Biomass Futures Grant agreement no. IEE 08 653 SI2. 529 241

Biomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand

and Supply dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders

Grant agreement no. IEE 08 653 SI2. 529 241 Biomass Futures Biomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand and Supply dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders Final publishable report

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 The context for the Biomass Futures project ........................................................................ 4 How can the outputs from Biomass Futures project assist policy formation in EU27 demand and supply sectors as well as at national Member state level? .............................. 7 How do sustainability criteria restrict the biomass potential availability? ........................... 9

Overview of sustainability criteria ..................................................................................... 9

Applying the Criteria and Indicators: Sustainable Bioenergy Potentials ......................... 12

Which indigenous feedstocks can supply the bioenergy and biofuel markets in EU27 for 2020 & 2030? ...................................................................................................................... 22

Biomass Futures Atlas on biomass potentials ................................................................. 22

Physical biomass potential across the EU ....................................................................... 22

Cost-supply curves ........................................................................................................... 27

Which are the most important 4F crops that constitute the European cropped biomass matrix? ................................................................................................................................. 29 Which implications the estimated biomass supply will have into European and global markets? .............................................................................................................................. 31 Which are the most important segments within the heat, electricity/ CHP and transport sectors for future biomass uptake and which key factors frame their attractiveness? ..... 36

Heat and Electricity / CHP Sectors ................................................................................... 36

Quantitative assessment of the heat, electricity and CHP sectors in EU27 for 2020 ..... 42

Transport ......................................................................................................................... 45

Quantitative assessment of biofuels produced with indigenous feedstock for transport

in EU27 for 2020 .............................................................................................................. 50

What is the role sustainable biomass can play to meet the RED 2020 & NREAP targets? . 53 How do different energy models supporting policy reflect the biomass role for 2020; key similarities and important differences. ............................................................................... 57 How the project findings can be translated into simple and comprehensive briefings that stakeholders can understand. ............................................................................................. 59 How to inform and support policy makers at European and National level and generate information for biomass role which will be taken into account in the formation on NREAPs. ............................................................................................................................... 61 How to enhance dialogue with specific target groups? ...................................................... 62 Key messages from the Biomass Futures project................................................................ 66

Introduction

The Biomass Futures project assesses the role of bioenergy in meeting Europe’s renewable energy targets as provided in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED)1. This was done by conducting sectoral market analyses, estimating the availability of biomass for energy and by modeling demand and supply of bioenergy within the EU27 energy system. The latter has been accomplished by developing a common database for biomass cost supply, based on a harmonized set of assumptions regarding feedstock types, availability factors and sustainability criteria. The database has been used by the main modeling capabilities employed within the project, i.e. the land use model GLOBIOM and the energy modeling tools employed by ECN (RESsolve) and the PRIMES team (PRIMES Biomass). The results of the Biomass Futures project are significant given the important contribution foreseen for bioenergy in delivery of Europe’s renewable energy targets. According to Member States’ National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs), biomass will make up 19 % of total renewable electricity in the year 2020, 78 % of total renewable heating/cooling in 2020 and 89 % of total renewable energy in transport. Altogether, bioenergy is expected to make up over 50 % of total renewable energy use2. Demand for biomass will increase strongly over the coming years. Results from the Biomass Futures project indicate EU27 biomass potential in the range 375 to 429 MtOE, depending on the sustainability criteria applied. This is approximately 250% of the amount of resource required to realize total bioenergy demand for 2020, as set out in NREAPs However, in the demand analysis performed by the project with the RESolve model it is predicted that only a part (37%) of domestic biomass supply could actually be exploited by 2020 due to primarily lack of clearly focused policies and support measures at local/ national level that can promote efficient resource mobilisation. Practically given current present incentives and wider cost-benefit ratios for bioenergy production, no use is made of agricultural residues (e.g. straw, cuttings and prunings, manure) and additionally harvestable roundwood potentials. Biomass is relatively complex within the renewable energy sector, with diverse feedstocks, energy conversion technologies, energy carriers, widely differing supply and demand conditions across EU27, plus issues such as sustainability and imports. Consequently, it is difficult to form objective views on fundamental questions. A key aim of Biomass Futures was to provide robust, scientific analysis to a series of questions, relating to the development of the biomass energy industry by milestone years 2020, 2030 and 2050. The questions addressed are listed below; this report uses questions as section headings.

1 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2009 on the promotion of the

use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. The RED requires the EU to generate 20 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020, and each Member State to achieve a 10 per cent share of renewable energy sources in the transport sector. 2 These figures are taken from http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2010/e10069_summary.pdf. Another

valuable Biomass Futures report based on the 23 NREAPs available at the time of drafting is Atanasiu (2010), The role of bioenergy in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans: a first identification of issues and uncertainties, (http://www.biomassfutures.eu/work_packages/WP8%20Dissemination/D8.4%20bioenergy_in_NREAPs-final_08_12_2010.pdf), which focuses on analysing the bioenergy information contained in the NREAPs.

• How do sustainability criteria restrict the biomass potential availability? • Which indigenous feedstocks can supply the bioenergy and biofuel markets in EU27

for 2020 & 2030? • Which are the most important 4F crops that constitute the European cropped

biomass matrix? • Which implications does estimated biomass supply have for European and global

markets? • Which are the most important segments within the heat, electricity/ CHP and

transport sectors for future biomass uptake and which key factors frame their attractiveness?

• What is the role sustainable biomass can play to meet the RED 2020 & NREAP targets?

• How do different energy models supporting policy reflect the biomass role for 2020, key similarities and important differences?

• How can project findings be translated into simple and comprehensive briefings that stakeholders can understand?

• How policy makers at European and National level can be supported and informed for the biomass role as compared to RED and NREAPs targets and projections.

• How to enhance dialogue with specific target groups?

The context for the Biomass Futures project

The start of the Biomass Futures in mid-2009 coincided with the time that the European

Commission published the NREAP templates and requested Member States to complete

these by June 2010.

Figure 1. State of play at the outset of the Biomass Futures project

A key barrier addressed by this project is the poor perception of biomass by certain groups

of stakeholders, particularly biofuels. Emotive arguments are employed, with biofuels being

described as ‘crimes to humanity’ and biomass being declared as the main reason for ‘food

price increases’ and that biomass creates ‘future threats for poverty and starvation’. Lack of

robustly evidenced and up-to-date answers on key questions about bioenergy poses a

significant risk for European policy frameworks and achievement of binding targets.

Participants to the Biomass Futures project consulted with stakeholders at the proposal

stage, and reported that individuals reported a number of fundamental areas that lacked

information and consistency of approach. These included issues such as:

• Harmonised assumptions on biomass feedstocks availability and sustainability. • Information on sustainable biomass feedstock potentials at MS level to meet 2020

and 2030 targets. • Outlooks on the optimal use of biomass feedstock potential by market segments. • Clear data on the role of biomass in energy and transport sectors, with focus on MS

2020 targets. • Transparent, clear briefings for use by stakeholders.

Given the coherent and ambitious policy targets but being aware of the risks and underlying

uncertainties within the biomass sector as well as the energy one (security of supply, scarcity

of resources, etc.), Biomass Futures was based on the following methodological steps:

Segment EU27 and UK, NL, DE, AT, EL heat, electricity-CHP and transport markets in terms of users, size and geographical distribution.

Define the key factors that influence biomass uptake and quantify the demand for biomass in the 2010- 2030 time period.

Analyse the supply trends for residual feedstocks (agricultural & forest) as well as for 4F crop solutions.

Develop linkages to well established models, harmonise data and assumptions and refine spatial resolution

Provide post RES-D set of criteria and indicators for indirect land use, air, water, soil and social issues. The criteria will be validated through an extensive stakeholder communication/ interaction process and feed into the respective EC activities in this field.

Quantify the role biomass can play to meet the Climate Change and Renewables targets at EU27 and member state level.

Collaborate with stakeholders to monitor their perspectives and views, get their feedback and integrate it to the project outputs/ deliverables.

The following key outputs were produced by Biomass Futures:

• Market segment analysis, for heat, electricity / CHP and transport markets

• Spatially explicit sustainable biomass cost supply patterns including imports • Biomass role in the heat, electricity- CHP and transport sectors, in the framework of

the RES-D compared to NREAPs, using different demand scenarios, timeframes (2020- 2030) and sustainability constraints.

• Improved comprehension and development of criteria for indirect land use change, water, air and soil quality as well as social issues, and their impacts on biomass availability and costs.

• Continuous stakeholder consultations to ensure the market perspective in relation to biomass demand and supply.

• Involve policy stakeholders to discuss concerns and key on-going issues as well as ensure information transfer throughout the project.

How can the outputs from Biomass Futures project assist policy

formation in EU27 demand and supply sectors as well as at national

Member state level? Biomass feedstock-related results from Biomass Futures are an important contribution to

policies for agriculture, forestry and wastes, as illustrated by the Figure below.

Figure 2. The relevance of biomass supply results to key policies

A central issue for policy makers is to achieve efficient use of resources. Understanding of

resource potentials at EU27, Member State and regional levels, allows policy makers to

make explicit, well-founded decisions to categorise land and prioritise different uses. These

decisions can be made taking into account competing land uses including food crops as well

as biodiversity and ecosystem services.

In the case of residues and waste feedstock types, supply will remain a regional issue which

requires regulatory, analytical and practical implementation frameworks.

In the case of cropped biomass, better quality data allows informed decision-making by

policy makers. For example, perennial crops may be well suited to cultivation on relatively

low quality land, reducing iLUC, and thereby actually helping to reduce seasonality burden in

a region. Cropped biomass can add value to local economies. Cropped biomass may have

better sustainability characteristics than imported biomass.

Biomass demand results from Biomass Futures are an important contribution to energy

related policies, as illustrated by the diagram below.

Figure 3 The relevance of biomass demand results to key policies

Key policy issues relating to biomass demand that need to be addressed include:

Improved understanding of efficient and cost effective pathways and the policies and measures that can promote and stimulate uptake of these pathways.

Improved knowledge of industrial trends and future demands, enabling development or tailoring of policies and measures to create and develop markets including attracting investment in Europe

Improved appreciation of market opportunities, enabling a move away from sectoral demands (which is the typical starting point for current policies) towards efficient scale-technology combinations.

With regards to national policy formation, Biomass Futures results make an important

contribution in two areas, namely:

Validation of national sustainable supply data for NREAPs

Prioritisation of indigenous biomass value chains for energy and fuels Biomass Futures results are a significant contribution to national level debates and decision-

making on upstream (feedstock supply) and downstream (technological combinations),

enabling more optimal choices that are best-suited to Member States’ indigenous

feedstocks and market conditions / requirements. Biomass Futures also has an important

role in enabling national decision makers to benchmark their progress / forecasts / planned

instruments with Member States that already have relevant experience in the relevant

supply and demand market segments.

How do sustainability criteria restrict the biomass potential availability?

Overview of sustainability criteria

Since 2007, the landscape of the previously voluntary and manifold sustainability standards

for biomass – from cotton and wood to organic food, flowers, coffee and "green biopower"

– has changed: both the US and European countries and the EU as a whole developed

mandatory standards and criteria for liquid biofuels .

The EU Renewables Energy Directive (RED) adopted in April 2009 (EC 2009) established

mandatory sustainability requirements for bioenergy carriers used as transport fuels and for

liquid bioenergy carriers in general.

In March 2010, the EU Commission (EC) presented a report on the extension of the RED to

all bioenergy carriers and proposed that the RED criteria could be voluntarily adopted by the

EU Member States to apply to solid and gaseous bioenergy carriers as well (EC 2010). In

2012, the EC will report on developments in that regard, noting that several EU countries

began introducing broader sustainability requirements for bioenergy (e.g., BE, DE, NL, UK) .

Taking into account the developments regarding sustainability standards in other countries

such as Argentina, Brazil and Mozambique as well as Thailand and the US , , among others,

and by UN organizations such as FAO and UNEP as well as UNCTAD and the Global Bioenergy

Partnership (GBEP) , the Biomass Futures project provided an overview and developed a set

of “RED plus” criteria and indicators for all bioenergy (OEKO 2012).

Before presenting these “RED plus” criteria and indicators, the text box below briefly

explains the terminology used in the Biomass Futures project.

Standards, Criteria, Indicators and more…

Standards and principles are commonly formulated around a core concept based on societal

ethics, values, and tradition as well as on scientific knowledge. Standards are used as the

primary framework for the general scope and provide the justification for criteria, indicators

and verifiers.

Criteria can be seen as ‘second order’ principles that add meaning and operationabi-lity to

standards/principles without being a direct measure of performance. Criteria are

intermediate points to which information provided by indicators can be integrated,

facilitating an interpretable assessment.

Indicators are quantitative or qualitative factors or variables providing means to mea-sure

achievement, to reflect changes, or to help assess performance or compliance, and - when

observed periodically - demonstrate trends. Indicators should convey a single meaningful

message (information). Indicators have to be judged on the scale of acceptable standards of

performance. Closely related indicators are verifiers which provide specific details that

would indicate or reflect a desired condition of an indicator. They are the data that enhances

the specificity or the ease of assessment of an indicator, adding meaning, precision and

usually also site-specificity.

Monitoring refers to the continuous or frequent measurement and observation on specified

indicators, often used for warning and control.

Certification is the (usually) third-party attestation related to products, processes or systems

that - following (independent) review - conveys assurance that specified requirements such

as conformity to standards have been demonstrated.

In this work, we refer to criteria and indicators as items to be used in a legal context

requiring compliance with given standards, targeting economic operators in the bioenergy

realm.

In a broader sense, criteria and indicators can be used also for monitoring the state (or

dynamics) of countries or regions to allow for evaluating observed trends against desirable

states or conditions, or to inform about broader policy impacts.

The “RED-plus” framework of sustainability criteria and indicators developed in Biomass

Futures aims to encompass all biomass flows (see Figure 4), disregarding the end-use

(electricity, heat, transport).

