass including the emission “backpack” would decide whether this ton meets or violates the criteria. Tracing individual parcels of biomass geographically in GLOBIOM is impossible. The model is well suited to estimate, e.g. the additional emissions from land use change in a specific region triggered by additional biomass supply. However, at the border between regions it does not distinguish which share of the production has actually caused the concrete emissions and whether this share is exported or actually consumed domestically. In addition, in GLOBIOM markets are all related and substitution between products and uses make direct and indirect effects of land allocation decision impossible to disentangle. Consequently, the model does not distinguish between agricultural production for food and biofuels at the grid cell level. Therefore sustainability criteria can’t be imposed on the biofuel sector only but are implemented on the whole agricultural sector since seperation between the different sectors at grid cell level is not possible. This makes it impossible to attribute emissions of the production to the final process without averaging over the entire production amount. However, direct and indirect effects of land use change in the sense of the RED are simultaneously accounted for and reflected in the results. A simple assumption would be that biofuels from outside EU are highly efficient and meet the mitigation requirements of the RED. In fact, this is likely for parts of the sugarcane ethanol from Brazil. Also imported biofuels might have been produced from crops grown on degraded lands causing rather low indirect land use change. Therefore, in addition to the two common Biomass Futures scenarios we consider three different sensitivity runs where we change assumptions on biofuel trade to the EU and we allow or prohibit any deforestation outside Europe.

12

1. Base run: Biofuel trade Rest of the world (RoW)-Europe and deforestation outside Europe allowed

2. No deforestation run: Biofuel trade RoW-Europe allowed but deforestation prohibited outside Europe

3. No trade run: Biofuel trade Rest of the world (RoW)-Europe prohibited but deforestation allowed outside Europe

Effects of European bioenergy mandates and sustainability criteria on the agricultural production, environment and GHG emissions in and outside Europe might also interact with competitive environmental or trade policies. The rationale behind these model runs is therefore to show on the one hand effects of international biofuel trade but also effects of parallel implementation of other policies such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). The implications of biofuel trade on the one side and impacts of other global land use policy developments such as the efforts invested into REDD cannot be ignored in a comprehensive assessment of bioenergy impacts. The ‘no biofuel trade’ scenario basically describes a situation where the EU produces the total biofuel demand domestically whereas the ‘no deforestation’ scenario mimics the successful implementation of a REDD policy framework. An overview of the assumptions made in the two scenarios combined with three variant runs is presented in Table 5.

13

Table 5: Scenario description.

Scenario runs European Union Rest of the worldReference (base) Bioenergy demand PRIMES Reference

scenario 2030, NREAPs in 2020

POLES Reference scenario

Sustainability criteria No conversion HNV in EU

No conversion of grasslands

No deforestation 50% GHG mitigation

target for biofuels

No deforestation in industrialized countries

Trade Allow biofuel tradeSustainability (base) Bioenergy demand PRIMES Reference

Scenario 2030, NREAPs in 2020

POLES Reference Scenario

Sustainability criteria No HNV conversion and intensification in EU

No conversion of grasslands

No deforestation 70% GHG mitigation

target for biomass in 2020, 80% in 2030

No deforestation in industrialized countries

WCMC maps restrict LUC

Sensitivity runsReference(no deforestation)

Sustainability criteria (as Reference base) No deforestation anywhere

Trade (as Reference base) (as Reference base)Reference(no biofuel trade)

Sustainability criteria (as Reference base) (as Reference base)Trade No biofuel trade (as Reference base)

Sustainability(no deforestation)

Sustainability criteria (as Sustainability base) No deforestation anywhere

Trade (as Sustainability base) (as Sustainability base)

14

3 Results

3.1 Biofuel and bioenergy use

3.1.1 Reference scenario base run

In the Reference scenario base run 70% of European ethanol and 66% of biodiesel demand is refined inside the EU while the remaining quantity is imported from the rest of the world. Corn is the mayor feedstock for ethanol production inside Europe while European biodiesel in 2030 is exclusively processed from rapeseed. Due to the 50% emissions saving target specified in the RED, other biodiesel processing paths such as palm oil and soybean conversion are excluded inside the EU since they do not comply with the GHG mitigation criteria. The quantity of crops which is processed to biofuels rises from 0.5 Mt for rapeseed in 2000 to 36.5 Mt and 19.6 Mt of corn in 2030. Wheat is only marginally used for ethanol processing in the Reference scenario base run. The sharp biofuel processing demand increase for rapeseed requires 10 Mt of rapeseed imports to the EU in order to fulfil the European biofuel targets.

In the rest of the world 52% of first generation biofuel is based on corn, 25% on sugar cane, 11% on soya, 8% on rapeseed and 4% on palm oil. Biggest ethanol exporter to Europe in 2030 is Brazil (65%) as well as Indonesia and Malaysia (50%) and Latin America (30%) for biodiesel. Over the simulation time the share of 2nd generation biofuels (either produced from short rotation plantation, sawmill residues or directly from energy wood biomass sourced from forests) increases substantially and by 2030 cellulosic ethanol outperforms 1st generation biofuels and accounts for 56% of the total ethanol production. Globally 2.5 EJ of 2nd generation biofuels are produced in 2030 even though European 2 nd generation biofuel mandate is with 31 PJ marginal compared to 189 PJ from 1st generation (Table 6).

Table 6: Biofuel production in Reference scenario in PJ.

