biomass resources & sustainability assessment in the ... · keith l. kline (presenter), matt...
TRANSCRIPT
ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle for the US Department of Energy
Biomass Resources & Sustainability Assessment
in the United StatesIEA Bioenergy Biomass Roadmap
Workshop on Sustainability Governance Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paris, France
25 April, 2017
Keith L. Kline (presenter), Matt Langholtz, Virginia Dale and Rebecca Efroymson
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Acknowledgements to Fahran Robb, US Department of Agriculture Kristen Johnson, US Department of Energy
This presentation reflects analyses and opinions of the authors. Errors or omissions are the responsibility of the presenter.
2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Key points• Biomass Resources: see BT16 in references (separate presentation)• Multiple governance systems already in place• No single method
– Variety of contexts and feedstocks– Many, small, private operators
• Focus research on priorities• Participatory process is
important to define priorities• Clarify intent of certification• Science-based assessments
– Identify good practices– New standards– Complement existing regulatory frameworks– Support improving quantification and communications for
• Adaptive management • Continual improvement
3 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Status • Systems are in place for
– monitoring, reporting, and regulating – stewardship of public forests– assure sustainable forest management – public and privately owned lands
• Examples– Forest inventories and analysis – Public lands conservation; – Monitoring harvests; tracking; permitting and/or training programs; – State-driven programs
• “best management practices”• "State Forest Action Plans“• 1,500 state government entities found to implement forest policies and programs (Ellefson
et al. 2002)• Forestry and Agriculture
– Laws and regulations related to air, water, and endangered species– Complexity due to multiple layers of authorities: federal, state, local, tribal
4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Examples of laws and regulations
5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. DOE Commitment to SustainabilityBioEnergy Technology Office (BETO) 2016 Strategic Plan
• Vision: A thriving and sustainable bioeconomy fueled by innovative technologies
• Mission: Developing and demonstrating transformative, sustainable bioenergy technologies for a prosperous nation
• Sustainability Goal: Understand and promote the positive economic, social, and environmental effects and reduce the potential negative impacts of bioenergy production activities.
• Effects and indicators are context-specific (Efroymson et al. 2011).
6 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Understanding and Enhancing Bioenergy Sustainability
Air Quality Soil QualityLandscape
Design
Water Quantity
and QualityBiologicalDiversity
Analyzing biofuel pathways to quantify progress towards reducing lifecycle emissions, and fossil energy use.Climate issues involve more than GHG emissions (latent heat, albedo…)
Developing strategies and tools for producing biomass while maintaining or enhancing soil quality.Practices for “beneficial LUC” to improve soil qualities and carbon storage capacity over time
Advancing landscape design approaches that increase biomass production while maintaining or enhancing ecosystem services and socio-economic benefits.Promote multiple benefits by considering patterns processes and relationships; Iowa project example
Assessing the water resource use and water quality of bioenergy production, and investigating opportunities for bioenergy crops to improve water quality. Special attention to freshwater: our most endangered eco-systems
Investigating relationships between bioenergy crops and biodiversity, and engaging with experts to understand and promote practices that conserve wildlife and biodiversity.Incudes LUC and effects in other nations, food security…
7 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Quantifying, enhancing, and communicating the value proposition of bioenergy
Depends on context (Efroymson et al. 2013). Analysis involves: Quantifying effects using scientific approaches
Providing decision-relevant, credible information Designing bioenergy systems that add value
8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
BT16 volume 2
• Previous Billion-Ton studies focus on quantifying potential biomass supplies.
• Vol 2 provides initial estimates of potential environmental implications and data gaps.
• Online resource to enable additional analyses and inform future R&D.
9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Primary Objectives of BT16 volume 2• Assess potential environmental
effects of land-management changes in select 2017 and 2040 agricultural and forestry supply scenarios simulated in BT16volume 1
• Focus: Crop residues, energy crops, and forest biomass.
• Identify actions and research that could enhance the benefits while minimizing potential negative impacts with respect to environmental indicators.
