Bio-energy: green fuels and red herrings

Ariel BrunnerEU Agriculture Policy Officer

BirdLife International

Biofuels are being often presented as

a silver bullet“We've got to be aggressive about finding alternative sources of fuel. And one such source is ethanol. Ethanol comes from corn - and we're pretty good about growing corn here in America, we've got a lot of good corn growers. Therefore, it makes sense to promote ethanol as an alternative to foreign sources of oil.“ George W Bush

“We need to be bold on biofuels..”Marian Fischer-Boel

Today, we have an opportunity to bolster confidence in our capabilities to respond to new challenges and global threats. By investing in biofuels, we can also join with developing countries in spreading peace, prosperity and the promise of a better future. Luiz Inacio (Lula) Da Silva

"Our continent should have as its vocation to become the primary world supplier of biofuels" Abdoulaye Wade (President of Senegal)

But many environmentalists are reacting badly…

Why now?• Oil price hike• Political instability in key oil producing regions• Climate change

And in the EU• Political need to keep EU farmers happy…

What fuels?•Ethanol- mainly in Brazil and US•Bio-diesel- mainly in the EU (Gremany, France)

And in the future (maybe?) Second generation biofuels

Overshadowed by the biofuel debate are other Biomass energy technologies:

– Biomass for heat and power (still one the world’s main energy sources)

– Biogas

What crops?

Biofuels:a renewable energy source

Photosynthesis

Conversion of biomass to biofuel

Combustion

But non carbon neutral!

Biofuels can have very different GHG balance over the whole life cycle

Main factors:• Previous land use (usually

ignored!)• BF yield• Fertilizer use• Sort of energy used for the

transformation stage• Fate of by products

% WTW GHG savingscompared to petrol or diesel

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Ethano

l (whe

at / g

rain)

Ethano

l (sug

arbee

t)

Ethano

l (corn

)

Ethano

l (sug

ar ca

ne)

Ethano

l (woo

d)

Biodies

el (ra

pese

ed)

Biodies

el (w

ood)

%

Different biomass production use land with different efficiency

(Sugar Cane)

Bio-mass

RME(sugar cane

based Biofuel )

Reed Poplar0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

RME Bioethanol Reed Poplar

Source: Calculations based on Schmitz 2005, Kaltschmitt 2002, ISource: Calculations based on Schmitz 2005, Kaltschmitt 2002, IEA 2004EA 2004

(Rape oilbased Biofuel)

Acreage requirement per ton of CO2 reduction

GOOD

Biofuel production requires huge amounts of land

• Meeting the current 5.75% target for EU Biodiesel will consume 192% of EU 2005 vegetable oil production or 14% of global projected production in 2012

• In Brazil alone, soy is already expanding at a rate of about 1.7 million hectares per year (just for food and feed production); the first Petrobras biodiesel plant will require further 437.000 ha of soy

• Palm oil plantation expansion is already thought to be responsible for the loss of 1.2Mha of tropical forests in Malaysia and 2.05Mha in Indonesia ; further 3 million ha to oil palm plantations are planned for the next 5 years in Indonesia

• In the US an additional 2.6 million hectares of corn are needed to meet biofuel demand next year..

Very small contributions to the energy market can have far reaching land use impacts

Which means adding pressure on ecosystems

A European case study: Little Bustard in France, biofuels driving extinction?

• Little Bustard population in France ↓ by 90% since 1980s -local extinction a real possibilty.

• Populations now relies on set-aside land, managed under agri-environment scheme.

• In Poitou-Charantes, this scheme pays 150 €/ha

BUT• Oil seed rape on set-aside gives a

returnof 315-379 €/ha

• Therefore biofuels provide major economic dis-incentive against managing land to benefit biodiversity.

Germany: fuelling intensification?

• Rapeseed – Rapid expansion,

especially on set-aside land: 1.1m ha for energy or industrial use (i.e. 11% of the total arable land), of which 350,000 ha is on set aside.

– often replaces fodder crops such as clover-grass or alfalfa that provide key habitat to species such as Lesser spotted eagle, Red kite and Ortolan bunting

Germany: fuelling intensification?

• Maize – The German Renewable Energy

Act strongly favors maize for biogas plants.

– This either leads to conversion of grassland into arable land, or to an intensification of the remaining grassland to produce all the cow fodder the farm needs.

– Increase in maize area and grassland intensification often follows the construction of a biogas plant.

What about food ?• Higher prices for agriculture benefit farmers and commodity

exporting countries but penalise poor consumers and food importing countries

• Many indirect effects: biofuels competing with animal feed for row material but biofuels co-products used as feed

• Tricky political questions around “food security” and economic growth- is it positive for developing countries to abandon food production in favour export fuel?