Region Product 2000 2010 2020 2030Global Corn ethanol

Sugar cane ethanolWheat ethanolCellulosic ethanolTotal ethanol

125261

00

387

453259107101920

1,325418

31798

2,573

1,464627

302,4734,594

Palm oil biodieselRapeseed biodieselSoybean biodieselSunflower biodieselTotal biodiesel

08

153

25

0165

4029

234

78734223

01,034

109751273

01,134

EU27 Corn ethanolWheat ethanolCellulosic ethanolTotal ethanol

0000

0107

0107

1782731

236

1622731

220Rapeseed biodieselSunflower biodieselTotal biodiesel

83

11

16229

191

5910

591

5550

555

3.1.2 Sustainability scenario base run

Imposing strict sustainability criteria on biofuel production prevents biofuels from being produced inside Europe. Since none of the conversion paths complies with the 70% in 2020 and 80% in 2030 emissions

15

saving target, total biofuel demand has to be imported from the rest of the world. Besides biofuels also biomass supply for bioenergy production has to comply with high mitigation criteria. As a consequence, the feedstock composition for biofuel and bioenergy production differs significantly between the two base run scenarios.

Looking at ethanol production globally, it can be observed that ethanol processed from sugar cane increases (+363 PJ) at the expense of ethanol processed from corn (-369 PJ) and wheat (-27 PJ). Sugar cane ethanol constitutes almost half of total ethanol production (47%) (Table 7) and processing quantities from sugar cane rise from 368 Mt to 582 Mt while corn declines from 176 Mt to 132 Mt. Main ethanol producing countries are the U.S. (409 PJ) and Brazil (382 PJ).

Table 7: Global first generation biofuel demand per feedstock in PJ in 2030 in the Reference and Sustainability scenario.

REF SUSTCorn ethanol 1,464 1,095Sugar cane ethanol 627 990Wheat ethanol 30 3Total ethanol 2,121 2,088Palm oil biodiesel 109 464Rapeseed biodiesel 751 329Soybean biodiesel 273 374Total biodiesel 1,134 1,167Total biofuel 3,254 3,254

In the Sustainability scenario in 2030 rapeseed loses importance as biodiesel feedstock globally since European biofuel feedstocks do not comply with high mitigation criteria. Hence, Europe has to import its total biofuel demand. Processing quantities for rapeseed are more than halved globally from 49 Mt to 22 Mt, while palm oil (+63 Mt) and soybean (17 Mt) processing quantities increase. Therefore, in the Sustainability scenario palm oil contributes the biggest share in global biodiesel production (40%) followed by soybean (32%) and rapeseed (28%). Biggest biodiesel producers are South and South East Asia (55 PJ) and China (191 PJ). Production of 2nd generation biofuels in Europe remains with 31 PJ at the same level in 2030 as in the Reference scenario base run.

3.2 Market conditions and trade


Until 2030, prices for most crops increase in the Reference scenario base run in Europe as well as in the rest of the world. Main driver is the additional feedstock demand for biofuel processing which cannot be compensated by increasing productivity through yield increase, reallocation to more productive regions or shift in management systems. In Europe, especially the main biofuel feedstock experience a substantial price increase and rapeseed and corn prices go up by 54% and 15% respectively between 2010 and 2030 due to increasing biofuel demand. While corn processing to biofuels accounts only for 24% of total demand, this share is for rapeseed with 77% a lot higher, thus explaining the big impact of biofuel demand on rape prices. In 2030, 36.5 Mt of rapeseed are processed to biodiesel in the EU. Even though rapeseed supply constantly increases and almost triples from 2000 until 2030 it is not sufficiently large to satisfy increasing biofuel demand. As a consequence, Europe turns from a net exporting region of rapeseed to an importing region (13.3 Mt in 2030). Biggest rapeseed exporter to Europe is Canada (37%) and South and South East Asia (43%). Increasing corn production is mainly driven by ethanol demand and increases by 39% until 2030. Corn imports, feed and human demand remains at constant levels.

16

While prices increase for rapeseed and corn, soybean prices drop over time. Main reason is the substitution of soybean with by-products from biofuel processing (rapeseed cake and corn DDGS) which make cheap by-products for animal feeding available and put pressure on the soybean market. Since European farmer are not competitive at low prices, soybean production in the EU continuously decreases until 2030. Due to the replacement of soybean in the animal feed sector, soybean demand and imports decrease (-24% in 2030 compared to 2000) over time. Overall European crop exports to the rest of the world decrease until 2030 while at the same time imports are rising slightly. Since there is a shift towards the cultivation of biofuel crops (corn and rapeseed), wheat production expansion slows down and European wheat exports decrease substantially. In the European forest sector production of woody biomass for energy purposes more than doubles from 149 Mm3 to 363 Mm3. In addition, 191 Mm3 of woody biomass from short rotation tree plantations has to be imported to Europe in order to fulfil the European bioenergy targets for heat and electricity production in 2030.


The European net trade balance for agricultural products is more balanced in the Sustainability scenario base run compared to the Reference scenario base run as exports for agricultural products increase and imports at the same time decrease. Since biofuel production is reallocated to the rest of the world, European crop production can be either used for domestic human food or animal feed demand or be exported to the rest of the world. Namely barley (+9 Mt), rapeseed (+4 Mt) and wheat exports (+14 Mt) experience a substantial increase in 2030. In the livestock sector, exports of poultry meat increase by 1 Mt. Rapeseed and corn imports can be reduced by 13 Mt and 2 Mt respectively due to non-existing processing demand. Soybean imports go up by 13 Mt since feed demand increases due to the missing cheap by-products from biofuel processing. Biofuels are exclusively imported from the rest of the world.

In the wood sector some adjustments can be observed due to implementation of sustainability criteria and the exclusion of some bioenergy conversion paths. Mayor difference between the Reference and Sustainability scenario is the substitution of biomass from short rotation plantation with energy wood from forests or sawmill residues since short rotation plantations in most EU countries do not comply with the 80% emission saving target in 2030. Therefore, imports of industrial plantation biomass decline by 191 Mm3 mainly coming from Canada while imports of energy wood increase by 123 Mt. In addition supply of energy wood in EU increases from 363 Mt in the Reference scenario base run to 479 Mt in the Sustainability scenario base run. However, this increase comes at the expense of sawn and pulpwood production which decreases resulting in additional imports of 7 Mt of sawn and 18 Mt of pulpwood to EU.