Figure 4: Biomass Flows from Cultivation to Bioenergy End-Uses (Source: Oeko-Institut)

Currently, the sustainability criteria established in EU RED are valid only for liquid biofuels

and bioliquids, i.e. they do not cover solid or gaseous bioenergy carriers used for electricity

generation or heating. The sustainability criteria and indicators developed in the Biomass

Futures project – which include indirect effects - are a proposal covering all bioenergy (see

Table 1).

Table 1: Biomass Futures Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Bioenergy

Criterion Indicator Metrics

Sustainable Resource Use Land Use Efficiency* GJbio/ha

Secondary Resource Use

Efficiency*

%

Biodiversity Conservation of land with

significant biodiversity values

no-go areas

Land management without

negative effects on

biodiversity

sustainable practices applied

Climate Protection Life cycle GHG emissions incl.

direct land use changes

75%

Inclusion of GHG effects

from indirect land use

changes

3.5 t CO2/ha/year

Soil Quality Erosion zero erosion cultivation

systems and practices

Soil Organic Carbon maintain SOC

Soil Nutrient Balance soil maps identifying “go”

areas

Water Use and Quality Water Availability and Use

Efficiency

TARWR

Water Quality N, P and BOD + pesticide

loadings

Airborne Emissions SO2 equivalents g/GJbioenergy

Particulate Emissions PM10 g/GJbioenergy

Food Security Price and supply of national

food basket

€/t, t/a

Social Use of Land changes in land tenure and

access

evidence

Healthy Livelihoods and

Labor Conditions

Adherence to ILO Principles evidence

As currently there are no binding rules concerning indirect effects on GHG emissions in the

EU nor on positive of negative impacts of increased bioenergy production on food security,

or its (again: positive or negative) social effects, the Biomass Futures “RED plus” criteria and

indicators are meant as a proposal to establish such a binding overall standard.

Applying the Criteria and Indicators: Sustainable Bioenergy Potentials

The overall land use and forestry potentials in the EU27 have been analysed in Work

Package 3 of Biomass Futures (Alterra, IIASA 2012) and established the baseline (reference)

cases for 2020 and 2030.

These potentials take into account only the current RED sustainability requirements (i.e. only

GHG emissions from life-cycles and direct LUC, some biodiversity constraints) for liquid

biofuels and bioliquids.

To factor in the “RED plus” criteria developed in Biomass Futures Work Package 4 (OEKO

2012), the reference potentials were re-calculated applying additional constraints which

reduce the overall availability of biomass.

Figure 5: Approach for Regionalized Sustainable Bioenergy Potentials (Source: Alterra, IIASA,

2012)

For this, the estimated land use for domestic biofuel feedstock production on future

unused/released land potential (as compared to 2004) that may be used for dedicated

biomass cultivation using annual or perennial crops were screened with additional scenario

assumptions (see scheme in Figure 5) :

High-biodiverse land was “forbidden” (permanent grasslands, HNV farmland as additional “no-go” areas)

Life-cycle GHG reduction requirements – taking into account ILUC – were increased

Water and soil restrictions due to slope and bioclimatic conditions were applied.

The most important criteria for the sustainable potentials is the minimum GHG reduction

requirement:

For biofuels, it should include a compensation for iLUC related emissions, and reach 70% (by 2020) and 80% (by 2030).

This was also applied for cultivated biomass used for heat and electricity production.

The criteria used to derive the sustainable potentials are listed in the following table.

Table 2 Criteria applied in reference and sustainability scenarios

Scenario GHG mitigation

criteria 2020

GHG mitigation

criteria 2030

Other sustainability

constraints 2020 and

2030

Reference Only for biofuels and

bioliquids consumed in EU a

GHG mitigation of 50% as

compared to fossil fuel is

required. This excludes

compensation for iLUC

related GHG emissions.

Only for biofuels and bioliquids

consumed in EU a GHG

mitigation of 50% as compared

to fossil fuel is required. This

excludes compensation for

iLUC related GHG emissions.

Only for biofuels and bioliquids

consumed in EU limitations on the

use of biomass from biodiverse

land or land with high carbon stock.

Sustainability For all bioenergy consumed

in the EU the following

mitigation requirements are

set:

Biofuel/bioliquids: 70%

mitigation as compared to

fossil fuel (comparator EU

average diesel and petrol

emissions 2020).

Bioelectricity and heat: 70%

mitigation as compared to

fossil energy (comparator

country specific depending

on 2020 fossil mix) .

This includes compensation

for iLUC related GHG

emissions.

For all bioenergy consumed in

the EU the following mitigation

requirements are set:

Biofuel/bioliquids: 80%

mitigation as compared to

fossil fuel (comparator EU

average diesel and petrol

emission 2030)

Bioelectricity and heat: 80%

mitigation as compared to

fossil energy (comparator

country specific depending on

2030 fossil mix)

This includes compensation for

iLUC related GHG emissions.

For all bioenergy consumed in EU

limitations on the use of biomass

from biodiverse land or land with

high carbon stock.

For the estimation of the minimal GHG requirement we build on the approach developed in

the EEA/ETC-SIA study (Elbersen, et al., 2012). An estimate of GHG payback and mitigation

ability is made for all crops, including the iLUC effect and taking into account the type of

feedstock and related bioenergy delivery pathway. A 20 year payback time is assumed. This

is implemented by estimating the GHG mitigation efficiency factor which is build-up from 3

components:

1. Direct land use emissions from the cropping process which are strongly linked to input and output levels which differ per EU-region.

The emissions from the land-based part of the chain, if cropping is involved, are calculated

using the Miterra-Europe model . This assesses the impact of measures, policies and land-

use changes on environmental indicators at the NUTS-2 and Member State level in the EU27.

MITERRA-Europe partly takes the input of the CAPRI and GAINS models, supplemented with

an N leaching module and a measures module. MITERRA-Europe calculates all relevant GHG

emissions from agriculture (CH4 from enteric fermentation and manure management, N2O

from manure management and direct and indirect soil emissions, and CO2 from changes in

soil carbon stocks and cultivation of organic soils), according to the IPCC 2006 guidelines.

GHG emissions from fertiliser production and mechanisation are also included. The emission

and mitigation levels for crops depend very much on the yield at the different locations. For

biofuel crops, the yield potential is taken from the 2020 and 2030 Capri baseline and

reference scenarios respectively. For perennial crops, the yield potentials are derived using

the GWSI crop growth model which takes soil and climate characteristics into account and

predicts yield levels for high yielding systems (on good agricultural land in optimal and water

limited situation) and on low yielding systems (low yielding soils). The yield and emission

levels for the perennial crops were produced at these three levels per NUTS region (for

further details see Elbersen et al., 2012).

2. The downstream emissions of the biomass feedstock conversion routes. The emissions of the downstream part of the bioenergy pathways and of the fossil

comparators are based on GEMIS3, which refer to full life-cycle emissions. GEMIS 10 is a life-

cycle analysis program and database for energy, material, and transport systems. The GEMIS

database offers information on 1) fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear, biomass and hydrogen,

2) processes for electricity and heat, 3) materials and 4) transports. An overview of the

average emissions of all technology pathways (including upstream land based direct

emissions in case of cropping and downstream emissions) is given in Deliverable 3.1 (Annex

2, Table 1). The land based up-stream emissions were calculated by the Miterra system

(Veldhof et al., 2009) for every bioenergy crop grown in every EU-27 (NUTS 2) region. There

are large differences between regions in soil-related climatic conditions and management

3 GEMIS includes the total life-cycle in its calculation of impacts - i.e. fuel delivery, materials used for

construction, waste treatment, transports/auxiliaries and includes by-product allocation (based on

energy value). A further description of GEMIS and the calculated GHG emissions is given in EEA

(2008) in Annex 2 and 3.

and these determine the minimum and maximum emissions in the pathways based on

cropped biomass.

3. A possible iLUC GHG emission factor if land use displacement is applicable. An unified view on the iLUC-GHG emission factors does not exist. The major available studies

regarding this issue have therefore been consulted as part of the EEA/ETC-SIA study

(Elbersen et al., 2012) and an average iLUC-GHG factor is calculated to estimate the GHG

payback and mitigation ability for each bioenergy pathway (see also D3.3, Annex 2).

To determine the final emission level for each pathway and region, the GHG emission of the

whole bioenergy pathway is calculated. To come to a final mitigation potential to assess

whether the feedstock conversion pathway combinations per region fit with the

sustainability criteria in every scenario, a comparison is made with the GHG emissions of the

fossil-based comparators. The fossil fuel mix for calculating the average emission of the

2020 fossil comparators for both electricity and heat are based on the PRIMES reference

scenario for 2020 (Capros et al., 2009). The emissions are based on the fossil fuels only

(coal, lignite, oil and natural gas), since the assumption is that these renewable energy

pathways will replace fossil fuels and no other RE sources or nuclear energy (see Deliverable

3.3, Table 2.4).

The minimum mitigation level of 50 % against fossil comparators in the reference scenario

only applies to biofuels and does not include a compensation for iLUC related emissions. For

the total biofuel feedstock potential this implies that both in 2020 and 2030 biofuel crops

can be grown in practically all countries where according to CAPRI predictions land is used

for biofuel production.

In the sustainability storyline however, the mitigation potential is set on 70 % in 2020 and

even 80% in 2030, including an iLUC GHG compensation in case of displacement effects. In

the case of biofuels which are grown on existing arable land in competition with food and

feed crops reaching this mitigation level is impossible for both 2020 and 2030. The growth of

dedicated perennial crops on lands competing with food and feed crops remains possible in

a few regions where yields for these crops are high and where the fossil comparator is also

relatively high, because of the large share of lignite based fossil energy use. This becomes

clear in the following where the final potentials, including for cropped biomass are

presented for the different scenarios.

In the reference scenario biofuel crops cannot be cropped on highly biodiverse areas or

areas with a high carbon stock. In the sustainability scenario this applies to all cropped

biomass. For excluding the biomass coming from this type of land from the potential the

land availability for bioenergy cropping was reduced with certain categories of land for

which mapped information was available. In this study both the NATURA 2000 (farmland)

and the HNV farmland areas were regarded as good proxies for highly biodiverse areas and

agricultural areas of high carbon stocks, and were therefore taken as no-go areas for

biomass cropping. This approach was copied from the EEA/ETC-SIA-ACC study (See Elbersen

et al., 2012). The contraction in available land for biomass cropping changes in the

sustainability scenarios around 10% as is shown in the Table 3.

Table 3 Land released from agricultural production (*1000 ha) between 2004 and

2020 and 2004 and 2030 in the EU-27 expected to be available for dedicated

cropping

Land released

between 2004 and:

Good quality

released

Good quality land not

fit for sustainable

biofuel production

Low quality

land Total

2020 reference 8200 0 13526 21726

2020 sustainability 6003 3039 9315 18357

2030 reference 5093 0 13700 18793

2030 sustainability 4016 2590 9499 16105

The sustainability matrix in Table 4 describes linkages between WP3 (supply modeling) and

WP4 (sustainability criteria). It serves as a translating interface between the GLOBIOM

model and relevant sustainability criteria, addressing in detail the sustainability criteria on

avoidance of use of biomass from land of high biodiversity value and high carbon stock at a

global scale

Table 4: Sustainability matrix.

Principles (what do we want)

Criteria (where) Specification Indicator (how to reach it, identify areas)

Model interpretation Data needs, discussion

Protection of highly biodiverse land

Protection of primary forests and other woodlands

Biomass extraction not allowed

Native species, no human activity, undisturbed ecological processes

Harvest and thinning rate = 0, exclude areas from potential

Greenpeace map of intact forest landscapes 2000; problem that this is rather outdated (reference year 2008); need to revisit indicators used by Greenpeace? Updata may be reasonable.

Protection of Protected Areas (designated by law)

Biomass extraction allowed as long as no interference with nature protection purposes

IUCN categories of protected areas? 1-4 untouched, high level, 5-6 used?

Allow sustainable use in cats 5-6, not allow in 1-4?

WCMC database on protected areas, protection categories - some data lacking, but it is the best global database

Protection of areas designated for the protection of rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems or species

Biomass extraction allowed as long as no interference with nature protection purposes

Areas outlined by EU COM? As starting point, data from the WCMC Biodiversity and Carbon Atlas and from IBAT-tool

Proof of “interference” difficult, because no categories are available. Exclude areas from potential?

WCMC Biodiversity and Carbon Atlas, important bird areas, key biodiversity areas from IBAT-tool (CI/WCMC), checking data regarding international agreements

Identification of grassland

Identification of grassland as a basis for the next two criteria

Grassland is dominated by herbaceous and shrub vegetation (including savannas, steppes, scrubland and prairie). Savannas of agro-forestry systems can show a tree cover up to 60%!

Used for classification… Available data on grassland, savannas, scrubland, etc. (e.g. White et al. 2000)

Principles (what do we want)

Criteria (where) Specification Indicator (how to reach it, identify areas)

Model interpretation Data needs, discussion

Protection of highly biodiverse natural grasslands

Biomass extraction is not allowed

Sites show natural species composition and ecological characteristics and processes are intact.

Exclude areas from potential - most natural grassland is likely to be highly biodiverse. As a first proxy, a share of 10% could bbe converted

White et al. 2000 (covers mainly natural grassland, but underrepresents non-natural grassland; use GLC2000 or other land cover products to identify grasslands in combination with livestock data; challenge of distinguishing natural and non-natural grasslands remains; comparison with Potential Natural Vegetation maps? Degradation Maps from LADA might be used as proxy to identify areas where ecological prosesses are not intact. See existing mapping, list in OEKO et al. (2009)4

Highly biodiverse non-natural grasslands

Biomass extraction allowed as long as status of highly biodiverse grassland is preserved.

Sites show species richness and are not degraded. Species richness is often associated with factors

Reduced potential from and no conversion of highly biodiverse non-natural grasslands Because the yield from

See above

4 OEKO / ILN / HFR / WCMW (Öko-Institut / Institute for Landscape Ecology and Nature Conservation / University of Applied Forest Sciences / UNEP World Conservation Monitoring

Centre) 2009: Specifications and recommendations for “grassland” area type (http://www.oeko.de/service/bio/en/index.htm)

Principles (what do we want)

Criteria (where) Specification Indicator (how to reach it, identify areas)

Model interpretation Data needs, discussion

such as soil condition, water household, slope, etc. Identification of such indicators could be helpful

highly biodiverse grasslands may be very low it is reasonable to exclude these areas completely.

