Biomass Resources & Sustainability Assessment in the United States

Transcription

1 Biomass Resources & Sustainability Assessment in the United States IEA 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 ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle for the US Department of Energy This presentation reflects analyses and opinions of the authors. Errors or omissions are the responsibility of the presenter.

2 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 2 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

3 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 3 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

4 Examples of laws and regulations 4 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

5 U.S. DOE Commitment to Sustainability BioEnergy 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 contextspecific (Efroymson et al. 2011). 5 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

6 Understanding and Enhancing Bioenergy Sustainability Air Quality Soil Quality Water Quantity and Quality Biological Diversity Landscape Design 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 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 ecosystems 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 Advancing landscape design approaches that increase biomass production while maintaining or enhancing ecosystem services and socioeconomic benefits. Promote multiple benefits by considering patterns processes and relationships; Iowa project example 6 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

7 Quantifying, enhancing, and communicating the value proposition of bioenergy 7 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy 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 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. 8 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

9 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 BT16 volume 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. 9 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

10 BT16 volume 2 Outline Land Allocation and Management Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Agriculture and Forestry) Volume 2 Water Quality Water 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 January 2017 Strategies to Enhance Environmental Outcomes 10 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

11 BT16 Vol 2 Contributors Project Leads and Editors: Rebecca Efroymson, Matthew Langholtz, Kristen Johnson, Bryce Stokes USDOE Bioenergy Technologies Office Kristen Johnson, Mark Elless, Alison Goss Eng BT16 Feedstock Assessment Methods and Focal Scenarios Craig Brandt, Matthew Langholtz, Maggie Davis, Keith Kline, Laurence Eaton, Erin Webb, ORNL Bryce Stokes, Allegheny Science & Technology Chad Hellwinckel, University of Tennessee Land-use Change (LUC) Keith Kline, Maggie Davis, Laurence Eaton, Rebecca Efroymson, Craig Brandt, Mike Hilliard, ORNL Jennifer Dunn, ANL Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Soil Organic Carbon Christina Canter, Zhangcai Qin, Hao Cai, Jennifer Dunn, Michael Wang, ANL D. Andrew Scott, USFS Water Quality-Agriculture Henriette Jager, Latha Baskaran, Jasmine Kreig, Craig Brandt, Mike Hilliard, ORNL May Wu, Miae Ha, ANL Water Quality-Forestry Benjamin Rau, Carl Trettin, Devendra Amatya, Ernest Tollner, USFS Augustine Muwamba, U Georgia Sudhanshu Panda, Univ of North Georgia 11 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy Water Quantity-Forestry Ge Sun, Liangxia Zhang, Benjamin Rau, USFS Kai Duan, NC State University Water Footprint May Wu, Miae Ha, Sashi Yalamenchili, ANL Air Quality Ethan Warner, Yimin Zhang, Daniel Inman, Annika Eberle, Dylan Hettinger, Alberta Carpenter, Garvin Heath, Dylan Hettinger, NREL Biodiversity-Agriculture Henriette Jager, Gangsheng Wang, Jasmine Kreig, Ingrid Busch, Nathan Sutton, Mark Bevelhimer, ORNL Biodiversity-Forestry Deahn Donner-Wright, USFS Darren Miller, Weyerhaeuser Company Bently Wigley, NCASI Algae Rebecca Efroymson, Matt Langholtz, Melanie Mayes, ORNL André Coleman, Mark Wigmosta, PNNL Molly Pattullo, University of Tennessee Climate Change Sensitivity Ben Preston, Matt Langholtz, Laurence Eaton, ORNL Chris Daly, Mike Halbleib, Oregon State University Synthesis, Interpretation, and Strategies to Enhance Environmental Outcomes Rebecca Efroymson, Matt Langholtz, Anthony Turhollow, Keith Kline, Virginia Dale, ORNL Kristen Johnson, DOE Cristina Negri, ANL Kristen Johnson, DOE Ian Bonner, Monsanto Knowledge Discovery Framework and Visualization Aaron Myers, Mike Hilliard, ORNL