Prices for most products in Europe decline in the Sustainability scenario compared to the Reference scenario until 2030 as pressure on the crop production is relieved due to abolishment of biofuel production inside the EU. When looking at biofuel feedstock prices, prices for corn decline by 8%, rapeseed by 40% and wheat by 14% but also other crop like barley (-19%), potatoes (-2%) or sunflower (-3%) benefit from the abolishment of first generation biofuel production in Europe. However, globally prices increase in the Sustainability scenario especially for palm oil (7%) and soybean (8%) but also for other food crops and woody biomass a price increase can be observed. For some crops this results from an increased demand due to the changed global biofuel feedstock mix. Moreover it is linked to the implementation of sustainability criteria globally which limit land use change in the rest of the world hence increasing production prices.

3.3 Land use and land use change


In the Reference scenario base run global cropland and grassland areas increase by 37 Mha and 47 Mha respectively from 2000 to 2030 due to increasing demand for agricultural crop and livestock products. This expansion mainly takes place on other natural vegetation (-48 Mha) or through deforestation (-105 Mha). Cropland expansion is mainly located in Sub-Saharan Africa (+24.5 Mha) and South and South

17

East Asia +17.2 Mha) whereas grassland increases in Latin America (+30.1 Mha) and Sub-Saharan Africa (+19.4 Mha).

While in Latin America deforestation is mainly driven by grassland expansion, cropland expansion is the biggest driver in South and South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. From 2000 until 2030 1.4 Mha/yr of forests are converted in Latin America, 1.3 Mha/yr in Sub-Saharan Africa and 0.7 Mha/yr in South and South East Asia. Global average deforestation rate over 2000-2030 is about 0.09% per year which represents a decline in deforestation rate compared to the 0.13% per year from 2000-2010 that was reported in FAO (2011). Global short rotation plantation area grows constantly over time by 69 Mha due to increasing demand for bioenergy.

The global changes in land use described above are the result of the Reference scenario base run and the interplay of different drivers. As described in the Methods section these include the increase bioenergy and food demand, increase of population and development of GDP in the world regions and EU countries. From the Reference scenario results alone no attribution to single drivers such as biofuel expansion is possible. A more analytical assessment of environmental impacts of European biofuel expansion is presented in Frank et al (submitted).

2000 2010 2020 20300

50

100

150

200

250

300

Other Natural VegetationGrasslandShort Rotation CoppiceUnmanaged ForestManaged ForestCropland

Mha

Figure 3: Development of land cover in EU until 2030 in the Reference scenario in Mha.

In Europe, only minor land use changes can be observed due to restrictive legislation. As deforestation and grassland conversion are excluded forest and grassland land cover types remain constant over the simulation time. Main difference is the expansion of forest production through conversion of unmanaged into managed forests (Figure 3). Until 2030, 42 Mha of forests enter production in Europe to satisfy increasing wood biomass demand mainly driven by bioenergy mandates. Technically for Europe this does not necessarily imply a conversion of native old growth forests into plantations. Most forests in EU are managed already in the sense that they are accessible and potentially available for wood supply. But wood demand around the base year is relatively low so that not the entire increment in European forests is harvested. With the increase in bioenergy and also total wood demand, more forests are harvested without affecting sustainability from a natural resource point of view. However, higher harvest rates might affect stand level biodiversity and have also an impact on the forest carbon sink (Böttcher et al. 2012). Such effects cannot be assessed with the applied version of GLOBIOM.

18

Until 2030, rapeseed areas more than double compared to 2000 amounting to a total of 10 Mha in 2030 (Figure 4). Soybean and wheat areas decline and other natural vegetation is converted into cropland (2 Mha). Other crop areas remain at constant level.

2000 2010 2020 20300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

WheatSunflowerRapeseedPotatoCornBarley

in M

ha

Figure 4: Crop areas in Europe in the Reference scenario in Mha.

The total use of nitrogen increases between 2010 and 2030 in the EU27 by 3.5% (Figure 5). The average nitrogen use per hectare of cultivated crop (nitrogen intensity) increases between 2010 and 2020 and then remains constant in 2030, due to productivity growth. However, in the rest of the world, we observe a substantial increase by 19% of total nitrogen use between 2010 and 2030. This reflects very different situations with strong nitrogen consumption increase in MENA (+47%) and in Sub-Saharan Africa (+45%) for instance while the consumption decreases in the CIS (-10%) and remains constant Canada (+0.4%).

2000 2010 2020 20300

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Total N use EU27 Total N use RoW N intensity EU27 N intensity RoW

Mt

kg/h

a/yr

Figure 5: Evolution of nitrogen use in EU27 and rest of the world in the Reference scenario base run.

19


Comparing land cover between Reference and Sustainability scenario base run in 2030, it can be observed that global cropland area is by 2.3 Mha larger in the Sustainability scenario base run (Figure 6). This results from the reallocation of biofuel production into the rest of the world which favours other biofuel feedstocks than those being produced in Europe in the Reference scenario. As biofuel production from rapeseed and corn declines, also production of by-products which can be used as animal feed decreases. Therefore, the substitution effect of by-products partially disappears and other crops for livestock feeding have to be produced. Moreover, cropland expansion into highly biodiverse areas but with sometimes high productivity is not allowed. Therefore, crops are being pushed into less productive areas with smaller yields which also forces additional cropland into production. Global soybean area increases by 9.3 Mha due to rising livestock feed and processing demand for biofuel production in the Sustainability scenario. At the same time sugar cane (+2.5 Mha) and palm oil (+3.6 Mha) areas increase while rapeseed (-8.8 Mha) and corn areas decrease due smaller processing demand for biofuel production. Since productivity of other crops is affected indirectly through reallocation of crop areas i.e. globally wheat yields decrease by 3% bringing additional 5.1 Mha into production; in total 2. Mha of additional cropland is needed in the Sustainability scenario. Additional cropland is mainly located in Latin America with a 3.1 Mha expansion due to soybean, rapeseed and sugar cane area increase.