Protection of land with high carbon stock

Conservation of carbon stock in wetlands

Biomass extraction allowed as long as status of wetland is preserved

Areas covered with or saturated by water, permanently or by significant part of the year

No conversion allowed Global Lake and Wetland DB 2004, Uni Kassel, 1km resolution (enough?); RAMSAR site DB and other DB; Uwe Schneider’s DB for Europe? Radar products?

Conservation of carbon stock in forested areas (tree cover > 30%); including regenerating forests

Carbon stocks have to be preserved, regrowth must be guaranteed

Tree cover > 30%; 1 ha minimum size; min (potential) height of 5 m

Sustainable forest management allowed as long as the area will remain forested (tree cover >30%) in the long run.

Vegetation cover CF, Modis; Global land cover types yearly, 500 m resolution; GLOBCOVER

Conservation of carbon stock in forested areas (tree cover 10-30%); including regenerating forests

Carbon stocks have to be preserved, regrowth must be guaranteed; Forest conversion allowed if GHG balance acceptable

Tree cover 10-30%; 1 ha minimum size; min (potential) height of 5 m

Sustainable forest management allowed as long as the area will remain forested (tree cover >10%) in the long run, but area can grow towards the category >30%!

Vegetation cover CF, MODIS; Global land cover types yearly, 500 m resolution; GLOBCOVER

Principles (what do we want)

Criteria (where) Specification Indicator (how to reach it, identify areas)

Model interpretation Data needs, discussion

An area can be converted towards other vegetation types if GHG balance is acceptable.

Protection of peatlands Conservation of Peatlands

Biomass extraction not allowed unless the peatland is already drained (2008) or no drainage is needed for cultivation

Use FAO soil maps (HWSD) and apply threshold of carbon content. Other datasets?

Simplest assumption: assume that for any cultivation on peatlands drainage is needed. Peatland being used before 2008 has already been drained and can still be used, Peatland not in use before 2008 must be drained and cannot be used

Needed: map of drained and undrained peatlands (mind reference year 2008). Which maps to use? Harmonized World Soil database (HWSD) does not consider land use (LU). EPIC currently initializes runs to to identify soil carbon for different LU types; check definition of peat in IIASA HRU Database. Have a look at background paper from Billen and Star (2009)5 for definitions and field methods/thresholds.

Sustainable cultivation in the EU

Cross-compliance is fulfilled

Cultivation must be in line with EU legislation (only for EU MS)

Link to IIASA’s CC-TAME Project

Are there any land use options that do NOT yet comply? E.g. conversion of grassland restricted to certain share etc.

5 Billen N (bodengut), Stahr K (Universität Hohnheim) 2009: Bodenkundlich relevante Aspekte in der BioSt-NachV. § 6: Schutz von Torfmoor, § 9 Abs. 1 Zif. 2 der Anlage 1: Degradierte

Flächen. Auswahl von international anerkannten Feld- und Labormethoden zum Nachweis von Torfmoor und Degradierung (http://www.oeko.de/service/bio/en/index.htm)

Principles (what do we want)

Criteria (where) Specification Indicator (how to reach it, identify areas)

Model interpretation Data needs, discussion

Databases on “payments”?

Reduction of GHG-emissions

Acceptable GHG balance 2008: saving of 35% (old plants from 1 April 2013) 2017: saving of 50% 2018: saving of 60% (for new plants starting production after 1.January 2017)

Include whole life-cycle and direct LUC

Use default data (do not include emissions from LUC); use detailed data for bioenergy chains; sensitivity analysis: how much complexity is needed?

Comparison/combination with GEMIS DB? Whole chain represented in the model, problem more that pathways cannot be traced in model solution

Which indigenous feedstocks can supply the bioenergy and biofuel markets in EU27 for 2020

& 2030?

Biomass Futures Atlas on biomass potentials

‘The Atlas of EU Biomass Potentials’ provides quantitative and spatially explicit estimates of

potential biomass supply available across the EU Member States. It is intended to provide an

indication of the sources and their extent to supply Europe’s future bioenergy demands

domestically. The potentials analysed include resources potentially available from the

agricultural, forestry and waste sectors including residues arising from the former two

categories as well as dedicated crops or wood based biomass. The results provide a useful

picture of the potential resource at the European level, but importantly should provide

national policy makers with a clearer sense of the potential resource available within their own

Member State. Within the Atlas the results are broken down to at least the national level, and

where available use data at the level of NUTS 2 to provide a more detailed regional picture.

The analysis sets out the estimated potential in both 2020 and 2030. Estimates have been

calculated based on the two scenarios: reference and sustainability. The details of the

assumptions per scenario have already been discussed in the former for forestry potentials in

the sustainability scenario stricter criteria are set also on the removal of biomass in order to

prevent loss of site productivity and soil erosion.

The intent of the latter is to try to understand the impact of applying stricter sustainability

requirements to the bioenergy sector in terms EU biomass availability. Further details of the

scenarios applied see former and also the Biomass Futures Policy Briefing ‘Introducing the

Biomass Futures scenarios’6.

The Atlas provides two different approaches to analysing the potential biomass resource in

Europe; it first assesses the physical potential in terms of the resource that could technically

and sustainably (depending on the scenario criteria) be produced in 2020 and 2030. These

estimates of total potential are expressed as tonnes of oil equivalent ie either Mtoe (Million

toe) or ktoe (Thousand toe). It then considers the economic viability of exploiting these

resources assessing the cost-supply relationship and ultimately developing cost supply curves

for 2020 and 2030 under the two scenarios. The Atlas represents an aid to understanding the

potential to deliver bioenergy from EU based resources and the costs associated with doing so,

ultimately it is intended as a tool to assist national governments in identifying how practically

it will be possible to exploit domestic supplies to help deliver their renewable energy

commitments.

Physical biomass potential across the EU

The Atlas estimates that at present there are 314 Mtoe of potential bioenergy resource in

Europe and that under the reference scenario this should increase to 429 Mtoe in 2020, falling

slightly to 411 Mtoe by 2030. Under the sustainability scenario the potentials are lower at 375

Mtoe in 2020 and 353 Mtoe in 2030. Table 4 summarises the potential resources identified

within the Atlas at the different time intervals and under the two scenarios. According to the

assessment for all periods and scenarios the largest potential appears within the agricultural

6 This briefing, and all other detailed outputs from biomass futures can be found at

www.biomassfutures.eu detailed analysis is presented within the work packages section of the site:

http://www.biomassfutures.eu/work_packages/work_packages.html

23

residues class i.e. manure, straw and cuttings/prunings from permanent crops. The most

substantial increase in contribution up to 2020/2030 compared to current levels is envisaged

through the expansion in the use of dedicated perennial crops intended to provide

lignocellulosic biomass either for power, heat or advanced transport fuels. This dedicated

cropping is expected to take place on existing agricultural land and on agricultural land

released from its current use (based on estimates made within the CAPRI modelling runs).

The two scenarios provide very different potentials for rotational crops and perennial crops,

additional harvestable roundwood and primary forest residues. These are associated with the

adoption of more stringent rules on GHG savings and land conversion under the sustainability

scenario. Rotational crops utilisation drops to zero in 2020 and 2030 within this scenario, as it

is not considered that conventional crops e.g. maize and rape would be able to deliver

sufficient levels of GHG savings to meet the 70% and 80% reduction requirements applied

within the scenarios. Under the sustainability scenario the area of land potentially available to

harvest both in terms of perennial crops and in terms of utilising additional supplies of

roundwood i.e. primary harvested wood based biomass, is more limited. As a consequence

yields in both these sectors and associated supply from primary forest residues (ie logging

residues, trimming, etc.) are more limited.

In terms of the contribution of the different sectors, the potential provided by the waste

sector is anticipated to contract, driven primarily by anticipated reduction in the total volume

of municipal solid waste and more specifically the MSW that is sent to landfill (anticipated to

fall from 22.1 Mtoe in 2010 to 13.3 Mtoe and then 11.2 Mtoe by 2020 and 2030 respectively).

Growth in the contribution to overall potential is expected to come from the agricultural

sector both in terms of use of residues and primary crop production especially from dedicated

perennial crops. Currently the agricultural sector contributes approximately 31% of the total

potential but this is anticipated to rise to over 40% in both the reference and sustainability

scenarios by 2020 and 2030.

Importantly the Atlas not only provides an overall picture of potentials, their sources and

evolution up to 2020 and 2030, it also identifies how these resources would be distributed

across Europe. Figure 4, below demonstrates how the total potential within the reference

scenario is split between the 27 Member States in 2020.

Countries with the largest potential are not only the biggest countries, e.g. Germany, UK,

France, Poland, but also the ones with a large forest area, population and/or agricultural

sector. It is, however, considered that in the future country potentials may shift with a decline

in the contribution of big countries like Germany and Italy to the EU potential.

Conversely an increase would be expected France, Spain, Poland and Romania. Particularly

under the sustainability scenario the contribution of Poland could increase significantly. Aside

from this differences between relative country contributions across the scenarios are limited.

24

Table 5 - Potentials (Mtoe) per aggregate class compared based on time period and scenario

Class of bioenergy resource

Description of class ie examples of biomass sources included

Current Availabilit

y

2020 Use –

reference scenario

2020 Use – sustainability scenario

2030 Use – reference scenario

2030 Use – sustainability scenario

Wastesa

Grass cuttings, residues from food processing, biodegradable

municipal waste, sludges, used fats and oils and used paper and board

42 36 36 33 33

Agricultural residues

a

Inter alia manure, straw, other residues including prunings and cuttings from permanent crops

89 106 106 106 106

Rotational cropsb

Crops grown meet bioenergy needs such as maize for biogas and crops used as biofuel feedstocks such as

rape.

9 17 0 20 0

Perennial cropsb

Dedicated energy crops providing lingo cellulosic material

0 58 52 49 37

Landscape care wood

a

Residues ie cuttings etc from landscaping and management

activities 9 15 11 12 11

Roundwood production

b

Stem wood from forests currently harvested

57 56 56 56 56

Additional harvestable roundwood

b

Additional potential for the harvesting of stem wood within

sustainable limits 41 38 35 39 36

Primary forestry residues

a

Logging residues, early thinnings and extracted stumps

20 41 19 42 19

Secondary forestry residues

a

Residues from the wood processing industry ie black liquor, sawmills

and other industrial residues 14 15 15 17 17

Tertiary forestry residues

a

Post consumer wood waste ie from households, building sites

32 45 45 38 38

Total 314 429 375 411 353

a – Denotes potential resources that could be deemed as waste materials or residues

b – Denotes potentials based on primary production either through agriculture or forestry

systems to deliver resource

The regional distribution of the forestry potential is expected to remain stable over regions,

with the largest potentials concentrated in Scandinavia, the Baltic States and France.

Landscape care wood potential is expected to increase towards the future.

Within the Atlas mapped potentials showing relative opportunities in the different Member

States are provided for both 2020 and 2030 and for both scenarios for all the classes of

bioenergy set out in Table 5. Additionally information is also broken down to provide data on

availability of the different subsets of the resource classes for example the relative

contribution of manure or sawmill products. Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the detail provided

within the mapped data sets and their usability for policy makers. These figures are considered

of particular interest to demonstrate given the importance of both growth in potential of

dedicated perennial crops and agricultural residues up to 2020 and 2030.

25

Figure 8 is of particular interest in terms of demonstrating the importance of assessing the

spatial distribution of resources. As highlighted in table 5, agricultural residues are anticipated

to offer significant potential in both 2020 and 2030 under both the reference and sustainability

scenarios. Figure 8 demonstrates the high variability in terms of the distribution of these

residues across the EU meaning that agricultural residues represent a more important

opportunity for certain Member States, based on the agricultural systems already in place. It

should be noted that while the overall level of agricultural residues remains stable between

2020 and 2030 the contribution from the different subcategories varies. For example the

contribution of manure is anticipated to be 2 Mtoe lower in 2030 than in 2020, having

potential implications for planned use of this material. Conversely the contribution of straw

and prunings is anticipated to rise.

Figure 6 - Distribution of total potential over the EU-27 in 2020 based on the reference

scenario

Figure 7 - Dedicated cropping potential with perennials on released agricultural land in 2020

under the reference and sustainability scenarios.

AT 3%

BG 1%

BL 2%

CY 0% CZ

3%

DE 14%

DK 2%

EE 1%

EL 1%

ES 7%

FI 7%

FR 15%

HU 3%

IE 0%

IT 7%

LT 1%

LU 0%

LV 1%

MT 0%

NL 2%

PL 9%

PT 1%

RO 5%

SE 8%

SI 1%

SK 1%

UK 5%

26

Figure 8 – Distributions of potential for manure, straw and pruning from perennial crops (Ktoe) in 2020. Summarising the key classes of agricultural residues.

27

Cost-supply curves

While there may be significant ‘technical’ potential in terms of the bioenergy resources available in

Europe, it is important to understand the costs associated with accessing this resource. Ultimately it

will be the price-supply combination that determines the sourcing patterns of EU biomass for

energy. The economic viability of different potentials are assessed in more detail within Biomass

Futures7; however, the Atlas presents assessments of the costs of supply. The costs of supplying the

different classes of bioenergy resource are assessed for the EU as a whole, but also broken down per

Member State and at a regional level for agricultural potentials. This is intended to provide policy

makers not only with an estimate of the potential resource available but also the consequences in

terms of cost of bringing these resources to market. It allows an estimate of what might be the ‘least

cost’ bioenergy solutions within a given country. Such information might also help inform policies

that offer support to specific types of technologies or the exploitation of a specific biomass resource.

A large number of sources were used for the estimation of price at the different national and

regional levels. The majority of information collected referred to the current cost situation. The

analysis of cost, however, is based on 2020 and 2030 time horizons. As a consequence it was

necessary to extrapolate the data to provide future price levels. These were assumed to remain

stable in the majority of cases with only a correction for inflation as applied. An exception was made

in the case of crops and agricultural residues where price changes into the future were incorporated

from other studies8.

