Biomass Futures Final workshop report (D8.6)

Transcription

1 Biomass Futures Final workshop report (D8.6) The role of biomass in meeting a diversified demand Sharing final results from the Biomass Futures project, Brussels , at European Parliament/ Building: Altiero Spinelli, Room: A5E-1, (60, rue Wiertz, 1047 Bruxelles) The Biomass Futures project is funded under the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (June 2009 March 2012, EIE/08/653) 1

2 Table of Contents Preface Purpose of the workshop Synopsis of the presentations Bioenergy markets: Allocation of biomass input to the EU for the heat, electricity/chp & transport sectors The role biomass can play for 2020 & 2030: Deviations & consistency with NREAPs Sustainable biomass supply: Availability & constraints across EU Member States and from outside the EU Cascading Use: A Systematic Approach to Biomass beyond the Energy Sector Discussions following the presentations Conclusions Annex A Agenda Annex B List of participants Annex C Documentation of the presentations

3 Preface This publication is part of the BIOMASS FUTURES project (Biomass role in achieving the Climate Change & Renewables EU policy targets. Demand and Supply dynamics under the perspective of stakeholders - IEE SI , ) funded by the European Union s Intelligent Energy Programme. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. 3

4 1 Purpose of the workshop This workshop was intended 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. 2 Synopsis of the presentations 2.1 Bioenergy markets: Allocation of biomass input to the EU for the heat, electricity/chp & transport sectors Ms Calliope Panoutsou (Imperial College London) pointed out that the aim of this work was to provide a structured qualitative & quantitative analysis of the key market segments within the EU27 heat, electricity / CHP and transport sectors in which biomass is likely to have successful penetration by the year Starting with an overview of biomass in the EU27 energy markets, she continued with the presentation of the results grouped in two categories, i.e. heat, electricity/ CHP and transport sectors. Heat, electricity/ CHP Firstly she presented the set of key influencing factors. The respective stakeholder qualitative 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. The overall scores from the qualitative assessment indicate six segments which are relatively well predisposed to 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 (cofiring) and urban services, district heat. Looking in detail at the three categories of factors the analysis has demonstrated the following: The technical scores broadly correspond with the overall scores achieved by the different market segments; the two segments rural households, stoves/boilers and rural services, boilers have particularly high scores. This reflects the fact that 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 favourable 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 4

5 scores low because the temperature requirements for industrial processes are higher than the low temperature hot water distribution typically used for district heat schemes. On the economic factors, larger-scale segments (industry, utilities, urban services) achieve higher scores. 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. On the organisational factors, a different picture emerges with some of the more costeffective segments scoring poorly indicating that regulatory and administrative burdens hamper development in these segments. In detail, 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 also clearly reflected in the low scores. Following, she presented the results from the quantitative assessment, which can be briefly summarised as: 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 estimates from the market analysis (which set the base case for the energy modelling) for the RED scenario actually confirm that the major part of the NREAP targets could be sustainably met by efficient exploitation of indigenous European resources, subject to feedstock mobilisation & technology learning/ uptake. Renewable Heating & Cooling platform predict that biomass heat & power could be more than double and reach up to 800 TWh in Biomass Futures estimates form the market analysis confirm these projections with the results of the RED+ scenario indicating a penetration of 870 TWh with heat accounting for 489 TWh of the total in Observ ER (2010) states that biomass electricity output has increased by 13.5% on average since 1999 and reached 78.3 TWh in Biomass Futures estimates project that biomass electricity could rise up to 200 TWh for the RED+ scenario, only from residual biomass, subject to feedstock mobilisation & technology learning/ uptake. Biofuels in the transport sector Firstly she presented the set of key influencing factors. The respective stakeholder qualitative 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 5

6 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. The overall scores indicate two segments which are relatively well predisposed for biomass. In descending order of attractiveness, these are road bus public and road cars public. Looking at the three categories of factors the analysis has demonstrated the following: The technical scores broadly correspond with the overall scores achieved by the different market segments; 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. On the economic factors, 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. 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 still remains a premium type of travel, where passing on increased costs to customers may be easier to achieve. On the organisational factors, road bus public scores highly. 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. Following, she presented the results from the quantitative assessment, which can be briefly summarised as: NREAPs (1 st reporting in 2010) 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. RED scenario: indigenously sourced biofuels could reach up to 14.3 Mtoe for the 2020 timeframe only with substantial 2G bioethanol uptake, subject to feedstock mobilisation & technology learning/ uptake. RED+ scenario: indigenous biodiesel will only be produced by 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%). Targets to be met by imports & 2G biofuels. 6