MENA SSA Pacific CIS China South and

South East Asia

LA Canada USA EU27

-10.0

-8.0

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Cropland Grassland Short Rotation CoppiceOther Natural Vegetation Forests

Area

diff

eren

ce in

Mha

Figure 6: Land cover change by region in Sustainability scenario base run compared to Reference scenario base run in 2030. MENA: Middle East, North Africa; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa; CIS: Commonwealth of Independent States; LA: Latin Amercia.

Globally grassland declines by 5.4 Mha in the Sustainability scenario compared to the Reference scenario. Especially in South and South East Asia a substantial decrease in grassland can be observed. Main reason is the restriction of grassland expansion into highly biodiverse primary forests due to sustainability constraint in the Sustainability scenario which limits expansion of grassland areas. As a result, a switch to less grassland based livestock production systems can be observed. However, this is not sufficient to keep production at the small level and hence production decreases slightly in the Sustainability scenario. Interestingly in Sub-Saharan Africa the opposite trend can be observed. More grassland expands into primary forests in the Sustainability scenario driving additional deforestation. This is driven by a combination of two factors. On the one hand, overall grassland productivity decreases due to competition with cropland (which supplies additional biofuel exports to Europe) forcing grassland

20

area to expand. On the other hand, also a switch to more grassland based production systems is observed since feeding costs are lower also resulting in a higher grazing area.

In the Sustainability scenario base run total deforestation decreases by 5.6 Mha until 2030. This results from an increasing demand for energy wood from forests and the exclusion of conversion of high biodiversity forests. As short rotation plantations often do not reach the mitigation target, the EU is processing energy wood from existing forests, i.e. forestry residues and fellings into heat, electricity and 2nd generation biofuels. As a consequence, demand for energy wood increases and 20 Mha of unused forests enter production at the expense of short rotation plantations which decrease by 4.9 Mha. Deforestation is lower in South and South East Asia due to protection of highly biodiverse primary forests. Interestingly, in Sub-Saharan Africa deforestation actually increases in the Sustainability scenario base run by 4.1 Mha mainly driven by grassland expansion.

Overall, intensity for agricultural inputs is reduced in the Sustainability scenario base run (Figure 7). Compared to the Reference scenario base run in 2030, nitrogen intensity decreases globally by 7% and phosphorus by 4%. This is directly related to the composition of the crop shares and the management systems. At global scale nitrogen intensity decreases for corn (-7%), potatoes (-29%), rapeseed (-35%) or sugar cane (-17%) while it increases for soybean (+15%) or rice (+32%). This results from an extensification effect through the shift to less intensive systems or less productive areas.

World EU27 RoW85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

WaterNitrogen Phosphorus

Figure 7: Relative use of agricultural inputs in Sustainability scenario compared to Reference scenario in 2030. Reference is at 100%.

In Europe, nitrogen intense rapeseed areas decline and are replaced by wheat and barley that do not require that much fertilizer inputs. Moreover, for some crops an extensification effect due to a switch to less intense management systems can be observed i.e. for corn and sunflower (-3% of total nitrogen per ha).

3.3.3 Sensitivity analysis

Figure 8 presents total cropland areas per region in 2030 compared to the Reference scenario base run. When excluding deforestation, it can be observed that cropland expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa (max. -8 Mha), South and South East Asia (max. -9 Mha) and Latin America (max. -2 Mha) is substantially restricted. This results from avoiding deforestation as cropland usually either expands directly into primary forests (mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa) or indirectly through grassland conversion which then

21

expands into primary forests. Moreover, cropland increases mainly in the U.S. (2 Mha) and some marginal expansion in other regions to compensate for the avoided cropland expansion in tropical countries. Effects on cropland variation in the no biofuel trade scenario are marginal. Cropland variation is mainly related to corn area variation in the Sustainability scenario (Sub-Saharan Africa -3 Mha, South and South East Asia -8 Mha, Latin America -5 Mha). Decreasing corn production is therefore being compensated by increasing corn imports from the U.S and China to those regions.

MENA SSA Pacific CIS China South and

South East Asia

LA Canada USA EU27

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

Reference no biofuel trade Reference no deforestationSustainability Sustainability no deforestation

Crop

land

diff

eren

ce in

Mha

Figure 8: Cropland variation compared to the Reference scenario per region in 2030. MENA: Middle East, North Africa; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa; CIS: Commonwealth of Independent States; LA: Latin Amercia.

3.4 Loss of biodiversity


In the Reference scenario base run, where no sustainability criteria are imposed outside Europe, increasing demand for food, bioenergy and wood products drives mayor land use changes around the world. Our results indicate, that in the Reference scenario base run 35.7 Mha of high biodiversity areas would disappear completely until 2030 (Table 8). This represents a loss of 7% of the total identified high biodiversity areas in 2000. Mayor source of loss of highly biodiverse areas is deforestation caused by cropland (-3.8 Mha) and grassland (-15.4 Mha) expansion into primary forests which can be observed in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Almost one fifth of the total deforestation (105 Mha) until 2030 takes place in highly biodiverse primary forests contributing to an overall loss of 7% of total highly biodiverse primary forest area.

Cropland expansion is also responsible for the conversion of grasslands and other natural vegetation. High biodiversity natural vegetation declines by 8% until 2030. In addition, increasing biomass demand causes the establishment of short rotation plantation on previously high biodiversity areas such as other natural vegetation, grasslands and cropland.

22

Table 8: Loss of high biodiversity areas in Reference scenario base run due to land use change until 2030 in Mha. MENA: Middle East, North Africa; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa; CIS: Commonwealth of Independent States; LA: Latin America.