10 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
BT16 volume 2 Outline
Volum
e 2
Land Allocation and Management
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Agriculture and Forestry)
Water QualityWater Quantity
Water Consumption Footprint(Agriculture and Forestry)
Biodiversity (Agriculture and Forestry)
Air Emissions (Agriculture and Forestry)
Qualitative Analysis of Environmental Effects of Algae Production
Climate Sensitivity of Agricultural Feedstock Productivity
Strategies to Enhance Environmental Outcomes
January 2017
11 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
BT16 Vol 2 Contributors
USDOE Bioenergy Technologies OfficeKristen Johnson, Mark Elless, Alison Goss EngBT16 Feedstock Assessment Methods and Focal ScenariosCraig Brandt, Matthew Langholtz, Maggie Davis, Keith Kline, Laurence Eaton, Erin Webb, ORNLBryce Stokes, Allegheny Science & TechnologyChad Hellwinckel, University of TennesseeLand-use Change (LUC) Keith Kline, Maggie Davis, Laurence Eaton, Rebecca Efroymson, Craig Brandt, Mike Hilliard, ORNLJennifer Dunn, ANLGreenhouse Gas Emissions and Soil Organic CarbonChristina Canter, Zhangcai Qin, Hao Cai, Jennifer Dunn, Michael Wang, ANLD. Andrew Scott, USFSWater Quality-AgricultureHenriette Jager, Latha Baskaran, Jasmine Kreig, Craig Brandt, Mike Hilliard, ORNLMay Wu, Miae Ha, ANLWater Quality-ForestryBenjamin Rau, Carl Trettin, Devendra Amatya, Ernest Tollner, USFSAugustine Muwamba, U GeorgiaSudhanshu Panda, Univ of North Georgia
Project Leads and Editors: Rebecca Efroymson, Matthew Langholtz, Kristen Johnson, Bryce Stokes
Water Quantity-ForestryGe Sun, Liangxia Zhang, Benjamin Rau, USFSKai Duan, NC State UniversityWater FootprintMay Wu, Miae Ha, Sashi Yalamenchili, ANLAir QualityEthan Warner, Yimin Zhang, Daniel Inman, Annika Eberle, Dylan Hettinger, Alberta Carpenter, Garvin Heath, Dylan Hettinger, NRELBiodiversity-AgricultureHenriette Jager, Gangsheng Wang, Jasmine Kreig, Ingrid Busch, Nathan Sutton, Mark Bevelhimer, ORNLBiodiversity-ForestryDeahn Donner-Wright, USFSDarren Miller, Weyerhaeuser CompanyBently Wigley, NCASIAlgaeRebecca Efroymson, Matt Langholtz, Melanie Mayes, ORNLAndré Coleman, Mark Wigmosta, PNNLMolly Pattullo, University of TennesseeClimate Change SensitivityBen Preston, Matt Langholtz, Laurence Eaton, ORNLChris Daly, Mike Halbleib, Oregon State UniversitySynthesis, Interpretation, and Strategies to Enhance Environmental OutcomesRebecca Efroymson, Matt Langholtz, Anthony Turhollow, Keith Kline, Virginia Dale, ORNLKristen Johnson, DOECristina Negri, ANLKristen Johnson, DOEIan Bonner, MonsantoKnowledge Discovery Framework and VisualizationAaron Myers, Mike Hilliard, ORNL
12 | Bioenergy Technologies Office | Not for Public Distribution
New information products
• Fact-sheets– Overview of 2016 Billion-Ton
Report, Volume 2– Land-Use Change Implications– Effects on Air Emissions– Effects on Water Quality, Quantity,
and Consumption– Effects on Biodiversity– Effects of Algae Production
• Virtual Symposium– Presentations on each chapter– Hosted on the Bioenergy KDF:
https://bioenergykdf.net
– Register for a KDF account to receive news blast with details.
• Data Sets– Available on Bioenergy KDF– https://bioenergykdf.net/billionton2016vo
l2
13 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Chapter 3 – Land Allocation and Management
Geospatial distribution of increases in perennial cover under the base-case (BC1) 2040 scenario
504504
255
13
245
528504
221
549504
255
23
200255
(a) Agricultural Baseline 2015 2040
(b) Base-case BC12015 2040
(c) High-yield HH32015 2040
Annual Cover
Idle (13 m. rising to 23 m. acres in each case)
Perennial Cover
The BT16 assumptions hold total forestland and total agriculture lands constant throughout the 2017–2040 simulation period.
14 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
• Principal LUC is a transition of some agricultural acreage from annual cover to perennial cover (2015 ag baseline to bioenergy 2040 scenarios)
• Environmental effects vary by location, biomass type, and previous land management.
