Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment Page 1/172

BIOCORE BIOCOmmodity REfinery

Grant agreement no.: FP7-241566 Duration: 01/03/2010 – 28/02/2014

Deliverable D1.3: Understanding the

agronomical and environmental impacts of alternative constraints on practically realisable production scenarios in the regions of interest

Environmental Impact assessment

Final report August, 2012 Contacts:

Solagro: S. DOUBLET

Solagro: C. BORDET – French case study

TERI: Reena Singh – Indian case studies

NOVA: Stephan Piotrowski – German case study

SZIE: Norbert Kohlheb – Hungarian case study Deliverable under revision by Michael O’Donohue

Content

1. General .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Background and objective ................................................................................................................. 4

1.1.1 The BIOCORE concept .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1.2 Environmental assessment within BIOCORE (LCA and EIA) ....................................................... 5 1.1.3 Scope and perimeter (from field to factory gate) ............................................................................. 6 1.1.4 Objective ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Elements of environmental impact assessment (EIA) ............................................................. 8 1.2.1 Introduction to EIA methodology (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for

sustainability benchmarking) .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2.2 Regulatory frameworks (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability

benchmarking) ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.3 The EIA procedure (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability

benchmarking) ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 EIA report (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability benchmarking) 9

1.3 Key environmental issues ................................................................................................................ 10 1.4 Structure of the report ...................................................................................................................... 10

2. Description of the case studies (selection process and overview) ........................... 11 2.1 Selection process ................................................................................................................................. 11

2.1.1 Hardwood (stem biomass) surplus and location in Europe (source: WP1-1 feedstock

provision and availability requirement) ........................................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 Straw surplus in Europe (source: WP1-1 feedstock provision and availability

requirement) ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 2.1.3 Biomass surplus in Europe (straw and hardwood) ...................................................................... 17 2.1.4 Straw (rice) production in North West of India ............................................................................. 18

2.2 General description ............................................................................................................................ 19 2.2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Feedstock and plant capacities .............................................................................................................. 21 2.2.3 Case studies – Summary ........................................................................................................................... 21

3. Methodology: EIA adapted to BIOCORE concept – Upstream processes & case

studies .................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Screening and scoping ....................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Screening ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 3.1.2 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................................ 23

3.2 Principles: proportionality and preventive actions ............................................................... 25 3.2.1 Principle of proportionality .................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2 Principle of preventive actions .............................................................................................................. 26

3.3 Impact assessment: methods and indicators ............................................................................ 27 3.3.1 Method ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 3.3.2 Criteria and indicators .............................................................................................................................. 28

3.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 33 3.5 Specific tools and data collection .................................................................................................. 34

3.5.1 Data collection tool (DCT) ....................................................................................................................... 34

3.5.2 GHG and energy calculator ...................................................................................................................... 35

4. Case studies analysis: state of environment – impacts – mitigation measures .... 37 4.1 French case study ................................................................................................................................ 37

4.1.1 Case study description: current situation ......................................................................................... 37 4.1.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: case study leader) ................................. 40 4.1.3 Feedstock ........................................................................................................................................................ 41 4.1.4 Logistic from field to factory gate ......................................................................................................... 44 4.1.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern ............................................ 46 4.1.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation ....................................... 57 4.1.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures ........................................ 67

4.1 Hungarian case study ......................................................................................................................... 69 4.1.1 Case study description: current situation ......................................................................................... 69 4.1.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: case study leader) ................................. 72 4.1.3 Feedstock (current and future) ............................................................................................................. 73 4.1.4 Logistic from field to factory gate ......................................................................................................... 77 4.1.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern ............................................ 79 4.1.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation ....................................... 82 4.1.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures ........................................ 90

4.2 German case study .............................................................................................................................. 91 4.2.1 Case study description: current situation ......................................................................................... 91 4.2.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: NOVA) ........................................................ 92 4.2.3 Feedstock ........................................................................................................................................................ 93 4.2.4 Logistic from forest to factory gate ...................................................................................................... 97 4.2.5 Linkage between state of environment and forest pattern ....................................................... 98 4.2.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation 150 kt .....................104 4.2.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures ......................................108

4.3 Indian case studies: Sangrur and Faridkot ............................................................................. 110 4.3.1 Current straw management in the Rice-Wheat Systems (RWS) ...........................................110 4.3.2 Indian case study-1: Sangrur ................................................................................................................113 4.3.3 Indian case study-2: Faridkot ..............................................................................................................137

5. Final conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................ 156

1. General

1.1 Background and objective 1.1.1 The BIOCORE concept

Today, concerns linked to climate change and Europe’s excessive dependency on fossil resources, are providing the necessary impetus for Society’s transition towards a new economy that will use biomass as its primary source of carbon and energy. In this respect, biomass is completely unique, because it is the only naturally renewable energy source that can also supply carbon for the production of the chemicals and products that are vital for our daily life. The European project BIOCORE will conceive and analyse the industrial feasibility of a bio-refinery that will allow the conversion of a variety of non-food biomass, including cereal by-products (straws etc), forestry residues and short rotation woody crops, into 2nd generation biofuel, chemicals and polymers. The first challenge for BIOCORE will be to show how a bio-refinery can use a mixed biomass feedstock. To do this, analyses will be performed in order to establish how a bio-refinery can be stably supplied with a mixture of cereal by-products (straws etc), forestry residues (or forestry products) and short rotation woody crops. Several scenarios will be generated that will take into account harvest seasonality, transport and storage for biorefineries located in different regions of Europe and India. From a technical point of view, BIOCORE will develop and optimize processes that will allow maximum use of the biomass resource. The first step will involve the extraction of each of the principle biomass components (cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignins). To achieve this, patented technology, which uses organic solvents to solubilize the lignin components, will be employed. Afterwards, BIOCORE will combine the development of biotechnologies and chemical processes in order to create smart transformation itineraries that will allow the production of 2nd generation biofuel, resins, polymers (and their intermediates), surfactants and food/feed ingredients. In BIOCORE, the biomass feedstock will be used as a source of energetic molecules, but special emphasis will be placed on the use of biomass as a source of renewable carbon for the manufacture of chemicals that will substitute for petrochemicals. The ultimate aim of BIOCORE is to supply a range of products for a series of very different markets. Notably, through the production of a series of polymer building blocks, BIOCORE will cover 70% of the polymer families that constitute the current world plastics market. Through pilot scale testing of certain technologies, BIOCORE will be able to demonstrate the industrial feasibility of biorefining in conditions that are close to the market. Pilot tested processes will be modeled and optimized both from technical and economic standpoints in order to demonstrate the pertinence of a certain number of value chains. From a sustainability point of view, BIOCORE will implement multicriteria sustainability studies of the overall concept, which will aim to demonstrate the impacts of BIOCORE with respect to the environment and society. Among the numerous criteria, analyses will account for water use and soil fertility, land use, biodiversity, GHG emissions etc.

Figure 1: A schematic view of BIOCORE

1.1.2 Environmental assessment within BIOCORE (LCA and EIA)

Environmental assessment is a part of the sustainability assessment of the BIOCORE concept. The sustainability assessment within BIOCORE (Fig.2) is mainly carried out by WP 7 (Integrated assessment of overall sustainability), but to some extent also in WP 1 (Biomass production). All three pillars of sustainability (economy, society, environment) shall be analysed, using variety of techniques.

Figure 2: Sustainability assessment in BIOCORE: The concept of life cycle assessment (LCA).

Responsibilities of WP 1 and WP 7.

For environmental assessment two approaches had been used within BIOCORE: environmental life cycle assessment (eLCA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA). The eLCA analysis (lead by WP 7) takes into account the entire life cycle of a “BIOCRORE product” (e.g.: 1 kg of ethanol) from the “cradle” (=biomass cultivation) to the “grave” (e.g. end-of-life treatment) of the biomass. The eLCA results assess the environmental impact of a product. The EIA approach (lead by WP1 and WP7) is a methodology for the assessment of local, site specific, environmental impact of a project (e.g.: a bio-refinery plant). An EIA is carried out before the implementation of construction projects. It serves primarily as a decision support for project management and authorities which have to decide on approval.

1.1.3 Scope and perimeter (from field to factory gate)

The BIOCORE system is a lignocellulose-based bio-refinery system. The key element of the system is the organosolv process for biomass fractionation. The process fractionates biomass into lignin, C5 sugars and cellulose. These fractions can then be separated and further processed. The BIOCORE system is divided into three parts: Upstream processes, biorefinery, and downstream processes (see figure below). The objective of the report is to analyze environmental and agronomical impacts of the upstream processes of the BIOCORE system. Upstream processes included:

• biomass production, • biomass harvest, • transport and pre-treatment (before factory gate)

The analysis of environmental impacts of the factory (“Biocore Biorefinery” – or Bio-Refinery Plant or BRP - on figure below), will be done by WP7 partners (task 7.2: Environmental assessment)

Figure 3: Elements of the BIOCORE system and environmental assessment perimeters

This study is based on five case studies, on which various scenarios were made. Each case study is define by a plant capacity and mix of feedstock. Three case studies are located in Europe (French, Germany, Hungary) and two are located in India.

1.1.4 Objective

According to the Biocore DoW (description of work), the overall objective is to evaluate the impact of the LC (lingo-cellulosic) biomass production and/or removal on organic matter soil stock, biodiversity, energy and carbon balance (GHG emissions), water use and water quality, soil erosion and compaction, and landscape.

WP1

Task 1.2

WP7

Task 7.2

Perimeters of environmental assessment, for a Biocore

project

1.2 Elements of environmental impact assessment (EI A) 1.2.1 Introduction to EIA methodology (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for

sustainability benchmarking)

The environmental impact of a planed project depend of both the nature / specification of the project and on the specific qu ality of the environment at a certain geographic location . Thus the same project probably entails different environmental impacts at two different locations. EIA is therefore usually conducted at a site-specific / local level. These environmental impacts are compared to a situation without the project being implemented (“no-alternative action ”).

1.2.2 Regulatory frameworks (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability benchmarking)

As the BIOCORE project covers case studies both in the European Union and in India regulatory framework regarding EIA are listed for the EU an India. Within the European Union, it is mandatory to carry out an EIA for large projects according to the following legal acts:

• Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (“EIA Directive” amended by Directive 97/11/EC , Directive 2003/35/EC and Directive 2009/31/EC)

• Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997/CEU 1997/ (widened the scope, strengthened the procedural stages and integrated the changes provided by the UN/ECE Espoo Convention on EIA in a transboundary context)

• Directive 2003/35/EC of May 2003 /EP & CEU 2003/ (to align the provisions on public participation with the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and Access to Justice in environmental matters)

• Directive 2009/31/EC of 23 April 2009 /EP & CEU 2009/ (on the geological storage of carbon dioxide)

In India, the concept of environmental protection and resource management has traditionally been given strong emphasis. EIA was introduced 1994 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) by the:

• Environment Impact Assessment Notification S.O. 60 (E) / MOEF 1994/ amended by the:

o Environment (Protection) Act Notification (2004) – regarding new towns and industrial estaes S.O. 801 (E) / MOEF 2004/

o Environmental Impact Assessment Notification (2006) S.O. 1533/MOEF2006/

In this study, we followed the recommendations of the Directive 85/337/EEC and have adapted to the context of the project BIOCORE (work based on simulations, distribution of tasks between WP1 and WP7). According to this Directive, an EIA covers direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:

• Human beings, fauna and flora and biodiversity • Soil, water, air, climate and landscape • Material assets and cultural heritage • The interaction between these factors

EIA of the upstream processes of BIOCORE (from field to factory gate), analyze a portion of these factors, directly linked to biomass production (see details in following chapters): soil, water, air, biodiversity, climate and fossil resource consumption (including fossil fuel and phosphorus).

1.2.3 The EIA procedure (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability benchmarking)

An EIA generally includes the following steps (both in India and Europe):

• Screening : to find out whether a project requires an EIA or not; • Scoping : to determine what should be the coverage or scope of the EIA study

for a project as having potentially significant impacts. It help in developing and selecting alternatives to the proposed action and in identifying the issues to be considered in a EIA;

• EIA report (see details below); • Monitoring and auditing measures (post-EIA procedures not included in this

study).

1.2.4 EIA report (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability benchmarking)

An EIA report consist of the following three parts:

• A project description : consideration of alternatives as well as a description of the status and trends of relevant environmental factors against which predicted changes can be compared and evaluated in terms of importance.

• An impact prediction : a description of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from

o The construction / installation of the project (temporary impacts expected) o The existence of the project (durable impacts expected) o The operation phase of the project (durable impacts expected)

• Mitigation measures are recommended actions to reduce, avoid or offset the potential adverse environmental consequences of the development activities. The objectives of mitigation measures are to maximize project benefits and minimize undesirable impacts.