Figure 9 demonstrates visually the cost curves for biomass potential at both 2020 and 2030 for the

reference and sustainability scenarios. The underlying nature of these cost dynamics is briefly

explained here for the EU as a whole. A significant proportion of the potential can be seen to cost

below 200 Eur/Toe, 66% in the reference and 68% in the sustainability scenario in 2020 dropping to

53% and 51% respectively by 2030. This potential consists mostly of materials from the waste sector

plus primary residues from the agricultural sector, limited dedicated cropping potential, secondary

and tertiary residues from the forest sector. From 200 to 400 Euro/Toe the additional potential is

still significant in all scenarios. This range mostly consists of primary and secondary forestry residues

and dedicated perennial crops, with rotational crops for biogas and biofuels starting to enter.

From 400 to 600 Euro/Toe there are still significant levels of potential resource available. At this

level additional harvestable round wood and the round wood production start to contribute

significantly to the potential by 2020. This highlights the relatively high cost of using dedicates round

wood supplies for bioenergy. Under the reference scenarios above 400 Mtoe more significant

quantities of rotational biofuel crops become available – it should be noted that under the

sustainability scenarios these crops are not produced explaining the more limited tail in the high

price ranges for the sustainability scenarios in figure 9.

7 See work package 5 outputs based on analysis using both PRIMES and RESOLVE models and deliverable 3.4,

which provides more detail regarding the nature of supply and its potential constraints. Available shortly at:

http://www.biomassfutures.eu/work_packages/work_packages.html. 8 Full lists of the resources used as a basis for cost estimate are set out in Annexes 4 and 6 of the Atlas.

28

Above 600 Euro/Toe practically no additional potential is found in the 2020 sustainability scenario,

while in the 2030 sustainability scenario there is still potential in the round wood and manure

categories. Higher prices because of inflation correction explain these differences between the 2020

and 2030 sustainability scenarios. In the reference scenario 2020 the potential in the price above

600 Euro/Toe consists mainly of biofuel crops and some manure sourced from regions where there

is only a limited quantity of manure available. For 2030 under the reference scenario biofuel crops,

round wood potential and manure are all present.

Importantly it should be noted that patterns of supply cost at the national and regional level differ

significantly from the EU average. In Austria, for example, the biofuel potentials are cheaper than

the additionally harvestable roundwood, roundwood and primary residues potentials from forestry,

while in the majority of countries this order reversed with biofuel crops being most expensive. At the

national level perennials generally fall around the mid-point in terms of cost, but it depends on the

country whether woody or the grassy perennials are cheaper.

When interpreting the country specific results it should be kept in mind that these still represent a

national average. Significant differences in cost may arise between regions. This particularly applies

to manure and straw prices where cost is very much determined by local scarcity. In a country like

e.g. Italy the average national price for manure is still relatively high, however, huge excess manure

production exists in the Po-valley. For large countries like France, Germany, Poland etc. specifically

the national totals and averages can provide a deceptive picture in terms of price. This is why

regional data in terms of agricultural potentials is also available within the project, although within

the Atlas the costs are only provided at national average levels9.

Figure 9 - Cost-supply of biomass potentials at EU-27 level for 2020 and 2030 in reference and

sustainability scenarios

29

Which are the most important 4F crops that constitute the European cropped

biomass matrix?

It is expected that during the next decade, tailored crop solutions will be more dominant in the

bioenergy and biofuels markets as they can provide bioenergy products with characteristics that

match the conventional (i.e. fossil based) end-products they replace. In addition, systems will make

better use of existing bio-based resources through increasing their added value for fuel and

products. Lignocellulosic crops have been under research & development for a while. During the last

two decades several lignocellulosic crops have been under research but so far only miscanthus and

reed canary grass are being cultivated in EU27. Research has focused on improving specific traits and

meeting specific ecological and technology related requirements (i.e. adapt to arid climates, provide

certain quality outputs, etc.).

Figure 10: Climatic zones and perennial energy crops (source: www.4fcrops.eu)

The work within Biomass Futures has been informed by the findings of the 4FCROPS project which

assessed the potentials for five of the most promising perennial lignocellulosic crops for EU27: reed

canary grass, miscanthus, switchgrass, giant reed and cardoon. Switchgrass is the only of the

selected crops that can be successfully cultivated in all climatic zones apart from the Nemoral zone

due to the fact that there is a large variety of cultivars suitable for northern Europe (upland varieties)

and for southern Europe (lowland varieties). Miscanthus has also been proposed for most climatic

zones apart from Nemoral and Mediterranean South. Giant reed and cardoon introduced as very

promising energy crops for Mediterranean north and south, while reed canary grass is proposed as

an appropriate crop for Nemoral and Continental climatic zone.

Reed canary grass is being cultivated in Finland and Sweden, while miscanthus is being cultivated in

Austria, Germany, UK, France and Poland. Figure 11 presents yields for the five selected crops, as

Climatic zones and perennial grasses

Nemoral:reed canary

grass

Continental: miscanthus, reed canary

grass, switchgrass

Atlantic central:

Miscanthus and switchgrass

Mediterranean south:

Giant reed, cardoon,

switchgrass

Atlantic north:Miscanthus and

switchgrass

Lusitanian:miscanthus, switchgrass

Mediterranean north:

miscanthus, giant reed, switchgrass

30

they have been estimated in the 4FCROPS project in both agricultural and marginal land as well as

when they cultivated with high and low inputs (11).

Figure 11: Biomass yields (t/ha) of the selected perennial energy crops in each climatic zone (on both agricultural and marginal land as well as with high and low inputs).

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

Nem

ora

l

Co

nti

nen

tal

Atl

an

tic c

en

tral

Atl

an

tic n

ort

h

Lu

sit

an

ean

Med

iterr

an

ean

no

rth

Atl

an

tic c

en

tral

Atl

an

tic n

ort

h

Med

iterr

an

ean

no

rth

Med

iterr

an

ean

so

uth

Med

itte

ran

ean

so

uth

Climatic area

Yie

lds (

t/h

a)

Marginal land & high inputs

Marginal land & low inputs

Agricultural land & high inputs

Agricultural land & low inputs

reed

canary

grass Switchgrass

Giant reed

Cardoon

31

Which implications the estimated biomass supply will have into European

and global markets? The availability maps, cost information and basic sustainability constraints were fed into the

integrated economic land use model (GLOBIOM). By doing this, the static supply curves of individual

feedstocks were brought into competition and contrasted with the demand scenarios. Only by

integrating the static supply curves into a dynamic model of land use, issues of future land use

change, trade, leakage, indirect land use effects and economic viability related to biomass supply can

be assessed.

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. 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.

GLOBIOM is a global economic model that includes a detailed representation of the agricultural,

bioenergy and forestry sectors. Its purpose is to provide policy analysis on global issues concerning

land use competition between the major land-based production sectors. The model computes the

global agricultural and forest market equilibrium choosing the land use and use pathway that

maximises welfare i.e. the sum of producer and consumer surplus, subject to resource, technological

and policy constraints. Within the model there are six key categories of land represented:

unmanaged forest; managed forest; short rotation tree plantations; cropland; grassland; and other

natural vegetation. These can be processed to provide an array of products from wood, resources

for bioenergy, crops for food or fibre and livestock feed.

Two scenarios were analysed: reference and sustainability. Under the reference scenario current

requirements in terms of the RED sustainability criteria are applied i.e. requirements in terms of land

use change and GHG reductions are placed on biofuels and bioliquids. Under the sustainability

scenario it is assumed that requirements for the protection of the environment are extended and

strengthened with all bioenergy resources being required to deliver a GHG saving compared to fossil

fuel use of 70% by 2020 and 80% by 2030. In addition it is assumed that there is no conversion of

highly biodiverse or high carbon stock land for the purposes of bioenergy.

While GLOBIOM provides a good basis for identifying additional emissions in a given region

associated with additional biomass demand, it is not able to assign an emissions ‘back pack’ to

biomass produced on a given parcel of land or distinguish between commodities produced for

bioenergy and other sectors. As a consequence it is not possible to distinguish which elements of

imported commodities are utilised for bioenergy and for food or feed. Therefore, in addition to the

32

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.

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

Patterns of biofuel use are dramatically altered across the two scenarios. Under the reference

scenario 70% of European ethanol demand and 66% of the European biodiesel demand are refined

in Europe with the remainder imported from the rest of the world. Corn/maize represents the key

source of European based bioethanol, while European biodiesel is produced exclusively from

rapeseed. While cellulosic ethanol is not anticipated to form a significant proportion of EU produced

biofuels global production is anticipated to rise to 798 PJ in 2020 and 2,473 PJ by 2030 (19 Mtoe and

59 Mtoe, respectively) comprising over 50% of total global production of bioethanol by 2030.

Under the ‘sustainability’ scenario it is considered that none of the European based biofuel

production pathways can deliver on the 70% and 80% savings for 2020 and 2030 respectively. This

has the consequence that total biofuel demand is imported from the rest of the world. In essence

the EU would be exporting its entire biofuel footprint to the rest of the world. Under this scenario

sugar cane derived ethanol and biodiesel from both palm oil and soybeans become increasingly

important in terms of delivering the demand for biofuels, a consequence of reductions in rape and

corn based fuels due to limitations placed on European production. It should, however, be noted

that the land released from biofuel production within the EU, while products are no longer utilised

for domestic biofuel production, there remains significant exports of other agricultural products.

The outcomes from the GLOBIOM analysis can also be used to help understand the land use

consequences of changing demand collectively for biomass for food, feed and fuel between 2000

and 2030. Under the reference scenario it can be seen that the total shift in demand for agricultural

commodities would lead to an increase in global cropland of 37 Mha and of grassland areas by 47

Mha due to rising demand for agricultural crops and livestock products. This change is driven by the

interplay of demand for bioenergy, food, and increase in population and development in GDP. Under

this scenario cropland expansion occurs primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa and South/South-East Asia.

Meanwhile grassland increased in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. This expansion takes place

primarily through deforestation (-105 Mha) or conversion of other natural vegetation (-48 Mha).

While the reference scenario does not limit land use change in terms of conversion of highly

biodiverse lands outside the EU, the sustainability scenario does. It also increases requirements in

terms of GHG reductions from bioenergy, as a consequence the production footprint for EU

bioenergy is essentially exported to the rest of the world. This results in significant shifts in terms of

33

land use change including the types of crops grown, the extent of grassland conversion and the

intensity of production.

Under the sustainability scenario the global area of cropland is anticipated to be greater, expanding

by an additional 2.3 Mha. This is a consequence of biofuel production from rape and corn declining

with other, non-EU focused, feedstocks favoured; however, there is simultaneously a decline in

usable by-products for animal feeds. As a consequence additional crops are grown as feed. The

extent of loss of high biodiversity areas under the reference scenario is anticipated to be extensive.

Up to 35.7 Mha of high biodiversity land would to be converted by 2030. This represents 7% of the

total area identified as highly biodiverse in 2000. Losses are largely driven by deforestation and the

loss of highly biodiverse primary forest (-19.2 Mha); although significant additional losses are

anticipated from highly biodiverse grasslands (-6.8 Mha) and other natural land deemed high in

biodiversity (-9.7 Mha). Almost one fifth of the total deforestation (105 Mha) anticipated up to 2030

would take place on highly biodiverse primary forest. While conversion to cropland is seen to

contribute to loss of highly biodiverse primary forest, it is conversion to grassland that represents

the most significant threat (responsible for approximately 80% of direct change).

Key to understanding biodiversity consequences are the sensitivity runs preventing any

deforestation globally. The prevention of deforestation precludes the conversion of highly biodiverse

primary forest, but consequently there is a knock on impact in terms of conversion of other natural

vegetation (+3.1 Mha). Despite this rebound impact, importantly the total loss of areas deemed

highly biodiverse declines when deforestation is prevented – a reduction of by 58% is seen meaning

losses are reduced to 15.1 Mha.

Global GHG emissions from agriculture and land use change are seen to steadily increase under the

reference scenario, primarily as a result of rising emissions from deforestation and land use change

(Figure ). Under the reference scenario total emissions by 2030 reach 8,078 Mt CO2 eq.

The sustainability scenario places limits on land use change through the application of criteria

protecting high biodiversity areas. As a consequence of this, differing patterns of crop use leading to

less intensive production and reduced nitrogen inputs overall emission levels in 2030 are 381 Mt CO2

eq. lower than under the reference scenario. It should, however, be noted that a rise in total

emissions between 2000 and 2030 of over 2,000 Mt CO2 eq is still anticipated under the

sustainability scenario.

The application of sustainability constraints, in terms of land use change in high biodiversity areas,

had a relatively limited impact on global GHG emissions. In contrast preventing deforestation

globally had by far the most profound impact on GHG emissions seen within the analysis. Under the

reference and sustainability scenarios preventing deforestation reduced global GHG emissions by

19% and 20% respectively. Emissions from land use change fall from 1,306 to 219 Mt CO2 eq. when

deforestation is prevented under the reference scenario (Figure , this demonstrates the scale of

reductions in GHG emissions between the base runs and no deforestation runs of both scenarios). It

should, however, be noted that even under the no deforestation, sustainability scenario net GHG

emissions increased by 18% compared to 2000 due to changes on the demand side.

34

Figure 12: Development of annualized average GHG emissions in the Reference scenario in the rest of the world in Mt CO2 eq.

Mt

CO

2 e

q

Biofuels

Livestock sector

Crop sector

other LUC

Deforestation

Total GHG

35

Figure 13: Development of total GHG emissions compared to the Reference scenario (100%) The graph demonstrates the scale of reductions in global GHG emissions associated with preventing deforestation globally compared to the base runs of both the reference and sustainability scenarios.

Reference no biofuel trade Reference no deforestation

Sustainability Sustainability no deforestation

36

Which are the most important segments within the heat, electricity/ CHP and

transport sectors for future biomass uptake and which key factors frame their

attractiveness? The first step of the demand analysis within the Biomass Futures project consisted of a structured

market segment analysis. The work employed both qualitative and quantitative frameworks in order

to:

Characterise market segments within the heat, electricity/ CHP and transport sectors in EU27 and AT, DE, GR, NL, UK10.

