Search

The European Union (EU) does not have a common forestry policy but EU policies can indirectly affect the forest sector. This study departs from the EU "Fit for 55" package of legislation and uses a forest sector model to simulate and analyze three responses in the Swedish forest sector (2020-2100) to policy initiatives addressing climate change and biodiversity: (i) increasing the area of set-asides with 50%; (ii) prohibiting harvest of old forest (>120/140 years of age); and (iii) extending the minimum allowed age for final harvest with 30%. Results indicate that, while all three responses can reduce net carbon emissions compared to business-as-usual, extension of the minimum allowed age for final harvest reduces emissions the most. In general, the effects on net carbon emissions are highly correlated with the level of harvest. Increasing the area of set-asides and prohibiting old forest harvest help preserve old forest better than both business-as-usual and final felling age regulation. Longer-term results are uncertain as policies and technology development can radically change biomass use, product portfolios and displacement effects.

The agriculture sector can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing its own greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sequestering carbon in vegetation and soils, and providing biomass to substitute for fossil fuels and other GHG intensive products. The sector also needs to address water, soil, and biodiversity impacts caused by historic and current practices. Emerging EU policies create incentives for cultivation of perennial plants that provide biomass along with environmental benefits. One such option, common in northern Europe, is to include grass in rotations with annual crops to provide biomass while remediating soil organic carbon (SOC) losses and other environmental impacts. Here, we apply a spatially explicit model on >81,000 sub-watersheds in EU27+UK (Europe) to explore the effects of widespread deployment of such systems. Based on current accumulated SOC losses in individual sub-watersheds, the model identifies and quantifies suitable areas for increased grass cultivation and corresponding biomass- and protein supply, SOC sequestration, and reductions in nitrogen emissions to water as well as wind and water erosion. The model also provides information about possible flood mitigation. The results indicate a substantial climate mitigation potential, with combined annual GHG savings from soil-carbon sequestration and displacement of natural gas with biogas from grass-based biorefineries, equivalent to 13-48% of current GHG emissions from agriculture in Europe. The environmental co-benefits are also notable, in some cases exceeding the estimated mitigation needs. Yield increases for annual crops in modified rotations mitigate the displacement effect of increasing grass cultivation. If the grass is used as feedstock in lieu of annual crops, the displacement effect can be negative, i.e., a reduced need for annual crop production elsewhere. Incentivizing widespread deployment will require supportive policy measures as well as new uses of grass biomass, e.g.

Bioenergy aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to meeting global climate change mitigation targets. Nevertheless, several sustainability concerns are associated with bioenergy, especially related to the impacts of using land for dedicated energy crop production. Cultivating energy crops can result in synergies or trade-offs between GHG emission reductions and other sustainability effects depending on context-specific conditions. Using the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework, the main synergies and trade-offs associated with land use for dedicated energy crop production were identified. Furthermore, the context-specific conditions (i.e., biomass feedstock, previous land use, climate, soil type and agricultural management) which affect those synergies and trade-offs were also identified. The most recent literature was reviewed and a pairwise comparison between GHG emission reduction (SDG 13) and other SDGs was carried out. A total of 427 observations were classified as either synergy (170), trade-off (176), or no effect (81). Most synergies with environmentally-related SDGs, such as water quality and biodiversity conservation, were observed when perennial crops were produced on arable land, pasture or marginal land in the ‘cool temperate moist’ climate zone and ‘high activity clay’ soils. Most trade-offs were related to food security and water availability. Previous land use and feedstock type are more impactful in determining synergies and trade-offs than climatic zone and soil type. This study highlights the importance of considering context-specific conditions in evaluating synergies and trade-offs and their relevance for developing appropriate policies and practices to meet worldwide demand for bioenergy in a sustainable manner.

Bioenergy aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and contribute to meeting global climate change mitigation targets. Nevertheless, several sustainability concerns are associated with bioenergy, especially related to the impacts of using land for dedicated energy crop production. Cultivating energy crops can result in synergies or trade-offs between GHG emission reductions and other sustainability effects depending on context-specific conditions. Using the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework, the main synergies and trade-offs associated with land use for dedicated energy crop production were identified. Furthermore, the context-specific conditions (i.e., biomass feedstock, previous land use, climate, soil type and agricultural management) which affect those synergies and trade-offs were also identified. The most recent literature was reviewed and a pairwise comparison between GHG emission reduction (SDG 13) and other SDGs was carried out. A total of 427 observations were classified as either synergy (170), trade-off (176), or no effect (81). Most synergies with environmentally-related SDGs, such as water quality and biodiversity conservation, were observed when perennial crops were produced on arable land, pasture or marginal land in the ‘cool temperate moist’ climate zone and ‘high activity clay’ soils. Most trade-offs were related to food security and water availability. Previous land use and feedstock type are more impactful in determining synergies and trade-offs than climatic zone and soil type. This study highlights the importance of considering context-specific conditions in evaluating synergies and trade-offs and their relevance for developing appropriate policies and practices to meet worldwide demand for bioenergy in a sustainable manner.