Total Forests Grassland other natural landWorld 35.7 19.2 6.8 9.7MENA 2.5 0.3 1.2 1.0SSA 13.6 9.0 2.1 2.5Pacific 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.3CIS 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9China 2.1 0.0 0.4 1.7South and South East Asia 2.1 1.0 0.1 1.0LA 12.1 8.5 2.4 1.2Canada 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0USA 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.5


Due to the implementation of additional sustainability criteria outside Europe in the Sustainability scenario, conversion of highly biodiverse areas does not occur in this scenario per definition. When looking at the sensitivity runs, losses of highly biodiverse areas do not change significantly in the Reference scenario no biofuel trade compared to the base run. However, in the no deforestation run, results differ. Since deforestation is excluded in this sensitivity scenario, the conversion of highly biodiverse forests in general is avoided. While deforestation of highly biodiverse forests is consequently reduced to zero, conversion of highly biodiverse other natural vegetation increases by 3.1 Mha since cropland and grassland expansion into forests is not allowed and therefore expansion takes place on other natural vegetation. In total losses of highly biodiverse areas decrease by 58% to 15.1 Mha compared to the base run. It can be concluded, that the successful implementation of a zero deforestation target has positive impacts on conservation of highly biodiverse areas.

3.5 GHG emissions


Total GHG emissions from agriculture and land use change remain constant in Europe since emission savings from fossil fuel replacement can compensate for increasing emissions from livestock and crop production (Figure 9). As a consequence, total emissions increase only marginally from 562 Mt in 2000 to 577 Mt in 2030.

23

2000 2010 2020 2030-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

BiofuelsLivestock sectorCrop sectorother LUCDeforestationTotal GHG

Mt C

O2

eq

Figure 9: Development of annualized average GHG emissions in EU27 in the Reference scenario in Mt CO2 eq.

Global total GHG emissions increase sharply by 48% from 2000 until 2030 amounting to a total of 8,078 Mt in the last period (Figure 10). The crop and livestock sector are responsible for the biggest share in total emissions, emitting 52% and 36% of total emissions. Emissions from land use change contribute 16% to total GHG emissions. However, emissions from land use change increase rapidly over time and are the largest source of additional GHG emissions compared to the base year. Rising emissions cannot be compensated by an increasing carbon sink due to establishment of short rotation plantations and emission savings due to the replacement of fossil fuel by biofuels. The evolution of GHG emissions is not only driven by biofuel expansion but also by other macroeconomic developments such as population growth which trigger an increase in demand for agricultural products.

2000 2010 2020 2030-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

BiofuelsLivestock sectorCrop sectorother LUCDeforestationTotal GHG

Mt C

O2

eq

Figure 10: Development of annualized average GHG emissions in the Reference scenario in the rest of the world in Mt CO2 eq.

24


When looking at GHG emissions in the Reference and Sustainability scenario base runs it can be observed, that GHG emissions are smaller in the latter scenario. Emissions from land use change decrease by 171 Mt in 2030 (Table 9) in the Sustainability scenario base run since more stringent sustainability criteria are enforced. Main sources for emissions savings are decreasing emissions from deforestation and soil N2O. Since emissions related to nitrogen use and production represent a substantial share of emissions from crop production, these emissions decline due to the extensification of cropland as described before. Overall GHG emissions can be reduced by 381 Mt CO2 eq in 2030 globally. In Europe, emissions actually increase in the Sustainability scenario compared to Reference until 2030 due to the fact that emissions savings from fossil fuel replacement are allocated to the countries actually producing biofuels.

Table 9: Evolution of annualized average GHG emissions in Mt CO2 eq.

Reference Sustainability2000 2020 2030 2000 2020 2030

EU27 Afforestation 0 -2 0 0 0 0Deforestation 0 0 0 0 0 0Other LUC 0 3 4 0 4 4Total LUC 0 1 4 0 4 4Crop 286 315 316 286 299 301Livestock 277 302 312 277 306 314Total agriculture 563 618 628 563 605 615Fossil Fuel Displacement -1 -59 -56 -1 -4 -2Total 562 560 577 562 604 616

RoW Afforestation -23 -143 -115 -23 -126 -108Deforestation 12 929 1,110 12 757 991Other LUC 11 151 307 11 139 249Total LUC -1 938 1,303 -1 770 1,132Crop 2,981 3,633 3,886 2,981 3,523 3,711Livestock 1,943 2,406 2,624 1,943 2,382 2,590Total agriculture 4,923 6,039 6,511 4,923 5,905 6,301Fossil Fuel Displacement -26 -175 -312 -26 -218 -353Total 4,897 6,802 7,501 4,897 6,458 7,080

Global Afforestation -23 -144 -114 -23 -126 -108Deforestation 12 929 1,110 12 757 991Other LUC 11 155 310 11 143 252Total LUC -1 939 1,306 -1 774 1,135Crop 3,266 3,948 4,202 3,266 3,822 4,012Livestock 2,220 2,709 2,937 2,220 2,688 2,904Total agriculture 5,486 6,657 7,139 5,486 6,510 6,916Fossil Fuel Displacement -27 -234 -368 -27 -222 -355Total 5,459 7,361 8,078 5,459 7,063 7,697

25


In the no deforestation scenarios global GHG emissions can be reduced by 19% (no deforestation Reference) and 20% (no deforestation Sustainability) compared to the Reference scenario base run (Figure 11). Emissions from land use change can be reduced from 1.306 Mt in the Reference scenario to 219 Mt in the Reference scenario no deforestation and 208 Mt in the Sustainability scenario no deforestation respectively. In addition, also emissions from livestock and crop production decrease in the two scenarios by 6% and 8% respectively. While in the Sustainability scenario emissions can only be reduced by 5%, in the scenarios where deforestation is excluded, GHG emissions decrease much further. Hence, preventing deforestation is an important climate mitigation option since it reduces much more emissions than the sustainability criteria implemented in the Sustainability scenario. However, even though total emissions decline compared to the Reference scenario, even in the no deforestation Sustainability scenarios, net GHG emission increase by 18% compared to 2000 due to overall changes on the demand side.