7 2.2 The role biomass can play for 2020 & 2030: Deviations & consistency with NREAPs Mr Joost van Stralen (ECN) presented the modelling estimates for the role biomass can play to meet the targets for 2020 & A model-based (RESsolve) scenario analysis has been conducted to analyse the use of biomass for energy purposes. Three scenarios were developed to explore the effects of sustainability criteria on the policy driven ambitions for bioenergy. The biomass feedstock potentials and costs in the form of cost-supply curves are derived from the Atlas of EU Biomass Potentials. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the respective biomass-to-energy pathways and the conventional reference energy systems are also produced within the Biomass Futures supply & sustainability work by using the Global Emissions Model for Integrated Systems (GEMIS) database. The RESolve-biomass model calculates the most cost effective way to fulfil the specified bioenergy demand (for electricity, heating and cooling and the transport sector), given and constrained by a number of assumptions on economic and technological parameters in a specific target year, in terms of bioenergy production, cost and trade (trade of primary feedstock and/or biofuels). The model includes feedstock production, processing, transport and distribution. Constraints on avoided emissions, over the entire chain, are included in the model as well. One of the most important features of the RESolve-biomass model is the ability to link the national production chains allowing for international trade. By allowing for trade, the future cost of biofuels/bioenergy can be approached in a much more realistic way than when each country is evaluated separately. RESolve-biomass allows for trade of feed stocks and final products by means of trucks, trains and short sea shipments. The only costs associated with international trade are transport costs (including handling), for which generalised distances between countries are used. All domestic transport is assumed to take place using trucks. Moreover, the possible economic benefits of important byproducts are taken into account. Then he shortly presented the context of the key scenarios applied in the modelling analyses: Reference : Using RED. Only for biofuels, reaches 60% GHG mitigation in 2030 Sustainability: For all domestic biomass. 70% GHG mitigation in 2020, 80% in 2030 Following Mr van Stralen presented the main outputs of the model in terms of primary biomass utilisation as well as biomass shares in the heat, electricity/ CHP and transport sectors. Primary biomass utilisation by 2020 and 2030 The bioenergy targets set in the Members States NREAPs can in principal be met through utilization of around 7000 PJ (167 Mtoe) primary biomass in 2020 and around 9000 PJ (215 Mtoe) in Biomass Futures project estimated that the EU biomass potential ranges from 375 to 429 MtOE depending on the sustainability criteria applied. This could- in theory- cover at least 2.5 times the amount that is needed to realize the total bioenergy demand as set in the NREAPs for However, in the demand analysis with the RESolve model it is predicted that only a part (~40%) of domestic biomass supply will actually be exploited by 2020 while the rest of the demand will be met by imported biomass. Among the biomass feedstocks current roundwood production, additional harvestable roundwood, straw, grassy perennials and dry manure will remain the largest unutilized feedstocks while the cheapest resources such as industrial wood residues, black liquor, post-consumer wood, used fats and oils will be fully utilised. Current roundwood and the additional harvestable roundwood remain very expensive (>400 /toe) in comparison to the alternatives such as imported wood pellets. In 2030, further use of rotational crops and perennial crops are observed. 7