12 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 Data Sets Available on Bioenergy KDF l2 Virtual Symposium Presentations on each chapter Hosted on the Bioenergy KDF: Register for a KDF account to receive news blast with details. 12 Bioenergy Technologies Office Not for Public Distribution

13 Chapter 3 Land Allocation and Management (a) Agricultural Baseline (b) Base-case BC (c) High-yield HH The BT16 assumptions hold total forestland and total agriculture lands constant throughout the simulation period Annual Cover Idle (13 m. rising to 23 m. acres in each case) Perennial Cover Geospatial distribution of increases in perennial cover under the base-case (BC1) 2040 scenario 13 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

14 Results High-level 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. 14 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy 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 Framework for Selecting Indicators 1. Define goals 2. Define context 3. Identify & consult stakeholders 4. Identify & assess necessary tradeoffs Information as determined by Available data Resources needed to collect & assemble required data 5. Determine objectives for analysis 6. Determine selection criteria for indicators 7. Identify & rank indicators that meet criteria Conduct assessment 8. Identify gaps in ability to address goals & objectives Determine baselines & targets Compare to values for indicators Feedback supports continual improvement No 9. Determine whether objectives Dale et al. (2015) A framework for selecting are achieved indicators of bioenergy sustainability. Biofuels, 15 Emerging Biomass Feedstocks Forum - April 2017 Bioproducts & Biorefining 9(4): Yes 10. Assess lessons learned & identify good practices

16 Enabling Sustainable Landscape Design for Continual Improvement of Operating Bioenergy Supply Systems Areas of Focus: 1. Multi-Stakeholder Landscape Design Process 2. Assessment of Environmental Sustainability Indicators 3. Assessment of Feedstock Supply and Logistics 4. Build a template for future biorefinery projects.

17 Landscape Design: Assembling Key Pieces of the Puzzle Regional Impact Modeling & Monitoring Advanced Harvest & Logistics, 2 nd Pass Perennial Grass for Conservation & Biomass Supply Implementation of Conservation Practices (Cover Crops, Buffer Strips, etc.) Subfield Precision Business Planning Advanced Harvest & Logistics, First Pass Multi-stakeholder Outreach Sustainable Residue Harvest

18 Analysis of major export ports of pellets in SE USA: Savannah: mostly intensively managed pine plantations Chesapeake: both pine and mixed hardwoods Fuelsheds: Counties within 120 km (75 miles) of pellet mills that supply ports 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 18 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy Dale et al. (2017) Forest Ecol & Mgmt

19 Regarding US wood pellets Demand 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 (GCB Bioenergy) 19 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

20 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 Conclusions 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 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17 Dale et al., and Parish et al. data, (2017) Forest Ecol & Mgmt

21 Wood based pellets are <3% of wood products from SE US 300 Pulpwood Pellets Sawtimber 250 Removals (green MT) ? Year Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17 Dale et al. (2017; Forest Ecol & Mgmt)

22 Biomass stranded without markets eventually burns, decays and reduces incentives to keep 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). 22 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

23 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 Ref: Dale + 34 coauthors 2017 GCB-Bioenergy ORNL s Bioenergy Study Tour brought diverse stakeholders together to ask hard questions 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 Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17

24 Causal Analysis (Efroymson et al in Land Use Policy) 24 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

25 Standard Practice Guide for Evaluating Relative Sustainability ASTM International E Committee E-48: Energy and chemicals from biomass

26 Photo credit: Orbiter News Dec. 22, 2010

27 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 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) 28 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

29 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. 29 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

30 Thanks! Center for Bioenergy Sustainability See CBES website for Reports Forums on current topics New publications: Renewable wood pellets from the SE USA 1/gcbb.12445/full Reconciling food security and biofuels, 11/gcbb.12366/full Wood pellets impact on forests ~GwCo5V 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 # ) 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. 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-AC05-00OR The views in this presentation are those of the author/presenter who is responsible for any errors or omissions.