Note: Impact prediction should be based one the available environmental project data. Such predictions are described in quantitative or qualitative terms considering: quality of impact, magnitude of impact, extent of impact and duration of impact.

1.3 Key environmental issues The upstream processes include :

o Biomass production: this biomass can be residual (e.g.: cereal straw) or dedicated (e.g.: niche crops, short rotation coppices, stem wood)

o Biomass pre-treatment (including storage) o Biomass transportation

The key environmental issues linked to biomass production/removal are: o Impacts (positive or negative) of crop residues (straw or stalk) removal on

selected environmental components o Impacts (positive or negative) of dedicated crops implementation/harvesting on

selected environmental components o Impacts (positive or negative) of stem wood production/harvesting on selected

environmental components o Impacts (positive or negative) of biomass transportation o Impact (positive or negative) of biomass pre-treatment (and storage)

These impacts have to be considered in comparison with:

• the current situation (2010-2015) or the “no-alternative action ” (without BRP); • the future situation (2025): without BRP but taking into account the forest and

agriculture trends.

1.4 Structure of the report In the present study, EIA approach has been adapted to BIOCORE project (upstream processes) and the specification of task 1.2. Thus the report is divided for main chapters:

o Description of the methodology developed for task 1.2. This chapter describes the selected environmental themes and indicators, the impact assessment method and specific tools developed (or used).

o Overall description of the 5 cases studies (3 in European Union and 2 in India). This chapter includes selection process, location and feedstock

o Case study analysis. For each case study, following points are described: o Area description o Feedstock logistic from field to factory gate o State of environment o Scenario description o Environmental impacts o Conclusions

� Environmental impacts � Mitigation measures and cumulative effects

o General conclusions and recommendations for the BIOCORE project

2. Description of the case studies (selection process and overview)

2.1 Selection process 2.1.1 Hardwood (stem biomass) surplus and location in Europe (source: WP1-1

feedstock provision and availability requirement)

2.1.1.1 Definition and method

Hardwood (i.e. deciduous) has been identified as one of the most potential biomass feedstock for the BIOCORE bio-refinery concept, especially in Europe. The growing stock in forests suitable for forestry was ca. 25 billion m3 in EU- 27 in 2005 (FAO 2006). The amount of forest resources has been increasing in Europe for decades with an annual surplus of over 200 million m3 (Asikainen et al. 2008). Mantau et al. (2008) have identified that the annual wood biomass supply is ca. 800 million m3 in Europe. These rough estimates include both hardwood and softwood reserves. The hardwood biomass reserves can be divided into stem wood and forestry residue fractions. For BIOCORE, a statistical approach was adopted in the assessment of technical availability of hardwood stem biomass resources (with at least 5 cm diameter) in Europe. Hardwood stem biomass surplus was estimated first on country by country level. It was assumed that the annual surplus of hardwood represents a theoretical maximum of possibility for harvests. The country specific surplus was calculated as

surplus = (increments – fellings) · hardwood

• Where : o surplus = annual country specific surplus of hardwood o increments = annual country specific increments of all wood in forests o suitable for forestry (excluding protected areas) o fellings = annual country specific fellings of all wood in forests o hardwood = share of hardwood in the growing stock

This approach does not consider technical, ecological or economic constraints and can be considered as an estimate on the theoretical maximum of the potential of annual hardwood biomass harvests. The estimated annual European country specific surplus of hardwood was next distributed geographically inside the studied countries. First the country specific surplus was divided with the total land area of the country in order to transform the surplus relative to land area (t,hardwooddry matter/km2). As a second step, the geographical distribution of hardwood surplus was weighted based on the spatial land coverage of hardwood forests inside European countries.

2.1.1.2 Results: stem wood surplus and location

a ) Hardwood surplus (kt/country) According to the results, Russian Federation, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, and Turkey have the largest surplus hardwood reserves in Europe. This result, however, does not reflect how densely the hardwood surplus is divided spatially. The result emphasizes large European countries while hardwood could be available to supply bio-refinery (or any other end user) from shorter distance in a small country.

Figure 4: Hardwood surplus per country (source: Biocore project)

b ) Hardwood surplus density (t/km 2) The density of surplus hardwood availability is high in Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Croatia, France, Romania and Poland. The theoretical maximum of surplus hardwood is above 300 000 tdry mass when calculated per 100 km collection radius in these countries. Some large countries with high hardwood surplus, e.g. Turkey, Ukraine and the Russian Federation, do not seem to have high density of hardwood reserves according to this approach. The hardwood reserves are densely concentrated on a smaller area suitable for wood supply for bio-refinery or any other end user. Thus regions with potentially high hardwood surplus have been identified, e.g. area from Eastern France to South-West Germany, Northern and Central Italy, forests in Balkan countries and a forested belt through Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria. Many of these identified areas are mountainous regions, which brings in the need to assess qualitatively the main delimitations regarding the possibility to utilize these reserves.

Figure 5: Map of hardwood surplus in Europe (source: Biocore project)

2.1.2 Straw surplus in Europe (source: WP1-1 feedstock provision and availability requirement)

2.1.2.1 Definition and method

The objective is to identify a few European regions with the biggest surplus of cereal straw (mainly wheat barley and maize). The surplus (straw potential available for a refinery project) has been defined as the difference between a quantity of straw and existing uses; taking into account parameters of sustainability. The straw potential is obtained by:

• Firstly, estimate an average straw production per year (harvestable straw) • Secondly, estimate competitive uses for the available straw:

o Straw for litter (or bedding) o Straw for energy

• Thirdly, estimate a potential of removable straw by deducting from the quantity of harvestable straw, the identified competitive uses (SL and SE), and apply a coefficient of sustainability (in order to maintain the soil carbon balance).

A statistical data (mainly from EUROSTAT) approach has been used to determine all theses parameters at regional level (NUTS2)

RS = HS X A – SL X (1 – B) - SE

Where:

• RS: removable straw • HS: harvestable straw • SL: straw for litter (bedding) • SE: straw for energy • A: coefficient of sustainability (to maintain the soil carbon balance) • B: % of manure back to cereal plot

2.1.2.2 Results: removal straw and location

The potential of removable straw in Europe (EU-27; Ukraine; Balkan countries) is 33 million tons of dry matter without maize and 47 million tons of dry matter with maize. Three countries represent 45% of the removal straw: France, Ukraine and Germany

Figure 6: Annual quantity of removal straw (millions tons of dry matter) per country (EU-27; Ukraine;

Balkan countries) - (source: Biocore project)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

FRANCE

Ukr

ain

Ger

man

y

Italy

Hun

gary

Roman

ia

Poland

Spain

UK

Serb

ia and

Mon

tene

gro

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Den

mar

k

Bulga

ria

Aus

tria

Gre

ece

Slova

quia

Swed

en

Cro

atia

Litu

ania

Finlan

d

Belgium

Bos

nia an

d Her

zego

vina

Latv

ia

Portug

ual

Esto

nia

Slove

nia

Net

herlan

ds

Alba

nia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Cyp

rus

Irelan

d

MaltA

Re

mo

va

l S

tra

w (

mil

lio

n t

on

s d

ry m

att

er)

Potent ia l of Rem oval St raw in Europe

RS-with maize

RS-without maize

The map below presents potentials (expressed in density) of removable straw (without maize) at regional level for European countries (EU-27; Ukraine; Balkan countries). The most interesting areas (high potentials of biomass removal and large area) are located in the central part of Europe, mainly in France (middle and Northern region), Germany, Poland (Northern region) and Hungary.

Figure 7: Map of annual quantity of removal straw from cereal without maize (density – dry tn/km2) at regional level (NUTS2) for European countries (EU-27; Ukraine; Balkan countries) - (source: Biocore

project)

2.1.3 Biomass surplus in Europe (straw and hardwood)

The map, below, presents the excess wood and straw (expressed as density). Areas where densities are low, have been deliberately left blank. This map shows (unsurprisingly) that there are few regions in Europe where both resources are present (with high densities). This analysis brings up mixed areas where wood and straw are present with medium densities. The entire issues of the BIOCORE concept is to work as well in mixed areas than in areas where resource dominates.

Figure 8: Map of annual quantity of removal straw from cereal without maize (density – dry tn/km2) at

regional level (NUTS2) and hardwood surplus for European countries (EU-27; Ukraine; Balkan countries)

2.1.4 Straw (rice) production in North West of India

The rice-wheat cropping system (RWS) occupies about 10 million ha in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India and has contributed to an impressive increase in per capita production in the irrigated areas. Traditionally, wheat and rice straws have been removed from the fields for use as cattle feed and for several other purposes such as livestock bedding, thatching material for houses, and fuel. Recently, because of the advent of mechanized harvesting, farmers prefer to burn large quantities of crop residues (90%) left in the field in situ as these interfere with tillage and seeding operations for the next crop (see detailed explanations in following chapters). The parameters Crop Residue Ratio, Crop Yield, Surplus factor have been assessed for projecting the availability of feedstock. Normalized Biomass Production Index (NBPI) is a factor computed at District level for Biomass Surplus Production. The green color in the image indicates a region of high Biomass availability where as the red end of the color spread indicates lowest biomass availability in each district. Rice Straw accounts for more than 60% of residue available as surplus

Figure 9: Biomass surplus production in Punjab and Haryana

2.2 General description 2.2.1 Location

2.2.1.1 European case studies

Three European case studies are located in Germany, Hungary and France

Figure 10: European case studies location

2.2.1.2 Indian case studies

The case study regions in India were identified as state of Punjab based on Biomass Atlas of India taking biomass availability per unit area (110 tons/year/km2) as a key parameter. The case study region is highlighted in the national map are being shown below. Moreover, the prior knowledge of high productivity, availability of large amount of crop residues and maximum utilization of land has qualified Punjab as the potential target state for the assessment study.

Figure 11: Indian case studies location

Punjab is one of the major rice-wheat growing states of the Indo-Gangetic plains of India; with Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal). The majority of lands under rice-wheat cropping system are concentrated in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh. The hindrances of agricultural productivities in Punjab are being lessened by application of modern agricultural techniques with the blessings of fertile land and river resources. Man made canals have been dug to reach the remote areas of Punjab, and intensive agriculture has made them leading agricultural state in the region and feeding almost half of the country. The major agricultural products in the region comprise wheat, maize, rice, and bajra. Among all these rice and wheat paramount the entire crop plantation in the Kharif–Rabi season. Two Punjab counties, had been selected for an environmental assessment:

• Sangrur ; • Faridkot.

2.2.2 Feedstock and plant capacities

In Europe, the three case studies using three different mix of raw material for the same capacity of refinery (150 k tons of dry matter):

• Germany (Mid-West) : mainly hardwood and softwood as secondary feedstock • France (Center) : mainly straw from wheat and barley and niche crops

(Miscanthus) as secondary feedstock • Hungary (South-West) : wheat and maize straw and, short rotation coppice

(SRC poplar) and hardwood as secondary feedstock For the Indian case studies, crop residues used are rice and wheat straw. Two plant capacities will be analyzed 150 k tons of dry matter (Sangur and Faridkot ) and 500 k tons of dry matter (Sangur ).

2.2.3 Case studies – Summary

Table below presents main data for the five selected case studies.

Tableau 1: Summary of the regional case studies

PROPERTY FRANCE GERMANY HUNGARY INDIA 1 INDIA 2

LOCATION Center (Beauce)

Mid-West South-West

Sangur Faridkot

MAIN FEDDSTOCK

Wheat/barley straw

Hardwood Wheat/barley/maize

straw

Rice straw

Rice straw

OTHER FEEDSTOCK

Miscanthus Softwood SRC poplar

Hardwood

Wheat straw

Wheat straw

CAPACITY (k tons of dry matter)

150 150 150 150 & 500

150

It is noteworthy that the above regions do not necessarily serve as examples on the best locations although they should give different cases suitable for the modeling purposes in the project (selected areas have a large surplus of raw material). Thus, it should become possible to study different obstacles in setting up and running bio-refineries in environments that differ from each other in many important ways.

3. Methodology: EIA adapted to BIOCORE concept – Upstream processes & case studies

3.1 Screening and scoping 3.1.1 Screening

The most important item within the “Upstream processes”, is the biomass production. And according to the BIOCORE project, biomass is mainly, crop residues or forest wood; and for a minor part, dedicated (annual) crops or SRC (poplar). According to article 4 (1) and annex 1 (6) of the EIA Directive (85/377 EC), an EIA is mandatory for “Integrated chemical installations, i.e. those installations for the manufacture on an industrial scale of substances using chemical conversion processes, in which several units are juxtaposed and are functionally linked to one another and which are(i) “for the production of basic organic chemicals”. This article (and annex) refers to BIOCORE installation. Upstream processes are not clearly mentioned in article 4 (1). Some points of the annex 1 could be linked (indirectly) to the "upstream processes": like “Ground water abstraction” (annex 1-11):

• “Groundwater abstraction or artificial groundwater recharge schemes where the annual volume of water abstracted or recharged is equivalent to or exceeds 10 million cubic meters (e.g.: 4,000 ha of dedicated crop, requiring 2,500 m3/ha of irrigation, for biomass supply)

According to article 4 (2) and annex 2 “Member States shall determine through (a) a case-by-case examination; or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment. Agriculture and silviculture projects are listed in the annex 2, and some of them could be linked to our “Upstream processes”:

• Projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes;

• Water management projects for agriculture, including irrigation and land drainage projects;

• Initial afforestation and deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use;

• Groundwater abstraction and artificial groundwater recharge schemes (not included in Annex 2).

