A very recent sensationalist study from NGO Birdlife indirectly suggests to keep existing monocultures in Europe and fossil energy sources. We suggest a greener scenario where more perennial biomass crops will reduce carbon to imprtove a bio-based economy. Studies commissioned by NGOs warn EU demand for wood and energy crops will outstrip available resources and estimates only 1.3 million hectares for dedicated energy crops. The study can be downloaded here.
Previous studies from Environmental European Agency encourage more bioenergy crops and several organizations have established land potential higher than 15 million hectares for energy crops producing biomass. In Spain, local authorities estimated 4 million hectares for sustainable dedicated plantations for biomass.
Find 10 sound critics and mistakes we have identified for this “biased” report:
1) It never accounts for emissions in a scenario without needed biomass from energy crops (even when it is well accepted that a EU biobased economy can only achieve renewable energy targets if promotes energy crops).
2) It assumes permanent grasslands cannot produce feedstock for bioenergy including lignocellulosic biomass for 2nd generation bioethanol, briquettes and pellets for heat or power and many other sustainable biomaterials. However there is enough evidence worldwide that it can be cheapest source of biomass for energy.
Many areas have lands not profitable for wood but competitive for species already tested as biomass dedicated energy crops
3) It excluded several types of lands that were abandoned more than 5 years ago. In those lands there is only unemployment, abandonment and lack of competitiveness. Many of them are 1”% dependent on EU subsidies for rich families.
4) It doesn’t consider forestry and non wood fibers sinergies in a bio-based economy (e.g. pulp and bioenergy).
5) It assumes only one criteria for Land Use Changes effects with a non standarized procedure or accepted methodology for its calculation . Nontheless, there are many very recent studies showing the importance of co-products and difficulties to measure land use changes effects on greenhouse emissions.
6) No models are suggested or productivity scenarios nor comparisons with emissions derived for lack of a biobased economy. However it is very clear that residues are not enough and many perennial grasses or short rotation coppice alternatives can be only way to achieve bioenergy renewable goals in Europe.
Grasslands for bioenergy promote biodiversity and habitats
7) No rotations or perennials are considered. If Europe continues subsidies to current monocultures in low competitive lands, with a clear trend to abandonment, soils are going to loss organic matter clearly.
8) The authords did not consider or account many kinds of land succestible of being reforested (even many degreaded lands are inside this group)
9) It never take into consideration that perennials and new forestry for biolmass can produce new habitats and benefits for birds, from dedicated perennial plantations and new forestry for a biobased economy.
10) It reflects and admit several methdological difficulties to account for fallow land in many member states and it assumes only 200.000 hectares possible to be used.
It is our conclusion that this study mainly focused on some lobbies and continue the current trend towards unemployment in rural areas, agriculture abandonment in southern member countries like Spain, Greece or Portugal and neglets the great potential of large areas in Poland.
Read also EEA study for the EUROPEAN COMMISSION:
How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment?
Great work in teasing this out Emiliano. Talk about deciding the conclusion of the report before doing the research.
This is a dreadful report and IEEP should be ashamed. Take the money and run. The worry is that by such irresponsible work a lot of very good policies needed to ‘do bio-energy right’ will be seen as too hot to handle by politicians. How can we meet 70-80% carbon cuts without significant bio-energy contribution? NGOs (and I was one for many years) take no responsibility for that. You can’t do it all via solar PV and wind. NGOs and their tame researchers have lost the plot
Absolutely. We are 100% convinced we need more biomass plantations, in particular perennial species and short rotation forestry/coppice to develop a biobased economy, reduce fossil energy dependancy, promote rural employement, and have a greener scenario in rural areas; this is even more relevant in fragile areas, semiarid countries, low competitive agricultural lands that are dependent on subsidies and promote only monocultures with no ROTATIONS as livestock reduction and land abandonment are so frequent.
This NGO prefers the contrary but I find it is not consistent as birdlife will require a better driver to promote reforestation. And the only way is biomass for energy and biomaterials. For that purpose, we need to have a greener economy. Their opinion is that fossil emissions of reforestation and perennials will be higher than fossil energy. I wonder how can they be so narrow-vision. What was the situation 5000 years ago where no industry and carbon in the air but millions of hectares where green? was that worse? We suggest a greener world, they cannot oppose to that!!
Stewart, Bioenergy crops,
Thank you for the interest in our report. I am slightly dismayed however to see that you not only misquote us and fail to understand the purpose and scope of the report, but you also misquote the EEA work.
I would make a couple of points in response:
I see a number of your comments relate to woody biomass, perhaps you overlooked the other report that accompanies ours and focuses on woody biomass potentials in the EU? It would be worth you reading this as well.