• General findings:– In some contexts, potential challenges or
tradeoffs for water and air goals– For most counties, potential for a substantial
increase in biomass production with negligible or desired effects on water quality, water quantity, and air pollutant emissions
– Biodiversity effects dependent on species and location
– Favorable performance of cellulosic biomass: soil organic carbon, GHG emissions, air emissions, and water quantity
• Future research, science-based monitoring, and adaptive management are needed to enhance benefits while mitigating potential negative effects.
Results—High-level
Quantitative results in BT16 volume 2 are highly dependent upon the particular scenario comparisons that are used, but the insights and general findings are relevant beyond these scenarios.
BT16 volume 2 is not a prediction or final answer but rather seeks to enable further analyses and research and facilitate efforts to enhance environmental benefits and minimize negative effects.
15 Emerging Biomass Feedstocks Forum - April 2017
Dale et al. (2015) A framework for selecting indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, Bioproducts & Biorefining 9(4):435-446.
6. Determine selection criteria for indicators
7. Identify & rank indicators that meet criteria
4. Identify & assess necessary tradeoffs
Information asdetermined by • Available data• Resources needed to collect & assemble required data
9. Determine whether objectives
are achieved
No10. Assess lessons learned & identify
good practices
Yes
3. Identify & consult stakeholders1. Define goals 2. Define context
5. Determine objectives for analysis
8. Identify gaps in ability to address goals
& objectives
Determine baselines & targets
Compare to values for indicators
Conduct assessment
Feedback supports continual
improvement
Framework for Selecting Indicators
Areas of Focus:1. Multi-Stakeholder Landscape
Design Process2. Assessment of Environmental
Sustainability Indicators3. Assessment of Feedstock Supply
and Logistics4. Build a template for future
biorefinery projects.
“Enabling Sustainable Landscape Design for Continual Improvement of Operating Bioenergy Supply Systems”
Subfield Precision Business Planning
Perennial Grass for Conservation & Biomass Supply
Multi-stakeholder Outreach
Advanced Harvest & Logistics, 2nd Pass
Implementation of Conservation
Practices (Cover Crops, Buffer
Strips, etc.)
Regional Impact
Modeling & Monitoring
Advanced Harvest & Logistics, First Pass
SustainableResidue Harvest
Landscape Design: Assembling Key Pieces of the Puzzle
18 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Fuelsheds: Counties within 120 km (75 miles) of pellet mills that supply ports
Analysis of major export ports of pellets in SE USA:• Savannah: mostly intensively managed pine plantations • Chesapeake: both pine and mixed hardwoods
Each fuelshed area has an area of ~12 million ha.
Chesapeake Fuelshed:• 33 NC counties• 69 VA counties
Savannah Fuelshed:• 22 SC counties• 54 GA counties• 7 FL counties
Dale et al. (2017) Forest Ecol & Mgmt
19 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Regarding US wood pelletsDemand for pellets
• Forest management is primarily driven by local market demands: lumber and pulpwood prevail in most places.
• US pellet industry has substantially grown in the past decade as a result of European demand.
• US pellet industry is <3% of total harvest removals in the SE US and <2% of harvest value (2016).
Benefits of pellet production• Production and use of wood-based biomass for
energy can contribute to mitigating climate change.
• Markets for low-value wood create incentives for management practices that decrease risks of insect outbreaks, disease and destructive wildfire.
• Jobs Dale et al. 2017 (GCB Bioenergy)
20 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17
Results from analysis of FIA data• Both fuelsheds: Statistically significant
increases in Timberland volume in plantations Areas with large trees # standing dead trees/ha in naturally
regenerating stands• Chesapeake fuelshed: Signif. increases in Timberland volume in plantations Harvestable carbon
• Savannah fuelshed Signif. increases in
Timberland volume All carbon pools
Signif. decrease in # standing dead trees/ha in plantations in one fuelshed
• Provides empirical support of prior estimates that production of wood-based pellets in the SE US can enhance GHG sequestration.
• Calls for further study of effects on biodiversity of declines in # of standing trees/ha Note: others recommend thinning & hardwood midstory control in pine plantations to
provide habitat for declining bird species (consistence with use of biomass for energy & reducing risk of fire).
