researchsponsored by

presented at the UNIDO GEF Biofuel ConferenceVienna, March 18-19, 2013

GEF Targeted Research Project: Global Assessments and Guidelines for Sustainable Liquid Biofuel Production in Developing Countries

Environmental and Social AspectsUwe R. Fritsche

Scientific Director, IINASInternational Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy

(until March 2012 @ Öko-Institut)

researchsponsored by

IINAS Research Context• Sustainability criteria for all bioenergy www.biomassfutures.eu

• Joint Workshop series on extending the EU RED to forest bioenergywww.iinas.org/Work/Projects/REDEX/redex.html

• GBEP Indicators for Sustainable Bioenergy: http://www.globalbioenergy.org

• Resource-Efficient Bioenergy in EU27 (EEA report – forthcoming)

• Possibilities of sustainable increase of wood energy productions and its impact on developing and emerging countries for GIZ (ongoing)

• Sustainability of certified solid wood bioenergy feedstock supply chains: Ecological, operational and international policy perspectives. IEA Bioenergy Task 40 and Task 43 (ongoing)

researchsponsored by

Environment (non-GHG)– built on work for FAO (BIAS), BMU/UBA, EC and UNEP– key was to substantiate developing country scope

Social (Food, Land, Labor, Gender)– built on earlier work for BMU– using results from FAO BEFS + Thailand case study

Stationary Application (extra presentation)– comparator case to biofuels for transport– built on UNEP work and IEA BUBE– quantitative comparisons, database + tool

Oeko-Institut Work Components

researchsponsored by

Environment (indicators)

This projectwas source ofGerman co-funding fromBMU

researchsponsored by

• Resource and land use efficiency (due to limited potential)

• Air emissions (acidification, PM10 – local and regional)

• Biodiversity (“no-go” and management practices)

• Soil (organic C content, erosion)

• Water (spatially disaggregated)

Environmental Non-GHG Indicators

researchsponsored by

Environment (biodiversity)report gives general approach+ data sources for biodiversitymapping(UNEP-WCMC + IUCN)

refined in BMU projects for selected countries (BR, CN, ID, ZA)

national data for MZ (GIZ project)

approach transferable

researchsponsored by

Environment (biodiversity)

researchsponsored by

Environment (biodiversity)Example of the ENV indicator templatesfrom the GBEP Sustainability Task Force

(finalized in Nov. 2011, seeGBEP report on sustainabilityindicators )

researchsponsored by

Environment (biodiversity)Environmental

Component Applicable

to GO CHECK STOP

Conservation of areas of significant biodiversity value

All setting except those using wastes

Proven that cultivation land is not

located in area of significant

biodiversity value (GIS data + on-site

assessment)

If located in such an area:

management plan to ensure

cultivation/harvest do not interfere

with nature protection purposes

If located in such an area and

management plan is missing or not

detailed enough to demonstrate non-

interference

Promotion of agricultural practices with low negative impacts on biodiversity

Notapplicable

for low-inputsettings

Proven that cultivation practices

with low negative impacts on

biodiversity are applied (description

of management practices)

Description of management practices not

detailed enough

Description of management

practices missing

researchsponsored by

Land use of bioenergy systems

electricity from land use m2/GJel Note

el-mix EU27 0,29 Excluding transmission and distribution lignite 0,10 Lignite in Germany, new steam-turbine powerplant coal 0,06 import coal (surface mining), new steam-turbine powerplant nuclear 0,04 German supply mix, steam-turbine powerplant natural gas 0,02 EU supply mix incl. imports, new combined-cycle powerplant hydro 0,03 100 MWel run-of-river plant wind onshore 0,26 10 x 2 MWel onshore wind park solar-PV 2,7 1 kWel (peak) system, full land use solar-CSP 1,9 80 MWel concentrating solar power system in Southern Spain geothermal 1,2 1 MWel ORC system

biogas-maize ICE 106 Biogas from maize in internal combustion engine cogeneration plant (energy allocation)

SRC cogen 112 Woodchips from short-rotation coppice in steam-turbine cogeneration plant (energy allocation)

bio-SNG SRC cogen 164 Biomethane from short-rotation coppice in gas-turbine cogeneration plant (energy allocation)

bio-SNG SRC CC 128 Biomethane from SRC in CC powerplant Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8; ORC= organic rankine cycle; ICE = internal combustion engine; SRC = short-rotation coppice; CC = combined-cycle

researchsponsored by

Biofuel land use efficiencyBiofuels life-cycle land use efficiency for cassava-EtOH settings GJbiofuel/ha

