1. No category

ILUC mitigation illustrated
for regional case studies
Dr. Birka Wicke
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development
Utrecht University
Overview of presentation
•  Concept underlying ILUC mitigation
•  Two key ILUC mitigation options
•  Increased yields
•  Under-utilized land
And their overall results
(incl. two more measures)
•  Policy & governance options to mitigate and
even prevent ILUC
Concept underlying ILUC
mitigation
•  Given the interlinkages between
economic sectors and activities that
enhance ILUC, key to addressing ILUC
is an integrated view on land use
accounting for the various uses of land
for food, feed, fiber and fuels.
Concept underlying ILUC
mitigation
•  Several options exist with which ILUC
can be mitigated and even prevented.
•  These options relate to resource
efficiency in both the biofuel supply
chain AND the entire agricultural sector
What are the options?
•  Increasing agricultural yields
(today
focus on crops, but we also looked into livestock)
•  Use of biofuels co/by-products
•  Increased chain efficiency
•  Bringing under-utilized land into
production and demarcating land
that should not be converted
Why regional case studies?
If a region can demonstrate that it can
produce additional biofuels while
•  Guaranteeing other production for food,
feed and fibre, and
•  Not expanding on high carbon stock land,
then biofuel production in that region
does not cause ILUC.
Assessment of regional low ILUC
risk biofuel production potential
•  To define feasible and desirable biofuel
production targets per regions
•  To rank ILUC mitigation measures &
their importance for different regions
à to define regional strategies for ILUC
prevention
General approach
t targe
baseline current Assessment of ILUC prevention
measures
•  Scenario approach to indicate
uncertainty in projections (depends also
on the level of investment) and effects
on results
•  Three scenarios (low, medium, high)
low medium high
Regional case studies
Three case studies in Eastern Europe
•  Eastern Romania
(macroregion 2):
rapeseed biodiesel
•  Hungary: corn ethanol
•  Lublin province,
Poland: miscanthusbased ethanol
Regional case studies
One case study in SE Asia
•  Northeast Kalimantan,
palm oil biodiesel
1. Increasing yields
Potential of increasing crop
yields to mitigate ILUC
• Illustration of our approach with
case study on East Romania
Calculation
1. Assess yield developments
of all major crops
5 Other crops Rapeseed yield (t/ha) Rapeseed yield (yt/ha) Rapeseed ield (t/ha) Rapeseed yield (t/ha) 4.5 7.5 4 6.5 4 3.5 5.5 3.5 3 2.7 4.5 2.5 2.5 3 3.5 2 2.3 2.5 1.5 2.5 2.1 2010 2 1.5 1.9 2010 1.5 1.7 2010 1.5 2010 Maize Given 2020 producPon volume is fixed based on MIRAGE projecPons Wheat Rapeseed 2012 2014 2016 2018 (MIRAGE b2016 ut target yield?) 2012 Baseline 2014 2018 Low Baseline (MIRAGE but target yield?) 2012 Medium 2014 2016 2018 Low Baseline High (MIRAGE but target yield?) Medium 2012 Low 2014 2016 2018 High Medium Baseline High Low Medium 2020 2020 2020 2020 High 2. Calculate land area that
could be made available for
biofuel production (through
yield increases)
Increased yields – East Romania
§  Example rapeseed yields
This is rapeseed but we did the same for all other major crops
Increased yields – East Romania
•  Land area available for biofuels
Scenario Land area
for biofuels
Extra production
% regional
NREAP**
Low
71
Rapeseed B i o d i e s e l
* (kton)
(TJ)
35
510
Medium
415
214
3,100
66% High
727
457
6,624
142% (kha)
11% * Rapeseed is part of crop rotation and assumed to be
produced only every 4 years (=only ¼ of the land is used)
** % regional NREAP refers to the share of the NREAP
allocated to East Romania (based on ag land)
In all cases: Increasing yields
has a huge potential to reduce
the land area needed for
meeting the baseline demand
(without biofuels)
Creating space for biofuel
production
Easy picks of regions for yield
improvements?