One of the main challenges of this research is finding independent and verifiable data on the extent and area of land that has potential for cultivation for bioenergy, as we say clearly in the report. If you know of any such data, that is within the scope of the reports aims, we would very much welcome seeing it.
You talk about the need to move towards a bioeconomy and away from our dependence on fossil resources, I would agree with this wholeheartedly. But, if we are to do this properly then we must respect and understand the finite resources, like land, that we have available to us, not only in the EU but globally. Furthermore we must also realize that we don’t live in the same world as we did 5,000 years ago. The demands and needs we place on our resources now are greater than they have ever been and there are many more of us making those demands. Just providing more energy is not the solution, we have to be more efficient in the way we produce and use energy and all of our resources.
Also intresting is the doubling of imports of wood chips from North America to Europe. Dragging 4.7 million tons of mass across the ocean must burn a bit of fossil!
Dear Ben
the report failed in several issues:
* Didn’t account severa lands with potential for perennial grasses, pastures, shrubs and reforestation. Agroforestry is not considered to be expanded in several areas. Those lands are in many of the categories mentioned that could allow reforestation with great benefits. Energy crops are considered in narrow perspective. Any agro-forestry-ecosystem producing biomass could be used for a variety of purposes, with many benefits to environment, energy and food systems.
* Many food production systems (as Barley monocultures in veryfragile agro-ecosystems of Southern Spain) produce extremely low yields, higher costs and environmental impacts (including emissions cause the fertilize a lot even if they do not produce very much). This is damage produced each year in reference systemsand could be potentially (totally or partially) replaced with perennial systems. This would a) allow rotations for Barley or ow yielding winter cereal monocultures, with increments in organic matter even improving cereals productivity in the long run, b) reduce energy dependance locally (straw made briquettes from barley straw plus grasses and then heaters are very well demonstrated); so even if other sources of food should be considered, this might even increase food security generating employment, food access and more stable rural economies, c) An overall social benefit and environmental benefits would occur. In conclusion, those are millions of hectares that now are intensive in carbon and fossil energy sources producing very low food yields with dependancy of governmental subsidies.
* Shoulders, spaces close to roads and several unused lands not considered for non-food crops are succesptible to increase in hundred of thousands hectares to be cultivated for biomass in European countries.
* Double purpose, CO-Products and sinergies are not considered. This means that areas with food production (olive trees in Mediterranean) can produce effectively biomass to be used for biomaterials, pulp, agri-industries, pharmacy, heat, power, biogas, syngas, bioethanol, etc. Energy crops are possible to be introduced in same lands (grasses can be mowed between trees and there are evidence about it). Wastes and co-products are being considered and many are well demonstrated in Europe at commercial levels. Millions of hectares could be eligible to introduce energy crops with great sinergies with food systems. Some good examples are biogas digesters and dairy farms producing different forages that could be both used for cattle or methane in same lands. Any corner with very low yield or needing fallow management, can introduce a 5 year rotation with perennial species.
* VEGETATION is LIKE HAIR. You cut it more, it grows more. You are not taking into consideration in your emissions and LCA that at global scale, having a greener planet, will save us. We need to plant perennial lignocellulosic systems everywhere to avoid desertification. I invite you to come to Spain and learn about that. You guys in Northern countries seem to live your lives as you only know Northern EU….
* The report considers USELESS for energy crops all permanent grasslands and degraded and abandoned (unmanaged) shrubs and grasses. In partiucular lands being abandoned are admitted to be increasing. In next years abandonment will let hundreds of thousands of hectares free to be used for perennial biomass. You only take lands abandoned 5 years ago. That’s was not enough explained in the report and it is ARBITRARY. BIASED. The true is that abandonment is linked to words like “expensive”, “subsidies” or “need for action”. If a biobased economy is important we need much more than our wastes or biomass coming from Africa (with very high emissions as DAVE JOHNSTONE pointed here above). We can “MANAGE” several agro-ecosystems with perennials and very low inputs.
* There is a lack of hard data. National authorities in Spain have estimated 4 million hectares of extremely low competitive lands and Fallow lands that could introduce woody biomass plantatins and perennial herbaceous systems. When Birdlife report account for fallow lands, there is a lack of background data and when minimal share is identified for energy crops, there is a lack of sound data and criteria to establish how much lands could be used.
I might write a book with different critics. What I find now is that the report seems to be biased.
We prefer to reforest and have a greener Europe with less fossil energy. The lack of data and scientific background on the many potential solutions on energy crops in a desertified Europe that once was full of forests, is completely oppposite to the look of possibilities for wildlife and landscape management.