To conclude, an EIA is not mandatory for biomass production on cultivated land, but a EU Member State could decide to do it if biomass supply can have possible impacts on:

• uncultivated and semi-natural areas (e.g. using marginal land for SRC implementation)

• water abstraction (e.g. replace wheat by corn, or SRC implementation, for biomass supply)

• direct land use changes (deforestation or afforestation, SRC implementation, energy crops, …)

3.1.2 Scoping

The scoping is helpful to determine what should be covered in EIA of the “upstream processes”. From field/forest to factory gate several steps and inputs are required:

• Step 1 – biomass production (crop residues, whole crops, SRC): o Inputs: water (irrigation and flooded crops), pesticides, fertilizers, fossil

energy, tractor • Step 2 – biomass collection (crop residues, whole crops, SRC and stem wood):

o Inputs: fossil energy, tractor, straw-baler, skidder • Step 3 – biomass transportation:

o Input: fossil energy and trucks • Step 4 – biomass storage and pre-treatment:

o Inputs: fossil energy According to the steps and inputs described above, environmental factors had been selected among those listed by EIA Directive. They are linked to biomass production or management. The selected factors focused on the potential impact of biomass production or management, on three environmental components: water, soil, air, biodiversity, fossil resources consumption and direct land use changes:

• Water (surface water and ground water) o Water quality: pesticides and fertilizers issues o Water quantity: irrigation

• Soil: o Erosion o Compaction o Soil carbon (organic matter) o Soil biodiversity

• Air: o Acidification (ammonia emissions)

� NH3 emission due to use of fertilizers o Greenhouse effect (GHG emission):

� N2O and nitrogen cycle (use of fertilizer, mineralization of crop residues)

� CO2 and use of fossil fuel � CH4 from flooded area (rice production only)

o Particles (fine dust emission) � Trace gases emissions due to open field burning of crop residues

• Biodiversity: o Flora and fauna

• Fossil resources: o Fossil energy o Phosphorus

• Direct land use changes

Those factors are common to all case studies. Table below presents selected environmental factors and links with the four identified steps from field/forest to factory gate. For each step, main inputs have been identified and linked to environmental issues.

Tableau 2: Selected environmental factors for EIA of the “upstream processes” and links with main inputs used

BIOCORE upstream

process steps

Biomass production Biomass removal

Transport Storage&

Treatment

Main Inputs/

Impacted Environmental factors

Use of pesticides

Use of fertilizers

Water intake

Fossil energy

Soil tillage

Passage

of a tractor

Fossil energy

&

Burning

Fossil energy

Fossil energy

Surface water quality

X X

Ground water quality

X X

Water quantity X Soil - erosion X X Soil – compaction

X X X

Soil carbon X X Soil biodiversity

X X X X

Air - acidification

X X

Air - GHG X X X X X X Air – Particule matter

X X

Flora – fauna X X X X X Resource X X X X X

In addition to those factors, and depending on case study specificities (feedstock, local environmental priorities), other factors will be added:

• German and Hungarian case studies: impact of stem wood removal on forest biodiversity, climate change and nutrient cycle in forest ecosystem;

• Indian case studies: impact of straw burning on soil (heat effect) and air quality (human health effect);

• Hungarian and French case studies: land use change effect (implementation of SRC or niche crops instead of food crops).

3.2 Principles: proportionality and preventive acti ons 3.2.1 Principle of proportionality

The principle of proportionality makes a link between local state of environment and a project. In this report, principle of proportionality gives two guidelines for our methodology. The local state of environment can be define firstly as the “no-action situation” and secondly like the local environmental priorities. The “no-action situation ” is, for a given case study, the reference scenario. It describes the current agricultural (or silvicultural) sector without a BRP:

• Agronomic issues: o Crop pattern o Agricultural practices (crop protection, nutrition, irrigation, soil tillage) o Share of organic farming o Fate of residues o …

• Social and economic issues (farm size, commodities prices, …)

The local environmental priorities define the most important issues linking state of environment and agricultural (or forestry) activities. It could be either to preserve or to improve the state of a natural component. Preservation of a natural component includes:

• Preserve rare habitats or endangered species (e.g. Natura 2000 area) • Maintain a good ecological status of a water body (according to the Water

Framework Directive) • Maintain a high level of soil organic matter

Improve the state of environment, included:

• Reduce nitrate (or pesticide) concentration in water • Increase level of soil organic matter • Reduce soil compaction • Reduce GHG emission from agricultural sector • Reduce fine dust emission from agricultural sector • Increase biodiversity in rural area • …

Case study leaders defined the current and local environmental priorities. It can be done with their own expertise, or base on local stakeholder board.

3.2.2 Principle of preventive actions

The principle of preventive action refers to EU policy on the environment "shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay”. In this study, the principle of preventive action was applied, both in the design of the project BIOCORE and in the process of selecting areas of case studies. In the project design BIOCORE, the main raw material must be of biomass from crop residues and / or forest residues . The eventual cultivation of land to produce biomass, have to be done (initially) on marginal lands (currently non-cultivated). These two principles should guarantee the non-food competition after implantation of a bio-refinery. Therefore the change in land use (direct or indirect) must be minimal (or no) and associated environmental effects very low. The selection of study areas, is also the principle of preventive action. Initially, the case studies were chosen for their high potential for biomass production today (as crop residues and / or forestry products). In a second step, the case studies were chosen for their complementary (different type of raw material). The biomass produced today on selected areas, is well above the needs of a bio-refinery. "Biomass produced" does not mean “biomass available”, but in selected areas, are expected to be significant scope for adaptation, and thus to minimize impacts on environment:

• Low impact on soil carbon content (level of crop residues exportation) • Low transportation effect (high biomass density areas) • Low cumulative effects (enough biomass for different uses)

Application of the principle of prevention minimize s impacts, taking into account the situation today . But another goal of this impact study, is to see if in 2025 (based on a scenario built by case study leaders) the situation will be more favorable or less favorable than today (new crop patterns, other constraints, …).

3.3 Impact assessment: methods and indicators 3.3.1 Method

The Impact Assessment is based on a combination of four phases of a case study. The first phase is the state of environment of the case study. It is useful to have a vision of the environmental situation on various theme. It helps to determine which are the main current environmental issues and what will be the priorities for each case study. The second phase used is the current pressures and impact of agricultural practices on environment. The starting point is a description of current agricultural practices, forest management and land uses. At this step, environmental impacts of agricultural or forestry practices (without the bio-refinery project) can be observed by crossing data from the State of environment and current practices. This phase, describing the agricultural and forestry practices, is the basis for defining the evolution of agriculture and forestry, and to make a scenario for 2025. This “scenario 2025 ” must take into account the trends impacting the development of agriculture and / or forestry sectors (without bio-refinery implementation). These trends can be linked to:

• Agriculture policies (e.g. CAP reform; ecological focus areas,…) • Social demands (e.g. organic farming, GMO, …) • Environmental policies (e.g. reduction of pesticides pressures, …)

In the third phase, it is assumed that biomass removal or production for a bio-refinery would have extra impacts on the environment. The “Biocore situation” , with a bio-refinery plant, is described in the same terms as the current situation and the “scenario 2025”: agricultural practices, forest management, land use. At the end, additional impacts of biomass production and/or removal linked to the bio-refinery can be evaluated by comparing the “current situation”, “scenario 2025”, and the “Biocore situation” in a given environmental context (see figure below) .

Figure 12: Methodological approach

3.3.2 Criteria and indicators

3.3.2.1 State of environment

The baseline describes the state of the environment today. Among the environmental criteria, were selected those linking farming (or forestry) practices and the state of the environment . For each criterion, 1-3 indicators were defined to describe the state of the environment. The table below presents criteria and indicators helpful to describe and link agriculture (and forestry) practices and state of environment.

Tableau 3: Criteria and indicators to describe the current state of the environment in connection with agriculture and/or forest pattern

Criteria Indicators

Water scarcity

balance between source and demand

Suitability of lowest water level with the

needs

% of water bodies in

Good ecological

status

Water Salinization Salinity of water

Water quality

Nitrates Nitrates

concentration in ground water

Nitrates concentration in surface water

% Vulnerable zone in area

Water quality

Pesticides Pesticide

concentration in ground water

Pesticide concentration in surface water

Soil

Preserve or increase stock of

SOM

State and evolution of the soil organic

matter rate

Potential to lose soil organic carbon

Soil Preserve or increase soil biodiversity

Level of threats on soil biodiversity

Soil Erosion/run

off Level of erosion

hazard

Soil Compaction Sensitivity to soil

compaction

Soil Salinisation Sensitivity to soil

salinisation Air Acidification NH3 emission

Air GHG GHG emission

Air Dust Fine dust emission

Biodiversity

Rare biodiversity

% of Natura 2000 area and other protected areas

Farmland in Natura 2000

Presence of rare species

Biodiversity

Other biodiversity

% of landscape elements

type of landscape element (grassy strips,

hedgerows, …)

% of natural grassland in

the UAA HNV

Fossil resource depletion

Direct energy

Fossil energy consumption

Fossil resource depletion

Indirect energy

Fossil energy consumption

For European case studies, most of these indicators are linked to the current (or on going) environmental policies (current or future):

• “Nitrates” Directive • Water Framework Directive • “Pesticides” Directive • Soil Thematic strategy • “Habitats” and “birds” Directives • EU climate an energy package • Roadmap for moving to a low-carbon economy in 2050.

Moreover, for each case study, two environmental issues will be identified as priorities. These priorities (defined by the case study leader) will be used to focus the EIA. These priorities must be linked (directly or indirectly) to agricultural practices and / or forestry.

3.3.2.2 Impact assessment

Impact assessment is based on the comparison of two scenarios defining practices (and pressures) with or without bio-refinery implementation. Criteria and indicators were defined to describe the pressures (current or scenario 2025) of farming practices and forest management on the environment and additional pressures linked to bio-refinery impleme ntation .

Tableau 4: Criteria and indicators to describe pressure of farming practices and forest management on environment

Criteria Indicators

Water Water scarcity % of irrigated areas Irrigation (m3/ha) Water quality

Nitrates Nitrogen pressure (kgN/ha)

Nitrogen balance (kgN/ha)

Risk of nitrate

leaching

Pesticides Pesticides pressure (nb of treatments /ha )

Soil Preserve or

increase stock of SOM

Soil carbon balance

Preserve or increase soil biodiversity

Level of soil disturbance (tillage, pesticides, …)

Threats to soil biodiversity (Atlas of

biodiversity)

Erosion/run off Soil cover rate Slope

Compaction Soil tillage intensity Duration of submersion

Salinisation Salinity of water Irrigation rate Air Acidification NH3 emissions

GHG N2O emissions CO2 emissions CH4 emissions

Dust Landscape Biodiversity

Crop diversity (cover crop included)

Pesticides pressure (nb of treatments /ha)

Resources Direct energy Fuel for machineries

Indirect energy Phosphorus and potash consumption Machineries

Tableau 5: Criteria and indicators to describe additional pressures (of farming practices and forest management) linked to biomass removal or production (dedicated crops or SCR)

Criteria Indicators

Water Water

scarcity Need of additional water Water quality

Nitrates Need of additional nitrogen*

Reduction/increase of nitrate leaching

Pesticides Need of additional pesticides

Soil

Preserve or increase stock of

SOM

Changes in soil carbon balance

Preserve or increase soil biodiversity

Increase of soil disturbance

Erosion/run

off Reduction/increase of soil

cover

Reduction/increase of surface layer

stability

Compaction Increase of machinery passages

Salinisation

Air Acidification Modification of NH3

emission rate

GHG Modification of N2O emission rate

Modification of CO2 emission rate

Modification of CH4 emission

rate

Landscape SRC only Parcel size coherent with landscape scale

Coherence and integration into the

local landscape (visibility, % of forest

area)

Biodiversity Mainly SRC Modification of Crop diversity (cover crop

included)

Modification of Pesticides pressure

(nb of treatments /ha )

Resources Direct energy Energy needs for biomass removal

Energy needs for biomass pre-

treatment

Indirect energy Need of additional inputs

*nutrient supply: By default, the nutrients (N, P, K) contained in crop residues exported (straw, corn stover) are compensated (100%) by mineral fertilizers. For SRC, only 25% of the phosphorus and potassium content in the aerial parts exported are offset by mineral contributions. The selected values are presented in the table below

Tableau 6: N, P, K content in crop residues

Selected values

N P2O5 K2O

Wheat straw 5,7 2,8 15,5

Barley straw 6,4 2,9 20,7

Maize stover 10,2 2,3 20,7

Wheat (grain, as competing crop) 22,7 9,0 6,6

Maize (grain, as competing crop) 17,9 8,6 5,2

Rice straw 5,9 2,0 16,9

Poplar (SRC) 7,7 2,4 4,4

Miscanthus 2,6 1,1 6,1

3.4 Conclusion The conclusion summarizes the main environmental impacts, and analyzes them by considering potential cumulative effects. The conclusion also lists the actions mitigating the negative effects, and proposes a series of recommendations for the establishment of a bio-refinery. If needed, the conclusion shows a series of physical and / or environmental limitations linked with the implementation of the factory (now or in the near future).