31 Thank You A few supplemental slides and references follow. For more information on BT16 Volume 2, visit: 31 Bioenergy Technologies Office Not for Public Distribution

32 References Dale VH, KL Kline, ES Parish, AL Cowie, TC Smith, NS Bentsen, G Berndes, et al., Status and prospects for renewable energy using wood pellets from the southeastern United States. GCB Bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy doi: /gcbb Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR Hilliard Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: Dale VH, Kline KL, Marland G, Miner RA Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-derived bioenergy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(6): 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: doi.org/ /j.foreco Dale VH and KL Kline Interactive Posters: A valuable means for enhancing communication and learning about productive paths toward sustainable bioenergy. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 11: DOI: /bbb Doerr SH, Santın C Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371: Efroymson RA et al Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environ Mgmt 51(2): 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) 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, , 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: /gcbb Koponen K, Soimakallio S, Kline KL, Cowie A, Brandão M (Resubmitted 2017) Quantifying the climate effects of bioenergy - choice of reference system. RSER-D R1 Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews McBride A et al. (2011) Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) Randerson JT, Chen Y, Van Der Werf GR, Rogers BM, Morton DC Global burned area and biomass burning emissions from small fires. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 117, G04012 U.S. Department of Energy 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 / U.S. Depart of Energy (DOE) 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 From sink to source: Regional variation in U.S. forest carbon futures. Sci. Rep. 5, 16518; doi: /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, pg. 32 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

33 Environmental indicators for bioenergy sustainability & associated ecosystem services Category Soil quality Water quality and quantity Ecosystem service: type Supporting & regulating service: soil quality Provisioning service: drinking water; Regulating service: water purification Cultural service: recreation Provisioning services: food, feed, fiber and fuel Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17 Sustainability Indicator Total organic carbon (TOC) Total nitrogen (N) Extractable phosphorus (P) Bulk density Nitrate concentration in streams Total phosphorus (P) concentration in streams Suspended sediment concentration in streams Herbicide concentration in streams Peak storm flow Minimum base flow Consumptive water use (incorporates base flow) Yield McBride et al. (2013) & Dale et al. (in review) Productivity Greenhouse gases Air quality Biodiversity Regulating services: carbon sequestration & climate regulation Crosscutting: agrochemical use, feedstock transport/treatment and biofuel combustion. Provisioning service: clean air Diverse services depending on species & context: for example pollination, seed dispersal, pest mitigation; Supporting service: CO 2 equivalent emissions (CO 2 and N 2 O) Tropospheric ozone Carbon monoxide Total particulate matter <2.5μm diameter (PM 2.5 ) Total particulate matter <10μm diameter (PM 10 ) Presence of taxa of special concern Habitat area of taxa of special concern

34 Socioeconomic indicators for bioenergy sustainability & associated ecosystem service Category Ecosystem service: type Social wellbeing Energy security External trade Cultural services: jobs & family income; Provisioning service: food Provisioning service: energy Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber Sustainability Indicator Employment Household income Work days lost due to injury Food security Energy security premium Fuel price volatility Terms of trade Trade volume Social acceptability Profitability Resource conserva -tion Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber Provisioning services: fuel, chemicals, plastics Provisioning services: food, feed, fuel & fiber Return on investment (ROI) Net present value (NPV) Depletion of nonrenewable energy resources Fossil Energy Return on Investment (fossil EROI) Public opinion Transparency Effective stakeholder participation Risk of catastrophe Dale et al. (2015 & in review) Dale: BETO Review 3/ 6/17

35 Can barriers to acceptance of biomass for energy be overcome? 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 ) Photo by Kline: LUC near Tampa, FL *

36 Define Standards What 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 36 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy Source: adapted from

37 IEA Bioenergy Joint Task Meeting Question*: Can certification ensure more sustainable outcomes? 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. Source: Adapted from Kline for IEA Joint Task presentation on LUC: (also see CBES website) Photo VH Dale, 2016: Logging residues in East TN left to rot or burn because there is no market for biomass-bioenergy.