Define a set of key factors affecting future penetration of biomass in the heat, electricity/ CHP & transport markets.

Evaluate the market segments across all the key factors and define which are the most promising for biomass uptake by 2020. The validation of the segments has been done in close collaboration with stakeholders from the respective policy and industry fields in a dedicated workshop, two teleconferences and a set of individual interviews.

Following, a quantitative assessment has been done under three different scenarios. The information is presented & analysed in two groups, i.e. heat, electricity/ CHP & transport. This analysis represents the first estimates of the role biomass can play in the most promising market segments (as identified by the stakeholders during the qualitative assessment). It is based on the techno-economic data used by the Biomass Futures team across all modeling and quantitative estimations. As a standard, static, techno-economic appraisal of the most ‘cost & resource’ efficient pathways it does not include the complex interactions covered by the follow up activity in WP5 by energy models RESsolve and PRIMES BIOMASS in terms of competition among energy sectors and other energy carriers, nor it provides the time projections/ trajectories the respective models do. But it can be used to illustrate how the sustainable biomass assessed within the Biomass Futures project can be exploited in the promising market segments by 2020.

Heat and Electricity / CHP Sectors

Potential Market Segments

Potential market segments for biomass use in the EU27 heat, electricity / CHP and transport sectors can be described at high-level as follows. Domestic sector can use individual stoves or boilers that use biomass to supply their space heat and/or hot water needs. There are a range of technologies available, the fuel of choice is wood, and capacity is in the range 15-50kWth. Advanced technologies include wood pellet boilers with high conversion efficiency and low environmental impact. At the other end of the spectrum, traditional stoves use wood logs and have relatively low technical efficiency and environmental performance. Commercial include schools, hospitals, municipal offices, leisure centres as well as commercial offices, shops etc. Such buildings may also be supplied via district heat schemes. An alternative approach is for such buildings to use individual boilers to provide their heat needs. Boilers will be typically automated (or semi-automated) and fuelled with wood pellets or chips. These boilers may have capacity 100kWth to 1MWth or larger.

10

The information in this section of the Final publishable report presents the results of the analysis at EU27 level. Individual country reports for AT, DE, GR, NL and UK are available at http://www.biomassfutures.eu/work_packages/work_packages.html

37

District heat schemes are an appropriate site for CHP technologies. Such technologies are medium scale i.e. 3MWe or larger. Boilers raise steam that is used to drive turbines to generate electricity. Heat is supplied to end users via district heat. Electricity is typically exported to the grid. Industrial facilities may also be linked to district heat schemes. Larger industrial facilities, typically in the wood or agriculture processing sectors, have the opportunity to install individual boilers and / or CHP systems. Finally, there is the possibility for electricity-only plant to be installed by industry, say at 30MWe scale or larger. Utility-scale installations are also possible, for example 100MWe plants. Also, co-firing biomass in existing coal power stations is an opportunity. The table below lists segments, their user types & relevant needs.

Market Segment User types User requirements

Biomass heat – domestic

Rural Households in rural & often remote areas usinng a range of fuel types, from local chips or logs to pellets.

Traditional & new stoves; boilers

Urban Households installing modern, wood chip and wood pellet boilers.

Users of biomass heat in urban areas mainly prefer pellet boilers for reasons of personal convenience but also due to increased air quality restrictions.

Biomass heat – commercial

Rural Boilers in commercial, industrial or public authority buildings and facilities.

Operators require range of fuel types, from local chips or logs to pellets. Urban

Biomass heat – community / district heat

Local energy centres with district heat networks providing heat to residential and non-residential users.

Operator of energy centre requires pellet or wood chip; end users require reliable, competitively priced heat.

Industry/ Utility power generation (mainly co-firing)

Mainly large coal power stations owned by utilities or highly polluting industrial sectors (cement/ metal, etc.)

Operators of power stations require fuel with appropriate specification meeting their conversion technology needs, to minimise capex on equipment changes. Usually imported pellets.

Electricity – dedicated biomass

Developers of dedicated power stations fall into two categories. Larger stations (50-100MW) built near marine ports that require secure supplies of imported wood chip. Smaller sites (5-50MW) sourcing local wood chip, energy crop or agricultural residue. Some use of heat possible.

The user requirements for this type vary according to plant size & type. Common ones include certified, good quality biomass & favourable policy regime for the electricity prices.

Table 6 Market segments; user types & their requirements in the EU27 heat & electicity/ CHP sectors.

38

Analysis of Influencing Factors

The analysis of key technical, economic and organisational factors has initially been based on

literature review and then followed by interactions with 20 stakeholders from policy and& industry.

Stakeholder consultation was undertaken via i) a dedicated workshop organised in Brussels (30th

June 2010) and ii) individual a separate set of interviews (that lasted from 1-2 hours each) and

among other issues included discussion or validation of the key factors.

Figure 14. Key factors affecting biomass penetration in the heat & electricity/ CHP sectors

Potential Market Segments for Biomass in the EU27 Heat, Electricity/CHP Sectors

The heat and electricity/ CHP sectors have been grouped into the following segments presented in

Figure 15(left).

The main rationale for this is to be able to capture a combination of segments, technologies and

scales that reflect the current state of bioenergy markets at within EU27 and can also relate to the

way industry and investors perceive future development opportunities.

Following, based on discussions &interviews the stakeholders from policy and industry were they

were asked to provide contribution in ranking the importance of different key factors. Based upon

this exercise, the market segments have been evaluated based on o set of technical, economic and

organizational factors for their potential to contribute to have increased growth of penetration from

bioenergy carriers by 2020 (Figure 15).

Technical

• Proven, reliable technology;

• Technology / energy demand match;

• Fuel supply logistics;

• Fuel quality.

• Heat/power demand

• System response time

• Fuel supply logistics

• Fuel quality

• Space requirement

• Conversion efficiency

Economic

• Capital costs

• Fuel price stability

• Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs

• Fuel costs (versus fossil cost)

• Heat sales revenues

• Electricity sales revenues

• Operation grants / payments

• Emissions trading scheme revenues

• Access to / Cost of capital

• Eligibility for favourable loans

• Other administrative costs (grid connection, licensing)

• Other incentives (based on decentralised energy production, like “embedded benefits”)

Organisational

• Potential for carbon displacement

• Employment creation

• Social acceptability

• Educational policy instruments

• Amenity issues

• Organisational capability (skilled personnel availability, know-how) and management of complexity

• Fuel infrastructure availability

• Security of fuel supply

• Fuel price stability

• Regulations (as policy instruments)

• Administrative issues (planning, grid connection, power export option etc.)

39

The graph in the right of Figure 15 presents the most promising segments for 2020 according to that

analysis.

Figure 15. Market segments for heat & electricity/ CHP sectors before (left) and after (right) their

qualitative assessment.

Overall outlook of the segments for 2020

The overall scores from the ranking that individual stakeholders made indicate as most promising six

segments which are relatively well predisposed for biomass. In descending order of attractiveness,

these are:

rural households, stoves/boilers (heat)

rural services, boilers (heat)

urban households, district heat

industry, CHP

utilities, power generation

urban services, district heat

Stoves

Boilers

Combined heat and

power

Power generation

Rural households

Urban households

Rural services

Urban services

Industrial facilities

Industry - utilities

District

heat

Stoves/boilers

(heat)

Boilers (heat)

Combined heat and

power

Electricity

generation

Rural households

Urban households

Rural services

Urban services

Industrial facilities

Industry - utilities

District

heat

40

Figure 16 Influencing Factors and Market Segments for the heat, electricity and CHP sectors –

Total Percentage Score

These segments score between 30-55% of the maximum available score. This is a qualitative

subjective assessment so there are limits to interpretation of these numerical interpretation scores.

Nevertheless, the scoring does indicates that, while these segments are relatively attractive, there

remains a lack of really strong drivers and a presence of some barriers throughout these sectors.

The other five sectors are relatively poorly disposed to biomass penetration. In descending order of

attractiveness, these are:

rural services, district heat

industry, district heat

rural households, district heat

urban services, boilers (heat)

urban households, stoves/boilers (heat) These segments, with scores of around 20% or less than the maximum attainable score, have clearly

got few strong drivers and a predominance of barriers. The matrix of all the factors and segments

above shows several instances of strong barriers (scores of -3). Further examination would help

establish whether further actions by policy-makers, industry or other relevant actors could reduce or

remove the strongest barriers if these are or if these are likely to remain showstoppers in perpetuity.

or whether further actions by policy-makers, industry or other relevant actors could reduce or

remove these barriers.

Technical factors

The technical scores broadly correspond with the overall scores. The two segments rural households,

stoves/boilers and rural services, boilers have particularly high scores. This reflects the fact that

41

these are well-proven applications, there are good opportunities to match the technology to the

energy demand, and fuel supplies are local. Among the six segments with favorable overall scores,

the segment urban services, district heat, has a relatively low technical score. This partly reflects the

fact that, in many Member States with well-developed gas grids, these buildings could have heat

supplied via natural gas boilers, which is a convenient and proven alternative.

Low technical score for district heating in rural areas reflects the fact that households or buildings

are more widely distributed and more costly to connect. Industry district heat scores low because

the temperature requirements for industrial processes are higher than the low temperature hot

water distribution typically used for district heat schemes.

Economic factors

Economic scores are high for three segments, in descending order of attractiveness, i.e. industry-

CHP; utilities- co-firing and urban services- district heat.

It is evident that there are good economic drivers for installing CHP in industry, particularly those

whose business is the processing of wood or agriculture products. For these companies, with high

energy demands, access to low cost secure fuel, available space etc. there is already uptake and this

can be expected to increase. Similarly, trends also confirm that power generation using biomass

fuels is a promising economic opportunity. The high score for urban services, district heat is notable.

Public buildings can form anchor loads for district heat schemes that cover a mixture of domestic

and service users – this not a new idea for many Member States, but needs to be re-examined in

other States with low uptake to date of district heat.

Organisational factors

The organisational scores show some differences to the other categories of influencing factors. The

two segments industry- CHP and utilities- cofiring show significantly low scores. The reasons appear

to be regulatory and administrative such as planning and access to the grid. The implication is that,

while the economic case appears to be good, there are various issues that make project

development slow and problematic.

The aesthetic, noise (of deliveries) and air quality issues that individual installations face in urban

areas, whether stoves in individual households or boilers in individual buildings, are clearly reflected

in the low scores.

Quantitative assessment of the heat, electricity and CHP sectors in EU27 for 2020 Based on the selection of sub segments that are promising for biomass applications in the 2020 timeframe, a quantitative assessment has been undertaken by evaluating the most promising applications in each sub- segment in the following three scenarios:

a reference scenario based on the initial market segment selection from the Biomass Futures qualitative assessment and the figures stated in the NREAPs submitted within 2010, and

a RED based scenario based on results from the Biomass Futures qualitative assessment and the cost supply curves estimated within the project for EU27 in the timeframe of 2020 (section 3.2).

a RED plus scenario based on results from the Biomass Futures qualitative assessment and the cost supply curves estimated within the project for EU27 in the timeframe of 2020, extending the sustainability criteria to all feedstocks.

Reference RED RED+

Supply NREAP Biomass Futures supply with RED criteria on liquid biofuels related feedstocks only

Biomass Futures supply with RED criteria on all feedstocks

Demand Biomass Futures/ NREAP

Biomass Futures Biomass Futures

Technical potential Based on feedstock and plant scales

Economic Potential Strictly limited for applications where the cost of producing 1KWh heat/ electricity is ≤ to the respective selling prices in the countries (accounting for subsidies and FITs)

Table 7 Scenario assumptions for EU27 by 2020

This analysis represents the first estimates of the role biomass can play in the most promising

market segments (as identified by the stakeholders during the qualitative assessment). It is

based on the techno-economic data used by the Biomass Futures team across all modeling and

quantitative estimations. As a standard, static, techno-economic appraisal of the most ‘cost &

resource’ efficient pathways it does not include the complex interactions covered by the follow

up activity in WP5 by energy models RESsolve and PRIMES BIOMASS in terms of competition

among energy sectors and other energy carriers, nor it provides the time projections/

trajectories the respective models do. But it provides a very good illustration of how the

sustainable biomass assessed within the Biomass Futures projects can be used in promising

market segments to meet the targets set.

43

Table 8 Reference scenario for EU27 by 2020 (based on national figures from NREAP) This scenario uses the biomass potentials estimations that are projected by the NREAPs submitted within 2010 and performs economic modelling for a set of promising applications per segment. The economic modelling allows an analysis of which market segments are potentially the most profitable under the current policy and price level conditions. Under this scenario a total of 985 TWh of energy demand can be met by biomass in the different sectors by 2020, which heat accounting for 669TWh and electricity for 316 TWh.