Country setting input level cultivation 2010 2020MZ 42 low smallholders 13MZ 43 intermediate smallholders 19TZ 44 low smallholders 19TZ 45 intermediate smallholders 38TH 46 low smallholders 64TH 47 intermediate smallholders 70MZ 48 low smallholders 19MZ 49 intermediate smallholders 38MZ 50 high plantation 48TZ 51 low smallholders 64TZ 52 intermediate smallholders 70TZ 53 high plantation 87TH 54 low smallholders 102TH 55 intermediate smallholders 108TH 56 high plantation 140

Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8

researchsponsored by

Biofuel land use efficiency

Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8

Biofuels life-cycle land use efficiency Jatropha FAME GJbiofuel/haCountry setting input level cultivation 2010 2020

TZ 26 high plantation 22TZ 27 intermediate plantation 19TZ 28 low smallholder 8TZ 29 intermediate smallholder 14ML 30 low smallholder 7ML 31 intermediate smallholder 11IN 32 low smallholder 12IN 33 intermediate smallholder 18TZ 34 high plantation 36TZ 35 intermediate plantation 31TZ 36 low smallholder 9TZ 37 intermediate smallholder 17ML 38 low smallholder 8ML 39 intermediate smallholder 13IN 40 low smallholder 14IN 41 intermediate smallholder 20

researchsponsored by

Biofuel land use efficiency

Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8

Biofuels life-cycle land use efficiency for palmoil FAME GJbiofuel/ha

Country setting input level cultivation 2010 2020

ID 19 intermediate smallholder 113ID 20 high plantation 120CO 21 intermediate smallholder 133MY 22 high plantation 140ID 23 high plantation 150MY 24 high plantation 150

Biofuels life-cycle land use efficiency for sugarcane EtOH GJbiofuel/ha

Country setting input level harvest 2010 2020

BR 8 intermediate mechanised 131BR 9 high manual 197MZ 11 intermediate manual 147MZ 12 high manual 193BR 13 intermediate mechanised 138BR 14 high mechanised 207MZ 16 intermediate mechanised 131MZ 17 high mechanised 230

researchsponsored by

Life-Cycle air emissions– generic Data from EEA, GIZ study, EM (based on US EPA

data plus a few data from developing countries)

Environment (non-GHG)

researchsponsored by

Biofuels air emissions

Source: own computation with GEMIS 4.8

g/MJbiofuel

Biofuel life-cycle air emissions setting country SO2eq PM10

Soybean SVO 1 AR 0.159 0.017Soybean FAME 2 AR 0.154 0.016Sugarcane EtOH 8 BR 0.192 0.036

10 BR - 2G 0.203 0.03911 MZ 0.247 0.168

Oil palm SVO 18 ID 0.087 0.083Oil palm FAME 19 ID 0.093 0.080

21 CO 0.092 0.07222 MY 0.131 0.073

Jatropha SVO 25 TZ 0.245 0.065Jatropha FAME 26 TZ 0.476 0.058

30 ML 0.259 0.06532 IN 0.258 0.067

Cassava EtOH1 42 MZ 0.361 0.05944 TZ 0.410 0.061

SRC Eucalyptus EtOH2 57 MZ 0.681 0.045SRC Poplar BtL 63 UA 2.243 0.011Switchgrass EtOH2 67 AR 0.593 0.049Switchgrass BtL 68 AR 0.394 0.030Rice straw EtOH2 71 CN 0.521 0.039Wheat straw EtOH2 72 UA 0.448 0.034diesel, EU DE 0.048 0.004diesel, generic IN 0.282 0.043diesel, syncrude DE 0.359 0.015gasoline, EU DE 0.057 0.004gasoline, generic IN 0.104 0.021

researchsponsored by

GBEP Soil IndicatorEnvironment (soil)

no hi-res data availabilityfor SOC (see BIAS report)

erosion needs to beconsidered also, but low dataavailability

researchsponsored by

Environment (soil)Environmental

Component applicable

to GO CHECK STOP

Productive Capacity of Soil All settings

except those using

wastes; not

applicable for

conversion

Soil conservation measures are in

place guaranteeing that SOC will not

decline within the applied crop

rotation scheme

No measurements for positive SOC balance. Proof needed that cultivation or

residue extraction will not negatively affect SOC balance over crop-rotation

period.

