Oskar Englund

Oil palm for biodiesel in Brazil—risks and opportunities

Although mainly used for other purposes, and historically mainly established at the expense of tropical forests, oil palm can be the most land efficient feedstock for biodiesel. Large parts of Brazil are suitable for oil palm cultivation and a series of policy initiatives have recently been launched to promote oil palm production. These initiatives are however highly debated both in the parliament and in academia. Here we present results of a high resolution modelling study of opportunities and risks associated with oil palm production for biodiesel in Brazil, under different energy, policy, and infrastructure scenarios. Oil palm was found to be profitable on extensive areas, including areas under native vegetation where establishment would cause large land use change (LUC) emissions. However, some 40–60 Mha could support profitable biodiesel production corresponding to approximately 10% of the global diesel demand, without causing direct LUC emissions or impinging on protected areas. Pricing of LUC emissions could make oil palm production unprofitable on most lands where conversion would impact on native ecosystems and carbon stocks, if the carbon price is at the level

Meeting Sustainability Requirements for SRC Bioenergy: Usefulness of Existing Tools, Responsibilities of Involved Stakeholders, and Recommendations for Further Developments

125/tC, or higher.

The Role of Sustainability Requirements in International Bioenergy Markets

Short rotation coppice (SRC) is considered an important biomass supply option for meeting the European renewable energy targets. This paper presents an overview of existing and prospective sustainability requirements, Member State reporting obligations and parts of the methodology for calculating GHG emissions savings within the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), and shows how these RED-associated sustainability criteria may affect different stakeholders along SRC bioenergy supply chains. Existing and prospective tools are assessed on their usefulness in ensuring that SRC bioenergy is produced with sufficient consideration given to the RED-associated criteria. A sustainability framework is outlined that aims at (1) facilitating the development of SRC production systems that are attractive from the perspectives of all stakeholders, and (2) ensuring that the SRC production is RED eligible. Producer manuals, EIAs, and voluntary certification schemes can all be useful for ensuring RED eligibility. However, they are currently not sufficiently comprehensive, neither individually nor combined, and suggestions for how they can be more complementary are given. Geographical information systems offer opportunities for administrative authorities to provide stakeholders with maps or databases over areas/fields suitable for RED-eligible SRC cultivation. However, proper consideration of all relevant aspects requires that all stakeholders in the SRC supply chain become engaged in the development of SRC production systems and that a landscape perspective is used.

The Roles of Public and Private Governance in Promoting Sustainable Bioenergy

As the main driver for bioenergy is to enable society to transform to more sustainable fuel and energy production systems, it is important to safeguard that bioenergy deployment happens within certain sustainability constraints. There is currently a high number of initiatives, including binding regulations and several voluntary sustainability standards for biomass, bioenergy and/or biofuels. Within IEA Bioenergy studies were performed to monitor the actual implementation process of sustainability regulations and certification, evaluate how stakeholders are affected and envisage the anticipated impact on worldwide markets and trade. On the basis of these studies, recommendations were made on how sustainability requirements could actually support further bioenergy deployment. Markets would gain from more harmonization and cross-compliance. A common language is needed as ‘sustainability’ of biomass involves different policy arenas and legal settings. Policy pathways should be clear and predictable, and future revisions of sustainability requirements should be open and transparent. Sustainability assurance systems (both through binding regulations and voluntary certification) should take into account how markets work, in relation to different biomass applications (avoiding discrimination among end-uses and users). It should also take into account the way investment decisions are taken, administrative requirements for smallholders, and the position of developing countries.

Who owns the Brazilian carbon

Governance is the sum of formal and informal ways actors and institutions, public and private, manage common affairs. It is a continuing process through which diverging interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. Sustainability governance is concerned with promoting the positive effects of production or development processes whilst avoiding/mitigating their negative impacts, considering environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. Bioenergy supply chains involve several layers of governance, including mechanisms that specifically address bioenergy (for example bioenergy sustainability standards and certification systems) and regulation of sectors involved in bioenergy supply chains. This can involve environmental legislation, labour regulations, environmental codes, best-management agriculture/forestry practices and international trade standards. This chapter refers to three forms of governance for the promotion of the sustainable production of biomass and bioenergy: domestic public governance, domestic private governance and international private governance.