3.5 Specific tools and data collection 3.5.1 Data collection tool (DCT)

A specific tool was designed to collect data of the five case studies in the same way. The DCT is an Excel file with 15 worksheets :

• “story line”: • qualitative description of the current situation (agriculture and/or forest patterns) • qualitative description of the future situation (trends for 2025) • quantitative description of the available feedstock (2015 and 2025) • “description of the case study area”: • general information • current land use • “status of environment”: • qualitative description (short) of the local environmental priorities • quantitative environmental data (flora and fauna, soil, water scarcity, water

quality, climate, air, landscape, biodiversity, cultural heritage and human beings and health)

• “D-LUC” (direct land use change): land use matrix • “Agriculture 2015 – situation A”: quantitative description of agriculture practices in

2015 without BRP • “Agriculture 2015 – situation B”: quantitative description of agriculture practices in

2015 with BRP • “Agriculture 2025 – situation A”: quantitative description of agriculture practices in

2025 without BRP (trend scenario for 2025) • “Agriculture 2025 – situation B”: quantitative description of agriculture practices in

2025 with BRP (trend scenario and BRP) • “Forest 2015 – situation A”: quantitative description of forest practices in 2015

without BRP • “Forest 2015 – situation A”: quantitative description of forest practices in 2015

with BRP • “Forest 2025 – situation A”: quantitative description of forest practices in 2025

without BRP (trend scenario for 2025) • “Forest 2025 – situation A”: quantitative description of forest practices in 2025

with BRP (trend scenario for 2025) • “Raw material 2015”: define the current uses of raw material (competitive uses

for BRP) • “Raw material 2025”: define the future uses of raw material (competitive uses for

BRP) • “Transport and pre-treatment”: define the fossil energy use for transport and pre-

treatment of the collected biomass

3.5.2 GHG and energy calculator

A specific tool, Climagri®, had been used for energy and green house gases (GHG) issues. The main objectives of Climagri® are, at a territorial scale, to describe interactions between 4 types of indicators:

• Energy consumption of the agricultural and forestry sectors • Direct and indirect GHG emissions • Estimation of C storage in soil and variation of this storage linked to land use

change • Agricultural and forest raw material production

The initial aim of the tool is to help design an action plan for the territory studied. The users can design scenarios to evaluate and prioritize actions to be implemented. The perimeter goes from “cradle to factory gate ”. It takes into account energy consumption and GHG emissions:

o for the manufacture of inputs; o for the provision of energy; o during the input use on the field; o for feedstock pre-treatment and transportation o factory gate

Calculations are based on input data like crop/forest area on the territory, and various production parameters. The input data to calculate the energy consumption and GHG emissions, come from data collection tool:

o Quantity of mineral fertilizer; o Quantity of fuel for soil tillage; o Energy requirement for irrigation; o …

Three gases are taking into account: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). GHG emissions are calculated using emission factors from the IPCC guidelines (2006). Specific data had been included to take into account GHG emissions from open field burning of crop residues (Indian case studies) Note: for Indian case studies, a major environmental issue is open field burning field of crop residues. Open field burning of straw emits CO2, N2O and CH4. In our calculation N2O and CH4 are taken into account (as an additional GHG emission).

The table below sums up the main emission factors used.

Tableau 7: Main emission factors used

Values Units

Global warning potential Methane 25**

Nitrous oxide 298** Carbon dioxide 1**

Emission factor N-N20 from mineral nitrogen 1%** % of the quantity applied N-N20 from nitrogen surplus 0,75%** % of N surplus

CH4 from rice area - 2010 55,7* kg CH4 Seasonal methane flux

Continuously flooded (100% of rice area) CH4 from rice area - 2025 23,3* kg CH4

Seasonal methane flux Alternate flooding and drying (20% of rice

area) CH4 from rice area - 2025 55,7* kg CH4

Seasonal methane flux Continuously flooded (80% of rice area)

CH4 from open field burning of crop

5** kg per ton of straw

N2O from open field burning of crop

2.09%** % of N in straw

N-NH3 from urea application 15%** % of the quantity applied N-NH3 from other mineral

nitrogen application 8%** % of the quantity applied

N-NH3 from open field burning of crop residue

80%*** % of N in straw

N-N20 from N-NH3 1%** % of N-NH3 N2O from other nitrogen mineral

fertilizer production 5.94** kg N20 / t N

CO2 from urea production 3.6** T CO2/ tN

CO2 from other nitrogen mineral fertilizer production

3.3** T CO2/ tN

Energy consumption from urea production

62.9** GJ / tN

Energy consumption from other nitrogen mineral

fertilizer production

58.8** GJ / tN

CO2 emission from gasoil consumption

2.9** kg CO2/ liter

C density of electricity – India 0.4062*** Kg C / kWh

*Kaur khosa et al. 2011; **IPCC guidelines 2007; ***IFPRI

4. Case studies analysis: state of environment – impacts – mitigation measures

4.1 French case study 4.1.1 Case study description: current situation

4.1.1.1 Location

The Beauce region is located in the centre of France (administrative regional unit: Centre) at 100 km from Paris (southwest). It covers the departments of Loiret, Eure-et-Loir, Essonne, and Yvelines. The Beauce is delimited by Maintenon in the north, Châteaudun in the west, Orleans in the south and Malesherhes in the east. The Beauce is a vast plateau that forms part of the Paris Basin (average altitude of 130–200 m). The Beauce is crossed by several rivers, some of which have their source: the Juine, Essonne, the Loir. Beauce extends to the southwest by a region called "Little Beauce", mainly in the Loir-et-Cher, between the Loir Valley and the Loire Valley.

Figure 13: Location of the French case study – Beauce (agricultural region)

4.1.1.2 Land use

Among the 0.9 million hectares of the target region, agriculture is the main land uses:

• Total area: 0.9 million hectares • Farmland area: 0.8 million hectares (80%), including 0.6 million hectares of

annual crops; • Forest: 0.02 millions hectares (2%) • Others (fallow, urban area, river, …): 0.2 millions hectares (18%)

The Beauce is particularly suitable for large mechanized grain farming, practiced on large farms with open fields with its silt soils and flat area. It is a relatively dry region (550 mm/year). The situation in contact with the Paris area is very conducive to the marketing of products which was then and still the “breadbasket” of France. The Beauce is one of the great plains of France.

Figure 14: dominant land use in Beauce (wheat and rapeseed crops)

Beauce’s landscape, is largely dominated by arable crops (in yellow on the map below). Forest areas (in green on the map below) are insignificant in Beauce region and are located along the riverside: alluvial forest (protected area).

Figure 15: Dominante land uses in Beauce (Corine Land Cover, 2006)

The fertile Beauce covers more than 800,000 hectares. Although cereals are the dominant crops in the Beauce region, other crops such as sugar beet and potatoes are also produced (figure below). The utilised agricultural area (UAA) is around 710,000 ha. Main crops are: soft wheat (50%), rape seed (15%), barley (15%) and maize (5%).

Figure 16: Usable agricultural area of Beauce

Beauce is an intensive agricultural plain and produce a large part of the French cereal grain. The cereal yields are among the highest in France (10 tons of grain per hectare). These yields are reached thanks to a combination of: high agronomical soil potential (clay, silt, pH >7, deep soil), climate, regular rainfall, important input level (nitrogen, pesticides, intensive soil tillage), optimized agricultural practices (precision farming, recent machineries, ...). In an average situation, 20% of the cereal fields are irrigated (selective irrigation - around 50 mm). Water comes from groundwater body ("nappe de Beauce”). Local agricultural market is well adapted to cereal (and rapeseed) value chain (collective storage, marketing structures, development and research institutes). No prices are guaranteed and all Beauce's farmers receive CAP subsidies. Organic farming currently represents less than 3% of the UAA (no straw exportation is expected on organic farming areas)

4.1.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: case study leader)

The following assumptions have been set to describe the situation in 2025:

• introduction of niche crops (Miscanthus) on marginal land; • reduction of soil tillage due to energy price and the improvement of no tillage or

reduced tillage practices in France; • reduction of pesticide pressure, following the national objective of -50% of

pesticides applications set by ECOPHYTO 2018; • increase of organic farming, following the national objective of converting 20% of

the UAA in 2020 in organic farming. For Beauce region an assumption of 10% of organic farming was made. No straw exportation is expected on organic farming areas;

• Increasing straw exportation for bedding to border regions from 10% to 20% taking into account drought climatic year as a threshold (e.g. 2011);

• Implementation of heating plant using straw (20 000 tons of dry matter per year).

4.1.3 Feedstock

4.1.3.1 Current situation

The planned capacity for this case study is 150,000 tons (dry feedstock). The planned raw material is straw from cereals (wheat and barley).

Figure 17: Flow chart of wheat / barley straw

The potential of straw is calculated in several steps. The first one is to calculate the total amount of straw by multiplying surfaces by a straw production per hectare. For the Beauce region, this represents 2.7 million tons (straw and stubble yield per hectare: 6.2 tdm / ha). In a second step, competitive uses are deducted:

• needs for bedding: 0.2 million tons (10% of the straw is exported to border regions)

• environmental issues (SOC maintenance): 2.4 million tons (80% of total production : 100% stubble and 66% of straw)

• organic farming area (2%) In the end, 0,43 million tons of wheat and barley straw are available in this area for a proposed bio-refinery.

Sowing

Harvest

Grain Straw

Left on site Baling

Storage (field, farm,

cooperative)

Used on farm for animals

Sold for litter or feedstuff

Exportation rate of straw were identified at NUTS 4 level for a more precise estimation of available straw taking into account SOC maintenance needs. Very recent data (2012) come from GIE Arvalis/ONIDOL based on CARTOFA program supported by Enerbio (Tuck Fondation). Livestock in Beauce represents less than 1% of total national livestock; and there are mainly poultry and pigs herds that don’t need straw for bedding or feeding (fodder). Nevertheless a share (10% in an average situation - and 20% in drought period to offset the low forage production) of straw production is exported to the border breeding regions. Straw burning is forbidden in France since 2005 (cross compliance). No other competing uses of straw are yet planed in Beauce (heating plant, biogas plant,...). The potential of available straw does not take into account social factors as the willingness of farmers to sell their straw. Therefore, this potential is considered as a maximum.

Tableau 8: Straw potential in 2015

Plant capacity – 150 kt Wheat/ Barley Niche crops

Area (1,000 ha) 427 0 Crop residues tDM/ha (straw + stubble)

6.2

Physical potential 1,000 tDM 2,600 Share of stubble (%) 30% Technical potential 1,000 tDM (straw only)

1,815

Competitive uses (total)

Bedding 1,000 tDM 180 SOC maintenance 1,000 tDM 1,200

Share of organic farming (% UAA)

2%

Power plant needs 1,000 tDM 0 Straw potential 1,000 tDM 435 0

Map below shows the distribution of this feedstock at NUTS 4 scale.

Figure 18: Map of the distribution of the feedstock (scale: NUTS 4).

4.1.3.2 Available feedstock in 2025.

According to assumptions done for 2025, the available feedstock in Beauce is 200 000 tons of wheat/barley straw. This potential estimate does not take into account social factors as the willingness of farmers to sell their straw. Therefore, this potential is considered as a maximum For the Beauce region in 2025, straw production represents 2.6 million tons (without taking into account straw on organic farming areas). Competitive uses will be:

• needs for bedding: 0.36 million tons (20% of the straw is exported to border regions)

• environmental issues (SOC maintenance): 100% stubble and 66% of straw • other uses: 0.02 million tons • other feedstock: 0,015 million tons of niche crops

In the end, 0,20 million tons are available in this area for a proposed bio-refinery

Tableau 9: Straw potential in 2025

Plant capacity – 150 kt Wheat Niche crops

Area (1,000 ha) 426 1 Share of organic farming (% UAA) 10% Area available for straw removal (1,000 ha)

385

Crop residues tDM/ha 6.20 15 Physical potential 1,000 tDM 2,390 15 Share of stubble (%) 30% 0 Technical potential 1,000 tDM 1,675 15 Competitive uses (total)

Bedding 1,000 tDM 360 0 SOC maintenance 1,000 tDM 1105 0 Power plant needs 1,000 tDM 20 0

Straw potential 1,000 tDM 190 15 Total 1,000 tDM 205

4.1.4 Logistic from field to factory gate

4.1.4.1 Wheat / barley straw

Straw is collected following grain harvesting. Swaths are already made by the harvester. Straw is then pressed in ball shaped or parallelepiped shaped bale of straw form 200 to 800 kg depending on humidity of the straw, size of the bale and density of compaction. Storage is made directly on field waiting for being sold or at the farm in a barn.