•  Yes, BUT these are the regions that are
expected to see large increases in
production in the future.
•  Regions with already high yields also
have potential to increase yields further
(though less dramatic changes). But
very large increases in production are
also not expected there.
2. Under-utilized land & land
zoning
Under-utilized land & land
zoning
•  Different from previous measure
because it is not about getting more
from the existing land.
•  It is about finding out what non-ag land
is available and suitable for biofuel
production.
•  And it is about what land should be
excluded.
Approach
•  Assessment of type of land potentially
available (degraded, abandoned,
marginal, unused…)
•  Plot size: when is it economical - >2, 5,
10, … hectare?
•  Suitability for biofuel crops
•  Land zoning: carbon stocks, protected
areas, current use
•  Yields
Under-utilized land & land
zoning: Illustration for NE
Kalimantan
•  Degraded land – vague term and not
properly defined à difficult to measure
it in the field
•  Degraded forest?
•  Imperata grasslands?
•  Deforested land not in use?
Illustration for NE Kalimantan
•  World Resources Institute developed the
Suitability Mapper in order to help
identify potentially suitable sites for
sustainable palm oil production
•  We applied this
tool to assess
under-utilized land
areas in this case
study
Criteria for suitability &
availability
•  No peatland is allowed to be used and
conservation area buffer of at least
1000m is applied in all scenarios
Scenarios
Low
and settings
Medium
High
Slope and
elevation
Conditions
where
additional
measures are
needed
WRI default
settings
Rainfall
Soil drainage
Optimal
growth
conditions
Land cover Existing agriculture may not be displaced
Illustration for NE Kalimantan
•  Ground truthing: is all of this really
available?
•  For West Kalimantan, WRI estimated that only 41%
of the area determined by the suitability mapper is
actually also available (Gingold et al., 2012).
•  The same percentage was applied here for NorthEast Kalimantan.
•  The actual portion for North-East Kalimantan needs
to be determined by field checks.
Illustration of NE Kalimantan
• Results
Scenario UnderExtra CPO
utilized land production
(Mha)
(Mt)
Low
0.85 3.4
Medium
High
0.99
1.70
3.9
6.8
(current production: 0.4 Mt)
4. Overall results
Remember the overall picture –
if ILUC mitigation measures
allow the same production, then
ILUC can be prevented
Overall picture – E. Romania
Land made available by ILUC
prevention measures, 2020 (Mha)
Total land use according to
MIRAGE (Mha)
1
0.8
0.16
Mha
needed
0.6
0.12 – 0.94
Mha
0.4
available
0.2
0
Low
Medium
High
Co-products
Under-utilized land
Above baseline yield
Overall picture - Hungary
Land made available by ILUC
prevention measures, 2020 (Mha)
Total land use according to
MIRAGE (Mha)
1.2
1
~ 0.27
Mha
needed
0.5 - 1.1
Mha
available
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Co-products
Under-utilized land
Above baseline yield
Overall picture - NE Kalimantan
Land made available by ILUC
prevention measures, 2020 (Mha)
Total land use according to
MIRAGE (Mha)
0.50
2.0
0.45
e n
i
l
e
Bas
0.40
Current 0.35
0.30
2008
~ 0.29
Mha
needed
0.8 - 1.8
Mha
available
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2012
2016
2020
-0.5
Co-products
Above-baseline yield
Under-utilised lands & zoning
Translation to biofuels targets
Hungary
(corn)
E. Romania NE Kalimantan
(rapeseed) (palm oil/CPO)
7.2
0.28
0.4
Additional ILUC free
production by 2020:
low - high (Mt)
2.5-7.3
0.2-1.9
2.4 – 8.1
MIRAGE projection
2020 for EU biofuel
target* (Mt)
0.9
0.15
0.18
Ratio ILUC free
potential : MIRAGE
projected production
(low – high)
3–8
Current production
(Mt)
1 – 13
13 - 45
* The MIRAGE projections are disaggregated based on current agricultural
land area
Analysis of ILUC mitigation
measures shows that additional
biofuels can be produced
without displacing other uses
and functions
But we need to work (hard) to implement
these measures…
How to reach suggested yield
increases?