Cultivation area on land with low SOC

(e.g., < 1%; threshold

depending on soil conditions)

Soil Erosion

Area is located in region with low

erosion risks (e.g., flat slope) and low risk of salinization (e.g., climate and

salt content of ground water

Site has risks of erosion, proof

needed on suitable soil protection

measures adapted to the site conditions

No soil conservation measures planned

researchsponsored by

• some data from joint UNEP/OEKO workshop July 2010 in Paris and respective report (2011)

• metrics require data on watershed level (see GBEP)• global data availability discussed in FAO BIAS study

Environment (water)

researchsponsored by

Environment (water)

Environmental Component

Applicable to

GO CHECK STOP

Water scarcity risk, catchment and downstream All settings

except those using wastes

No irrigation, or irrigated cultivated land not in risk area and water management plan exists

No irrigation, no data on risk area; water management plan exists

Irrigation, nodata on risk areas

Water contamination

Local/regional legal requirement met

Local/regional legal requirement unclear

Nolocal/regional legal requirement

researchsponsored by

Challenges and recommendations• lack of empirical/representative data for some life-

cycles and settings - future GEF activities should compile more comprehensive data on non-GHG emissions, and regionalized water use

• Spatially explicit data on land use, biodiversity, soil and water (high resolution maps) are key - enabling activities crucial for future GEF funding

• Priority for GEF project portfolio: best practices demonstrated by project developers

• indirect effects (biodiversity, water): see ILUC

Environment (non-GHG)

researchsponsored by

Contribution to overall project goal– 2nd “pillar” besides environment & economy

Research activities – work based on FAO (BEFS) and IFPRI; – PhD from JGSEE

Collaborating DC Partner: – JGSEE (Thailand)

Challenges– causal relation to biofuels, indirect effects– spatial/social disaggregation

Social Indicators

researchsponsored by

GBEP food security indicators used– full quantitative analysis on national level only, requires

extensive modeling (see FAO BEFS)simplified indicators for specific settings (qualitative

ranking of risk) – interaction agriculture/biofuels with income, employment,

access etc. (see FAO BEFS country studies)

Quantification of employment impacts – based on direct employment data– national input/output tables needed for indirect effects:

data availability restricted for developing countries

Social Indicators

researchsponsored by

Social: Food Security

Social Component

applicable to GO CHECK STOP

Food security –

tier 1 (feedstock

level)

All settings

Non-ediblefeedstock grown on marginal land not

in competition with food/feed, or

intercropping or agroforestry or

unused/underused marginal land

Non-ediblefeedstock grown on

marginal land for which

competition is unclear

Edible feedstock, ornon-ediblefeedstock

grown on land in competitionwith food/feed

researchsponsored by

Social: Land TenureSocial

Component Applicable to GO CHECK STOP

Land rights

All settings except those using wastes

Titles, contracts or other formal registration of land tenure held by actors in a national or local registry, traditional land rights are recognized and upheld/defended by formal legal system

Titles, contracts or other formal registration of land tenure subject to negotiations

No titles, contracts or other formal registration of land tenure available, no or unclear recognition of traditional land rights

Public land allocation

Procedure follows due process Procedure unclear

No procedure if dispute between public and traditional land access/ownership/rights

Dispute settlement

Effective access to fair adjudication, including court system or other dispute resolution processes

Access to settlement unclear; adjudication system possibly unfair, any open disputes are unresolved

No access, no evidence of effective and fair judicial processes can be demonstrated

Inclusion of landless people

No restriction on access Access unclear No access, uncompensated

displacement risk

researchsponsored by

Social: Labor

Social component Applicable to GO CHECK STOP

ILO standard on wages

All settings

Fully implemented in country, enforced & monitored on project level

Implemented in country, enforcement & monitoring on project level unclear

Not implemented in country or noenforcement & monitoring on project level

ILO standards on labour

ILO standards on discrimination

ILO standards on health & safety

Scheme of small-scale farmers

Smallholder or outgrowerschemes

Centralised outgrowerscheme, use of non-local workforce

researchsponsored by

Social: EmploymentDirect employment

Feedstock Country jobs/ha/yr jobs/TJPalm ID 0.38 3.4Palm MY 0.30 2.4Sugarcane BR 0.27 1.6Sugarcane MZ 0.14 0.9Sugarcane MZ 0.23 1.2Sugarcane MZ 0.23 1.5Sugarcane MZ 0.23 1.1

Jatropha IN, low input 0.11 9.7

Jatropha IN, intermed. 0.28 16.5Cassava MZ, low input 0.32 24.9Cassava MZ, intermed. 0.37 19.3Cassava TZ 0.24 9.3Cassava TZ 0.28 7.2Cassava TH 0.11 1.8Cassava TH 0.11 1.6

researchsponsored by

Challenges and recommendations• Food security needs national data, project-level

approach should be tested• Land tenure: VGGT (Voluntary Guidelines on Tenure

of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security - CFS) should be tested

• Labor: ILO standards sufficient• Employment: data for developing countries lacking,

GEF should consider enabling activities• Overall: priority for residues/wastes

Social Indicators

researchsponsored by

More Information & Contact

28

Contact: uf@iinas.org