2000 2010 2020 203070%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

Reference no biofuel trade Reference no deforestationSustainability Sustainability no deforestation

Figure 11: Evolution of total GHG emissions relative to Reference scenario.

3.6 Discussion and conclusions

This study aimed at an assessment of impacts of bioenergy scenarios that largely occur outside EU. The model we applied allows for a consideration of sustainability issues, accounting for (direct and indirect) land use change, environmental variables (water, nitrogen, GHG emissions), and economic effects (e.g. food prices).

Even though biofuels offer the potential to reduce fossil fuel based energy production and net emissions (Farrell et al. 2006; Edwards et al. 2008), increasing biofuel demand can result in higher GHG emissions through land use change (Fargione et al. 2008; Searchinger et al. 2008). Furthermore, biofuel production can also lead to biodiversity losses through direct or indirect displacement of natural habitat and other ecologically valuable land (Eggers et al. 2009; Hellmann and Verburg 2010). In order to ensure GHG emissions savings, prevent biodiversity loss, and avoid other negative impacts on the environment, sustainability criteria guiding biofuel production have been included in the RED. Already numerous studies have analysed effects of biofuels on land use change and GHG emissions at global scale (Al-Riffai 2010; Britz and Hertel 2011). Here we assess such effects for the concrete Biomass Futures scenarios.

26

Satisfying European bioenergy targets in 2030 requires a substantial increase in biomass produced inside Europe and additional imports from the rest of the world. In the Reference scenario base run which provides an outlook on how bioenergy markets could develop towards 2030, 70% of the European ethanol and 66% of the biodiesel demand can be met by EU refined biofuels. Increasing demand for biofuel results in increasing crop prices. Prices for important European biofuel feedstocks experience sharp increases (rapeseed +54%, corn +15% until 2030). In the forestry sector 191 Mm3 of biomass imports are required to meet European demand for heat and electricity.

Moreover, our results indicate that in the Reference scenario 105 Mha may be deforested globally until 2030, one fifth of it highly biodiverse primary forests. Deforestation mainly takes place in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. In the Sustainability scenario base run, where strict sustainability criteria are enforced, deforestation can be reduced by 5.6 Mha and conversion of highly biodiverse areas is avoided. Especially in Latin America and South and South East Asia the imposed sustainability criteria avoid deforestation and limit conversion of highly biodiverse areas. However, in Sub-Saharan Africa a slight increase in deforestation can be observed. Since increasing biofuel exports to Europe trigger competition between cropland for biofuel production and grasslands for animal feeding, this causes additional grasslands to expand into forests as cropland for biofuel production expands into highly productive grasslands.

With the implementation of more stringent sustainability criteria in the Sustainability scenario no first generation biofuels can be produced in the EU due to non-compliance with the high GHG mitigation criteria. Hence, biofuels have to be imported from the rest of the world in order to satisfy European biofuel demand. Consequently, a shift in biofuel feedstock occurs and feedstocks such as sugar cane and palm oil gain importance in the biofuel feedstock mix. Moreover, also in the forest sector a shift from short rotation tree plantation biomass to energy wood biomass sourced from forests can be observed, when sustainability criteria are applied to the whole biomass sector.

In the Sustainability scenario, global emissions can be reduced by 5% through avoiding deforestation and more extensive cropland management. However, over the whole period GHG emissions increase in both scenarios due to overall developments on the demand side driven by population growth, increasing calorie requirements and biofuel expansion. Nitrogen inputs decrease globally by 7% and phosphorus by 4% in the Sustainability scenario. This is caused by the reallocation of biofuel production in the rest of the world and the related the change in biofuel feedstock mix. Since crops with high fertilizer requirements previously produced in the EU such as rapeseed and corn are being replaced with less nitrogen intensive biofuel feedstocks like sugar cane and palm oil in the rest of the world in the Sustainability scenario.

In the sensitivity runs large GHG mitigation potential can be observed when no deforestation is allowed. Excluding deforestation for the Reference and the Sustainability scenario in the sensitivity runs results in emission savings of 19% and 20% respectively. This exceeds by far the emission saving potential due to implementation of sustainability criteria. Hence, global land use change policies targeting all drivers of deforestation (not only the biofuel sector) such as REDD help preventing indirect land use change effects and avoiding GHG emissions from direct and indirect land use change. As shown in the sensitivity runs implementing such policies effectively results in higher GHG emissions savings and conservation if of highly biodiverse areas.

The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) addresses some of these impacts, sets sustainability criteria and excludes sources, feedstocks and pathways that violate these. Despite the model’s ability to cover a wide range of processes, challenges remain when it comes to an appropriate implementation of these criteria. While the inclusion of RED sustainability criteria for domestic production was achieved by producing a stencil to exclude feedstocks and pathways that violate criteria, a similar application to imported feedstocks and biofuels is difficult. This is due to the fact that biomass cannot be tracked from field to final product in the model. Therefore, a set of sensitivity runs was performed that allowed or banned global deforestation and opened or constrained global trade of biofuels into EU.

27

Some general observations that can be made from a comparison of Biomass Future scenarios and sensitivity runs are twofold. European biofuel mandates do have an effect on global land use that can be assessed with an economic land use model as we applied it. These land use effects cannot be mitigated by applying sustainability criteria to biofuel production and imports only. However, when globally effective land use policies e.g. targeting emissions from deforestation and biodiversity loss in general are successful, no indirect effects of increased bioenergy use on biodiversity and GHG emissions are occurring.