Figure 19: Pressing and loading straw on a trailer

To estimate energy consumption, following assumptions had been used:

• Average distance from field to factory gate: 50 km (maximum distance) • Type of transport: truck with articulated lorry (average capacity of 18 tons of

straw) • Gasoil consumption: 0.20 liter/km or 3,54 liter/ha of straw

It was assumed that straw doesn’t need any pre-treatment that occurs between field and factory gate.

4.1.4.2 Miscanthus

Miscanthus is harvested in silage at the end of winter. No intermediary storage is expected between the harvest and the bio-refinery.

Figure 20: Miscanthus harvest To estimate energy consumption, following assumptions had been used:

• Average distance from field to factory gate: 50 km (maximum distance) • Type of transport: tipper truck (average capacity of 20 tons) • Gasoil consumption: 0.20 liter/km or 7,54 liter/ha of straw

It was assumed that Miscanthus doesn’t need any pre-treatment that occurs between field and factory gate (drying takes place on bio-refinery site).

4.1.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern

4.1.5.1 Water management: scarcity

In French case study, water for human consumption and agricultural and industrial use comes form one and only resource: Beauce groundwater body. It is the biggest groundwater body in France and Europe. True natural sponge, it plays an environmental regulation role. Living and dynamic entity, it fills up with infiltration of winter rains and drains naturally in outlet rivers (like la Conie, la Voise, l’Aigre) or in rivers that border like le Loir or la Loire.

Figure 21: Administrative map of Beauce ground water body. Source: DIREN Centre – SEMA

Water does not remain in the groundwater body, it is in perpetual motion. This natural regulation is highly dependent on rainfall and climate, the Beauce region being among those of the least rain and strong winds France favoring evapotranspiration. It is important to know that Beauce, if it rains 600 mm annually, only about 120 mm are available for infiltration and are mobilized to supply natural rivers or human uses. The main part of the resource is used for a domestic or agricultural use. In other words, when the population increases, development of summer crops expensive water consuming (corn, potatoes, vegetables ...) and the large-scale introduction of spring irrigated crops (straw cereals, peas ...) over Beauce cropland area, are all factors that have an impact on water withdrawals from this natural resource.

Figure 22: Distribution of withdrawals by use in Beauce ground water body in 2005 in Eure-et-Loir

department (a) and in full Beauce ground water body (b) (Source: Agence de l’eau Loire Bretagne et Agence de l’eau Seine Normandie)

On a year, irrigation represents 150 to 450 millions of m3 withdrawn water, depending on spring and summer climatic conditions. Since a severe drought in 1990, quantitative management of water is at the heart of departments concerns. A charter had been defined and set 3 warning threshold concerning the level of groundwater. These thresholds imply irrigation banning: -10% if the first line is passed, -20% for the 2nd. These measures had an impact during the 90’s but the withdrawals are still to high and since 2002, groundwater level decreasing under alert threshold remaining close to a crisis threshold since 2007 (see figure below).

A recent management of water is more area specific. There are no results so far.

Figure 23: Graphs of indicator “Beauce Centrale” based on 4 piezometric readings, in meters from 1974

to 2011 (1st graph) and from 1999 to 2011 (2nd graph) (Source: DREAL Centre)

Indicator of

water level

Alert threshold

Crisis threshold

Indicator of

water level

Alert threshold

Crisis threshold

4.1.5.2 Water quality

Beauce water body is protected by an impermeable geological layer (“captive” water body) under Orleans’ forest on 15% of its domain (not in our case study area). Elsewhere, it is not protected and is very vulnerable to agricultural pollutions that leak through soil. Even though groundwater bodies are less vulnerable than surface water bodies, their pollution is decreasing at a longer term (resource regeneration in decades). Besides a quantitative issue, Beauce groundwater particularly is threatened nitrate and pesticides pollution, directly linked to intensive agriculture.

Tableau 10: Status of Beauce ground water body form European Water Framework Directive (directive 2000/60) in 2009

Water body FRGG092

2:Good status , 3: mediocre status

Chemical status of water body 3

Nitrate parameter 3

Pesticides parameter 3

Parameters depreciating chemical status Nitrates ; Pesticides

Quantitative status of water body 3

Significant and lasting trend to rising yes

As shown in the table, both nitrate, pesticides and chemical have a bad status. Moreover, the trends, particularly for nitrates, are pointing the wrong direction.

a ) Nitrates issues Nitrogen surplus are higher in areas of intensive cropping and represent over a third of the amounts applied in the Loiret and over a quarter in the Eure-et-Loir. In 2001, total inputs of nitrogen fertilizers, slightly above the French average, amounted to 180 kg / ha on average for grain maize and 192 kg/ha for wheat. In addition, the surfaces of wheat affected by the important contributions are increasing: in 2001, one third of the sown area received more than 200 kg / ha, as against 18% in 1994. Moreover, the concern for a high nitrogen input at the end of the crop cycle of wheat to increase the protein content prevails over the overall balance of fertilization and control of risks of leaching, it causes extra fertilizer as a fourth input. Over 50% of the plots were fertilized without using existing management tools or without regard to crop needs. A review of nitrate available on different networks basins Loire-Bretagne and Normandy Seine and on the drinking water catchments controlled by DDASS shows 30% of points with average levels above 40 mg / L (142 measuring points on 472) between 1996 and 2002. In 1999-2000, 146 units supplying 138,000 inhabitants (5.6% of the population) have distributed a water chronically exceeding the 50 mg / L, 202 units distribute water whose nitrate content is between 40 and 50 mg / L. A deteriorating trend on many points is also observed, most of the times are getting longer exceeded each year.

Figure 24: Evolution of nitrates concentration (mg/l) in ground water bodies in Beauce from 1980 to 2007 (Source: DDAS)

b ) Pesticide issue Pesticides affect groundwaters but also the superficial ones by degradation resulting from groundwater resource, runoff and drainage. In groundwater, atrazine (triazine family) herbicide used on maize (2001, 91% of the area under maize were treated with Atrazine - banned since October 2003), is the pesticide most often incriminated. A study conducted from June to November 2000, shows the presence of at least one active ingredient in thirty-two catchment points on the thirty-five who have been monitored. Around 5000 tons of pesticides are used annually in the Centre region. Contamination of the resource by triazines is found for the whole of the central region with a more pronounced deterioration in the departments of Cher and Eure-et-Loir. Examination is performed over the period 1996-2000 (for contamination by atrazine) states that 26.2% of the regional population (over 641,000 inhabitants) served by 200 UD received a water content of which exceeded the maximum least once a regulatory requirement for quality. Exceedances of 0.5 mg / L (five times the norm) were found for 2.6% of the population. These figures are very clear increase, except in Indre and Indre-et-Loire, from the previous review (1992-1996) The presence of pesticides was recorded in the atmosphere and in all waters of the region. In Central region, 163 active substances are used, including 60 herbicides, 48 fungicides and 45 insecticides. The predominance of herbicide use is linked to that of cereal crops, which are large consumers. The waters of the region are mainly polluted by two large families of herbicides: triazines (atrazine, simazine, terbuthylazine ...) and substituted urea (isoproturon, chlorturon ...).

Other molecules used are found in the catchments for water supply, such as simazine (herbicide used in orchards and vineyards, banned from use in agriculture since 1 October 2003), isoproturon and chlorturon (two herbicides used in wheat and barley) or lindane (insecticide banned since July 1998). Many action plans (awareness campaign and advices improvement) have been set for many years to fight against these pollutants like helping farmer to reduce the nitrogen excess: “Nitrates Moins” to fit N inputs and crop needs, “Fertimieux” to encourage soil testing and green cover implementation, etc. Effects on groundwater are not yet visible despite the involvement of some farmers.

4.1.5.3 Soil organic content

a ) State The case study region is particularly low in organic carbon content in soil. The intensive agricultural practices associated with low initial soil lead to levels of 40 tC / ha in some areas of the zone. These levels are low given the ranges found in French: between 40 and 80 tC / ha (80 tC/ha for grassland).

Figure 25: Organic carbon content in Beauce region in tC/ha.

Figure 26: Distribution of organic carbon content in French soils in tC/ha (Source: Arrouays et al.,2001)

b ) Corg deficit The carbon organic content of the soils must be weighed against carbon saturation deficit of these soils. Indeed, Beauce region’s soils combine low C content and a high C saturation deficit. This deficit is of the order of 10 to 20 gC/kg.

Figure 27: C saturation deficit in French soils in gC/kg (Anger et al., 2012)

4.1.5.4 Other environmental issues

a ) Air pollution Air pollution resulting from cultivating this area only concerns greenhouse gas emissions from farming practices. N2O is the predominant gas from this type of agriculture. It mainly comes from soils emissions on field that receive large amount of mineral fertilizers. CO2 emissions come from the consumption of non renewable fuels in (tractors, heating,…) and from the fabrication and transport of the inputs of the farm (fertilizers, machinery…). N2O and CO2 emissions are a global concern, not especially predominant in Beauce region compare to other French areas. However, emissions linked to this intensive agriculture system must be pointed out, mainly on nitrogen uses that have direct relation with many environmental issues. In this region, proportion of ruminant livestock is very low. CH4 emission is not an issue on this area.

b ) Fauna and flora

♦Natura 2000

Figure 28: Natura 2000 area in Centre region (Source: DREAL Centre 2011)

The case study region is concerned by a special protection area of the Natura 2000 network. The site is called “Beauce et Vallée de la Conie” and is based on Bird Directive. Four objectives of management have been set for species conservation:

• Maintain and improve favorable habitats for birds in a logic of ecological corridors • Ensure adequate availability of food resources

Have a predator-prey balance • Limit the impact of human activities on the disturbance and mortality of birds

The action plan is only base on voluntary approach from the farmers (Agro Environmental Measures).

♦High Nature Value farmland

Figure 29: HNV score at NUTS 5 level, Solagro / JRC, 2010

HNV status of an area is based on 3 indicators:

• Diversity of cropping system • The extensive nature of farming practices • Density of landscape elements

NUTS 5 zones with a score higher than 14.8 points are classified HNV.

In case study region, score range from 1 to 7 points. That characterizes the very intensive aspect of farming practices in Beauce region.

c ) Human health There are no issue about human health directly linked to agricultural and forestry practices in this area. The most sensitive field can be water quality if pesticides and nitrate concentration cannot be under control.

4.1.5.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern: review

Environmental impacts of agriculture in Beauce and status of environment had been summarized using a qualitative approach. Table below describes the colors and codes used.

Tableau 11: : codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE)

Environmental impact Code SOE Code

Negative impact � Bad status

Positive impact � Medium status

No impact Ø Good status

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment Page 56/172

Tableau 12: Environmental impact of agriculture in Beauce and resulting status of environment (SOE)

Tableau 13:

Theme Agricultural practices Pressure/Impact Impact SOE SOE

Water Water

quantity Excessive irrigation Depleting groundwater

�� Water table decline

Water quality Massive use of

pesticides and mineral fertilizers

Transfers of contaminants to water bodies

�� Current water quality decline

Soil

Soil Biodiversity

Intensive tillage method Use of pesticides

Intensive soil disturbance � Decline of soil

biodiversity

Soil organic matter

Intensive crop rotation – tillage – liming

Intensive mineralization effect

� Decline of soil organic matter Deficit of Corg.

Air

GHG

Massive use of mineral N

Use of fuel field operation

Emission of N20 and CO2 � Emission of GHG

Biodiversity Fauna / Flora

Few landscape elements and agro

environmental infrastructures

Short term crop rotation

Decreasing endemic species population

Decreasing types of various habitats

�

Resources Use of fuel field

operation Use of P

�

Solagro – rapport final provisoire - date - Page 57 sur 172

4.1.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation

Land cover has been described and practices on each crop of the rotation have been recorded on case study area in terms of inputs:

• field operations: tillage, direct sowing • pesticides: treatment frequency index, quantity of herbicide/insecticide/fungicides • fertilizers: N, P, K quantities • irrigation: surface and water quantity • cropland management: bare soil or covered soil during winter, • energy: fuel consumption for crop management except straw harvest, fuel

consumption for straw harvest These data have been collected for conventional management and organic management area. Moreover specific data concerning straw harvest have been collected.

