IEA Bioenergy Task 43:
Mobilising sustainable feedstock for energy markets
Outcome of Task 43 survey in support of
planning of work in WP1 in the 2017-2018
period
B. Kulišić1, G. Berndes2, I. Dimitriou 3
1 Energy
Institute Hrvoje Pozar, Croatia;
2Chalmers University of Technology. Sweden;
3Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
IEA Bioenergy Task 43
Landscape Management and Design for Bioenergy and the Bioeconomy
workshop
UBC, Vancouver
September 21, 2016
1
Background
o Created in July 2016
o Implemented in August 2016
o 4 sections:
1. Networking and expanding the research forces
2. The level of interest to include bioenergy in landscape
management and design and stakeholders
3. Information and preferences concerning feedstock
options
4. Economic, social and environmental challenges that might
be met with bioenergy ecosystem services
AIM: to provide support of work planning in WP1 (2017-18)
2
Results
o Responses from 10/12 NTLs
o Mode (the most frequent answer) was chosen as an
evaluation criteria
o Average and range were used as supplementary data
o When more than 1 input per a country given, mode or simple
majority was used to aggregate the answer.
o Exception was Canada with a pair of eligible responses where
both responses were treated individually when needed.
3
A challenge along society's path towards a bio-based
economy is to develop landscape management systems that
can supply biomass along with a range of other ecosystem
services.
2 THE LEVEL OF INTEREST TO
INCLUDE BIOENERGY IN
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT AND
DESIGN AND STAKEHOLDERS
4
How would you describe the interest/advancement within your
government and among other stakeholders concerning
landscape management and design, in relation to them
supporting bioenergy development?
Denmark,
Sweden
MIDDLE TO
HIGHER
LOWER
Australia,
USA
MIDDLE
MIDDLE: there is some interest in developing synergies between bioenergy promotion and the
promotion of systems for biomass production in landscapes that generate multiple ecosystem
services and support biodiversity.
However, this interest is mostly manifested in the form of exploratory governmental
publications and university research.
There is currently relatively little interest/capacity and involvement of landowners and other
stakeholders along supply chains.
Possibly a few pioneering "demo" projects.
5
Which bioenergy supply source would you grade as more
advanced towards an integrated landscape management and
design?
Both
Forestry
Agriculture
6
Please evaluate 1 to 5 (5 being the highest) each group of
stakeholders in relation to their efforts towards integration of
bioenergy issues in landscape management and design.
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Bioenergy business
community
Biomass producers Scientific / research
community
Environmental
protection bodies
Average
Mode
7
Bioenergy users
/consumers
Government/policy
makers
Civil society
associations
Below are listed 5 aspects for better inclusion of bioenergy into
landscape management and design. It is not possible to address
them all at once and we need you to rank them according to
the priority for your country.
1
Aspect
Interest in landscape management and design and how integration of
bioenergy feedstock production into existing land uses can help address
challenges
2
Rank
Average Mode
3,9
5
Dialogue between different types of stakeholders
3,8
5
3
Knowledge / interest in bioenergy in general
3,8
4
4
Involvement of the scientific/research community
5
Knowledge about the topic within civil society institutions (e.g., church, NGOs)
3,1
2,9
2
3
8
3 INFORMATION AND
PREFERENCES CONCERNING
FEEDSTOCK OPTIONS
9
How would you position your country's bioenergy supply with
market preferences?
Biofuels
Electricity
Heating and cooling
Process fuels and processing
Biorefinery
Supply
Self-sufficient with bioenergy supply without need for growing additional feedstock
Self-sufficient with bioenergy supply, including feedstock dedicated production (e.g. energy crops, SRC, algae)
Focus on having domestic biomass supply (excl. dedicated production) and compensating excess demand with imports
Focus on having domestic biomass supply (incl. dedicated production) and compensating excess demand with imports
Focus on covering most supply by imported biomass
10
LEGEND
Are there any expressed preferences concerning feedstocks in
your country, e.g., incentives for specific feedstocks or
exclusion of feedstocks from eligibility lists?
No
Biofuels
geographical
preferences
EU
Sustainable
feedstock
considered
Heating&cooling, electricity, Process fuel and
industries and Biorefineries
North
America
EU
Carribean
and Latin
America
North
America
11
Sustainable
feedstock
considered
Do producers of bioenergy and other biobased products
consider certain feedstocks non-desirable (e.g. considered to
be risky from a market or company reputation perspective)?
if sourced from native forests
Not really. although stumps may have some market risks (biodiversity and C-balance issues)
some policy is currently unsettled, so yes
Depends on sustainability properties, but not on the country. Food crops not desirable for
bioenergy.
Sustainability criteria for biofuels, biomass "contaminated" (wood waste, sewage sludge,
biowaste…), difficulties with applying digestate from such feedstock
Not necessarily - if the feedstock has the correct parameters be it liquid used cooking oils for
biodiesel production or imported solid biomass for power generation and it can be imported
cheaper then companies will look at the bottom line and will not be so concerned about the
sustainability
Illegal and/or 'unsustainable' feesdtock are non-desirable
There is some reluctance to link biobased production to food crops given the food vs fuel debate
12
Are certain feedstock types dominating in your country due to
dominance of specific industry activities?