This finding is somehow trivial but important as it stresses that globally an application of sustainability criteria on biofuel products only is not effective. Findings from Biomass Futures’ WP3 presented in Deliverable 3.3 identify significant amounts of biomass that are technically available in Europe to satisfy bioenergy targets even when applying sustainability criteria. Also Frank et al. (submitted) identified large feedstock potentials for bioethanol production in North America, Brazil and Asia complying with RED sustainability criteria. Global “sustainable” production could amount to more than 10 times of the 2020 EU biofuel demand without violating RED sustainability criteria. However, the challenge is to avoid a leakage of biomass production to sectors not covered by the criteria, e.g. timber, food and feed sectors or simply the biomass production for energy consumption outside EU (Frank et al. submitted).

An added value of this study lies not in the quantification of potentials of biomass for EU bienergy supply (see for an overview Deliverable 3.1 Review of biomass assessments available on the Biomass Futures website www.biomassfutures.eu). We applied sustainability criteria to constrain the potential to more realistic numbers. However, also these numbers are still uncertain and depend on the many assumptions made related to accessibility, availability and costs (see Deliverable 3.3). We acknowledge that total amounts regarding biomass potentials and impacts need to be regarded in the light of these assumptions. This is especially true for those made on the demand for biomass for bioenergy (but also other purposes) outside EU. It is likely that the behaviour of the rest of the world matters more than decisions of agents inside EU. Therefore the value added by this assessment can instead be seen more in the contribution to a rational debate about sustainable biomass supply for EU.

28

4 References

Al-Riffai, P. D., B. & Laborde, D. (2010). Global Trade and Environmental Impact Study of the EU Biofuels Mandate, International Food Policy Research Institute: 125.

BEE (2010). Harmonization of biomass resource assessments Volume I: Best practices and methods handbook. Enschede, The Netherlands, BTG Biomass Technology Group.

Böttcher, H., P. J. Verkerk, et al. (2012). Projection of the future EU forest CO2 sink as affected by recent bioenergy policies using two advanced forest management models. GCB Bioenergy in press.

Bouët, A., Y. Decreux, et al. (2008). Assessing applied protection across the world. Review of International Economics 16 5: 850-863.

Britz, W. and T. W. Hertel (2011). Impacts of EU biofuels directives on global markets and EU environmental quality: An integrated PE, global CGE analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 142 1–2: 102-109.

Edwards, R., S. Szekeres, et al. (2008). Biofuels in the european context: facts and uncertainties. Petten, The Netherlands, Ispra, Italy, Joint Research Centre Institute for Energy (JRC-IE), Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability (JRC-IES): 30.

Eggers, J., K. TrÖLtzsch, et al. (2009). Is biofuel policy harming biodiversity in Europe? GCB Bioenergy 1 1: 18-34.

FAO (2006). World agriculture: towards 2030/2050. Prospects for food, nutrition, agriculture and major commodity groups. Rome, Italy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2011). State of World's Forests. Rome, Italy, United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO): 179.

Fargione, J., J. Hill, et al. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319 5867: 1235-1238.

Farrell, A. E., R. J. Plevin, et al. (2006). Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311 5760: 506-508.

Frank, S., H. Böttcher, et al. (submitted). How effective are the sustainability criteria accompanying the EU 2020 biofuel targets. GCB Bioenergy.

Fritsche (2011). Personal communication.

Gallagher, E. (2008). The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. St Leonards-on-Sea, Renewable Fuels Agency: 92.

Havlík, P., U. A. Schneider, et al. (2011). Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy 39 10: 5690-5702.

Hellmann, F. and P. H. Verburg (2010). Impact assessment of the European biofuel directive on land use and biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Management 91 6: 1389-1396.

Hummels, D. (2001). Toward a Geography of Trade Costs. Global Trade Analysis Project Working Paper 17: 55.

29

Jandl, R. and M. Olsson (2007). Greenhouse-gas budget of soils under changing climate and land use (BurnOut), COST Action 639.

Jansson, T. and T. Heckelei (2009). A new estimator for trade costs and its small sample properties. Economic Modelling 26 2: 489-498.

Kapos, V., C. Ravilious, et al. (2008). Carbon and biodiversity: a demonstration atlas. Cambridge, UK, UNEP-WCMC.

Päivinen, R., J. Van Brusselen, et al. (2009). The growing stock of European forests using remote sensing and forest inventory data. Forestry 82 5: 479-490.

Paré, D., P. Bernier, et al. (2011). The potential of forest biomass as an energy supply for Canada. Forestry Chronicle 87 1: 71-76.

Russ, P., J.-C. Ciscar, et al. (2009). Economic Assessment of Post-2012 Global Climate Policies - Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Scenarios with the POLES and GEM-E3 models. Brussels, JRC IPTS: 70.

Sauer, T., P. Havlík, et al. (2008). Agriculture, Population, Land and Water Scarcity in a changing World - the Role of Irrigation. Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, Gent, Belgium.

Searchinger, T., R. Heimlich, et al. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319 5867: 1238-1240.

Steenblik, R. (2007). Biofuels-At what cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel in Selected OECD Countries. Geneva, International Institute for Sustainable Development. Global Subsidies Initiative.

30

Appendix

Table 10: General parameters.

GJ MWh tce toe bblGJ 1 0.278 0.034 0.024 0.176MWh 3.60 1 0.122 0.086 0.632tce 29.31 8.148 1 0.703 5.155toe 41.87 11.64 1.424 1 7.299bbl 5.694 1.583 0.194 0.137 1m3 wood 4.65t biomass 2.325

Table 11: Sources of parameters used in GLOBIOM.