Bioenergy can contribute to achieving European Union (EU) climate targets while mitigating impacts from current agricultural land use. A GIS-based modeling framework (1000 m resolution) is employed to match biomass supply (forest and agricultural residues, complemented by lignocellulosic energy crops where needed)with biomass demand for either electricity or bio-oil production on sites currently used for coal power in the EU-28, Norway, and Switzerland. The framework matches supply and demand based on minimizing the field-to-gate costs and is used to provide geographically explicit information on (i) plant-gate supply cost; (ii) CO2 savings;and (iii) potential mitigation opportunities for soil erosion, flooding, and eutrophication resulting from the introduction of energy crops on cropland. Converting all suitable coal power plants to biomass and assuming that biomass is sourced within a transport distance of 300 km, would produce an estimated 150 TW h biomass-derived electricity, using 1365 PJ biomass, including biomass from energy crops grown on 6 Mha. Using all existing coal power sites for bio-oil production in100-MW pyrolysis units could produce 820 PJ of bio-oil, using 1260 PJ biomass, including biomass from energy crops grown on 1.8 Mha. Using biomass to generate electricity would correspond to an emissions reduction of135 MtCO2, while using biomass to produce bio-oil to substitute for crude oil would correspond to a reduction of59 MtCO2. In addition, energy crops can have a positive effect on soil organic carbon in most of the analyzed countries. The mitigation opportunities investigated range from marginal to high depending on location.

Society faces the double challenge of increasing biomass production to meet the future demands for food, materials and bioenergy, while addressing negative impacts of current (and future) land use. In the discourse, land use change (LUC) has often been considered as negative, referring to impacts of deforestation and expansion of biomass plantations. However, strategic establishment of suitable perennial production systems in agricultural landscapes can mitigate environmental impacts of current crop production, while providing biomass for the bioeconomy. Here, we explore the potential for such “beneficial LUC” in EU28. First, we map and quantify the degree of accumulated soil organic carbon losses, soil loss by wind and water erosion, nitrogen emissions to water, and recurring floods, in ∼81.000 individual landscapes in EU28. We then estimate the effectiveness in mitigating these impacts through establishment of perennial plants, in each landscape. The results indicate that there is a substantial potential for effective impact mitigation. Depending on criteria selection, 10–46% of the land used for annual crop production in EU28 is located in landscapes that could be considered priority areas for beneficial LUC. These areas are scattered all over Europe, but there are notable “hot-spots” where priority areas are concentrated, e.g., large parts of Denmark, western UK, The Po valley in Italy, and the Danube basin. While some policy developments support beneficial LUC, implementation could benefit from attempts to realize synergies between different Sustainable Development Goals, e.g., “Zero hunger”, “Clean water and sanitation”, “Affordable and Clean Energy”, “Climate Action”, and “Life on Land”.

QCR 20190304Not duplicate with DiVA 1269038

Society faces the double challenge of addressing negative impacts of current land use, while increasing biomass production to meet the future demands for food, materials and bioenergy. Potential impacts of increasing the biomass supply are subject to debate. In the discourse, land use change (LUC) has often been considered as negative, referring to impacts of deforestation and cropland expansion. At the same time, LUC is considered necessary for mitigating impacts of existing land use. Strategic establishment of suitable crop cultivation systems in agricultural landscapes can mitigate environmental impacts of current crop production, while providing biomass for the bioeconomy. Here, we explore the potential for such “beneficial LUC” in EU28, based on high-resolution land use modeling. First, we map and quantify the degree of accumulated soil organic carbon losses, wind and water erosion, nitrogen emissions to water, and recurring flooding, in ~81.000 individual sub-watersheds in EU28. We then estimate the effectiveness in mitigating these impacts through establishment of perennial plants, in each sub-watershed. Finally, we identify areas where perennialization may be particularly beneficial from an environmental point of view. The results indicate that there is a substantial potential for effective mitigation, regarding all the assessed impacts. Depending on criteria selection, some 10-46% of the land used for annual crop production in EU28 is located in landscapes that could be considered priority areas for beneficial LUC. While some recent policy development is favorable for promoting beneficial LUC, the effectiveness could be increased by seeking synergies between climate change mitigation, energy security, and other societal goals. One way forward can be to identify and promote options for biomass production in the context of SDG implementation., Preprint in EarthArXiv, March 17, 2019