Best regards
Emiliano Maletta
Researcher at CIEMAT
National Authority on Renewable Energies in Spain
It is interesting… Emiliano is right.
We lost in Europe at least 10-15 years in discussions about the “very dangerous for the environment” of perennial energy crops. I think I have all the arguments of red-green activists, sponsored by the red gas were overthrown? Red is bad! Pay them fat-money and they write a report that forests are… unhealthy. How was it? Energy crops are MONOCULTURE; the birds die from gas of willow; snails jump out of fear of Virginia fanpetals ;)) etc, etc. It’s okay when the bees, birds and other creatures are dying in the desert of wheat or corn. We owe it of idiots on parliament eu, that we import pellets from the U.S.; however, we can produce it on the spot, on our fields.
You need to have your eyes closed not to see the connection of such types of “reports” with to protect the market of Gazprom in Europe. We have a choice: the EU is governed by idiots, or most of them have pockets stuffed by Russian gas.
I think we should primary not using biomass for energy. At the moment the real impact is not that big, but with a fast growing world population there should been thinking about better alternatives for biomass. I beleave more in a biobased economy were biomass is used for several process (not primary for energy). We are in the Netherlands fast developing such a industry. We always try to achieve the highest value of biomass residues with other techniques rather than just burning.
Of course this is not always possible and in the coming decennia’s biomass burning will be a part of the renewable energy share. The whole renewable energy debate is really from a wrong point of view. I think the best thing is just saving energy… because thousands of building, industrial processes are emitting millions of GW un used energy in the air. With saving energy we produce 25-35% energy less then nowadays.. The other part of the current share can be fitted in with renewable.
So we in the Netherland focusing first on saving energy, then finding new techniques, were biomass is an essential part of the renewable energy share. But we always try to value to use always biomass for other uses, if is there no other option we gone use it for energy purposes. Also on the long term (we are talking about 10-20 year maximum.) there are several techniques that are much efficient then our current techniques, which mean they can provide low cost renewable energy. The fore we need to be find alternative for biomass uses on the long term, because biomass will not be provide us a main source of energy in the future.
Lots of other industries then the energy sector are looking for new innovative strategies for using biomass in there processes like the; chemical, pharmacy, cattle feed. These industries are willing to pay much more then the energy industries per TON of biomass! So my quote is: Let’s keep on growing biomass, but not primary for the use of energy if you want to make real money out of our biomass plantations.
A biobased economy will consider all uses of biomass. Energy is jnust one of them and it is quite efficient sometimes (like thermal applications). It can be a good driver for improvement and help our environment and economy reducing coal and other fossil energy sources we use now. We could reduce dependency on fossil sources while we promote a greener planet, sustainable rotations for monocultures and green covers in desertified environments.
Biomass could be an efficient driver for reforestation and its development could serve as a way to avoid deforestation and desertification in many areas of the world. A greener world could be compatibe with a biobased economy and energy is a key issue.
Not sure if I agree with you Kristiaan. We shouldn’t promote unsustainable nuclear in so many countries that just cannot guarentee we are safe. We shoould deplete carbon and not renewable sources of energy as we do everyday. We should promote energy efficiency measures and must not promote unsustainable food systems (monocultures in semiarid lands in hundreds of millions hectares globally) or any other impacting measure on our planet. It is easy to focus on biofuels. It is fashion and easy to convince people that biofuels are just bad.
But as you probably know, a bioreffinery concept is coming up. Energy, biomaterials, food, wastes, biofuels, fibers, materials for sustainable construction etc.
Biomass valorization is coming to stay for a very long period. Planting biomass is a MUST then. And to do so, we should go to abandoned lands, desertified areas and follow the ideas of ALLAN SAVORY. Check his video here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change
A greener world, requires measures to promote organic matter, avoid desertification, over grazing and promote perennials and reforestation. We are supporters of this idea. Biomass can be a driver to get a greener world replacing coal or other fossil energy sources. But of course I agree with you that other uses are critical. 100% agreed.
Policy is harder with bio energy compared to food. However you can find dozens of examples of food systems impacting on yields, soils, erosion, etc. You will see GMO and huge chemical loads as well as yearly ploughs on fragile ecosystems with a single monoculture.
However perennials can help to accumulate organic matter. We have tons of evidence. Carbon sequestration and perennials, reforestation and coal replacement.
Was our planet in a worse scenario when Europe was a big forest and the earth was greener? Should we support nuclear energy or coal instead of favouring on renewable energies and reforestation or perennial grasslands for biomass?
Check again the video I and the ideas of Allan Savory: http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change