ORNL will focus analysis on an organism that may be affected by such declines
Conclusions
Dale et al., and Parish et al. data, (2017) Forest Ecol & Mgmt
21 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17
132.
0
128.
4
126.
4
124.
3
127.
9
131.
7
134.
1
136.
2
136.
0
129.
8
138.
5
133.
8
135.
6
135.
8
137.
2
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.6 2.7 4.2 5.4
114.
0
113.
5
114.
5
115.
5
118.
1
120.
6
113.
5
109.
0
83.6
69.9
73.2
76.8
79.3
82.6
84.3
0
50
100
150
200
250
30020
00
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Rem
oval
s (gr
een
MT)
Year
Pulpwood Pellets Sawtimber
Dale et al. (2017; Forest Ecol & Mgmt)
Wood based pellets are <3% of wood products from SE US
?
22 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Biomass stranded without markets eventually burns, decays and reduces incentives tokeep private lands forested
When assessing effects of woody biomass use, the counterfactual or reference scenario should be based on historical conditions (e.g., FIA data) and realistic assumptions for future projections and risks of disturbances (e.g., Southern Forest Futures Report, Wear & Greis, 2013; Wear & Coulston, 2015).
23 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17
What have we learned?• Sustainability concerns
– Concerns about biodiversity, GHG emissions, loss of old growth & bottom land forests
– EU requiring certification of wood used for energy
• Owners of SE US forests– 85% are owned private nonindustrial (e.g.,
families)– Family landowners make decisions based on
immediate needs (e.g., health care, education)
• Mills that export pellets require feedstock to originate from sites supervised by logging professionals trained in wildlife habitat conservation, water quality, & other BMPs.
– Logger training is a component of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s (SFI’s) certified Fiber Sourcing Standard.
– 92% of certified acres in the SE US are certified to SFI or ATFS
ORNL’s Bioenergy Study Tour brought diverse stakeholders together to ask hard questions
Ref: Dale + 34 coauthors 2017 GCB-Bioenergy
ASTM E3066 (2017): “Sustainability does not imply a steady state or an absolute value; for human activity to be “sustainable,” change or adaptation over time is required.”
24 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Causal Analysis(Efroymson et al. 2016 in Land Use Policy)
Standard Practice Guide forEvaluating Relative SustainabilityASTM International E-3066-2017 Committee E-48: Energy and chemicals from biomass
Phot
o cr
edit:
Orb
iter N
ews
Dec
. 22,
201
0
Criteria for assessing standards:• Clearly stated goals • Priorities defined by local stakeholders • Applies indicators that are
• Relevant and useful • Capture intended criteria or effect in timely manner
• Quantifiable using a citable standard method of measurement
• Verifiable by third parties • Practical, doable without undue burden and expense• Comparable across different contexts• Information can be shared in as close to real time as
feasible (transparency) • Periodic review to verify & enhance utility, validity and
the cost-effectiveness of the system
(Source: Kline et al., USIALE 2017)
28 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
How to set standards for food security? International workshop set forth key issues
• Frame the problem: Ask the questions that matter
• Identify synergies –Flex crops can be used for food or fuel– Rural infrastructure supports
food & fuel– Energy for food production,
processing, transport and use– Sustainable resource
management • Consider alternate paradigms and perspectives
– Workshop & GCB-Bioenergy, Food Security and Bioenergy (Kline et al., 2016)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12366/full
29 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
A plea: Can we please focus more on quantifiable attributes of water, forests, human welfare, biodiversity… and less on paperwork?
Thank you!
P.S. Keeping scales in context: From 3000 million to 4600 million hectares (up to 46 million km2) of global land area burns every year (Randerson et. al., 2012; Giglio et al. 2010; Doerr and Santin 2016), an area that dwarfs any estimated global land area to be dedicated to bioenergy crops.
Thanks!
See CBES website for• Reports • Forums on current topics
New publications:• Renewable wood pellets from the SE USA
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12445/full
• Reconciling food security and biofuels, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12366/full
• Wood pellets impact on forests https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1UxyW1L~GwCo5V
Center for Bioenergy Sustainability http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/
This research is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bio-Energy Technologies Office and performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by the UT-Battelle, LLC, for DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. The views in this presentation are those of the author/presenter who is responsible for any errors or omissions.