Focus on entire agricultural sector
à  Knowledge and capacity building (e.g. seed
quality, fertilizer use, machinery)
à  Improve availability & access to high-yielding
seeds/planting material, fertilizer &
technology (incl. capital)
à  Incentivize investments: long-term
contracts/price guarantees?
§ 34
Under-utilized land and land
zoning
•  Lack of detailed data on land cover & use
•  Kalimantan: what is status and quality of land zoned for
production? Where are forests?
•  E Europe: natural afforestation of abandoned areas?
Where are under-utilized land areas? Who owns them?
à  Improve land use, cover & soil information
(spatially and temporally detailed)
à  Make more informed decisions on land zoning
à  Improve monitoring & enforcement
à  Incentivize forest maintenance
Concluding remarks
•  Multiple measures that together lead
to ILUC prevention and better
performance of agricultural and
biofuel supply chains
Sustainable intensification of agricultural
production (increased yields)
Use of under-utilized land & land zoning
(Optimal use of co-products)
(Increased efficiency in supply chain)
Prevention of ILUC
My simple message to take
home
•  ILUC can be prevented if we take an
integrated perspective on land use for
food, feed, fibre and fuels and increase
productivity and resource efficiency in
the production for all of these purposes
ILUC Prevention Project
•  Spring 2013 – end of 2014
•  Results to be published end of Nov/beginning
Dec 2014
•  Funding:
•  Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the
Environment
•  Netherlands Enterprise Agency
•  Rotterdam Climate Initiative
•  industry partners: ePURE, MVO/Fediol,
NesteOil, Shell
Thank you for your attention!
Contact information:
[email protected]
http://www.uu.nl/staff/BWicke
UU
Birka Wicke
Carina van der Laan
Marnix Brinkman
Sarah Gerssen-Gondelach
RUG
André Faaij
Extra slides
Yields – Scenarios E. Romania
Scenario Low Extrapolating the crop-specific linear
yield trend in Eastern Romania of the
period 1990-2012 to 2020. Yield data
is taken from the National Statistics
Office. Medium Best counties
For each crop the yield of the best
Eastern Romania county is extrapolated to the whole
macroregion. Data are taken from
Eurostat and the Romanian National
Statistics Office. High % Poland Ratio of the maximum attainable yield
and actual yield currently achieved in
Poland applied to the maximum
attainable yield in Romania. 41
Yield trend
Eastern
Romania Description Increased yields – Hungary
Example corn yields
Land freed
Scenario Land freed
from food
production
(kha)
Low
343
Medium
466
High
659
Increased yields – NE Kalimantan
Example FFB yields
Land freed
Scenario
Land area for
additional
biofuel (kha)
Low
-75
Medium
37
High
44
Increased yields – Lublin
Example wheat yields
Land freed
Scenario Land freed
from food
production
(kha)
Low
95
Medium
220
High
413
You might also argue that
increased yields could have
other negative effects
1.  Rebound effect
Publication by Carrasco et al. in Science, Oct 2014
But the case studies illustrate that we need to
address all agriculture and forestry: land savings
come from various crops
§ 45
Land savings come from
increased productivity in the
agricultural sector as a whole–
not one crop alone
§  Example Romania – land saved by different crops
Scenario Land saved
from food
production
(kha)
Maize Wheat Rapeseed Other crops Low
71
28 34 23 -14 Medium
415
210 88 32 86 High
727
468 155 70 34 §  Significance of maize & wheat also as a result of currently
large area in use
You might also argue that
increased yields could have
other negative effects
1.  Rebound effect
If yields of all crops are further advanced,
rebound effect will be negligible.