Table 9 RED scenario (based on sustainable biomass supply curves from Biomass Futures project) This scenario uses the sustainable supply curves based on RED criteria for biofuels only estimated in this project and performs economic modelling for a set of promising applications per segment. Under this scenario a total of 1517 TWh of energy demand can be met by

Feedstock type

Rural

households,

stoves/

boilers

Rural

services,

boilers

Urban

households,

district heat

Urban

services,

district heat

Industry,

CHP

Utilities,

power

(incl.

cofiring)

Wood direct from forestry 82 76 63 50 67 19

Wood byproduct from industry 73 88 78 22

Crops direct from agriculture 109 9

Agriculture byproducts / residues 41 38 32 25 34 10

MSW (biodegradable fraction) and

landfil l gas 19 18 15 12 16 4

Industrial waste (biodegradable

fraction) 12 10 8 11 3

Sewage sludge 2

Totals per segment 143 144 198 184 316

Total heat & electricity

Electricity (TWh)Heat (TWh)

985

316669

5

Electricity (TWh)

Feedstock type

Rural

households,

stoves/

boilers

Rural

services,

boilers

Urban

households,

district heat

Urban

services,

district heat

Industry,

CHP

Utilities,

power

(incl.

cofiring)

Post consumer wood 52 4

Landscape care wood 23 21 18 14 19 5

Perennial woody 114 106 88 70 94 26

Perennial grassy 236 19

Sawmill by-products (excl saw dust) 20 19 16 13 17 5

Other industrial wood residues 11 10 8 7 9 3

Primary Forestry Residues 92 77 61 81 23

Common sludges 14

Animal waste 5

MSW (landfil) 5Totals per segment 168,8 247,8 206,5 278,2 531,5 85

Total heat & electricity 1517,4

62

Heat (TWh)

616,1901,3

38

13

44

biomass in the different sectors by 2020, which heat accounting for 901TWh and electricity for 616 TWh. At this point it is worthwhile to mention that the NREAPs submitted in 2010 state that the bioheat for 2020 would account for 753 TWh and the bioelectricity for 232 TWh. The Biomass Futures figure accounts for the RED scenario actually confirms that the amount in NREAPs can be sustainably met by efficient exploitation of indigenous European resources. The following scenario (RED+) uses the sustainable supply curves based on RED criteria for all bioenergy carriers plus a mitigation potential of 70% for the bioenergy value chains estimated in this project and performs economic modelling for a set of promising applications per segment. Under this scenario a total of 873 TWh of energy demand can be met by biomass in the different sectors by 2020, which heat accounting for 489 TWh and electricity for 384 TWh.

Table 10 RED+ scenario for EU27 by 2020 (based on sustainable biomass supply curves from Biomass Futures project) As expected the results from this scenario restrict the role biomass can play in both markets heavily, resulting to 54% less contribution to the heat sector & 62% less in the electricity one. The estimates from the RED Biomass Futures scenario, result to values close to heat projections by NREAP (almost 800 TWh) with a value of 900 TWh, while the NREAP Supply Reference scenario results to 689 TWh & the RED+ to 489 TWh. Regarding to bioelectricity, all Biomass Futures related estimates are higher that the projections reported in NREAPs (229 TWh), ranging from 316 to 616 TWh. All data presented in the tables are aligned with the modelling and scenario work within the Biomass Futures project.

Feedstock type

Rural

households,

stoves/ boilers

Rural services,

boilers

Urban

households,

district heat

Urban

services,

district heat

Industry, CHP

Utilities,

power

(incl.

cofiring)

Post consumer wood 52 4

Landscape care wood 22 20 17 14 18 5

Perennial woody 41 38 32 25 34 10

Perennial grassy 146 11

Sawmill by-products (excl saw dust) 20 19 16 13 17 5

Other industrial wood residues 11 10 8 7 9 3

Primary Forestry Residues 35 28 37 10

Common sludges 14

Animal waste 5

MSW (landfil) 5Totals per segment 95 87 108 199 336 48

Total heat & electricity 873

Electricity (TWh)

13

62

Heat (TWh)

38

384489

45

Transport

Potential Market Segments

Aviation, rail and marine segments are all clearly potential applications for biofuels. Public and private sector road transport is also an opportunity. “Public” segment refers to large fleets owned by single government authorities or private sector companies. “Private” refers to individual ownership.

Market Segment

User types User requirements

Road Heavy duty Vehicles (buses, trucks, etc.) Most of them are diesel vehicles, with the exception of LNG buses & bioethanol fleets from Scania (SE).

Guaranteed quality of fuel & acceptance from manufacturers. Biodiesel is expected to play a significant role in that segment, as there is only one bioethanol bus manufacturer in EU27 & the respective bioethanol track fleets are still at pre-commercial stage.

Cars: normal cars can use the available low blends; for high blends & pure biofuels special engines and manufacturers guarantee is required.

Cars normally use biofuel blends depending on country arrangements with refineries; for high blends & pure biofuels, labeling is essential.

Motorcycle: this category is similar to cars

Motorcycle: this category is similar to cars

Marine Small leisure boats; cargo ships Cargo ships with big engines can use higher blends (mainly biodiesel)

Aviation Airplanes High quality standards required; demo and commercial flights have already been performed

Rail Passenger trains & rail for goods transfer

Demo applications have been performed with normal blends; higher blends under investigation as teh sector potential can be very high.

Table 11 Market segments; user types & their requirements in the EU27 transport sector.

Analysis of Influencing Factors

The analysis of key technical, economic and organisational factors has initially been based on

literature review and then followed by interactions with 20 stakeholders from policy and&

industry. Stakeholder consultation was undertaken via i) a dedicated workshop organised in

Brussels (30th June 2010) and ii) individual a separate set of interviews (that lasted from 1-2

hours each). and among other issues included discussion or validation of the key factors.

46

Figure 17. Key factors affecting biomass penetration in the transport sector

Potential Market Segments for Biomass in the EU27 Transport Sector

The transport sector has been grouped into the following segments presented in Figure 18

(left).

The main rationale for this is to be able to capture a combination of segments, technologies

and scales that reflect the current state of bioenergy markets at within EU27 and specific

Member States and can also relate to the way industry and investors perceive future

development opportunities.

Following, based on discussions &interviews the stakeholders from policy and industry were

they were asked to provide contribution in ranking the importance of different key factors.

Based upon this exercise, the market segments have been evaluated based on o set of

technical, economic & organizational factors for their potential to contribute to have increased

growth of penetration from bioenergy carriers by 2020 (Figure 18).

The graph in the right of Figure 18 presents the most promising segments for 2020 according

to that analysis.

47

Figure 18. Market segments for the transport sector before (left) and after (right) their

qualitative assessment.

Overall outlook of the segments for 2020

The overall scores indicate two segments which are relatively well predisposed for biomass. In

descending order of attractiveness, these are:

road bus public

road cars public These segments score between 55-70% of the maximum available score. This is a qualitative

assessment so there are limits to numerical interpretation. However, the scoring does indicate

that, while these segments are relatively attractive, there is a presence of some weak drivers

and barriers throughout these sectors.

Figure 19 Influencing Factors and Market Segments for the transport sector – Total Percentage

Score

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

48

The aviation segment is ranked third in attractiveness, substantially below the above-

mentioned segment. However, the analysis below of the individual categories of influencing

factors will show that the low score is due largely to economic considerations, which it is

argued could be overcome.

The other five sectors are relatively less disposed to biomass penetration. In descending order

of attractiveness, these are:

road motorocycles private

road bus private

road cars private

rail

marine These five segments, with scores below 20% than the maximum attainable score, have clearly

got few strong drivers and a predominance of barriers. The matrix of all the factors and

segments above shows several instances of strong barriers (scores of -3). Further examination

would help establish if these are showstoppers in perpetuity or whether further actions by

policy-makers, industry etc. could reduce or remove these barriers.

Technical factors

The technical scores broadly correspond with the overall scores. The two segments road bus

public and road cars have particularly high scores. This reflects the fact that these are well-

proven applications, with good refuelling infrastructure, and fleets are centrally controlled so

decisions to switch to biofuels are easier to take. The market share for biofuels is potentially

very high. Road bus private also indicates a good score in the technical factors, mainly due to

proven technology and good refuelling infrastructure.

Low technical scores in the rail and marine sectors reflect the fact that this sector has

significant inertia; technical development in these industries is rather slow. Individual

investments - the ships and vehicles and their engines – are large. The ships and vehicles have

long life expectancies – perhaps 15-25 years. Hence, penetration of this market with new

technologies would take a relatively extended period of time, compared with road vehicles or

even with aviation.

Economic factors

Economic scores are high for only two segments:

road cars public, and

road bus public As far as the economics of biofuels are concerned, the costs depend mostly on feedstock

prices. Regarding first generation, as production process technology is mature and widely

used, there exist modest chances for costs reductions. However, in the longer term, lingo-

cellulosic feedstock and processes like gasification and hydrolysis for biofuel production are

projected to have lower costs.

49

The replacement of jet fuel by biomass derived fuels constitutes a matter of debate. The cost

implications that aviation alternative fuels pose are quite high. On the other hand the emission

savings that could be achieved from fuel replacement are also very high. Moreover, aviation

remains a ”premium” type of travel, where passing on increased costs to customers may be

easier to achieve.

Organisational factors

Road bus public scores highly with regards organisational factors. This is due to the fact that

owners of bus fleets are likely to have environmental priorities, and are well placed to make

decisions affecting large numbers of vehicles. Aviation also scores well, which is also due to the

priority given to the environmental agenda and for the ability for decisions by the Boards of

Directors of a few very large companies to make profound changes. Aviation is in the public

eye regarding its environmental impact, and most companies are seeking to improve their

image.

50

Quantitative assessment of biofuels produced with indigenous feedstock for transport in EU27 for 2020 The NREAPs project that the biofuel market for 2020 will comprise of 21,6 Mtoe biodiesel from which almost 36% (7,8 Mtoe) will be indigenously produced & 7,3 Mtoe bioethanol (from which imports are estimated at 3,2 Mtoe, a share of 44%). Forecasted imports for the total of the biofuels sector in the NREAPs account for almost 38% of the total supply. Biodiesel will continue having the highest share (66%) with bioethanol reaching a respective 22% of the total biofuels in 2020. As presented in the qualitative assessment road is expected to be the major market segment for biofuels in the 2020 timeframe, with public/ private vehicles having the major share. Aviation is also considered a promising option, despite the high costs. In order to proceed to the quantitative assessment, the three scenarios have been framed by the following assumptions:

Reference RED RED+

Supply NREAP Biomass Futures supply with RED criteria on liquid biofuels related feedstocks only

Biomass Futures supply with RED criteria on all feedstocks

Demand Biomass Futures/ NREAP

Biomass Futures Biomass Futures

Technical potential Based on feedstock and plant scales (e.g. straw & perennial grassy crops are being considered for 2G bioethanol production for 2020)

Economic Potential Strictly limited for applications where the cost of producing1lt of biofuel is ≤ to the respective prices for oil in the country.

Table 12 Scenario assumptions for EU27 by 2020

This analysis represents the first estimates of the role biomass can play in the most

promising market segments (as identified by the stakeholders during the qualitative

assessment). It is based on the techno-economic data used by the Biomass Futures team

across all modeling and quantitative estimations. As a standard, static, techno-economic

appraisal of the most ‘cost & resource’ efficient pathways it does not include the complex

interactions covered by the follow up activity in WP5 by energy models RESsolve and

PRIMES BIOMASS in terms of competition among energy sectors and other energy carriers,

nor it provides the time projections/ trajectories the respective models do. But it provides a

very good illustration of how the sustainable biomass assessed within the Biomass Futures

projects can be used in promising market segments to meet the targets set.

Three different cases for the interpretation of the above mentioned scenarios have been considered, taking into consideration the present biofuel market conditions and the projected for EU27; i) the combination of biodiesel and bioethanol in the total fuel mix, as

51

projected by NREAP ii) the use of only indigenous biodiesel, and iii) the use of only indigenous bioethanol (1st & 2nd generation). As indicated in the qualitative assessment the major share of indigenously produced biofuels consumption is expected from road transport private fleets, accounting for 17,9 Mtoe in the NREAP/ reference scenario; for 14,6 Mtoe in the RED and 6,8 Mtoe in the RED+. The major share in the reference scenario is expected from rape and used fried oils biodiesel while indigenous bioethanol will be cereal based first generation. In the other two scenarios, bioethanol has the major share, based on the assumption that one third of the indigenous potential for straw and perennial grassy crops could be exploited in EU27 for the production of second generation ethanol. From the above figures it can be estimated that the NREAP reference scenario for the indigenous biofuel production would cost approximately 18.9 billion € and result in CO2 savings in the range of 28.3 million t/year. Assuming that the total amount would be first generation biofuels (from oilseeds- sunflower, rapeseed, cereals) if their production was indigenous this would require almost 27.6 million ha of cultivated land. The RED scenario, based on the Biomass Futures estimations for sustainable indigenous supply, can only reach up to 14.3 Mtoe for the 2020 timeframe. The fuel mix would be again first generation biodiesel from oilseeds & used oils as well as bioethanol from cereals and 2G bioethanol from lignocellulosic feedstock. The respective figures for land requirements are 29.4 million ha while the cost rises up to 18.4 billion € and the CO2 savings are in the range of 24 million t/year.

Scenarios for year 2020

Biofuel (Mtoe)

Biofuels Production

Costs (billion EUR)

Land required (million

hectares)

CO2 savings (million

tCO2/m3)

Bio

fue

ls m

ix

Reference

17.9 18.9 27.6 28.3

RED

14.3 18.4 29.4 24.0

RED+

6.8 8.5 12.0 11.3

100

% b

iod

iese

l

Reference

13.8 13.3 17.1 21.3

RED

2.9 2.8 3.5 4.4

RED+

2.1 2.1 2.6 3.3

100

% b

ioet

han

ol

Reference

4.1 5.6 10.5 7.0

RED

11.4 15.7 29.2 19.6

RED+

4.7 6.4 12.0 8.0

Table 13 Impacts from the use of indigenous biofuels in transport in EU27 under the various scenarios The most interesting results for indigenous biofuel production derive from the RED+ scenario. Based on the cost supply analysis, indigenous biodiesel will only be produced by

52

used oils while indigenous bioethanol production could occur only from 2G plants as the respective first generation supply chains cannot meet the high mitigation targets (of above 70%). The respective figures for cost rises up to 8.5 billion € and the CO2 savings are in the range of 11.3 million t/year. Based on the results of the RED & RED+ scenarios, indigenous biofuels can meet a much lower demand than the one projected in the first NREAP report for EU27, even when 2G bioethanol is taken into account (in the analysis it is assumed that one third of the indigenous biomass supply for straw & perennial grassy crops will be used for ethanol production in EU27).