4.1.6.1 Water

♦Water consumption Combining collected data from agricultural practices in Beauce and crop management evolution in 2025, irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume can be estimated for each scenario:

Tableau 14: Irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume

2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Irrigated surfaces (1000 ha)

97 97 117 117

Volume of irrigation water

(1,000 m3) 51,300 51,300 61,200 61,200

♦Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) Moreover data about pesticides application on crops for each scenario have been set taking into account current practices and evolution hypothesis

Tableau 15: Pesticides

2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Number of herbicide treatments

2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1

Number of fungicide treatments 2.8 2.8 1.4 1.4

Number of insecticide treatments

1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6

Tableau 16: Fertilisation1

2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Quantity of mineral N (1,000 tons of N)

74 75 69 70

Quantity of mineral P (1,000 tons of P) 15 15 14 14

Quantity of mineral K (1,000 tons of K) 14 16 16 18

Pressure kgN/ha (Average including organic surfaces)

176 178 164 166

♦Summary Table below describes additional impacts on water quality and scarcity, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 17: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity

150 kt Add.envimpact

Water quantity

In both 2015 and 2025 scenarios, the implementation of a bio-refinery won’t induce an increase of irrigation water

consumption. � We assumed an increase of irrigated surface between 2015 and 2025 scenarios to follow trends leads by climate change these last years. However, regarding the current pressure of irrigation on the ground water body, an increase of pumping

won’t be possible.

Ø

Water quality

No extra pesticides are needed in a case of bio-refinery implementation. There is no chemical impacts on water quality

Ø

Increasing straw removal will lead in a limited increase of N fertilisation in 2015 and 2025 scenarios. This might lead to an increase of nitrates

concentration in ground water by runoff and leaching. �

4.1.6.2 Soil

Bio-refinery implementation has no impact on soil management.

Tableau 18: Impacts on soil

2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

% unploughed

36% 36% 50% 50%

% direct sowing

1% 1% 2% 2%

% of bare soil in winter

99% 99% 85% 82%

Table below describes additional impacts on soil, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 19: Additional impacts on soil

150 kt Add.envimpact

Organic C content

Case study location and scenarios were built on a main idea: straw feedstock for BR should be available with no effect on organic C soil content. To this end, available

quantities are based on the removal of only a part of the total harvested straw. The part really exportable is around

31% of the harvested straw. Precise coefficients adapted to each local administrative unit have been used. They go

from 0 % to 50% mainly depending on soil type.

Ø

Soil C storage variation

The share of exportable is around 31% of the harvested straw – this part can be used to increased stock carbon

The implementation of 1000 ha of Miscanthus instead of a cereal on the same land will lead to cancel the current

ploughing practices and will have a positive impact on soil C storage

�

Soil disturbance

Implementation of a BR will not affect tillage practices in each scenario on cereals area. Deep soil disturbance wont

increase.

Ø

Soil erosion No impact

Increase of soil cover with Miscanthus crop all the year Ø

Soil compaction

Baling more straw will certainly lead to increase the number of operation in the field and then will increase soil

compaction. However Beauce soil is not subject to this issue and wont certainly be affected.

Ø

*SOM: soil organic matter **SCC: soil carbon content

4.1.6.3 Air

A slight increase of GHG emission and energy consumption are linked to BRP implementation.

Tableau 20: Evolution of air emissions

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

GHG emission (tons of CO2eq./ha) 2.71 2.73 2.54 5.56

Energy consumption

(toe/ha) 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.46

The table below describes additional impacts on air, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 21: additional impacts on air

150 kt

Add.envimpact

Modification of NH3 emissions (acidification)

Increase straw exportation will lead to compensate nutrients content of the straw by mineral fertilizers.

This will automatically raise upstream GHG emission from fertilizer manufacturing and transport to the farms. However, this won’t automatically lead to N excess on field. Though, impacts on NH3 and N20 from leaching

and runoff are difficult to estimate because it will depend on many factor like farming practices (date of

application, split applications, weather when applied….)

�

Modification of N2O emissions

(GHG emissions) Ø

Modification of CO2 emissions

(GHG emissions)

Extra CO2 emissions are expected from fuel consumption for straw (2010 & 2025) and Miscanthus (2025) harvest, straw storage and transport but also

from energy consumption linked to inputs manufacturing and transport

�

Modification of CH4 emissions

(GHG emissions) No impact Ø

4.1.6.4 Resources

The implementation of BRP slightly increases the consumption of fossil energy (<1%) for straw logistic, and the use of potash to offset nutrient exportation.

Tableau 22: Evolution of fossil resource consumption

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Use of fossil energy - grain

production (ktoe/year)

38 39 39 39

Use of fossil energy for straw

logistic (ktoe/year) 0.13* 0.24* 0.26* 0.36*

Use of phosphorus (1,000 t of P) 15 15 14 14

Use of potash (1,000 t of K) 14 16 16 18

* For simplicity, we consider that all the straw harvested (whatever uses) has the same logistic The table below describes additional impacts on resources, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 23: additional impacts on resource consumption

150 kt Add.envimpact

Fuel consumption 2010 & 2025 scenarios: Extra fuel consumption is expected from:

• harvesting straw • storage and transportation of straw to the

factory • Processing and transport for extra

consumption of inputs (fertilizers) 2025 scenario:

For Miscanthus area : balance between high fuel consumption for harvest and transport and low fuel

consumption for field practices

�

4.1.6.5 Biodiversity

Introduction of Miscanthus in the cropland area increases number of habitats. Miscanthus is considered as an improvement for cropland fauna in terms of habitats or corridors in this area of cultivated fields with no other ecological infrastructure.

Tableau 24: impacts on biodiversity

2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Crop rotation 3 years annual crop rotation

3 years annual crop rotation +

Permanent crop

Habitats

Field margins represent the majority of semi-natural habitat. These zones are vital to the wild flora of many arthropods

(including some auxiliary pollinators), they also represent a privileged area for small animals plain. The interest of these field margins for biodiversity is linked to the stability of these environments, unique undisturbed areas of agricultural land

and their diversity (roadsides, roads, embankments, ditches, edges of woods ...).

Field margin + Miscanthus plots:

The presence of a cover in winter, few interventions on culture, seem conducive to the development of small animals (insects and

birds). Medium to large plots represent a favorite refuge for

big game and especially for

boars

The table below describes additional impacts on biodiversity, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 25: additional impacts on biodiversity

150 kt

Add.envimpact

Modification of crop diversity

No impact for 2015 scenario Introduction of Miscanthus in 2025 scenario will increase

crop diversity at a low scale. �

Variation in soil disturbance No impact Ø

Modification of pesticides pressures

(soil biodiversity) No impact Ø

Habitats In 2025 scenario, Miscanthus is considered as an improvement for cropland fauna in terms of habitats or corridors in this area of cultivated fields with no other

ecological infrastructure.

�

4.1.6.6 Land use change

A slight direct effect on land use change is linked to BRP implementation: implementation of 1,000 ha Miscanthus instead of wheat.

Tableau 26: Land use effect

2015 2025

Situation

A

Situation B

(A+BRP)

Situation A

Situation B

(A+BRP)

Grain production on the area (kt MS)

2 497 2 497 2 461 2 457

Tableau 27: additional impacts on land use

150 kt

Add.envimpact

Land use change Removing straw (taking care of soil C maintenance) should basically have no impact on grain production (food production). Introduction of 1,000 ha of Miscanthus instead of wheat. Indirect impacts could however occur: � Cultivate energy crops like Miscanthus, highly

productive for this purpose, can be competing with food crops like wheat.

� Giving straw a stable economic value may lead to increase straw yield to the expense of grain production (using high straw yield varies instead of yield grain yield ones).

� Giving straw a stable economic value may lead to increase cereals areas and monoculture of these species.

All the indirect impacts resulting in decreasing local food production will lead to a consequential displacing of the production to maintain food sovereignty.

�

4.1.6.7 Climate change

The table below summarizes the potential impacts of climate changes (increase of the frequency of drought periods) on local feedstock balance.

Tableau 28: potential impacts of climate changes

Add.envimpact

Climate change The only hypothesis about climate change that was taken into account is the increase of the frequency of drought periods leading to: � High animals needs of straw because of the low

forage production; � High irrigation water needs. See table “Irrigation”

High animals needs of straw imply a lower availability of straw for bio-refinery feedstock. High irrigation water needs won’t certainly be cover by local water resource that is already in quantity crisis.

�

Solagro – rapport final provisoire - date - Page 65 sur 172

Tableau 29: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE)

Theme SOEi* Biorefinery

implementation Impact Additional measures

(trends) Impact

SOEf*

Water

Water quantity

Ø

Efficient irrigation methods �

Water quality

�

Reduction of fertilizer use �

Soil

Soil Biodiversity

Ø

Reduced tillage methods ��

Soil organic matter

Maintain Corg – low rate of straw

exportation(35%)

Ø

Soil C storage variation

Increase Corg removal � Reduced tillage methods

Crop residues incorporation

��

Soil compaction

�

Reduced tillage methods �

Air GHG

Increase of fuel consumption for straw

logistic Increase of fertilizers

� Reduction of N and fossil

energy use

�

Biodiversity Fauna and Flora

Ø

Resources Resources

Increase of fuel consumption for straw

logistic

� Reduction of P, K and fossil energy use

�

Climate change

Increase of GHG emissions

� Increase drought frequency and water

consumption

�

Land use change

Competition with food production. Focusing on

straw production

�

Human health

Ø

*SOEi: initial status of environment; SOEf: final status of environment

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 67 / 172

4.1.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures

The French case study is located in Beauce, a very intensive agricultural plain already very anthropogenically modified. In a short-term scenario of a bio-refinery implementation, there are few competitive uses of the targeted feedstock like co-products of cereals production. 1.9 million tons of straw is produced and 0.45 million tons are available as a feedstock considering competitive uses and SOC maintenance. In this case, a 150 kt capacity plant would concern 33% of the available quantity that seems feasible. On the other hand, the French case study shows clear limitations with regards to the implementation of a 150 kt capacity bio-refinery in a long-term 2025 scenario. Indeed the plant would then use around 80% of the available straw . All the hypotheses considered under this scenario are debatable but reflect more or less the main trends of French agriculture. Moreover only “technical” hypotheses have been set here, avoiding one of the major constraints: farmers’ willingness to sell their straw under multi-annual contracts. This approach will be studied through the Social, political, and legal assessment based on the same case study (Task 7.4). However, some solutions can be considered to optimize the compatibility of feedstock availability and plant feedstock needs:

• Reduce bio-refinery size from 150 kt to 100 kt. This has to be studied from economic perspective.

• Reduce competitive uses : The main competitive use is the straw use for bedding or animal feed. Developing litter with other material like wood chips, saw dust, Miscanthus or fine cut straw can be good alternatives.

• Increase feedstock production: o Precise exportation rate at plot level to optimize the quantity of straw that

can really be removed. o Reduce losses during harvest and recover fine cut straw as part of the

bio-refinery feedstock (this can represent from 1 t/ha). o Take the opposite direction of the current trends and go back to high straw

yield varieties. • Find new feedstock: biomass from forest could be an option (regional le vel).

The environmental pressures caused by intensive cropping systems are numerous: high input level to reach optimal yields (mineral fertilizers, water, pesticides…), high anthropization of the area (large plots size, no more ecological focus areas like hedges), high degree of mechanization of agricultural practices. Besides, Beauce is particularly sensitive to threats regarding water quality and quantity. This results in various environmental impacts: water table decline, water quality decline, flora and fauna biodiversity is particularly low, air pollution increase with machinery use.

Regarding the feedstock production, the establishme nt of the BRP will result in low-level negative impacts on the environment . Indeed, in the 2015 scenario, the BRP uses feedstock already produced but not currently used. However, it will contribute to further increasing anthropic pressure on the land and intensifying environmental impacts: water quality is affected by the increase of mineral inputs due to straw removal; organic carbon removal is accentuated; straw baling and bale gathering operations increase field operations and so soil compaction; additional field operations and logistics increase fuel consumption; higher input levels and higher uses of fuel increase GHG emissions The 2025 scenario highlights a specific impact on land use change. The use of Miscanthus was tested as part of the BR feedstock. Each action that decreases grain production (e.g. food crops) results in land use change elsewhere to maintain food product quantity at a national or global level. Miscanthus appears to bring many positive environmental impacts like new fauna habitats, new landscape elements, reduced pesticides, water and fertilizers use at case study level and reduced soil compaction. But cultivation of highly productive energy crops like Miscanthus, can be compete with food crops like wheat. Moreover, giving straw a stable economic value may encourage farmers to increase straw yield at the expense of grain production (using high straw yield varieties instead of high grain yield ones). It may also lead to increase cereal areas and monoculture of these species. Finally, giving a straw market to farmers may increase all previously listed negative impacts on the environment because such preventive reflection that we had, like keeping around 70% of the straw on the soil, may not be followed. If the market is there, 100% of the straw could be harvested, strongly decreasing the soil organic content. Measures can be recommended to mitigate the impacts of the BR implementation on the environment:

• Use reduced and no tillage practices • Implement short term cover crops between main crop rotations • Avoid N excess that leads to nitrate pollution: farmers awareness campaigns,

improve agricultural advisors/technician knowledge • Optimize harvest operations (combined operations…) • Reduce collection radius around the bio-refinery or use railroads • At farm scale, implement actions on energy savings (control tractor fuel

consumption…).