Geospatial supply-demand modeling of biomass residues for co-firing in European coal power plants

Brazil is one of the major contributors to land-use change emissions, mostly driven by agricultural expansion for food, feed, and bioenergy feedstock. Policies to avoid deforestation related to private commitments, economic incentives, and other support schemes are expected to improve the effectiveness of current command and control mechanisms increasingly. However, until recently, land tenure was unknown for much of the Brazilian territory, which has undermined the governance of native vegetation and challenged support and incentive mechanisms for avoiding deforestation. We assess the total extent of public governance mechanisms protecting aboveground carbon (AGC) stocks. We constructed a land tenure dataset for the entire nation and modeled the effects and uncertainties of major land-use acts on protecting AGC stocks. Roughly 70% of the AGC stock in Brazil is estimated to be under legal protection, and an additional 20% is expected to be protected after areas in the Amazon with currently undesignated land undergo a tenure regularization. About 30% of the AGC stock is on private land, of which roughly two-thirds are protected. The Cerrado, Amazon, and Caatinga biomes hold about 40%, 30%, and 20% of the unprotected AGC, respectively. Effective conservation of protected and unprotected carbon will depend on successful implementation of the Forest Act, and regularization of land tenure in the Amazon. Policy development that prioritizes unprotected AGC stocks is warranted to promote conservation of native vegetation beyond the legal requirements. However, different biomes and land tenure structures may require different policy settings considering local and regional specifics. Finally, the fate of current AGC stocks relies upon effective implementation of command and control mechanisms, considering that unprotected AGC in native vegetation on private land only accounts for 6.5% of the total AGC stock.

How is biodiversity protection influencing the potential for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands

Biomass co‐firing with coal is a near‐term option to displace fossil fuels and can facilitate the development of biomass conversion and the build‐out of biomass supply infrastructure. A GIS‐based modeling framework (EU‐28, Norway, and Switzerland) is used to quantify and localize biomass demand for co‐firing in coal power plants and agricultural and forest residue supply potentials; supply and demand are then matched based on minimizing the total biomass transport costs (field to gate). Key datasets (e.g., land cover, land use, and wood production) are available at 1,000 m or higher resolution, while some data (e.g., simulated yields) and assumptions (e.g., crop harvest index) have lower resolution and were resampled to allow modeling at 1,000 m resolution. Biomass demand for co‐firing is estimated at 184 PJ in 2020, corresponding to an emission reduction of 18 Mt CO2. In all countries except Italy and Spain, the sum of the forest and agricultural residues available at less than 300 km from a co‐firing plant exceeds the assessed biomass demand. The total cost of transporting residues to these plants is reduced if agricultural residues can be used, as transport distances are shorter. The total volume of forest residues less than 300 km from a co‐firing plant corresponds to about half of the assessed biomass demand. Almost 70% of the total biomass demand for co‐firing is found in Germany and Poland. The volumes of domestic forest residues in Germany (Poland) available within the cost range 2–5 (1.5–3.5) €/GJ biomass correspond to about 30% (70%) of the biomass demand. The volumes of domestic forest and agricultural residues in Germany (Poland) within the cost range 2–4 (below 2) €/GJ biomass exceed the biomass demand for co‐firing. Half of the biomass demand is located within 50 km from ports, indicating that long‐distance biomass transport by sea is in many instances an option.

How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—A systematic review

Sustainable feedstock supply is a critical issue for the bioenergy sector. One concern is that feedstock production will impact biodiversity. We analyze how this concern is addressed in assessments of biomass supply potentials and in selected governance systems in the EU and Brazil, including the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the Brazilian Forest Act. The analysis focuses on grasslands and includes estimates of the amount of grassland area (and corresponding biomass production volume) that would be excluded from cultivation in specific biodiversity protection scenarios. The reviewed assessments used a variety of approaches to identify and exclude biodiverse grasslands as unavailable for bioenergy. Because exclusion was integrated with other nature protection considerations, quantification of excluded grassland areas was often not possible. The RED complements and strengthens the CAP in terms of biodiversity protection. Following the RED, an estimated 39%–48% (about 9–11 Mha) and 15%–54% (about 10–38 Mha) of natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse in EU‐28. The estimated biomass production potential on these areas corresponds to some 1–3 and 1.5–10 EJ/year for natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively (depending on area availability and management intensity). However, the RED lacks clear definitions and guidance, creating uncertainty about its influence on grassland availability for bioenergy feedstock production. For Brazil, an estimated 16%–77% (about 16–76 Mha) and 1%–32% (about 7–24 Mha) of natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse. In Brazil, ecological–economic zoning was found potentially important for grassland protection. Further clarification of grassland definitions and delineation in regulations will facilitate a better understanding of the prospects for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands, and the impacts of bioenergy deployment on biodiversity.