The established facts• First generation BF require a huge amount of land. Pressure

on the environment is unavoidable.

• Biofuels are not carbon neutral. Their GHG performance is hugely variable. “All studies indicated that current corn ethanol technologies … have greenhouse gas emissions similar to those of gasoline” Farrel et al; Science

• The most rational use for biomass is in heat and power production and in second generation fuels if and when this technology kicks in. GHG reduction potential of bio-fuel production has very high abatement costs (under the most promising perspective will cost 300 €/t CO2eq); cropping of fast-growing woods to produce electricity which entails an abatement cost lower than 50€/ton CO2 Fondazione Enrico Mattei/MEACAP project

EU policy: the context• Transport causes 21% of EU emissions• EU policy aims at 10% substitution with Biofuels• Commission claims that European produced BF would have emissions 35-50% lower than fossil fuel

This means saving less than 1% of emissions.

Where is the cost benefits analysis and is it worth the risk of charging ahead with no safeguards?

EU politicians seem convinced. EU council has just decided to impose a mandatory 10% biofuels target.

EU policy: a schizophrenic approach?

•Decoupling transport growth from economic growth is being abandoned•Non binding energy efficiency targets•No binding targets for heating and cooling•No environmental safeguards explicitly envisaged

Biofuels seem to be the only solution where real political will is being invested!

On a brighter note:•The council has opted for an overall renewable target of 20% by 2020•The Commission has proposed a new Fuel quality Directive that tries to address GHG balance of all fuels•The Commission is looking into a mandatory csustainabilitycertification scheme for biofuels

Consequences• A string of harmful plantation projects, particularly in

Indonesia, being justified by BF export• Car companies allowed to count Biofuel use toward new emission

standard• German tax payers pay for every hectare of oilseed rape 900

Euro per year and the electricity consumers pay for every hectare of silage maize for biogas plants 2000 Euro per year of subsidies (In the US a SUV owner is being subsidised by around 900$ for driving around on ethanol).

It doesn’t need to go this way..Bioenergy has an undoubted role to play in tackling climate change

BUT

• It must not be used to distract public opinion from energy saving and energy efficiency

• Life cycle analysis ensuring a GHG balance significantly better (60% less emissions) than fossil fuel

• Strict standards on feedstock production to prevent significant negative effects on biodiversity and other environmental aspects (both inside and outside Europe).

How to ensure it goes right?• The Fuel quality Directive must include a GHG reduction

mechanism based on sound LCA (i.e. one that includes emissions from cultivation and land use change)

• The new Renewable energy Directive must:

– Include a comprehensive and mandatory certification scheme covering environmental impacts of bio-energy

– Link any public support to the achievement of significant GHG emissions reduction

– Include safeguard mechanisms to reassess both targets and delivery mechanisms against environmental (and social) impacts

What about biomass from forests?

Sustainability is NOT simply harvesting less than the annual growth of forest!Forests need dead wood…Biomass extraction:

•Should not lead to decrease in ecological value of forests

•Should not stop “maturation process” of recovering forests

•Should not lead to the expansion of plantations and spread of exotic species

•Should not lead to afforestation of important open habitats (meadows, steppes, wetlands, maqui)

Win-win solutions•Low input farming

•Increased diversity in intensive farming landscapes (new crops, rotation crops, short rotation coppice, hedgerows)

•Sustainable harvest of habitats that need management (reedbeds, meadows, coppice forests)

•Industrial organic waste recovery

•Farm waste recovery

•Forestry residues recovery

Mainly possible in the case of heat & electricity production, biogas and with second generation biofuels

Agriculture has other (much more important?) roles to play

• Agriculture accounts for 9% of EU-25 GHG emissions; big reductions are possible, especially of N2O and CH4

• Current agriculture methods cause massive loss of C from soil; Organic or “no till” farming can revert this and transform soils into carbon sinks

• Habitat restoration can create carbon sinks (though forest is not automatically good!)

• Adaptation– Improving ecological quality of

farmland to help biodiversity survive CC

– Accommodating and buffering increased floods and droughts

Mitigation measures GHG reduction costs € t-1 CO2-eq.

Straw and slurry-based housing systems 130 - 1800

Manure application techniques 90 - 9500

Frequency of manure removal -cattle - pigs

No reduction 470 - 500

Anaerobic digestion 40 - 200

Improved manure storage techniques - cattle - pigs

150 - 1700 –65 - 90

Nitrification inhibitors –20 - 80

Organic farming –10 - 0

Increase of grazing in comparison to animal housing –400 - –180

Feeding strategies - cattle - pigs

–380 - –250 –330 - 0

Source: MEACAP project

Thank you for your attention!