Solagro – rapport final provisoire - date - Page 69 sur 172

4.1 Hungarian case study 4.1.1 Case study description: current situation

4.1.1.1 Location

Choosing the location of the Hungarian case study area, the following aspects were taken into account:

• " adequate availability of biomass (mixed raw materials as straw, SRC poplar, and hardwood).

• " suitable areas for new plantations if it is necessary (field capabilities and ecological demands of plants are taken into account).

• " biomass production can not conflict with nature protection aspects (protected and sensitive areas), and can not conflict with agri-environmental protection aspects (e.g. AE measures).

• " exclusion of areas which could potentially compete for raw material by other biomass users.

Results from previous research activities on cultivation possibilities of wheat and corn state that the area of Hungary, due to the very good climate and soil capabilities, is mostly suitable for wheat production. Location of present forests (registered by Corine 2006) and areas suggested for further afforestation were also considered. Finally, setting of Protected Areas, and High Nature Value Agricultural areas (HNV) in the country were also considered. These areas were subtracted from the available areas for feedstock provision, since intensive cultivation is prohibited on these sites. The results show that areas containing the highest share of forest and arable land and additionally having relatively less competitive users of the same feedstock can be found mainly in the middle or western part of the country . This target area gathers four counties (see map below):

• Baranya • Somogy • Tolna • Zala

Figure 30: Location of the Hungarian case study

4.1.1.2 Land use

a ) Overview Case study represents more than 1,600,000 hectares divided mainly into arable land and forest land :

• 1,000,000 ha of UAA (whose 610,000 ha of annual crop); • 450,000 ha of hardwood forest land, including 200 000 ha of protected area

(mainly Natura 2000).

b ) Forest Forestland (95% broadleaf forest) represents 30% of case study area. The share of not protected forest land is 55%, that is around of the country average.

Figure 31: Hungarian case study – woodlands land (excluding coniferous forests)

The ownership structure of forest is about 50% state owned and 50% private. Since conservation interests gain importance and influence, forests may be cultivated more extensively on the one hand. On the other hand state owned forests managers are more exposed to profit production requirements, and thus they have to apply more intensive technologies. According to the changes in the structure of the demand, foresters can adjust - within a given natural interval - the produced fraction and quality of logs . Thus, if there is need for firewood, the fraction of harvested logs in firewood can be increased .

c ) Agriculture Farmland represents 65% of case study area. In the selected region the share of protected arable land is well below the country average (ca. 10–15%) and reaches only less then 5% (40,000 ha of protected area: HNV, Natura 2000, others). Agricultural production is very diverse in the region. There are some large producers, but the majority of farmers cultivate smaller patches . The ownership structure and the size of cultivated blocks are very fragmented that often hinders appropriate cultivation.

Figure 32: Hungarian case study – arable land

The UAA is divided into:

• Annual crops: 610,000 ha o Maize: 335,000 ha o Wheat: 190,000 ha o Barley: 53,000 ha o Others (rye, triticale, oat): 29,000 ha

• perennial crops: 40,000 ha • natural grasslands: 7,000 ha • temporary grasslands: 95,000 ha • SRC: 3,500 ha

4.1.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: case study leader)

In scenario for 2025, more environmentally friendly solutions both in agriculture and in energy use in the future had been anticipated. Due to the extensification, considerable amount of less favored arable areas are converted to forest l and , and the intensively cultivated share of plough land will be reduced. On a significant share of converted plough land short rotation coppice plantations are expected . The exploitation of forest resources (mainly firewood ) is going to be intensified since bioenergy use becomes a valuable alternative. Positive effects of the anticipated policies result in a more balanced agricultural production between husbandry and plant production. The main driving factors are the following:

• Area changes in arable land, forestry and sort rota tion coppice (SRC) cultivation between 2015 and 2025. Here the existence of the bio-refinery plant (BRP) induces an increase of forest land and SRC land.

• In general, the number of livestock shows a steady downward slope, where exceptions are only temporal or refer to small husbandry sectors. The most intensive depletion of stock is anticipated in the dairy sector. Sheep livestock will

be stabilised. Swine production is expected to drop too, mainly due to high fodder prices:

o Dairy cattle: reduction by 15% o Non-dairy cattle: increase by 25% o Pigs: reduction by 10%

• The increase of bioenergy need reduces the available feedstock for BRP. This is set 30% for straw and 20% for fire wood use .

• Land use change (LUC) had been based on the trends on the county level. According to this:

o the area of arable land decreases by 4%; o forest land is expected to increase by 11%; o SRC land increase by 50%. o These percentages are increased by 10% in case of t he presence of

the BRP . • In the trend, the draught effect is also taken into consideration. Based on the

very dry year 26% of the yield of cereals and 43% of the yield of corn is lost. We assume that by 2025 50% percent of this decrease is possible in every year. It means that in case of cereals 87% of the current yield is harvestable and in case of corn only 79%.

4.1.3 Feedstock (current and future)

The planned capacity for this case study is 150,000 tons (dry feedstock). The planned raw materials is a mix of straw (from wheat and maize), hardwood and SRC (poplar).

Tableau 30: Feedstock mix

Plant capacity – 150 kt Straw Hardwood SRC-poplar

Share % 60% 20% 20%

Tons of dry matter 90,000 30,000 30,000

4.1.3.1 Straw

a ) Current straw potential The potential of straw is calculated in several steps. The first is to calculate the total physical amount of crop residues by multiplying surfaces by a crop residues production per hectare. In a second step, a non harvestable (for technically reasons) part is subtracting. For the region concerned, the potential represents 3.1 million tons including :

• 2.1 millions tons from maize; • 1,0 million tons from wheat.

In a third step, competitive uses (including environmental issues) are deducted:

• needs for bedding: 0.4 million ton; • environmental issues (SOC maintenance): 2,9 million tons; • straw need for power plant: 0.23 million ton.

In the end, 0.86 million ton are available in this area for a proposed BRP.

Tableau 31: Straw potential in 2015

Plant capacity – 150 kt Maize Wheat/Barley Total

Area 335,000 240,000 575,000

Crop residues (straw – stover) tDM/ha

9.47 4.5

Crop residues potential 1,000 tDM

3,200 1,100 4,300

Competitive uses (total) 3,460

Bedding 1,000 tDM 270 90 380

SOC maintenance* 1,000 tDM 2,100 750 2,850

Power plant needs 1,000 tDM 172 58 230

Straw potential 1,000 tDM 660 200 860

*SOC maintenance: 66% of crop residues potential

b ) Future straw potential Compare to current situation, straw potential in 2025 will decrease according to following assumption:

• Arable land area decreases by 17%; • Forest area increase by 21 %; • SRC area increase by 60%; • Needs for power plant increases by 30%; • Straw needs for bedding increases by 5%.

In the end, 0.34 million ton are available in this area for a proposed bio-refinery.

Tableau 32: Straw potential in 2025

Plant capacity – 150 kt Maize Wheat/Barley Total

Area 280,000 200,000 480,000

Crop residues (straw – stover) tDM/ha

7.5** 3.9**

Crop residues potential 1,000 tDM

2,100 780 2,900

Competitive uses (total) 2,600

Bedding 1,000 tDM 285 95 390

SOC maintenance* 1,000 tDM 1,400 510 1,910

Power plant needs 1,000 tDM 235 80 315

Straw potential 1,000 tDM 180 95 280

*SOC maintenance: 66% of crop residues potential; ** draught effect: reduction of yield by 13% for wheat and 21% for corn.

4.1.3.2 Hardwood

a ) Current hardwood potential The presented data contains gross wood harvest for the years 2005-2009. From this amount softwood (coniferous) was deducted and an average amount was determined. Then the gross hardwood harvest in the target counties is 2.1 millions of cubic meters (or 0.8 million tons of dry matter). Among the competitive uses, firewood represents, 0.55 million tons of dry matter. Other uses have to be taken into account. In the end, available hardwood potential varies from 0 to 0.3 million tons in this area for a proposed bio-refinery. For the present case study, we assume that only 0.075 million tons of hardwood are available .

b ) Future hardwood potential Compare to the current situation, hardwood potential in 2025 will change according to following assumption:

• Increasing of forest area by 11% or 21% (in the case of BRP implementation); • Increasing of firewood fraction by 20%.

In the end, available hardwood potential varies from 0 ?to is ?0,00287 million tons in this area for a proposed bio-refinery. This is again due to high demand for this product and prices will decide the distribution (! Negative value in the EIA WP1 questionnaire !)..

4.1.3.3 SRC potential: current and future situation

Niche crops like SRC poplar and Miscanthus have some traditions in the country and in the target region too. There were altogether 7,000–8.000 ha poplar plantations in the country in 2010, and their area is expected to develop. In Királyegyháza there are 50 ha and in Vajszló there are 500 ha of poplar plantations and there are altogether 10,800 ha plantations planned in the counties Baranya, Somogy and Tolna. For the target area 3,500 ha of poplar are considering. In the future this area will increase by 60% (5,600 ha).

Tableau 33: SRC potential in 2010 and 2025

SCR potential 2015 2025 with BRP

Area ha 3,500 5,600

Yield tDM/ha/year 9 9

Production tDM/year 31,500 50,500

Competitive uses tDM/year 12,500 12,500

Available biomass for BRP 19,000 38,000

Objective 30,000 30,000

4.1.3.4 Summary

Quantities of available feedstock are reduced by 60% between 2015 and 2025. The main feedstock is corn stover. According to the mix previously defined, in 2015, quantity of SRC is not sufficient (19,000 tDM, instead of 30,000 tDM). In the same way, in 2015, the hardwood potential is uncertain. So biomass from hardwood is reduced in 2015. The amount of biomass missing will be filled by corn straw. So in 2015, the mix of biomass will be:

o Straw: 120,000 tDM (80%); o SRC: 15,000 tDM (10%); o Hardwood: 15,000 tDM (10%).

In 2025, the mix of biomass will be less based on straw (affected by land use change et climate change: drought period),and will be better distributed among the available biomass:

o Straw: 90,000 tDM (60%); o SRC: 30,000 tDM (20%); o Hardwood: 30,000 tDM (20%).

These changes in the supply of the plant, are made possible by the flexibility of the fractionation process of the biomass.

Tableau 34: Available feedstock in 2010 and 2025

2015 Obj. 2015 2025 with BRP

Obj. 2025

Cereal crop area ha 575,000 480,000

Forest area ha 440,000 540,000

SRC poplar area ha 3,500 5,500

Straw potential tDM 860,000 120,000 280,000 90,000

Hardwood potential tDM 75,000 15,000 87,000 30,000

SRC potential tDM 18,700 15,000

34,300 30,000

Feedstock total tDM 950 400

4.1.4 Logistic from field to factory gate

4.1.4.1 Straw collection storage and transportation

No dataStraw collection happens in line with the European standards. Straw is left on site after harvest, than baled by big role balers. These bales are transported to the farmers yard afterwards and stored (covered or uncovered). To estimate energy consumption, following assumptions had been used:

• Energy for baling: 1.6 liter of gasoil per ton; • Average distance from field to factory gate: 25 km (maximum distance); • Type of transport: truck with articulated lorry (average capacity of 18 tons of

straw); • Gasoil consumption: 0.20 liter/km.

Figure 33: Pressing and straw load on a trailer

4.1.4.2 Hardwood collection storage and transportation

Hardwood is selected on site and stored till transport at the edge of the “cutted area”. It is transported to the retail seller afterwards. Following assumptions are made for logistic:

• Average distance from forest road to factory gate: 50 km ; • Transport category: truck (capacity 100 m3); • Fuel consumption: 40 liter of gasoil/100 km.

Figure 30: Truck loading of large diameter stem wood

Note: pretreatments (Debarking, eventually chipping and drying) take place on factory site. No data

4.1.4.3 SRC collection storage and transportation

SRC is harvested usually in winter by big mobile chippers and transported No dataimmediately to the location of end use (pretreatment: drying, takes place on factory site). No data

Figure 30: Coppice harvesting (Source: CAPAX)

4.1.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern

4.1.5.1 Environmental priorities for the case study

A main environmental problem of the target area is soil erosion (rainfall erosion). Soil erosion is linked to:

o hilly landscape; o bare soil; o erosive rainfall; o soil texture.