Sugar cane bagasse and trash
Absolutely - Forest biomass is by far the dominating source.
Straw, due to extensive agriculture.
Wood, due to domestic resources and no national pulp and paper industries
wood and wood waste from wood processing industries
Forestry materials for solid biomass.
Used cooking oils and tallow from rendering industry for liquid biofuels.
wood, maize, canola, palmoil
The Netherlands have a very successful animal production which is partly based on imports of
animal feed. Apart from feed imports, grass is a dominant feedstock for dairy production, as is silage
maize. Both occupy large areas in the NL.
Sugar beet is another major crop, feeding into food production but increasingly also to biobased
materials (biopolymers).
13
Strategies for promotion of landscape management and
design approaches to developing biomass supply chains
4 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES
THAT MIGHT BE MET WITH
BIOENERGY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
14
If bioenergy promotion is considered an option to address
various environmental and landscape management challenges,
besides producing biomass for energy, which challenges would
be in focus in your country
Rank
Challenge
Making economic use of marginal farmland
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Transition to low carbon economy
Creating additional income opportunity
Avoiding groundwater pollution
Reducing fire risks in landscapes
Promoting biodiversity
Reducing eutrophication
Improving life standard in rural community
Carbon capture and storage
Controlling surface water flows
Preventing rural population exodus
Economizing silviculture benefiting other product output, e.g., saw timber
Preventing soil compaction
Controlling erosion
Managing soil salinity
Remediating polluted soils
Mitigating desertification
Economizing salvage logging
Increasing property values
15
Improving game potential
Votes/10
7
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
+ reducing
costs of
landscape
management
The relative importance of relating to specific challenges
when promoting landscape management and design,
compared to biomass demand for energy
Rank
1
2
3
4
Challenge
Average Mode
Reducing fire risks in landscapes
3
5
Transition to low carbon economy
4,4
5
Economizing silviculture benefiting other product output, e.g., saw timber
2,95
4
Promoting biodiversity
3,7
4
Economizing salvage logging
2,8
4
Preventing rural population exodus
3,2
4
Improving life standard in rural community
3,7
4
Creating additional income opportunity
Reducing eutrophication
Avoiding groundwater pollution
Controlling surface water flows
Preventing soil compaction
Controlling erosion
Remediating polluted soils
Making economic use of marginal farmland
Increasing property values
Improving game potential
Carbon capture and storage (In soil and vegetation)
Managing soil salinity
Mitigating desertification
16
3,7
2,75
3,45
2,4
2,5
2,8
2,9
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3,3
2,7
2,25
3
3
3
3,6
2,3
1,85
3
1
1
Guideliness for building a WP1 strategy
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
17
2. The level of interest to include bioenergy in landscape
management and design (LM&D) and stakeholders
 DK + SE are having the advantage in efforts to include
bioenergy in LM&D, yet there is still work to be done to bring
the attention of the stakeholders how bioenergy can do much
more for LM&D.
 Although forestry sector dominates, there is necessity to bring
agriculture more into the topic, especially given the fact that
„additional biomass will be needed to meet the <2°C goal”. AUS
can show the way.
18
2. The level of interest to include bioenergy in landscape
management and design (LM&D) and stakeholders (cont.)
 Most efforts to include bioenergy in LM&D are needed towards
the „opinion makers”: governments and civil society.
 Environmental protection bodies need to be familiarised more
with bioenergy options within LM&D.
 There are 3 top priorities to work upon:
1. Interest in LM&D and how integration of bioenergy
feedstock production into existing land uses can help
address challenges
2. Dialogue between different types of stakeholders
3. Knowledge / interest in bioenergy in general
19
3. Information and preferences concerning feedstock
options
 More uniformed answers:
1. Focus is primarily on having domestic biomass supply (incl.
dedicated production) and compensating excess demand with
imports
2. Sustainability criteria/no geographic preferences are the key factor
do decide upon feedstock origin.
 Sustainability issue is also the leading corrective for biobased
industries.
 A pattern of avoidance of „controversial” feedstock (e.g. food crops,
contaminated feedstock whose residues can’t be easily disposed).
 Wood and wood residues remain to be the most available feedstock
given the industry.
20
4. Economic, social and environmental challenges that
might be met with bioenergy ecosystem services
The top challenges identified:
1. Making economic use of marginal farmland
2. Transition to low carbon economy
3. Creating additional income opportunity
4. Avoiding groundwater pollution
2 ½ economic
5. Reducing fire risks in landscapes
3 ½ environmental
0 social
6. Promoting biodiversity
21
4. Economic, social and environmental challenges that
might be met with bioenergy ecosystem services
The relative importance of relating to specific challenges when promoting
LM&D, compared to biomass demand for energy:
1. Reducing fire risks in landscapes*
2. Transition to low carbon economy*
3. Economizing silviculture benefiting other product output, e.g., saw
timber
4. Promoting biodiversity*
3 economic
3 ½ environmental
5. Economizing salvage logging
2 ½ social
6. Preventing rural population exodus
7. Improving life standard in rural community
8. Creating additional income opportunity *
9. Carbon capture and storage (In soil and vegetation)
22
More discussion is coming up!
Discussion, comments or suggestions are welcomed and to be
addressed towards:
Biljana Kulisic
[email protected]
Thank you!
!
23