PARAMETER SOURCE YEARLand characteristicsSoil Classes ISRICSlope ClassesAltitude Classses SRTM 90m Digital Elevation Data

(http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org)Country BoundariesAridity Index ICRAF, Zomer at al. (2009)Temperature threshold European Centre for Medium Range Weather

Forecasting (ECMWF)Protected area FORAFLand cover Global Land Cover (GLC 2000 )- Institute for

Environment and Sustainability2000

AgricultureAreaCropland area (1000 ha) Global Land Cover (GLC 2000 )- Institute for

Environment and Sustainability2000

EPIC crop area (1000 ha) IFPRI- You and Wood (2006) 2000Cash crop area (1000 ha) IFPRI- You, Wood, Wood-Sichra (2007) 2000Irrigated area (1000 ha) FAO average

1998-2002YieldEPIC crop yield (T/ha) BOKU, Erwin SchmidCash crop yield (T/ha) IFPRI- You, Wood, Wood-Sichra (2007) 2000Average regional yield (T/ha) FAO average

1998-2002Input useQuantity of nitrogen (FTN) (kg/ha) BOKU, Erwin SchmidQuantity of phosphorous (FTP)(kg/ha) BOKU, Erwin SchmidQuantity of water (1000 m3/ha) BOKU, Erwin SchmidFertilizer application rates IFA (1992)Fertilizer application rates FAOSTATCosts for 4 irrigation systems Sauer et al. (2008)ProductionCrop production (1000 T) FAO average

1998-2002Livestock production FAO average

1998-2002PricesCrops (USD/T) FAO average

PARAMETER SOURCE YEAR1998-2002

Fertilizer price (USD/kg) USDA ( http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/)

average 2001-2005

ForestryMaximum share of saw logs in the mean

annual increment (m3/ha/year)Kinderman et al. (2006)

Harvestable wood for pulp production (m3/ha/year)

Kinderman et al. (2006)

Mean annual increment (m3/ha/year) Kinderman et al. (2008) based on the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FAO, 2006a)

Biomass and Wood production (m3 or 1000 T)

FAO 2000

Harvesting costs Kinderman et al. (2006)Short rotation plantation Havlik et al. (2010)Suitable area (1000 ha) Zomer at al. (2008) 2010Maximum Annual Increment (m3 per ha) Alig et al., 2000; Chiba and Nagata, 1987; FAO,

2006b; Mitchell, 2000; Stanturf et al., 2002; Uri et al., 2002; Wadsworth, 1997; Webb et al., 1984

Potential NPP Cramer et al. (1999Potentials for biomass plantations Zomer at al. (2008Sapling cost for manual planting (Carpentieri et al., 1993; Herzogbaum GmbH, 2008).Labour requirements for plantation

establishmentJurvélius (1997),

Average wages ILO (2007).Unit cost of harvesting equipment and

labourFPP, 1999; Jirous ̌ek et al., 2007; Stokes et al., 1986; Wang et al., 2004

Slope factor Hartsough et al., 2001Ratio of mean PPP adjustment Heston et al., 2006GHG emissionsN2O emissions from application of

synthetic fertilizers (kg CO2/ha)IPCC Guidelines, 1996

Fertilizer application rates IFA, 1992CO2 savings/emission coefficients CONCAWE/JRC/EUCAR (2007) , Renewable Fuels

Agency (2008)Above and below-ground living biomass

in forests[tCO2eq per ha]Kindermann et al. (2008)

Above and below ground living biomass in grassland and other natural land [tCO2eq per ha]

Ruesch and Gibbs (2008) (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/global_carbon/carbon_documentation.html)

Total Non-Carbon Emissions (Million Metric CO2-Equivalent)

EPA, 2006

Crop Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Tons CO2 / hectare)

EPA, 2006

GHG sequestration in SRP (tCO2/ha) Chiba and Nagata, 1987;International TradeMacMap database Bouet et al., 2005BACI (based on COMTRADE) Gaulier and Zignago, 2009International freight costs Hummels et al., 2001ProcessConversion coefficients for sawn wood 4DSM model - Rametsteiner et al. (2007)Conversion coefficients for wood pulp 4DSM model - Rametsteiner et al. (2007)Conversion coefficients and costs for

energyBiomass Technology Group, 2005; Hamelinck and Faaij, 2001; Leduc et al., 2008; Sørensen, 2005

Conversion coefficients and costs for Ethanol

Hermann and Patel (2008)

Conversion coefficients and costs for Biodiesel

Haas et al. (2007)

Production costs for sawn wood and wood pulp

internal IIASA database and RISI database ( http://www.risiinfo.com)

Population

32

PARAMETER SOURCE YEARPopulation per country (1000 hab) JRC Sevilla, POLES, Russ et al. (2007) updated average

1999-2001Estimated total population per region

every ten years between 2000 and 2100 (1000 hab)

GGI Scenario Database (2007)- Grubler et al.

0.5 degree grid GGI Scenario Database (2007)- Grubler et al.Population density CIESIN (2005).DemandInitial food demand for crops (1000 T) FBS data - FAO average

1998-2002Initial feed demand for crops (1000 T) FBS data - FAO average

1998-2002Crop requirement per animal calories

(T/1 000 000 kcal)Supply Utilisation Accounts, FAOSTAT average

1998-2002Crop energy equivalent (kcal/T) FBS data - FAORelative change in consumption for meat,

anim, veg, milk (kcal/capita)FAO(2006) World agriculture: towards 2030/2050 (Tables: 2.1, 2.7, 2.8)

Own price elasticity "International Evidence on Food Consumption Patterns", James Seale, Jr., Anita Regmi, and Jason A. Bernstein, Technical Bulletin No. (TB1904) 70 pp, October 2003

GDP projections GGI Scenario Database (2007)SUA data for crops (1000 tones) FAOFBS data FAOBioenergy projections JRC Sevilla, POLES, Russ et al. (2007) updatedBiomass and Woodconsumption (m3/ha

or 1000 T/ha)FAO

33

ec. · Web viewThe aim of the Work Package (WP) 3 of the Biomass Futures (BF) project overall...

Documents

Transcript of ec. · Web viewThe aim of the Work Package (WP) 3 of the Biomass Futures (BF) project overall...