Acknowledgements: Kristen Johnson, Jim Spaeth, Alison Goss-Eng and the great team at USDOE BETO; Fahran Robb, Chuck Corr, Paul Trupo, Chris Farley, Jessica Marcus and others on US TAG ISO PC248; Fred Ghatala (Waterfall group-Canada), Diego Goldin (INTA-Argentina), Michael Wang (ANL), Siwa Msangi, International Food and Policy Research Institute; Glaucia M. Souza, University of São Paulo; Matt Langholtz, Maggie Davis, Rebecca Efroymson and Virginia Dale, Center for Bioenergy Sustainability; Jeremy Woods, Imperial College London; Patricia Osseweijer and Joy S. Clancy, The Netherlands; Jorge Antonio Hilbert, Argentina; Harriet K. Mugera, World Bank; Patrick C. McDonnell, Mexico; Francis X. Johnson, ICRAF Kenya; Helena Chum (NREL), Patrick Lamers (INL); Papers supported by: US Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), the US National Science Foundation (NSF IIA #1243444) PIRE for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy in Pan America and ORNL. And the USFS Southern Research Station in Knoxville for help querying and interpreting the FIA data for forestry analysis.
31 | Bioenergy Technologies Office | Not for Public Distribution
Thank You
A few supplemental slides and references follow.
For more information on BT16 Volume 2, visit:https://bioenergykdf.net
32 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
References• Dale VH, KL Kline, ES Parish, AL Cowie, TC Smith, NS Bentsen, G Berndes, et al., 2017. Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from
the southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12445. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12445/full• Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic
sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014• Dale VH, Kline KL, Marland G, Miner RA. 2015. Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-derived bioenergy. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 13(6):297-299. • Dale VH, Parish ES, Kline KL, Tobin E (2017) How is wood-based pellet production affecting forest conditions in the southeastern United States? Forest
Ecology and Management 396: 143-149. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.03.022 https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1UxyW1L~GwCo5V• Dale VH and KL Kline. 2017. Interactive Posters: A valuable means for enhancing communication and learning about productive paths toward sustainable
bioenergy. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11:243-246. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1753 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bbb.1753/epdf • Doerr SH, Santın C. 2016. Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371:20150345.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345• Efroymson RA et al. 2013. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environ Mgmt 51(2): 291-306.
http://web.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/Publications/Efroymsonetal2012biofuelindicatorcontextEMfinal10%201007_s00267-012-9907-5.pdf• Efroymson RA, Kline KL, Angelsen A, Verburg PH, Dale VH, Langeveld JWA, McBride A (2016) A causal analysis framework for land-use change and the
potential role of bioenergy policy. Land Use Policy (59) 516–527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.009• Giglio L., J. T. Randerson, G. R. van derWerf, P. S. Kasibhatla, G. J. Collatz, D. C. Morton, and R. S. DeFries. Assessing variability and long-term trends in
burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products. Biogeosciences, 7, 1171–1186, 2010.• Kline KL, Msangi S, Dale VH, Woods J, Souza G, Osseweijer P, Clancy J,Hilbert J, Johnson F, McDonnell P, Mugera H (2016) Reconciling food security and
bioenergy: priorities for action. Global Change Biology-Bioenergy. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12366 • Koponen K, Soimakallio S, Kline KL, Cowie A, Brandão M (Resubmitted 2017) Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy - choice of reference system.
RSER-D-16-02849R1 Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews • McBride A et al. (2011) Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.• Randerson JT, Chen Y, Van Der Werf GR, Rogers BM, Morton DC. 2012 Global burned area and biomass burning emissions from small fires. J. Geophys.
Res. Biogeosci. 117, G04012• U.S. Department of Energy. 2017. 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 2: Environmental
Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios from Volume 1. RA Efroymson, M. H. Langholtz, K.E. Johnson, and B. J. Stokes (Eds.), ORNL/TM-2016/727. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 642p. doi 10.2172/1338837. https://www.bioenergykdf.net/billionton2016vol2
• U.S. Depart of Energy (DOE) 2016. 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic Availability of Feedstocks. M. H. Langholtz, B. J. Stokes, and L. M. Eaton (Leads), ORNL/TM-2016/160. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. 448 pg.
• Wear, DN and JW Coulston 2015. From sink to source: Regional variation in U.S. forest carbon futures. Sci. Rep. 5, 16518; doi:10.1038/srep16518 • Weir D, Greis J. The Southern Forest Futures Project: Technical Report Gen. Tech. Pre. SRS-178. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service,
Research and Development, Southern Research Station, 2013. 553 pg.