53

What is the role sustainable biomass can play to meet the RED 2020 &

NREAP targets? The level of possible exploitation of the biomass supply estimated within Biomass Futures

has been further assessed using energy modeling with the RESolve model11. With this model

the demand for biomass for electricity, heating and transport as indicated in the NREAPs was

analyzed. These demand figures are specified for solid biomass, liquid biomass and biogas

for electricity and heat respectively, furthermore a 9% share of biofuels is assumed12. The

analysis is based on a least costs optimization with respect to a fossil reference. Current and

anticipated RES policies have been included and imports of biomass from outside the EU are

allowed. These imports mainly consist of wood pellets, feedstocks for biofuel production and

biofuels. The main outputs of the analysis on the role sustainable biomass can play to meet

the 2020 & NREAPs targets for electricity, heat and biofuels are presented below:

NREAP targets for biomass based heat, electricity and transport will not be reached under

the present regional and national policy/support schemes and market developments in

most of the EU countries. While the level of support schemes play an important role they

will not immediately lead to enough growth to meet the targets. Many other factors (such as

administrative and regulatory conditions, permitting procedures, the maturity of the

industry, etc.) prevent such developments. In this respect, the time frame up to 2020 might

be too tight to achieve the ambitious NREAP bioenergy goals in Member States level.

The current Member States support schemes to produce electricity and heat are very

different with respects to their type (such as feed-in tariff, feed-in premium, quota

obligation, investment grants, etc.), level of support, and the type of technology (for

instance only for CHP) or feedstock they target. This could pose a risk that biomass is not

used in areas where it is most cost-efficient.

Bio-electricity: Such ambitions can only be realised when and if the appropriate policy

instruments are in place

It is modelled that in 2020 around 216 TWhe can be produced from biomass, decreasing to

210 TWhe in 2030, based on the policy measures promoted by the Member States.

However, in the NREAPS the bio-electricity demand is estimated to be around 232 TWhe in

2020. Such ambitions can only be realised when and if the appropriate policy instruments

are in place to overcome both techno-economic and non-technical barriers. Figure 20

illustrates the total electricity production for the EU27. While these figures indicate that the

11

The RESolve model is an optimization model developed by ECN*. The model fulfills given demands for biofuels for transport, electricity and heating using biomass in a least cost manner with respect to fossil references. In this optimization stimulating measures can be included. The model has previously been applied to analyse the EU biofuel sector in several large project funded by the European Commission (REFUEL). The RESolve model has been extended with electricity and heat as compared to the model described in Lensink, S. and Londo, M. (2010): Assessment of biofuels supporting policies using the BioTrans model, Biomass and Bioenergy 34 (2010), 218-226, 2010. 12

According to the NREAPs of the 10% transport target, roughly 9% is biofuel and 1% electrical vehicle

54

NREAP set targets in 2020 is achievable with some further efforts the deviations are

significant in Member States level. A more detailed country by country analysis can be found

in [Uslu et al., 2012]. In 2020 the difference between NREAP targets and the model results is

around 4.7% for EU27. After 2025, utilisation of biomass declines. This decline is due to the

reduction of certain feedstock potentials (i.e. black liquor, digestible biomass such as forage

maize and cereals), the decline in coal fired power plant capacity, or competition with other

RES-E options for certain countries.

CHP plays a dominant role in 2020, contributing around 3 % of the total electricity

production in 2020. An important aspect- the economic use of heat - drives investment in

CHP plants. In fact, a cogeneration unit will not be able to operate in high efficiency mode

without sufficient heat demand. In this respect it is important to consider both the heat

demand in respective countries and the required investment to supply the produced heat to

the end users (through district heating systems).

Biomass co-firing with coal in existing boilers is the most cost effective option of electricity

(and heat) production from biomass. According to the model outcomes in 2020 around 48

TWhe can be produced through co-firing. This is however, expected to decrease in 2030 to

34 TWhe . An important reason for this trend is the decrease of the EU27 coal capacity from

161 GWe in 2020 to 142 GWe in 2030.

It is important to note that biomass co-firing has been promoted differently in the EU

Member States. For instance, Austria, and the Czech Republic support biomass co-firing

through a feed-in tariff or a premium. Belgium supports it through green certificates. In the

Netherlands co-firing is supported through a fixed premium and there are plans to change

this to an obligation for co-firing from 2015 onwards.

Figure 20: EU27 total electricity production from biomass in comparison to the NREAPs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Ele

ctri

city

fo

rm b

iom

ass

[TW

he

]

NREAP

RESolve-E

55

Bio-heat: Current policy process is not sufficient enough to achieve the ambitions. Biomass

becomes one of the most promising renewable energy source for industry.

Model results indicate 18% lower final heat demand in 2020 than the NREAPs, in which the

industry sector becomes the main biomass user. Biomass is one of the most promising

renewable energy sources for industries that require high temperature level - if not the only

- options, followed by deep geothermal. The RESolve-H model projects around 11% and 12%

of the industrial heat demand to be derived from biomass resources for 2020 and 2030,

respectively. On the other hand, the biomass derived heat consumption decreases for

residential sector (from a share of 47% in 2010 to 15% by 2030). There are a number of

reasons behind this change. First of all, overall heat demand for the residential sector is

expected to decrease thanks to the energy efficiency and energy saving policies and other

renewable energy sources (particularly solar thermal energy). The current high penetration

of wood stoves decreases due to phasing out of old equipment: when the lifetime has been

reached, old stoves are decommissioned and for a considerable part is not replaced, or it is

replaced by more efficient installations.

Figure 21: Penetration of biomass in the reference scenario according to RESolve_H in

various cross-sections, for the year 2020 in comparison to the NREAP projections.

Biofuels: Imports will play an important role

Based on the minimal cost allocation along the supply the modelling results show that

around 30% of the biofuel demand can be met through imports, of which 25% is biodiesel

chain. Contribution of 2nd generation biofuels is around 13%, amounting to 148 PJ. On the

other hand, NREAPs indicate higher import figures (around 37% of the total) and

contribution of 2nd generation technologies to be lower (around 7% of the total). The

56

Renewable Energy Directive considers biofuels produced from waste, residuals, non-food

cellulose material and lignocellulosic material to be counted double to the renewable

transport target. Model results show a significant growth for the 2nd generation

technologies between 2020 and 2030 (see Figure 22).

Figure 22: Biofuel distribution (PJ) in 2020 and 2030 for the reference scenario compared to

NREAP figures. 1G refers to 1st generation biofuels.

57

How do different energy models supporting policy reflect the biomass role

for 2020; key similarities and important differences. In the course of the Biomass Futures project the RESolve model kit of ECN and the PRIMES

Biomass model of E3Mlab/ICCS of NTUA, were used in order to assess the effect of different

policies and measures on the biomass supply system. The two models present differences

both in terms of the mathematics underlying their construction and in terms of scope.

The two models operate with a different definition of biomass demand: in RESolve the

“biomass demand” is described as in the NREAPs as the amount of electricity, heat or

biofuels derived from biomass feedstock, whereas in PRIMES biomass the “biomass

demand” is described as the amount of bio-energy commodities required by the energy

system.

Other significant differences between the two models are the time horizon and the time

resolution: the PRIMES biomass model runs all the way to 2050 in five year steps, whereas

the RESolve model runs to 2030 and provides yearly outputs. The RESolve model is therefore

more adequate for short to medium term analyses and can capture in a more detailed

manner the transformations required, therefore the yearly development stages to obtain

the targets The PRIMES biomass model, on the contrary, is not able to capture short term

changes with high amount of detail, as it can only reflect the effects in each five year time

period, although full vintages are taken into account; the model is built to perform analysis

to capture the medium to longer-term effects of policies and climate targets on to the

horizon of 2050.

The achievability of the targets set by the NREAPs was tested with the quantification of a

scenario that utilises the demand for bio-energy as submitted by the Member States in the

NREAPs. Both models concluded that the high demand for gaseous biomass projected by the

NREAPs strains the biomass feedstock potential. The available potential has to be exploited

to the maximum by almost every Member State so as the demand to be met, making the

gaseous bio-energy commodities more costly and effort consuming.

The RESolve model results indicate that the NREAP targets for biomass based heat,

electricity and transport will not be reached under the present regional and national

policy/support schemes in most of the EU countries. The level of support schemes play an

important role, however they will not immediately lead to enough growth to meet the

targets. Many other factors (such as administrative and regulatory conditions, permitting

procedures, the maturity of the industry etc.) prevent such developments. In this respect,

the time frame up to 2020 might be too tight to achieve the ambitious NREAP bio-energy

targets in Member States level.

According to the PRIMES Biomass results, the demand projected by the NREAPs is

achievable, from a techno-economic point of view, on condition that development of the

biomass conversion technologies for the production of 2nd generation biofuels takes place by

2020, although the majority of bio-energy commodities are produced with technologies

already mature today. Furthermore, the projected demand for bio-energy commodities

58

cannot be met unless a strong increase in the land use for the cultivation of energy crops

takes place.

In the context of the sustainability scenario, both models concluded that stricter

sustainability criteria would affect the production of 1st generation biofuels, as sugar, starch

and oil crops are found not to comply with the criteria, whereas solid biomass is not found

to be affected. Imports of palm oil stop in both models and only sustainably produced

bioethanol and biodiesel continue being imported.

From a modelling point of view, both models agree that the substantial decrease of 1st

generation biofuels feedstock crops can be compensated through larger quantities of 2nd

generation biofuels and/or importing biofuels that are derived from feedstock grown on

degraded land, so as the 10% renewable energy in transport in 2020 target to be met. The

PRIMES Biomass model projects that in 2020 the demand for 2nd generation biofuels will

represent 42% of total liquid biofuels for road transportation and that unless intensive

development of the production technologies of 2nd generation biofuels takes place by 2020

the demand for bio-energy commodities cannot be met. Furthermore, the effects of the

strict sustainability criteria are found to be milder in the long-run towards 2050, as the use

of lignocellulosic feedstock for the production of 2nd generation biofuels is already assumed

to take place in the context of a scenario quantifying the long-term decarbonisation

objectives. The RESolve model predicts a reduction in demand of biofuels of 45% in 2020,

since the quantities of 2nd generation biofuels up to 2020 are quite ambitious already in the

reference scenario and is assumed that there is not much room for compensation by 2nd

generation biofuels in the context of the sustainability scenario.

The High Biomass scenario was constructed in a different way by the two modelling teams.

The Maximum Biomass scenario quantified by ECN considers stronger policy instruments to

harness larger amounts of biomass in the time period 2020-2030. The demand for electricity

and heat using solid biomass is assumed to be 25% higher than the demand projected by the

NREAPs. The PRIMES Biomass model on the other hand simulates the case that the assumed

long term electrification of the private vehicles is delayed. Therefore, the transport sector

would rely to a greater extent on biofuels in order to meet the long term decarbonisation

objectives. Therefore, two different cases are simulated: one analysing the short to medium

term impacts of increased bio-energy demand (RESolve model) and the other analysing the

effect on the long-term decarbonisation targets (PRIMES biomass).

Both models find that increasing demand both in the short and in the long-term leads to a

substantial increase in the imports levels, which, however, leads to concerns on the

sustainability of biomass feedstock supply. In the longer term projections there is also an

intensification of domestic bio-energy commodity production, and a related increase in the

land use for the production of energy crops, further questioning the sustainability of the

scenario.

59

How the project findings can be translated into simple and

comprehensive briefings that stakeholders can understand.

A set of 25 briefings has been prepared (combine output from WP6 & WP8) under the Biomass Futures project. The box below lists the briefings generated under both WP6 and WP8.

WP6 1. Biomass Futures D6.4 Non-technical description of BF modelling framework 2. Biomass Futures D6.4 Non-technical description of GLOBIOM final 3. Biomass Futures D6.4 Biomass Futures Expert Survey 4. Biomass Futures D6.4 Market Segments & Key Factors 5. Biomass Futures D6.4 4F Crops Policy Briefing 6. Biomass Futures D6 4 Policy Map Solid Biomass 7. Biomass Futures D6 4 Policy Map Biogas 8. Biomass Futures D6 4 Policy Map Biofuels 9. Biomass Futures D6 4_Atlas of EU biomass potentials 10. Biomass Futures D6 4_Description of the Biomass Futures scenarios 11. Biomass Futures D6 4_Final results from the GLOBIOM model 12. Biomass Futures D6 4_ Biomass role for heat electricity and transport biofuels for

EU27 in 2020 13. Biomass Futures D6 4_Summary of the Biomass Futures sustainability indicator work

WP8 1. D8.4 The role of bioenergy in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans: a first

identification of issues and uncertainties 2. D8.4 Biomass Futures straw potential uptake to meet the RED 2020 targets (contribution

to FNR workshop) 3. D8.4 Energy crops in the European context (contribution to FNR workshop) 4. D8.4 Delivering the Renewable Energy Directive – Commission Pre-Consultation on ILUC 5. D8.4 Food, Fuel and the Environment: implications for land use in Europe and beyond 6. D8.4 Implementing the Renewable Energy Directive – Template for NREAPs 7. D8.4 RED and FQD: The interactions between European policy drivers for increasing the

use of biofuels in transport 8. D8.4 Securing a sustainable biomass supply in EU (in ETA publication) 9. D8.4 Cascading Biomass 10. D8.4 The potential of lignocellulosic ethanol in EU27 by 2020 (contribution to IAEA

thematic workshop) 11. DB.4 The Biomass Futures project 12. D8 4 PRIMES Biomass model projections

The main aims underlying these briefings were to:

1) enhance understanding of the EU policy processes surrounding the implementation of the RED and in particular the meeting of the bioenergy targets;

2) explain to stakeholders in non-technical terms how the Biomass Futures results have been derived; and

3) report on outcomes from the Biomass Futures project in a timely and concise manner.

60

In the following paragraphs, we map the briefings to these three purposes. In translating the

findings of the project into simple and comprehensive briefings, it was important to cover all

three aspects in order to ensure that stakeholders can understand and appreciate the work

being conducted and put the findings into the policy relevant context.