8 Biomass share in the heat sector Mr van Stralen mentioned that the heat demand in most countries declines slightly over time, due to efforts on energy savings and increased efficiency, while for a few other countries the demand slightly increases. Next to the three demand sectors residential, industry and service sector another category is included to the renewable heating options: combined heat and power (CHP), which for the purpose of this modelling exercise has not been allocated to a specific demand sector. Thus, the biomass contributions of the individual sectors might increase slightly due to the heat produced in CHP and sold to the district heating systems in the EU. Modelling estimates indicate that the overall biomass use for heat remains stable in the period However, 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 decreases 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. A development in the opposite direction is observed for the industry sector: final heat demand from biomass doubles from 14.6 Mtoe in 2010 to 30.5 Mtoe by 2030, an average annual increase of almost 4% per annum. Biomass is one of the most promising renewable energy sources given the different temperature requirements of industry sector. For industries that require high temperature level heat biomass resources are the most suitable if not the only options, followed by deep geothermal. In fact, 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. Many countries meet the 2010 ambitions for biomass heat. However, countries like Belgium, Cyprus and Greece are behind their targets. On the other hand, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, UK, Finland, France, Sweden and Germany already overshoot their 2010 targets. More interestingly, Austria, Germany, Estonia, Romania and Slovenia appear to already reach their 2020 targets. Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Luxemburg and France require doubling of their current use, while the UK require increasing bio-heat consumption 4 times the current use in 10 years time. Biomass share in the electricity/ CHP sector EU27 assumes (in their NREAPs) around 232 TWh bio-electricity production in 2020, contributing to approximately 6% of the total electricity demand. However, 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. The RESolve model set assessed these targets based on the recent policy measures announced by the Member States. It is modelled that in 2020 around 216 TWhe can be produced from biomass, decreasing to 210 TWhe in While these figures indicate that the NREAP set targets in 2020 is achievable with some further efforts the deviations are significant in Member States level. 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 prunings), the decline in coal fired power plant capacity (and therefore the potential for co-firing), and the stronger reliance on other RES-E options for certain countries. CHP plays a dominant role in 2020, contributing around 3% of the total electricity production in The contribution of CHP biomass electricity is 155 TWhe in 2020 increasing to 169 TWhe in An important aspect the economic use of heat drives investment in CHP plants. 8

9 The second technology that uses a significant amount of biomass is co-firing. Biomass co-firing with coal in existing boilers is in fact the most cost effective option of electricity (and heat) production from biomass. Direct co-firing with up to about 10% biomass (energy base) has been successfully demonstrated in pulverized fuel and fluidized bed boilers with a wide range of biomass feedstocks (wood and herbaceous biomass, crop residues, and energy crops). However, the co-firing rates in coal power stations are limited due to decrease in the boiler efficiency, the environmental issues related to emissions of SO 2, NOx and particulate material, the quality of by-products (fly-ash, bottom-ash and gypsum), the impacts in the fire-side of the boiler (deposition and corrosion) and the deterioration of downstream gas cleaning systems. In this respect the RESolve model limits its feedstock use to 10% forestry residues and 5% straw. At Member State level results show clearly that while EU27 as a whole meets the 2010 NREAP indicated goals there are countries like Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Luxemburg, Malta, and Slovenia remain below their indicative targets. Austria, Estonia, Portugal, German and Sweden project relatively low ambitious growth rates up to 2020 when compared to the other countries. On the other hand countries like Bulgaria and Romania assume to achieve more than 40 times the 2010 electricity production figures. Other ambitious countries are Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, with 10 times the 2010 achievements to happen in the coming 10 years time. Biofuels in transport sector According to the modelling results around 30% of the biofuel demand can be met through imports, of which 25% is biodiesel. Contribution of 2 nd 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 2 nd generation technologies to be lower (around 7% of the total). At Member State level the 5.75% targets set for 2010 by the Biofuel Directive (Directive 2003/30/EC) are achieved only by Sweden, Austria, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia. When it concerns the % transport fuel targets much heftier efforts will be required from most of the countries. A complicating factor is that the NREAP targets can change in time as they are dependent on the total fuel consumption, the developments in 2 nd generation technologies, the evolution of electric vehicles. Finally he presented the main conclusions, which can be summarized as follows: There is enough potential, especially solid biomass, however, a part is not so attractive: round wood and part of agri- residues. Stricter sustainability criteria and expansion to electricity and heat has the following consequences: o Decrease of domestic biofuel production o Increased imports (biofuel and wood pellets) o Urgency for 2G biofuel technologies o Significant reduction in application of digestable and liquid biomass for RES-E and RES-H applications Several countries won t meet the NREAP figures for bio RES-E and RES-H. Main reasons: growth rates seem to ambitious and incentives are too low/cost-benefit ratio not attractive enough Electricity sector: After 2025 a decline in bioelectricity production is seen. Main reasons: o decline of cheap potential and competition o with other RES-E options Heat sector: Importance of residential sector may decline, while industry sector may increase Biofuels: 2G technologies will play an important role in 2030, but depends a lot on 1G imports Role of CHP will increase 9