§ 47
You might also argue that
increased yields could have
other negative effects
2. Agricultural intensification
•  For example, increased fertilizer application à more GHG
emissions
•  Often it is not about more fertilizer/
agrochemicals but about optimizing
fertilizer application (timing & frequency,
how much of what component)
•  Western Europe has shown that output can increase with
decreased inputs
à Sustainable intensification of agriculture
§ 48
Under-utilized land
3. Use of biofuel co/by-products
Use of biofuel co/by-products
•  Optimized use of co/by-products
increases per hectare output
•  Typical examples are DDGS from corn/
wheat ethanol or meal from oil seeds,
•  But there are lots of other useful coproducts (e.g. glycerin, straw/stover,
EFB, palm trunks, POME,…)
Co-products: Important aspects
for calculations
•  What are the co-products and how are
they used?
•  What is the production ratio of coproduct?
•  In what livestock sector is it used?
•  What does it displace?
•  Depends on which livestock sector (dairy
vs. meat cattle, pigs, poultry) and on where
it is used
•  Replacement rate?
Co-product use – Illustration for
Hungary
•  Co-product: corn DDGS
•  Use: livestock feed
•  Production ratio: 0.3 t/t corn
•  Used in livestock sector: dairy and beef cattle,
poultry, pigs (varies across studies)
•  What does it displace: corn, soymeal,
rapeseed meal, sunflower meal (division
depends on location & animals)
•  Replacement rate: Depends on what is crop
displaced & what animal is getting it (varies
across studies)
Co-product use – Illustration for
Hungary
•  Development of three scenarios (low,
medium, high) based on a combination
of what it displaces, replacement
factors, and division to livestock sectors
Co-product use – Illustration for
Hungary
• Development of three scenarios
•  Low: DDGS replaces marginal source of
protein (imported soy meal), low domestic
savings
•  Medium: US data on division to sectors;
replacement following Hungarian feed tests.
•  High: DDGS replaces an energy crop
(barley), high domestic savings.
Co-product use – Illustration for
Hungary
Scenario Domestic
Land savings
land savings abroad
(k ha) (k ha) Low Medium High 0 23 49 37 16 0 Based on less imports of
soybean/meal
Important benefit, but outside
of the region and therefore not
included in the remaining
calculations
Co-products
Substitution rates of DDGS to maize and Soybeans.
The numbers are livestock sector specific. This means
the total substitution is the sum within one livestock
category. Replaced amounts in t/t DDGS.
Beef
Maiz
e L a b o r d e [5] b W i s n e r .99 [32] H of f m a n 1 & Baker
#1 [33] H of f m a n 1.2 & Baker
#2 [33] Universit y
o f
Pannonia
[34] cattle Dairy cows Poultry Pigs S o y Maiz S o y S u n f l o w e r R a p e Maiz S o y Sunflow Maiz S o y
meal e meal meal meal e meal er oil e meal .11 .51 .05 .21 .22 .45 0 .60 .21 .77 .11 0 .45 .55 .51 .50 .89 .10 0 .73 .63 .61 .44 .70 .30 .61 .44 .59 .38 0.38 0.31 .56 .27 -0.05a Co-products
• Division of the DDGS to four
livestock sectors
Scenar Description io Labord In the report of Laborde the assumed division
e between cattle and other livestock is almost
equal. Curren Based on the data by Wisner [32], the average
t
division to the livestock sectors in the period
divisio 2009-2012 will be used. n US Cattle Pannonia indicated the product is marketed at
use in the cattle sector. Therefore a scenario with
only use for beef cattle and dairy cows, the ratio
between these is the ratio in occurrence in
Hungary, see Table 18. Beef All DDGS is used in the beef sector. %
%
%
%
beef dairy poultry pigs 50% 50% Dairy Pigs 53% 34% 5% 7% 45% 55% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% All DDGS is used in the dairy sector. 0% 100% 0% 0% All DDGS is fed to pigs. 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Poultry All DDGS is used in the poultry sector. Co-product use
•  Co-products DDGS and oilseed meal are already
used efficiently (how much they contribute to
ILUC mitigation depends on how they are used)
•  Some co-products palm oil chain seem to be
under-utilized (EFB & POME) and polluting when
not managed properly (POME)
à National waste management regulation
•  Co-products from miscanthus to ethanol case
still some unknowns
à More research is needed to allow optimal use