Enhance understanding of the EU policy processes surrounding the implementation of the

RED and in particular the meeting of the bioenergy targets

D8.4 Implementing the Renewable Energy Directive – Template for NREAPs

D8.4 The role of bioenergy in the National Renewable Energy Action Plans: a first identification of issues and uncertainties

D8.4 RED and FQD: The interactions between European policy drivers for increasing the use of biofuels in transport

D8.4 Delivering the Renewable Energy Directive – Commission Pre-Consultation on ILUC

D8.4 Food, Fuel and the Environment: implications for land use in Europe and beyond

D6.4 Policy Map Solid Biomass D6.4 Policy Map Biogas

D6.4 Policy Map Biofuels

Explain to stakeholders in non-technical terms how the Biomass Futures results have been

derived

D6.4 Non-technical description of the Biomass Futures modeling framework

D6.4 Non-technical description of GLOBIOM final

D6.4_Description of the Biomass Futures scenarios

Report on outcomes from the Biomass Futures project in a timely and concise manner

D8.4 The Biomass Futures project

D6.4 Biomass Futures Expert Survey

D6.4 Market Segments & Key Factors

D6 4_Final results from the Biomass Futures Demand Analysis

D8.4 Cascading biomass

D6 4_Summary of the Biomass Futures sustainability indicator work

D6.4 4F Crops Policy Briefing

D8.4 Energy crops in the European context (contribution to FNR workshop)

D8.4 Biomass Futures straw potential uptake to meet the RED 2020 targets (contribution to FNR workshop)

D8.4 The potential of lignocellulosic ethanol in EU27 by 2020 (contribution to IAEA thematic workshop)

D8.4 Securing a sustainable biomass supply in EU (in ETA publication)

D6 4_Atlas of EU biomass potentials

D6 4_Final results from the GLOBIOM model

D8 4 PRIMES Biomass model projections

61

How to inform and support policy makers at European and National level

and generate information for biomass role which will be taken into account

in the formation on NREAPs.

In order to make sure that the results generated within the Biomass Futures project are of

highest relevance for policy makers, on both European and national level, the following

exercises were part of the Biomass Futures project:

Identification of the high-level future challenges of bioenergy development, related to sustainability and implementation (see Deliverable 6.3);

Detailed analysis of risks and benefits, implementation challenges, as well as policy, market development and research needs as part of the Biomass Futures expert survey (see Deliverable 6.4 Biomass Futures expert survey);

Teleconferences with policy stakeholders (see Deliverables 7.1 and 7.2 for the meeting reports);

Workshops for policy makers that helped establishing and maintaining a dialogue with EU and Member State officials (see Deliverables 6.6);

Continuous dissemination of Biomass Futures news (including events and publications);

Other forms of involvement with policy makers by all project partners, such as bilateral meetings and talks.

These various channels of communication with policy makers are mapped out in detail in

Deliverable 6.2. An identification of some high-level issues was useful as a first step in

starting off the dialogue with policy makers. Furthermore, it helped inform the

questionnaire design used for interviewing a range if policy makers from 17 Member States

and the European Commission in the context of the “expert survey”, conducted by IEEP. The

fact that the results of the expert survey were later validated by a stakeholder

teleconference allowed for continuity in the engagement with policy makers.

In order to disseminate results from the project the policy briefings mentioned in the

previous section have played a vital role. While it is necessary that the technical reports

generated by the project team are detailed and represent the entirety of the methodological

work underlying the body of results, policy makers in most cases are interested in the main

findings only. Throughout the project, we have therefore produced analyses of the RED

related EU policy framework and most importantly of the work being conducted under the

Biomass Futures project, both to report on results generated and on how these results were

generated (in non-technical language comprehensible for policy makers). These policy

briefings, that have been disseminated via an extended mailing list including contacts for all

Member States (Deliverable 6.1), are meant to ‘wet the appetite’ of those policy makers

responsible for strategic bioenergy development in national or EU-level administrations

(including formulating, monitoring and updating of the Member States’ NREAPs).

62

How to enhance dialogue with specific target groups?

Dialogue with stakeholders Table 14 provides an overview of all the teleconferences and other forms of stakeholder

meetings held as part of this work package 7 of the Biomass Futures project.

Table 14: Overview of Biomass Futures stakeholder engagement

Title Background material Date

DEMAND

1 Define and rank the key factors affecting

future penetration of biomass in the heat,

electricity/CHP and transport sectors

Briefing for first stakeholder

consultation on the role of biomass

in the EU27 heat, electricity & CHP

sectors

Oct/Nov 2010

2 Promising market segments for biomass

in the heat, electricity/CHP sectors

D2.2 Report on the main factors

influencing biomass demand &

D2.3 Outlook on market segments

for biomass uptake by 2020 +

separate summary D2.3 heat and

electricity

24 Feb 2011

3 Promising market segments for biomass

in the transport sector

D2.2 Report on the main factors

influencing biomass demand &

D2.3 Outlook on market segments

for biomass uptake by 2020 +

separate summary D2.3 transport

25 Feb 2011

4 Scenarios for future biomass market

penetration (+POLICY)

Draft D6.4 Introducing the Biomass

Futures scenarios

20 Sept 2011

5 Validation of final results from the

demand analysis

Presentation of final results

demand analysis by ECN

7 March 2012

SUPPLY

6 Define and map the likely sources of

bioenergy supply and their consequences

(+SUSTAINABILITY)

Briefing for first stakeholder

consultation on the sustainable

supply of biomass in the EU27 for

the heat, electricity & CHP sectors

13 Dec 2010

7 Spatially detailed and quantified overview

of EU biomass potential taking into

account the main criteria determining

biomass availability from different sources

Draft D3.3 Atlas of Potentials

including presentation of biomass

categories and sustainability

constraints

7 April 2011

8 Modelling of energy crops within Biomass

Futures - Data, methodology and

underlying assumptions

D3.2 Role of 4F cropping in

determining future biomass,

updated D3.3 Atlas of Potentials,

Presentation with updated cost-

supply data

26 July 2011

9 Validation of final results of supply and

potential analysis

Draft final deliverables D3.3 Atlas

of potentials and D3.4 GLOBIOM

1 March 2012

63

modelling results as well as two

dedicated presentations with key

results and discussion points

10 Additional engagement with supply

stakeholders on the “Cascading Use”

paper

Draft paper/presentation

‘Cascading use: A systematic

approach to biomass beyond the

energy sector’

Dec/Jan 2011/12

SUSTAINABILITY

11 Define and map the likely sources of

bioenergy supply and their consequences

(+SUPPLY)

Draft D4.3 Working paper on

results of the bottom-up analysis of

sustainability constraints for

regionalised biomass potentials

13 Dec 2010

12 Sustainable Bioenergy: Key Criteria and

Indicators

Draft working paper ‘Sustainable

Bioenergy: Key Criteria and

Indicators’

4 May 2011

13 Sustainable Bioenergy: Key Criteria and

Indicators

Draft working paper ‘Sustainable

Bioenergy: Key Criteria and

Indicators’

10 May 2011

14 Written/telephone consultation on

Cascading use paper

Draft paper ‘Cascading use: A

systematic approach to biomass

beyond the energy sector’

January/February

2012

15 Engagement with stakeholders in other

fora by Oeko-Institut

Various Various

POLICY

16 Main issues of concern in implementing

bioenergy policy

D6.3 Analysis of policy maker

issues and concerns

24 Jan 2011

17 Outcomes of expert survey (D6.2/D6.4) D6.4 Analysing Bioenergy

Implementation in EU Member

States: Results from the Biomass

Futures Expert Survey

14 June 2011

18 Scenarios for future biomass market

penetration (+DEMAND)

Draft D6.4 Introducing the Biomass

Futures scenarios

20 Sept 2011

19 Cascading biomass uses – teleconference

on IEEP paper

Draft paper/presentation

‘Cascading use: A systematic

approach to biomass beyond the

energy sector’

11 Jan 2012

20 Engagement with stakeholders in other

fora by IEEP

Various Various

64

Deliverables 7.1 and 7.2 report in detail on the stakeholder consultations conducted. We here flag several important lessons learnt for enhancing dialogue with stakeholders. Overall, the stakeholder dialogues have been successful in improving the quality of the work generated by Biomass Futures by providing advice:

on data sources;

on the definition of scenarios most relevant to stakeholders and therefore helping to ask the right questions;

on the interpretation of results; and finally

on the presentation of key messages, to name a few dimensions. The activity under WP 7 was concentrated in the second part of the project. As has been mentioned in previous progress and interim reports, engaging with stakeholders did not turn out to be sensible towards the beginning of the project, when no substantial results had been generated yet that could meaningfully be validated by stakeholders. We saw the risk of “exhausting” stakeholders at an early stage had we consulted with them early on in the project. As the project progressed, IEEP as work package leaders as well as the project partners saw an increasing value of engaging with stakeholders and could benefit from their inputs. Lessons learnt from the process:

In some instances, it turned out to be sensible to have joint teleconferences with two groups of stakeholders. This was the case when the subject matter discussed was of particular interested to both groups. Most of the stakeholder dialogues were organised as conference calls. In some cases, it was more sensible to invite written inputs from stakeholders. As it was not always possible to find a date that suited all invited participants, some individual calls were conducted additionally, as has been documented throughout this report. All of this shows that one has to offer flexibility in order to maximise the stakeholder participation.

Especially the supply stakeholder teleconferences highlighted the importance of preparing summaries of the main (draft) results and discussion points to be discussed during the teleconferences. Especially the Atlas of biomass potentials work contained a wealth of information and sending out summary presentations turned out to be useful in order to not overwhelm stakeholders.

Another observation mainly derived from the supply group is that it was important to have some stakeholders participating in teleconferences repeatedly as they were able to follow and appreciate the progress made throughout the project and given their familiarity with the work could make a head start in providing comments in follow-up teleconferences. While the benefits of continued engagement were clear right from the beginning, a limited amount of stakeholders had the time of to provide continued inputs.

We believe it was helpful that WP 6 and 7 were both led by IEEP so that policy makers received regular invitations to teleconferences and other regular email updates about Biomass Futures publication, e.g. as part of the policy engagement work under WP 6, from the same email address, enhancing the recognition of the Biomass Futures “brand”.

Dedicated workshops on:

Workshop on Demand for Biomass- How likely is to be met? Brussels, 30th

June 2010

The workshop aimed to discuss with industry & policy stakeholders the promising market

segments for future biomass penetration in the heat, electricity/ CHP and transport markets

65

& understand the key factors affecting demand from industry & policy. This workshop was

intended as a basis for future interactions with stakeholders, allowing discussion and input

into the work of the Biomass Futures Team in defining the market segments biomass can

play a role in the future and validating the key factors affecting their future penetration.

Workshop on Analysing Europe’s Future Bioenergy Needs: Member States Anticipated Use of Bioenergy and Sustainable Supply Options, Brussels, 26

th November 2010

The workshop aimed to help policy makers understand the questions we face when dealing

with rapidly increasing bioenergy needs. It provided attendees with an improved

understanding of the facts and evidence base by: i) presenting the nature of the demand set

out in the available NREAPs; ii) summarising the implications in terms of future EU land use

of expanding biomass demand; iii) presenting for discussion outcomes from key modelling

exercises reviewing the supply of biomass for energy in Europe; iv) considering the

sustainability of this supply; and finally v) combining these results with anticipated models

describing the nature of EU energy demand into the future.

Workshop on Biomass Sustainability issues in Germany, Berlin, 30th

November 2010

The aim of the workshop was to discuss progress on sustainability criteria for biomass in

Germany, a leading Member State in the field and define how they affect future biomass

streams from the agriculture & forestry sectors.

Workshop on Sustainable biomass options to meet the RED targets for 2020, Brussels; 12th

April 2011

The aim of the workshop was to introduce the Biomass Futures Working paper on

Sustainable Bioenergy: Key Criteria and Indicators and get feedback from the participating

stakeholders.

Workshop on Biomass supply options to meet the RED targets for 2020, Berlin; 6th

June 2011

The aim of the workshop was to highlight the findings of the EU project “Biomass Futures”

on the main (environmental) sustainability factors constraining biomass supply for reaching

the 2020 targets as well as present biomass supply curves for EU 27 and compare the

Biomass Futures modeling results with the NREAP targets.

Workshop on Biomass role in the RED 2020 energy futures, Brussels; 29th

June 2011

The workshop set the scene for biomass in the different modelling tools advising policy

(GreenX, Ressolve; PRIMES), analysed the scenarios developed within the Biomass Futures

project and discussed key policy messages for the implementation of RED regarding

bioenergy and biofuels. The invitees included officers from relevant Directorates

(Environment, Energy, Agriculture, Enterprise, Research, etc.) who supervise projects,

develop priorities, participate in policy formation in order to communicate the findings from

the modelling and scenario work and take into account their comments suggestions prior to

finalising the project outputs.

66

Workshop on Designing Policy to meet Europe’s Future Bioenergy Needs – How can the Biomass Futures project inform future European bioenergy policy? 20

th March 2012

The aim of the workshop was to offer policy makers the opportunity to examine outputs

from the project and importantly help tailor results prior to finalisation.

Workshop on The role of biomass in meeting a diversified demand – Sharing final results from the Biomass Futures project; Brussels, 20

th March 2012

The aim of the workshop was to inform stakeholders from industry, supply & sustainability

sides on the final outputs from the project regarding to the role of biomass in meeting a

diversified demand.

The final outputs are expected to contribute towards the EU policy agenda by providing

input regarding the biomass role in EU27 and Member State level in order to efficiently meet

the RES-D targets for 2020, with respective contribution to the National Action Plans (NAPs)

and to the post RES-D sustainability criteria and indicators on indirect Land Use Change

(LUC), air, water, soil and social impacts.

Key messages from the Biomass Futures project Regional mobilization of sustainably sourced biomass feedstocks which are under-

utilized in EU countries and regions, including marginal land and land set free from

agricultural production

Stimulate cross-sectoral, resource- and cost-efficient conversion to end-uses, taking

into account GHG and air pollutant benefits, as well as income generation and

employment balances

Initiate and support regional & national policy development, including cross border

cooperation within the EU, and sustainable bioenergy imports from neighboring

countries, and from abroad

Work bi- and multilaterally on global protection of high biodiversity and high carbon

stock areas to prevent environmentally and socially harmful indirect effects

Develop the bio-economy concept further towards practical implementation, taking

into account the wider context of demands for biomass resources beyond energy,

and the cascading use of biomass.

www.biomassfutures.eu