Is Bioenergy Development Good or Bad to Sustainable Forest Management? Jianbang Gan Associate Professor Department of Ecosystem Science and Management Texas A&M University, USA IUFRO Division VI Symposium: Integrative Science for Integrative Management August 14-20, 2007, Saariselkä, Finland
Presentation outline The issue Some definitions Forest biomass/bioenergy Sustainable forest management GOOD: Benefits to forest management BAD/UNCERTAIN: Potentially negative impacts Summary 8/15/2007 2
The issue/alert Bioenergy provides us with an extraordinary opportunity to address several challenges: climate change, energy security and development of rural areas. Investments, however, need to be planned and managed carefully to avoid generating new environmental and social problems, some of which could have irreversible consequences. 8/15/2007 3
Biomass (USDOE & USDA) Any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis, including agricultural crops trees wood and wood wastes and residues, plants (including aquatic plants) grasses residue fibers animal wastes municipal wastes other waste materials Sustainability concern stems from using trees that provide many products and services and require inputs to grow. 8/15/2007 4
Sources of forest biomass Conventional forests Photo source: Darwin Foster Woody crops (energy plantations) Photo source: James Boyle Urban forests www.regina.ca/trees/tree_pruning.htm 8/15/2007 5
Sustainable forest management The stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems. Balance between society's increasing demands for forest products and benefits, and the preservation of forest health and diversity. Developed by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) and adopted by FAO. 8/15/2007 6
Forest bioenergy supply chain Art work by Martin Holmer et al. Copyright: Kluwer Academic Publishers 8/15/2007 7
GOOD: Benefits to forest management Reduce fire hazard Photo source: Darwin Foster Photo source: IEA Task 31 8/15/2007 8
GOOD: Benefits (cont d) Reduce site preparation costs (logging residues) Cost savings: US$200-250/ha in the US South 8/15/2007 9
GOOD: Benefits (cont d) Help with restoring disturbance-damaged forests Storm damaged Insect damaged Invasive plants 8/15/2007 10
GOOD: Benefits (cont d) Opportunity for stand improvement Low stocking, low value, and undesirable or nonmerchantable species Stands left behind after highgrading, diameter-limited harvesting Photo source: Darwin Foster 8/15/2007 11
GOOD: Benefits (cont d) Opportunity for utilizing small-diameter trees Photo source: http://www.forestsystems.com/ Photo source: James Miller 8/15/2007 12
GOOD: Benefits (cont d) Additional income to landowners Revenue from biomass sales Revenue from carbon credits/values Photo source: James Miller Photo source: Darwin Foster Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) 8/15/2007 13
BAD/UNCERTAIN: Potentially negative impacts Demand for fuel wood, the main energy source for 40% of the world s population, has been argued as a major reason for tropical deforestation. www.radford.edu/.../fuelwood.africa.jpg http://www.biocoal.org/10.html www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/.../ss45-virta2.jpg Could the same thing happen in the developed world? 8/15/2007 14
BAD/UNCERTAIN (cont d) Soil productivity Crown removal could reduce site productivity, depending on site conditions and the level and composition of biomass removed (Burger 2002, Hakkila 2002) Whole tree harvesting could reduce the early growth (age 7-10 yrs) of loblolly pines by 18% in the southeast U.S. (Scot and Dean 2006) How about long-term impacts? Could ash recycling or fertilization be a solution? What is the optimal level of biomass removal? http://home.flash.net/~falline/newsletter.htm 8/15/2007 15
BAD/UNCERTAIN (cont d) Soil compaction Soil bulk density will increase with more trafficking during harvesting (Burger 2002, Carter et al. 2006) Water quality Water temperature Sediment Water pollution Is BMP a mitigation option? www.idahoforests.org/img/bmp01_1.jpg 8/15/2007 16
The cost factor Alleviating these negative impacts is likely to increase the production cost of forest biomass/bioenergy. Cost disadvantage of forest bioenergy (compared with fossil fuels): Electricity generation cost ($/MWh) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 Conventional coal Coal gasification Poplar or cottonwood (5 dry tons/ac/yr) Logging residues (Marginal cost) Logging residues (Full cost) Electricity generation cost ($/MWh) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Conventional coal Coal gasification Poplar or cottonwood (5 dry tons/ac/yr) Logging residues (Marginal cost) Logging residues (Full cost) CO2 emissions tax ($/ton CO2) CO2 emissions reduction (%) 8/15/2007 17
The cost factor (cont d) Yet, forest bioenergy offers a variety of environmental and social benefits. Displacement cost ($/t C) 125 115 Full residue cost 105 Marginal residue cost 95 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 0 5 10 15 20 Carbon emissions displaced (million tons) Generating electricity from logging residues is a viable option for mitigating CO 2 emissions 8/15/2007 18
Can the complementarity between bioenergy production and forest sustainability occur? 8/15/2007 19
Forest land use $ LEVa (Land expectation value from alternative use) LEVf $ LEVf (Land expectation value from forest use) L (0) Lf (land used for forest) Lf 0 (L) Increased returns from sales of biomass and carbon could lead to expansion of forest land. 8/15/2007 20
Relationships among timber production, carbon values, and bioenergy development: the case of the U.S. In de x (B as eli ne = 10 0) 160 140 120 100 80 60 Timber Production Quantity Index over Time by Constant GHG Price Scenario $1 $5 $15 $30 $50 40 2010 2020 2030 Year 2040 2050 2060 $ /Ton of CO2 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Afforestation Biomass Offsets CH4&N2O Forest Management Crop Management FF Soil Sequestration 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Emission Reduction in MMT CO2 Equivalent Near term substitutes, long run complements Source: Bruce McCarl 2007 8/15/2007 21
How to achieve the complementarity between bioenergy production and forest sustainability? Consider environmental, economic, and social criteria when making bioenergy decisions Mechanisms Command and control Market-based Certification Incentive programs etc. 8/15/2007 22
Summary Potential impacts on forest management: increase landowners revenues via the sales of biomass and potentially carbon likely alter forest rotation length encourage thinning and stand improvement, enhancing forest productivity and health 8/15/2007 23
Summary (cont d) Whether or not forest bioenergy development is good or bad to sustainable forest management is largely dependent on what, how, and how much forest biomass is produced/used. Not all forests should be tapped for energy production. Environmental impacts (i.e. those on soil, water, wildlife) of forest bioenergy development are uncertain and varied. With sound planning and management, utilization of forest biomass for energy production can complement sustainable forest management. Forest bioenergy production should and can be integrated with sustainable forest management. 8/15/2007 24
Summary (cont d) Incorporate economic, environmental, and social considerations into bioenergy decision-making entailing the applications of Integrative Sciences and Integrative Management 8/15/2007 25
Acknowledgements USDOE and USDA Biomass Research and Development Initiative Program (Grant no.: 68-3A75-4-143) USDA CSREES NRI (Grant no.: 2003-35400-13833) USDA McIntire-Stennis Program Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Texas A&M University 8/15/2007 26
Thank you! For additional information, please contact: Jianbang Gan Department of Ecosystem Science and Management Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-2138, USA Tel: +1 979 862 4392 Email: j-gan@tamu.edu 8/15/2007 27