33 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17
Environmental indicators for bioenergy sustainability & associated ecosystem services
Category Ecosystem service: type
Sustainability Indicator
Soil quality
Supporting & regulating service: soil quality
Total organic carbon (TOC)Total nitrogen (N)Extractable phosphorus (P)Bulk density
Water quality and quantity
Provisioning service: drinking water; Regulating service: water purificationCultural service:recreation
Nitrate concentration in streamsTotal phosphorus (P) concentration in streamsSuspended sediment concentration in streamsHerbicide concentration in streams Peak storm flowMinimum base flowConsumptive water use (incorporates base flow)
Produc-tivity
Provisioning services: food, feed, fiber and fuel
Yield
Green-house gases
Regulating services:carbon sequestration & climate regulationCrosscutting: agrochemical use, feedstock transport/treatment and biofuel combustion.
CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2 and N2O)
Air quality
Provisioning service: clean air
Tropospheric ozoneCarbon monoxideTotal particulate matter <2.5μm diameter (PM2.5)Total particulate matter <10μm diameter (PM10)
Bio-diver-sity
Diverse services depending on species & context: for example pollination, seed dispersal, pest mitigation;Supporting service:habitat
Presence of taxa of special concernHabitat area of taxa of special concern
McBride et al. (2013) & Dale et al. (in review)
34 4.2.2.40 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17
Socioeconomic indicators for bioenergy sustainability & associated ecosystem service Category Ecosystem
service: typeSustain-ability Indicator
Social well-being
Cultural services: jobs & family income; Provisioning service: food
Employment Household incomeWork days lost due to injury
Food security Energy security
Provisioning service: energy
Energy security premiumFuel price volatility
External trade
Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber
Terms of tradeTrade volume
Dale et al. (2015 & in review)
Resourceconserva-tion
Provisioning services:fuel, chemicals, plastics
Depletion of non-renewable energy resources Fossil Energy Return on Investment (fossil EROI)
Social accepta-bility
Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber
Public opinionTransparencyEffective stakeholder participationRisk of catastrophe
Profita-bility
Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber
Return on investment(ROI)Net present value
(NPV)
Can barriers to acceptance of biomass for energy be overcome?
Photo by Kline: LUC near Tampa, FL
IEA Economist (L.Varro)*:“not optimistic [about supply of] genuinely sustainable biomass”
Science-based information is required to guide decisions and address such concerns:
– Define Indicators (McBride et al. 2011; Dale et. al. 2014)
– Apply Causal Analysis (Efroymson et al. 2016; Kline et al. 2016)
– Apply Standard Procedures (ASTM 3066a - 2017)
*http://www.endseurope.com/article/46959/iea-not-optimistic-about-future-role-of-bioenergy
36 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy
Define StandardsWhat is a standard?• A standard is a document
that (in theory):– Provides consistency
• In requirements• In guidelines• In specifications
– Can be used to ensure consistent and appropriate• Materials• Products• Processes• Services
Why develop standards? • Comparable assessment• Help ensure products and
services are “fit for purpose”• Reduce costs by minimizing
waste and errors; increasing productivity
• Goal: Facilitate free and fair global trade– Access to new markets – “Level the playing field” for
new entrants – But may also pick winners
and losers
Source: adapted from www.ios.org
“No” because –1. Nothing can ensure sustainability.2. There are many opportunities for
substitution in markets 3. Transaction costs for certification,
monitoring and verification are high relative to premium on products
4. Uncertainties about sustaining political will and market advantage
5. Even well-designed schemes can be “gamed”
6. It only takes a few well-publicized cases to undermine public trust and credibility.
IEA Bioenergy Joint Task Meeting Question*: Can certification ensure more sustainable outcomes?
Photo VH Dale, 2016: Logging residues in East TN left to rot or burn because there is no market for biomass-bioenergy.
Source: Adapted from Kline for IEA Joint Task 38-40-43 presentation on LUC: http://ieabioenergy-task38.org/workshops/campinas2011 (also see CBES website)
Can standards-based policies facilitate the transition toward sustainability?