38 Can standards-based policies facilitate the transition toward sustainability? Yes, if 1. Developed with users as a costeffective 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 exclusive 5. Are broadly supported (civil society, government, producers, business, and financial markets) Source: Adapted from Kline for IEA Joint Task presentation on LUC: (also see CBES website)

39 DOE-BETO Bioenergy research at ORNL: 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 Enable long-term supply of renewable biomass for clean, domestic bioenergy

40 Related reading Dale B et al Take a closer look: biofuels can support environmental, economic and social goals. ES&T48(13): Dale VH et al Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: Dale VH et al Incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56: 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 Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environmental Management 51(2): FAO (2015a) Hunger Map FAO Statistics Division, Rome. Available: FAO (2015b) Forty-second Session Report, Committee on World Food Security, Rome, Italy, October Global Strategic Framework for Food Security & Nutrition (GSF) Available at: Last Accessed 10/10/2015. FAO, IFAD, WFP (2013) The State of Food Insecurity (SOFI) in the World 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), Kline KL, Oladosu GA, Dale VH, McBride AC (2011) Scientific analysis is essential to assess biofuel policy effects. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, Kline KL (2014) Advanced School on Present and Future of BioEnergy, ESPCA FAPESP University of Campinas, October, Campinas, SP Brazil. Kline KL et al. (2016) Reconciling biofuels and food security: priorities for action. GCB-Bioenergy. McBride A et al. (2011) Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 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): REN 21 Renewables (2016) and (2014) Global Status Report Paris, REN21 Secretariat. IRENA (Jeff Skeer) (2016) Boosting Biofuels: Sustainable paths to greater energy security. Rainforest Alliance (2008) Impact of FSC Certification on Deforestation and the Incidence of Wildfires in the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Roser M (2015) Our World in Data. Souza GM, Victoria RL, Joly CA and Verdade M, editors Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), Bioenergy & Sustainability: bridging the gaps. SCOPE 72. Paris, France and Sao Paulo, Brazil. ISBN: Sumner DA (2009) Recent commodity price movements in historical perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5) 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: USDA Economic Research Service (2015) Definitions of Food Security: Ranges of Food Security and Food Insecurity. U.S. Department of Agriculture Woodall et al Monitoring Network Confirms Land-Use Change is a Substantial Component of the Forest Carbon Sink in eastern United States

41 Related reading cont Arezki et al 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 On the timing of greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of forest based bioenergy. IEA Bioenergy ExCo: 2013:04 Viewed 31 May 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)), 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) Help Yourself - Food Rights and Responsibilities: Year 2 findings from Life in a Time of Food Price Volatility. Joint Agency Research Report. and 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: /gcbb Leonardo WJ, Florin MJ, van de Ven GWJ, Udo H, Giller KE Leonardo et al., Which smallholder farmers benefit most from biomass production for food and biofuel? The case of Gondola district, central Mozambique Biomass and Bioenergy 83: 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. ( July). Livestock groups urge EPA to waive ethanol mandate. Governors' Biofuels Coalition. Schafer, E. ( March). Proposed RFS changes spark food vs. fuel debate. Feed & Grain. Sepp S Multiple-household fuel use; a balanced choice between firewood, charcoal and LPG. Published by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH ( Eschborn, Germany, on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Thornhill S, Vargyas E, Fitzgerald T, Chisholm N (2016) Household food security and biofuel feedstock production in rural Mozambique and Tanzania. Food Security 8: Tyner, W. E., Taheripour, F., & Hurt, C. ( 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 Billion-Ton Report. Volume 2: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy. Volume 2. Environmental Sustainability Effects of Select Scenarios: BT16 Resource Assessment for US biomass supplies volume 1: