Hannes Böttcher

Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions.

Significance The livestock sector contributes significantly to global warming through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the same time, livestock is an invaluable source of nutrition and livelihood for millions of poor people. Therefore, climate mitigation policies involving livestock must be designed with extreme care. Here we demonstrate the large mitigation potential inherent in the heterogeneity of livestock production systems. We find that even within existing systems, autonomous transitions from extensive to more productive systems would decrease GHG emissions and improve food availability. Most effective climate policies involving livestock would be those targeting emissions from land-use change. To minimize the economic and social cost, policies should target emissions at their source—on the supply side—rather than on the demand side. Livestock are responsible for 12% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable intensification of livestock production systems might become a key climate mitigation technology. However, livestock production systems vary substantially, making the implementation of climate mitigation policies a formidable challenge. Here, we provide results from an economic model using a detailed and high-resolution representation of livestock production systems. We project that by 2030 autonomous transitions toward more efficient systems would decrease emissions by 736 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MtCO2e⋅y−1), mainly through avoided emissions from the conversion of 162 Mha of natural land. A moderate mitigation policy targeting emissions from both the agricultural and land-use change sectors with a carbon price of US

EU Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions: Trends to 2050, Reference Scenario 2013

10 per tCO2e could lead to an abatement of 3,223 MtCO2e⋅y−1. Livestock system transitions would contribute 21% of the total abatement, intra- and interregional relocation of livestock production another 40%, and all other mechanisms would add 39%. A comparable abatement of 3,068 MtCO2e⋅y−1 could be achieved also with a policy targeting only emissions from land-use change. Stringent climate policies might lead to reductions in food availability of up to 200 kcal per capita per day globally. We find that mitigation policies targeting emissions from land-use change are 5 to 10 times more efficient—measured in “total abatement calorie cost”—than policies targeting emissions from livestock only. Thus, fostering transitions toward more productive livestock production systems in combination with climate policies targeting the land-use change appears to be the most efficient lever to deliver desirable climate and food availability outcomes.

Projection of the future EU forest CO2 sink as affected by recent bioenergy policies using two advanced forest management models

This report is an update and extension of the previous trend scenarios for development of energy systems taking account of transport and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions developments. The purpose of this publication is to present the new European Union (EU) Reference scenario 2013. It focuses on energy, transport and climate dimensions of EU developments and the various interactions among policies, including specific sections on emission trends not related to energy. The Reference scenario was elaborated by a consortium led by the National Technical University of Athens (E3MLab) using the PRIMES model for energy and CO2 emission projections, the GAINS model for non-CO2 emission projections and the GLOBIOM-G4M models for LULUCF emission and removal projections. The scenarios are available for the EU and each of its 28 Member States simulating the energy balances and GHG emission trends for future years under current trends and policies as adopted in the Member States by spring 2012.

An assessment of monitoring requirements and costs of 'Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation'

Forests of the European Union (EU) have been intensively managed for decades, and they have formed a significant sink for carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere over the past 50 years. The reasons for this behavior are multiple, among them are: forest aging, area expansion, increasing plant productivity due to environmental changes of many kinds, and, most importantly, the growth rates of European forest having been higher than harvest rates. EU countries have agreed to reduce total emissions of GHG by 20% in 2020 compared to 1990, excluding the forest sink.

How effective are the sustainability criteria accompanying the European Union 2020 biofuel targets

BackgroundNegotiations on a future climate policy framework addressing Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) are ongoing. Regardless of how such a framework will be designed, many technical solutions of estimating forest cover and forest carbon stock change exist to support policy in monitoring and accounting. These technologies typically combine remotely sensed data with ground-based inventories. In this article we assess the costs of monitoring REDD based on available technologies and requirements associated with key elements of REDD policy.ResultsWe find that the design of a REDD policy framework (and specifically its rules) can have a significant impact on monitoring costs. Costs may vary from 0.5 to 550 US

Sustainability of forest bioenergy in Europe: land-use-related carbon dioxide emissions of forest harvest residues.

per square kilometre depending on the required precision of carbon stock and area change detection. Moreover, they follow economies of scale, i.e. single country or project solutions will face relatively higher monitoring costs.ConclusionAlthough monitoring costs are relatively small compared to other cost items within a REDD system, they should be shared not only among countries but also among sectors, because an integrated monitoring system would have multiple benefits for non-REDD management. Overcoming initialization costs and unequal access to monitoring technologies is crucial for implementation of an integrated monitoring system, and demands for international cooperation.

Large-Scale Forest Modeling: Deducing Stand Density from Inventory Data

The expansion of biofuel production can lead to an array of negative environmental impacts. Therefore, the European Union (EU) has recently imposed sustainability criteria on biofuel production in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). In this article, we analyse the effectiveness of the sustainability criteria for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. We first use a global agriculture and forestry model to investigate environmental effects of the EU member states National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) without sustainability criteria. We conclude that these targets would drive losses of 2.2 Mha of highly biodiverse areas and generate 95 Mt CO 2 eq of additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, in a second step, we demonstrate that the EU biofuel demand could be satisfied ‘sustainably’ according to RED despite its negative environmental effects. This is because the majority of global crop production is produced ‘sustainably’ in the sense of RED and can provide more than 10 times the total European biofuel demand in 2020 if reallocated from sectors without sustainability criteria. This finding points to a potential policy failure of applying sustainability regulation to a single sector in a single region. To be effective this policy needs to be more complete in targeting a wider scope of agricultural commodities and more comprehensive in its membership of countries.

Revised European Union renewable-energy policies erode nature protection

Increasing bioenergy production from forest harvest residues decreases litter input to the soil and can thus reduce the carbon stock and sink of forests. This effect may negate greenhouse gas savings obtained by using bioenergy. We used a spatially explicit modelling framework to assess the reduction in the forest litter and soil carbon stocks across Europe, assuming that a sustainable potential of bioenergy from forest harvest residues is taken into use. The forest harvest residue removal reduced the carbon stocks of litter and soil on average by 3% over the period from 2016 to 2100. The reduction was small compared to the size of the carbon stocks but significant in comparison to the amount of energy produced from the residues. As a result of these land‐use‐related emissions, bioenergy production from forest harvest residues would need to be continued for 60–80 years to achieve a 60% carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction in heat and power generation compared to the fossil fuels it replaces in most European countries. The emission reductions achieved and their timings varied among countries because of differences in the litter and soil carbon loss. Our results show that extending the current sustainability requirements for bioliquids and biofuels to solid bioenergy does not guarantee efficient reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the short‐term. In the longer‐term, bioenergy from forest harvest residues may pave the way to low‐emission energy systems.

The Value of Global Earth Observations

While effects of thinning and natural disturbances on stand density play a central role for forest growth, their representation in large-scale studies is restricted by both model and data availability. Here a forest growth model was combined with a newly developed generic thinning model to estimate stand density and site productivity based on widely available inventory data (tree species, age class, volume, and increment). The combined model successfully coupled biomass, increment, and stand closure (=stand density/self-thinning limited stand density), as indicated by cross-validation against European-wide inventory data. The improvement in model performance attained by including variable stand closure among age cohorts compared to a fixed closure suggests that stand closure is an important parameter for accurate forest growth modeling also at large scales.

The role of the land biosphere in climate change mitigation

To the Editor — Bioenergy production can negatively impact biodiversity1,2. Unfortunately, the recast of the European Renewable Energy Directive (RED) erodes existing biodiversity protections through insufficient safeguards to prevent the unsustainable sourcing of bioenergy. The existing directive, named RED 2009 (ref. 3), imposes mandatory safeguards against land-use changes to areas of high biodiversity and carbon values (Art. 17; Fig. 1). These rules apply to all types of biofuel when measuring compliance with national targets and renewable-energy obligations, or when providing financial support. This holds for first-generation biofuels from croplands, biogas used in transport and second-generation biofuels, including biomass sourced from forests4. The RED 2009 requirements thus apply both to agricultural and forestry production. The proposed revision, named RED II (ref. 5), is extended to all bioenergy types in all energy sectors, and distinguishes agricultural and forestry production (Fig. 1). Under these revisions, land-use change requirements would apply only to agriculture (Art. 26.2–26.4), and no longer to forestry. Instead, new ‘sustainable’ forestry-management rules with few biodiversity safeguards have been added, meaning that bioenergy produced from biomass harvested in primary forests, in high-biodiversity non-primary forests, and in forests on peatlands, could now be sold legally as sustainable bioenergy in Europe. Other additions to RED II include inefficient measures for biodiversity protection in terms of forestry management. The new land use, land-use changes and forestry criteria (Art. 26.6) focussing on carbon safeguards will be without effect due to an exclusion clause, and the new protection of ‘highly biodiverse’ forests (Art. 26.3) would apply to ‘agriculture’ instead of ‘forestry’. However, the new option within the agriculture criteria open to European Union (EU) member states to limit the amount of biofuel feedstocks from food and feed crops (including palm oil; Art. 25.1) could reduce the ongoing conversion of natural land to new cropland. Furthermore, the modified requirements for sustainable forestry under Red II would apply only to installations of total rated thermal output equal to or greater than 20 MW that burn solid biomass (Art. 26.1). This means that about 75% of European wood energy today6 would not need to comply with RED II sustainability requirements. This threshold undermines the already weak sustainability requirements for forestry and opens the door for indirect effects within the EU bioenergy market: selling forest biomass complying with RED II to larger plants, but selling non-complying biomass to smaller plants. RED II also undermines the protection of highly biodiverse grasslands. Under the RED 2009 criteria, grasslands default to ‘non-natural highly biodiverse grassland’, but under RED II, only non-natural grasslands identified as ‘highly biodiverse’ by a ‘competent authority’ are protected (Art. 26.2). Overall, RED II represents an immense step in the wrong direction for biodiversity: it will incentivize the transformation of biodiverse forests and grasslands into fuel to fulfil society’s ever-increasing demand for ‘clean’ energy. RED II has yet to be approved by the European Parliament, and we strongly recommend for it to be revised immediately: (1) land-use change criteria should also apply to forestry (including the new criterion for highly biodiverse forests); (2) the ‘highly biodiverse grassland’ criterion should not be modified; and (3) thresholds for forest biomass — if needed — should be related to the size of cultivated forest areas (such as 100 ha)6, instead of referring to the size of the installations in which the biomass is destined to be burned. ❐