10 2.3 Sustainable biomass supply: Availability & constraints across EU Member States and from outside the EU Ms Berien Elbersen presented the work of Biomass Futures in determining available and sustainable biomass supply patterns in EU27 and Member States. She mentioned that land availability and related biomass availability along with the availability of byand waste products are steered by a range of key factors, such as current and future land use, accessibility, recovery rates, costs, competing uses, etc. Taking such factors into account is essential both for the estimation and mapping of potentials as well as their translation into realistic supplies. Biomass Futures identified the main factors determining potential and supply of different biomass sources and based on these quantified biomass potentials and maps them spatially. As part of this process the team considered basic sustainability constraints. An iterative process with several steps of internal and external review ensured that maps and potential are both realistic and appropriate for further analyses and assessments within Biomass Futures. Following this methodology, Biomass Futures delivered a spatially detailed and quantified overview of EU biomass potentials mapping the technical potentials of the different feedstocks at NUTS 2 level and synthesising the results in terms of economic supply estimates (cost-supply curves). The estimates were made for three sectors under which the biomass categories have been classified: agriculture, forestry and waste. Under these main sectors there are categories of dedicated biomass production such as biofuel crops, woody and grassy crops, stem wood production and by-products and waste categorized in primary, secondary and tertiary levels. The estimates were also made for different scenarios (taking account of sustainability constraints to various degrees) that were developed in the Biomass Futures project. From the results it became clear that the agricultural residues; the forest roundwood; additionally harvestable wood and residues contributed the lion share of the potential. Towards the future the waste sector potential is anticipated to decrease, 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 Within the agricultural group the largest contribution is anticipated to come from manure and straw. Cuttings and prunings are smaller, but can be of great importance at regional level particularly towards the south of the EU. For the estimates in the waste sector an estimate was made for competing use, for as far as data available, and this part was subtracted from the potential. For the forestry part it should be clear however that the roundwood production would certainly only be partly available for bioenergy production as competing use with wood use is very large. Prices are generally far too high for use of this resource for bioenergy generation. In spite of this, it is clear that this resource cannot be completely ignored as already at this moment it is estimated that part of the roundwood production is used directly for bioenergy especially in countries in Scandinavia. 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 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 10

11 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 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. 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. Following Mr Hannes Bottcher presented the work of applying the GLOBIOM model to address the implications that the estimated biomass supply would 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. In addition to the basic (supply related) sustainability criteria that already underlie the static supply maps, more complex sustainability constraints were assessed in the integrated land use model. These included economic indicators (such as the development of food price indices) and sustainability issues related to land use change. This approach built an important bridge between the static supply maps and the energy demand models within the Biomass Futures project (RESsolve and PRIMES Biomass). 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 was 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 In addition it was assumed that there is no conversion of highly biodiverse or high carbon stock land for the purposes of bioenergy. 11

12 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 Under the sustainability scenario it was considered that none of the European based biofuel production pathways can deliver on the 70% and 80% savings for 2020 and 2030 respectively. This had the consequence that total biofuel demand was 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 be used to help understand the land use consequences of changing demand collectively for biomass for food, feed and fuel between 2000 and 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 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 This represents 7% of the total area identified as highly biodiverse in 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 were the sensitivity runs preventing any deforestation globally. The prevention of deforestation precluded the conversion of highly biodiverse primary forest, but consequently there was 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 12

13 deemed highly biodiverse declined when deforestation was prevented a reduction of by 58% has been observed meaning losses were reduced to 15.1 Mha. Global GHG emissions from agriculture and land use change were seen to steadily increase under the reference scenario, primarily as a result of rising emissions from deforestation and land use change. Under the reference scenario total emissions by 2030 reach 8,078 Mt CO 2 eq. The sustainability scenario placed 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 were 381 Mt CO 2 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 CO 2 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 fell from 1,306 to 219 Mt CO 2 eq. when deforestation is prevented under the reference scenario. 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. The following conclusions can be drawn from this work: Domestic potentials The waste potential for biomass will decline in the future. The largest increase in potential can be expected from agricultural residues and perennial crops on released agricultural lands. Largest cheap potential is currently in waste and residuals from agriculture. In sustainability scenario no 1st generation biofuel crops in EU (stricter GHG mitigation target not reached, because of iluc). Residuals from agriculture also have important potential, now still underutilized, especially in regions where there is much excess manure (no fit with technological development expectation). Perennial crops form potentially a large and not too expensive resource. Primary and secondary forestry residues potentials are very significant, but still expensive because they are not recovered and/or many competing uses already exist. Towards 2020 an increase in cheaper resources and towards 2030 overall decline of resources is expected. Domestic potentials under sustainability constraints Domestic perennial crops are potentially less affected by iluc, but are only to be utilised if 2nd generation technologies are to be utilised. Sustainability constraints on cropping are significant both inside and outside EU and will have important effects on availability of biofuels. Sustainable biofuels need stimulation of high efficient technologies based on woody biomass. Imports and sustainability constraints Satisfying European bioenergy targets in 2020 and 2030 will require a substantial increase in imports of agricultural commodities into the EU from the rest of the world. 13

14 As a consequence EU mandates will have an effect on global land use patterns, both in terms of cropland and grassland area, with knock on impacts upon supply chains for the livestock sector. There is a clear need to focus studies on estimating the iluc per land type inside and outside EU. Global production and sustainability Global GHG emissions from agriculture and land use change are anticipated to rise significantly up to 2030 due to various drivers, among others: GDP and population, diet shifts and also bioenergy demand. The application of sustainability criteria purely to the biofuels or bioenergy sectors is considered to be insufficient to be able to avoid bioenergy related direct and indirect emissions. The most effective approach to mitigating land use change and associated GHG emissions is considered to be the application of direct land use policies that limit deforestation and biodiversity loss. To be effective these policies would need to target total agricultural production. 14

15 2.4 Cascading Use: A Systematic Approach to Biomass beyond the Energy Sector Miss Bettina Kretschmer presented the approach of cascading as it has been developed within the Biomass Futures project. The presentation aimed to provide a conceptual framework, developed within the Biomass Futures project, in relation to cascading biomass use in terms of i) outlining the mounting pressure on biomass resources from a number of different uses; ii) introducing the principle of cascading use as a basis for prioritising between different uses of biomass and considering the strengths and weaknesses of this idea, iii) examining barriers to cascading based on literature and iv) reflecting on the potential implications for policy and further research. The allocation of available biomass between energy and material use depends largely on market conditions and the policy framework. Support for renewable energy, in the form of EU and national targets accompanied by incentives such as green electricity schemes, feed-in tariffs, investment grants and biofuel blending mandates has led to the rapid expansion of bioenergy use as illustrated in the previous section. Projections from the European Commission s Low Carbon Roadmap 2050 show that biomass use in the energy sector is expected to grow further, doubling or even tripling by 2050, depending on the scenario. Given a lack of modelling of biomass demand and supply scenarios going beyond the energy sector, little is known about the combined effects of increasing bioenergy and biomaterial uses. CEPI has predicted that, partly due to a doubling of the demand for wood for energy consumption by 2020, there will be a wood supply gap for material use between 2015 and Similarly, the EUwood study concludes that, based on a medium mobilisation scenario, there is insufficient wood to satisfy the combined needs from the forest based industries and the wood energy producers from domestic sources in Timely political measures would be needed to increase wood supply while due consideration needs to be given to impacts on biodiversity and carbon sequestration. It is clear that with (new) biomass demands from various sectors adding up, future demands for land as a scarce natural resource increase. As a way to meet increasing demands without proportionately increasing pressures on natural resources, the principle of cascading biomass use has its merits. The concept of cascading the use of biomass is applicable when there is a linear system in which biomass progresses through a series of material uses, by reuse and recycling, before finally being used for energy recovery. The concept has been applied traditionally in the forestry sector to allocate wood resource into the pulp and paper, wood processing and energy industries. These different sectors are connected as part of a cascade, as well as by recycling loops between different steps, such as the use of sawmill residues in the pulp and paper sector and the recycling of paper. Cascading biomass use offers significant efficiency gains, maximising the value extracted from a given amount of biomass by fulfilling both material and energy needs from the same feedstock. Biomaterials and bioenergy share the common potential to reduce GHG emissions and, as such, it is undesirable for the development of either to be hindered by, inevitable, competition for biomass resources. In theory, applying the cascading use principle more widely would allow material and energy uses of biomass to be achieved in a complementary way, allowing the benefits of both biomaterials and bioenergy from waste to be realised. By preferentially directing virgin biomass towards material uses over energy, cascading use maximises the amount of carbon sequestered in biomaterials. The Commission s consultation on the bio-based economy (2011b) found consensus among respondents that significant improvements in efficiency in the use of renewable resources can be obtained through cascading use. The time dimension of cascading use of biomass also merits consideration, however. Biomass employed in construction, for example, sequesters significant volumes of carbon, postponing its emission into the atmosphere, but also results in this biomass being unavailable for energy use for decades or more at a time. 15

16 Key barriers on introducing cascading include: Necessary changes in the structure and behaviour patterns in a range of sectors. Energy and material uses of biomass are dealt with separately in policy making hence missing potential for synergies. Policy support focusing on bioenergy, i.e. prioritising biomass for energy purposes means mitigation of GHG emissions is often below optimum. Weak supply chains for residues, logistical challenges related to the transport of secondary residues. Few policies are designed to manage the supply or steer the demand to bring it into line with defined sustainable levels. Finally Miss Kretchmer presented a set of suggestions on potential policy responses as regards to cascading: Define the cascade: How to define the different steps of the cascade and distinguish between the merits of different biomass uses? Relative contribution of various biomass use pathways to reducing CO2 emissions taking entire lifecycles into account But also: wider resource efficiency considerations taking into account other criteria: water use efficiency and impacts on other natural resources, including biodiversity Social considerations, such as supply security and economic viability Ecodesign to ensure technical feasibility of cascading use: R&D funding to design bio-materials that are optimised for energy recovery. Strengthening the operation of waste collection and separation systems; in order to ensure energy recovery from bio-waste, these resources need to be extracted from the waste stream. Cross-sectoral policies /Coordinated policies across government ministries. For a full documentation of the workshop s presentations, please visit 3 Discussions following the presentations Following, the discussion focused primarily on the assumptions behind estimating the sustainable biomass potential, especially regarding land availability and the way this is perceived among the different stakeholders involved. It has been stressed out by officers of DG Agriculture that the first choice for land should be food production and then issues of biodiversity and other ecosystem services should be reflected on the choice of land available for bioenergy and biomaterials. Another issue that has been pointed out by AEBIOM, was that currently most modelling exercises prioritise bioenergy/ biofuel pathways by their efficiency to minimise GHG emissions. Still effort should be put into integrating the job creation indicators into this prioritisation alongside with the environmental benefits. Participants from industry favoured an effort to refine the RED targets based on an efficient pathway prioritisation concept. 16

17 4 Conclusions Calliope Panoutsou thanked the participants for their interest & contribution in the discussions during the workshop and summarised the following key messages reflecting the discussions. 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. 17

18 Annex A Agenda Workshop - The role of biomass in meeting a diversified demand Sharing final results from the Biomass Futures project Date 20 th March; 15:00-18:00 Location Building: Altiero Spinelli, Room: A5E-1, (60, rue Wiertz, 1047 Bruxelles) Purpose of the Workshop Biomass Futures brings together eminent experts on bioenergy from across Europe with key policy evidence and models to provide a clear picture of EU bioenergy demand and supply. The work is intended to support understanding as to how Europe can meet its multiple bioenergy needs into the future and the consequences of doing so. Specific outputs include: Spatially detailed information on biomass availability and costs in the EU27 and Member States, including the key parameters that affect this, and policy measures of influence. Evaluation and quantification of the impacts that sustainability criteria plus criteria on indirect land use change, water, air, soil and socials aspects can have on the availability and costs of biomass. Quantitative scenarios for sustainable demand & supply patterns for biomass in EU27 with disaggregation at Member state level that will be useful for policy makers to address issues in implementing the Renewable Energy Directive. Added value of the scenario analyses will be safeguarded by close communication with: o Policy makers (EU policy makers, national policy makers involved in the NAPs process, and selected regional policy makers from UK, NL, DE, AT and EL) o Expert groups performing similar modelling activities in order to align efforts, discuss the modelling assumptions and scenario frameworks as well as compare different models & related tools. Policy mapping & analysis of the most important aspects that are likely to influence biomass deployment in the short (2020) and medium (2030) timeframes. This workshop is intended 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. A range of materials that are already finalised will be available for attendees to take away and will include inter alia: - Biomass role in different market segments within EU27. - A summary of bioenergy sustainability indicators proposed to extend the existing sustainability scheme for biofuels to all forms of bioenergy; - A summary of the European Atlas of biomass supply for 2020 and Policy maps for the biofuel, biogas and solid biomass sectors intended to help assist policy makers in navigating the policy agenda; 18