“Yes, if” 1. Developed with users as a cost-
effective tool that meets their needs
2. Provide feedback to guide production toward continual improvement from users’ perspectives
3. Designed to adapt to changing contexts and priorities
4. Are Inclusive rather than exclusive5. Are broadly supported (civil society,
government, producers, business, and financial markets)
Source: Adapted from Kline for IEA Joint Task 38-40-43 presentation on LUC: http://ieabioenergy-task38.org/workshops/campinas2011 (also see CBES website)
DOE-BETO Bioenergy research at ORNL:
Enable long-term supply of renewable biomass for clean, domestic bioenergy
• Advance common definitions of environmental & socioeconomic costs & benefits of bioenergy systems
• Quantify opportunities, risks, & tradeoffs associated with bioenergy production in specific contexts
• Support efforts to improve sustainability assessment via agreements on definitions, criteria, baseline, targets & a manageable set of relevant indicators
• Support improved standards, recognizing that certification ≠ sustainability
Related reading• Dale B et al. 2014. Take a closer look: biofuels can support environmental, economic and social goals. ES&T48(13):7200-7203• Dale VH et al. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014• Dale VH et al. 2016. Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171.
http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1364032115014215• Dale VH et al.(Submitted 2016 for Biomass & Bioenergy Special Issue on Biofuels and Ecosystem Services) Selecting indicators of changes in ecosystem services
due to cellulosic-based biofuels in the midwestern US. • Efroymson RA et al. 2013. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environmental Management 51(2): 291-306.
http://web.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/Publications/Efroymsonetal2012biofuelindicatorcontextEMfinal10%201007_s00267-012-9907-5.pdf• FAO (2015a) Hunger Map 2015. FAO Statistics Division, Rome. Available: http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/• FAO (2015b) Forty-second Session Report, Committee on World Food Security, Rome, Italy, 12-15 October 2015. Global Strategic Framework for Food Security &
Nutrition (GSF) Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-mo187e.pdf Last Accessed 10/10/2015.• FAO, IFAD, WFP (2013) The State of Food Insecurity (SOFI) in the World 2013 -The multiple dimensions of food security. And FAO, IFAD, WFP (2014) SOFI
Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition. FAO Rome. And FAO, IFAD, WFP (2015) SOFI Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. FAO, Rome, Italy
• Kline KL, Dale VH (2008) Biofuels, causes of land-use change, and the role of fire in greenhouse gas emissions. Science, 321, 199.• Kline KL, Dale VH, Lee R, Leiby P (2009) In Defense of Biofuels, Done Right. Issues in Science and Technology, 25(3), 75-84• Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC (2011) Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 4488-4491• Kline KL (2014) Advanced School on Present and Future of BioEnergy, ESPCA–FAPESP–University of Campinas, 10-17 October, 2014. Campinas, SP Brazil. • Kline KL et al. (2016) Reconciling biofuels and food security: priorities for action. GCB-Bioenergy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12366/full• McBride A et al. (2011) Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.• Parish ES et al. (2012) Multimetric spatial optimization of switchgrass plantings across a watershed. BioFPR. 6(1):58-72• Parish ES, Kline KL, Dale VH, Efroymson RA, et al., (2013) Comparing Scales of Environmental Effects from Gasoline and Ethanol Production. Environmental
Management 51(2):307-338• REN 21 Renewables (2016) and (2014) Global Status Report Paris, REN21 Secretariat. http://www.ren21.net/status-of-renewables/global-status-report/• IRENA (Jeff Skeer) (2016) Boosting Biofuels: Sustainable paths to greater energy security. www.irena.org• Rainforest Alliance (2008) Impact of FSC Certification on Deforestation and the Incidence of Wildfires in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. http://www.rainforest-
alliance.org/forestry/documents/peten_study.pdf• Roser M (2015) Our World in Data. www.OurWorldinData.org • Souza GM, Victoria RL, Joly CA and Verdade M, editors 2015. Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Bioenergy & Sustainability: bridging
the gaps. SCOPE 72. Paris, France and Sao Paulo, Brazil. ISBN: 978-2-9545557-0-6. http://bioenfapesp.org/scopebioenergy/index.php• Sumner DA (2009) Recent commodity price movements in historical perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5) 1250-1256• Thurow R, Kilman S (2009) Enough: Why the World’s Poor Starve in an Age of Plenty. BBS Public Affairs, New York.• UNEP (2016) Unlocking the Sustainable Potential of Land Resources: Evaluation Systems, Strategies and Tools. Working Group on Land and Soils, International
Resource Panel (IRP UNEP). Herrick, JE, O Arnalds, B Bestelmeyer, S Bringezu, G Han, MV Johnson et al. , ISBN: 978-92-807-3578-9 • USDA Economic Research Service (2015) Definitions of Food Security: Ranges of Food Security and Food Insecurity. U.S. Department of Agriculture• Woodall et al. 2015. Monitoring Network Confirms Land-Use Change is a Substantial Component of the Forest Carbon Sink in eastern United States
Related reading cont• Arezki et al. 2014. Understanding international commodity price fluctuations. Journal of International Money and Finance 42 (2014) 1–8• Babcock, B. A. (2011 June). The impact of US biofuel policies on agricultural price levels and volatility. International Centre for Trade and
Sustainable Development (35)• Cowie A, Berndes G, and Smith T. 2013. On the timing of greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of forest based bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy ExCo: 2013:04
www.ieabioenergy.com/publications/on-the-timing-of-greenhouse-gas-mitigation-benefits-of-forest-based-bioenergy. Viewed 31 May 2015.• Charles, C. (2012 April). Should we be concerned about competition between food and fuel? International Institute for Sustainable Development.• de Gorter, H., & Just, D. R. (2010). The social costs and benefits of biofuels: The intersection of environmental, energy and agricultural policy.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.• Economic Research Service, Amber Waves, 10(2 (June)), 2012.• Durham, C., Davies, G., & Bhattacharyya, T. (2012, June). Can biofuels policy work for food security? Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs.• FAO, IFAD, IMF, OECD, UNCTAD, WFP, the World Bank, the WTO, IFPRI, and the UN HLTF. (2011, June 2). Price volatility in food and agricultural
markets: Policy responses. Policy Report for the G-20 .• King R (Oxfam), Kelbert A (IDS), Chisholm N (University College Cork), Hossain N (IDS). 2014. Help Yourself - Food Rights and Responsibilities: Year 2
findings from Life in a Time of Food Price Volatility. Joint Agency Research Report. www.ids.ac.uk and www.oxfam.org• Kline KL, Msangi S, Dale VH, Woods J, Souza G, Osseweijer P, Clancy J,Hilbert J, Johnson F, McDonnell P, Mugera H (2016) Reconciling food security
and bioenergy: priorities for action. Global Change Biology-Bioenergy. DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12366 • Leonardo WJ, Florin MJ, van de Ven GWJ, Udo H, Giller KE Leonardo et al., 2015. Which smallholder farmers benefit most from biomass production
for food and biofuel? The case of Gondola district, central Mozambique Biomass and Bioenergy 83:257-268 • Locke, A., Wiggins, S., Henley, G., & Keats, S. (2013 April). Diverting grain from animal feed and biofuels. London : Overseas Development Institute.• McPhail, Lihong Lu, & Du, X. (2012). Ethanol Strengthens the Link Between Agriculture and Energy Markets. • Peterka, A. (2012 31-July). Livestock groups urge EPA to waive ethanol mandate. Governors' Biofuels Coalition.• Schafer, E. (2012 8-March). Proposed RFS changes spark food vs. fuel debate. Feed & Grain.• Sepp S. 2014. Multiple-household fuel use; a balanced choice between firewood, charcoal and LPG. Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (www.giz.de/hera), Eschborn, Germany, on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). http://www.eco-consult.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Multiple-Household_Fuel_Use.pdf
• Thornhill S, Vargyas E, Fitzgerald T, Chisholm N (2016) Household food security and biofuel feedstock production in rural Mozambique and Tanzania.Food Security 8:953-972.
• Tyner, W. E., Taheripour, F., & Hurt, C. (2012 16-August). Potential impacts of a partial waiver of the ethanol blending rules. Farm Foundation and Purdue University.
• Wright, B. (2011, February). Biofuels and food security: Time to consider safety valves? . IPC Policy Focus, International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council.
• 2016 Billion-Ton Report. Volume 2: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy. Volume 2. Environmental Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios: https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/downloads/2016-billion-ton-report-volume-2-environmental-sustainability-effects
• BT16 Resource Assessment for US biomass supplies volume 1: https://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/2016-billion-ton-report