Figure 34: limiting factors of soil fertility and soil degradation processes (Varallyay)

No dataOther important environmental problems of the target region regarding agriculture are exhausted soil due to monoculture and diversity loss. In the future dry periods (impact of climate changes ) can be also a real treat. During the last very dry year 26% of the yield of cereals and 43% of the yield of corn is lost. Frequency of dry period is expected to be higher.

4.1.5.2 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern: review

Environmental impacts of agriculture/forest in Hungary case study and status of environment had been summarized using a qualitative approach. Table below describes the colors and codes used.

Tableau 35: codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE)

Environmental impact Code SOE Code

Negative impact � Bad status

Positive impact � Medium status

No impact Ø Good status

Solagro – rapport final provisoire - date - Page 81 sur 172

Tableau 36: Environmental impact of agriculture/forest patterns in Hungarian case study and resulting status of environment (SOE)

Theme Agricultural practices Pressure/Impact Impa ct SOE SOE

Water Water quantity no irrigation

Ø

Water quality Massive use of pesticides and mineral fertilizers

Transfers of contaminants to water bodies

� Water quality decline

Soil

Soil Biodiversity

Intensive tillage method Use of pesticides

Intensive soil disturbance � Decline of soil

biodiversity – exhausted soil

Soil organic matter

Intensive crop rotation – tillage – liming Intensive mineralization effect

� Decline of soil organic matter

Deficit of Corg.- exhausted soil

Soil erosion Intensive tillage – bare soil – hilly area

Soil structure degradation �� Hydric erosion

Soil compaction

Use of forestry machines Intensive tillage

�

Air

GHG Massive use of mineral N Use of fuel field operation

Emission of N20 and CO2 � Emission of GHG

Biodiversity Fauna / Flora / Wildlife

Intensive agriculture practices

Intensive logging and forest operations

�

Resources Use of fuel for field/forest

operations Use of P and k

�

Solagro – rapport final provisoire - date - Page 82 sur 172

4.1.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation

Land cover has been described and agriculture practices and forest operation have been recorded on case study area in terms of inputs:

• Field/forest operations: tillage, direct sowing,… • pesticides: treatment frequency index, quantity of herbicide/insecticide/fungicides • fertilizers: N, P, K quantities • irrigation: surface and water quantity • cropland management: bare soil or covered soil during winter, • energy: fuel consumption for crop management except straw harvest, fuel

consumption for straw harvest Moreover specific data concerning straw harvest have been collected.

4.1.6.1 Water

♦Water consumption Irrigation is not used in the case study area for wheat and maize

♦Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) Data about pesticides application on crops for each scenario have been set taking into account current practices and evolution hypothesis

Tableau 37: Fertiliser pressures (agriculture only)

2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Quantity of mineral N (1,000 tons of N) 104 105 98 90

Quantity of mineral P (1,000 tons of P) 56 57 52 48

Quantity of mineral K (1,000 tons of K) 93 95 88 83

Pressure kgN/ha (Average including organic surfaces)

180 182 182 185

♦Summary Table below describes additional impacts on water quality and scarcity, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 38: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity

150 kt Add.envimpact

Water quantity

In both 2015 and 2025 scenarios, the implementation of a bio-refinery won’t induce an increase of irrigation water

consumption. Ø

Water quality

No extra pesticides are needed in a case of bio-refinery implementation. There is no chemical impacts on water quality

Ø

Increasing straw removal will lead in a limited increase of N,P,K fertilisation in 2015 and 2025 scenarios. This might lead to an increase

of nitrates concentration in ground water by runoff and leaching. �

In 2025, reduction of pesticide and fertilizer pressures (Afforestation of 40 000 ha) ��

4.1.6.2 Soil

Bio-refinery implementation has a slight impact on soil management:

• Reduction of soil erosion (Land use change: SRC instead of annual crops) • Intensification of forest operation

The table below describes additional impacts on soil, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 39: Additional impacts on soil

150 kt Add.envimpact

Organic C content

Case study location and scenarios were built on a main idea: straw feedstock for BRP should be available with no effect on

organic C soil content. To this end, available quantities are based on the removal of only a part of the total harvested straw. The part really exportable is around 33% of the harvested straw.

Ø

Soil C storage variation

The share of exportable is around 33% of the harvested straw – this part can be used to increased stock carbon

The implementation of 1 400 ha of SRC instead of a cereal on the same land will lead to cancel the current ploughing practices and could have a positive impact on soil C storage (and erosion)

�

Soil disturbance

Implementation of a BR will not affect tillage practices in each scenario on cereals area. Deep soil disturbance wont increase. Ø

Soil erosion The implementation of 400 ha of SRC instead of a cereal reduced percentage of bare soil �

Soil compaction

Baling more straw will certainly lead to increase the number of operation in the field and then will increase soil compaction

Intensification of forest operation �

Soil and LUC In 2025, conversion of arable land into forest, reduces soil threats and improve soil quality ��

*SOM: soil organic matter**SCC: soil carbon content

4.1.6.3 Air

A slight increase of GHG emission and energy consumption are linked to BRP implementation.

Tableau 40: Evolution of air emissions

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

GHG emission (tons of CO2eq./ha) 1.89 1.90 1.80 1.64

Energy consumption

(toe/ha) 0.32 0.33 0.30 0.28

The table below describes additional impacts on air, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 41: Additional impacts on air

150 kt

Add.envimpact

Modification of GHG emissions

Extra CO2 emissions are expected from fuel consumption for straw (2010 & 2025) and SRC (2025)

harvest, straw storage and transport but also from energy consumption linked to inputs manufacturing

and transport.

�

In 2025, conversion of arable land into forest, reduces GHG emissions and energy consumption ��

4.1.6.4 Resources

Implementation of BRP increases slightly the consumption of fossil energy (<1%) for straw logistic, and the use of potash to offset nutrient exportation.

Tableau 42: Evolution of fossil resource consumption

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Use of fossil energy (ktoe/year ) 329 331 305 281

Additional use of fossil energy for BRP (ktoe/year )

0 2* 0 2*

Use of phosphorus (1,000 t of P) 56 57 51 48

Use of potash (1,000 t of K) 93 95 88 83

* For simplicity, we consider that all the straw and wood harvested (whatever uses) has the same logistic The table below describes additional impacts on resources, linked to biorefinery implementation.

Tableau 43: Additional impacts on fossil resource consumption

150 kt Add.envimpact

P Implementation of a bio-refinery induces a slight increase

in P use on agriculture area

�

K

Implementation of a bio-refinery increase use of K use on agriculture area(K exported from the field by straw

removal are compensated by mineral inputs)

�

Fuel consumption 2010 & 2025 scenarios: Extra fuel consumption is expected on agriculture

area from: • harvesting straw and hardwood • storage and transportation to the factory • Processing and transport for extra

consumption of inputs (fertilizers)

�

Fossil resources In 2025, conversion of arable land into forest, fossil resources consumption ��

4.1.6.5 Biodiversity

In one hand, introduction of SRC in the cropland area increases number of habitats. ON the other hand, intensification of forest operation may have negative impacts on biodiversity (wild life disturbance). The table below describes additional impacts on biodiversity, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 44: additional impacts on biodiversity

150 kt

Add.envimpact

Modification of crop diversity

No impact for 2015 scenario Additional introduction of SRC in 2025 scenario will

increase crop diversity at a low scale. �

Habitats SRC is considered as an improvement for cropland fauna in terms of habitats or corridors in this area of

cultivated fields with no other ecological infrastructure. The establishment of plant accelerates the conversion of

arable land into forest.

��

Wild life Intensification of forest operation may have negative impacts �

4.1.6.6 Land use change

A direct effect on land use change is linked to BRP implementation:

• implementation of 400 ha SRC instead of annual crop; • establishment of BRP accelerates the conversion of arable land into forest (+50

000 ha in 2025 in comparison without BRP).

Tableau 45: Land use effect

2015 2025

Situation

A

Situation B

(A+BRP)

Situation A

Situation B

(A+BRP)

Grain production on the area (kt MS)

3 100 3 100 2 900 2 600

Tableau 46: additional impacts on land use

150 kt Add.envimpact

Land use change Removing straw (taking care of soil C maintenance) should basically have no impact on grain production (food production). Direct LUC effect:

• Introduction of 1,400 ha of poplar instead of wheat or maize.

• Introduction of 40 000 ha of forest instead of wheat or maize.

Impacts could however occur: � Cultivate energy crops like SRC, highly

productive for this purpose, can be competing with food crops like wheat.

� BRP accelerates land conversion into forest and reduces grain production

� Giving straw a stable economic value may lead to increase straw yield to the expense of grain production (using high straw yield varies instead of yield grain yield ones).

� Giving straw a stable economic value may lead to increase cereals areas and monoculture of these species.

All these impacts resulting in decreasing local food production will lead to a consequential displacing of the production to maintain food sovereignty.

��

Solagro – rapport final provisoire - date - Page 88 sur 172

Tableau 47: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE)

Theme SOEi* Biorefinery

implementation Impact Additional measures

(trends) Impact

SOEf*

Water

Water quantity

Ø

Water quality

Reduction of pesticides and fertilizers uses

(arable land conversion into forest)

�

Soil

Soil Biodiversity

Straw exportation � Arable land conversion

into forest ��

�

Soil organic matter

Straw exportation � Arable land conversion

into forest ��

�

Soil C storage variation

Straw exportation � Arable land conversion

into forest ��

�

Soil compaction

Ø

Air

GHG

Increase of fuel consumption for

feedstock logistic - Increase of fertilizers � Arable land conversion

into forest ��

�

Biodiversity

Fauna and Flora

Intensification of forest and agricultural

operation �

�

Arable land conversion into forest ��

Resources Resources

Increase of fuel consumption for feedstock logistic

logistic� Arable land conversion

into forest ��

�

Land use change

Arable land conversion into SRC and forest

��

*SOEi: initial status of environment; SOEf: final status of environment

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 90 / 172

4.1.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures

The Hungarian case study is situated in a mixed area, mixing farmland and forests. Biomass available in this area is mainly maize straw. Biomass supply of the plant is based on straw, wood and poplar (SRC). The amount of biomass available is sufficient in 2015 and 2025 to supply the plant. However, between 2015 and 2025:

• the amount of available biomass is reduced by 60% (straw potential is divided by 3):

o increased competition for biomass; o impact of drought period on the production of corn stover; o arable land conversion into forest.

• the mixture of biomass used, changes between 2015 and 2025 (this is made possible by the flexibility of the CIMV process)

The environmental pressures caused by intensive cropping systems (and intensive forest operations) are numerous: high input level to reach optimal yields (mineral fertilizers, water, pesticides…), high degree of mechanization of agricultural and forest practices. This results in various environmental impacts: water quality decline, flora and fauna biodiversity is particularly low, air pollution increase with machinery use. In this case study, the implementation of the BRP resulting in positive and negative effects on environment. Negative effects (on the quality of water, air, soil and biodiversity) are related to:

o intensification of agricultural practices on cropland; o increase timber harvesting in the forest.

The positive effects are related to changes in land use. The conversion of 10% of the agricultural area in the forest (and SRC), reduces the pressure on the environment in the case study area (less use of fertilizers, pesticides, energy, new habitats for wildlife, reduction of GHG emission). At the same time, grain production also decreases by 10% (with possible negative effects on an other territory).

4.2 German case study 4.2.1 Case study description: current situation

4.2.1.1 Location

The case study region comprises four German federal states: North-Rhine-Westphalia (NW), Hessen (HE), Rhineland-Palatinate (RP) and Saarland (SL).

4.2.1.2 Land use

Among the 7.7 millions hectares of the target region, agriculture and forest are the main land uses:

• Total area: 7.7 millions hectares • Farmland area: 3.5 millions hectares (45%) • Forest: 2.6 millions hectares (35%) • Urban area: 1.5 millions hectares (20%) • Others (fallow, wetlands, moor, …): 0.2 millions hectares (2%)

The target area is characterised by high hardwood availability. This region specified in more detail in Map below. The different colors signify the total area of hardwood forests as derived from statistical data. The hardwood rich areas are located mainly in five regions, namely the Sauerland, Eifel, Hunsrück, Westerwald and the Hessisches Bergland.

Figure 35: Map of regions for hardwood sourcing in Germany (Source: NOVA 2011)

Furthermore, the map shows highways and the locations of hardwood sawmills according to the German wood industry business directory IHB. The existence of highways, i.e. transportation infrastructure, is an important determinant for the location of industries and therefore also for the case study bio-refinery. As can be seen on map above, also the location of hardwood sawmills tends to be relatively close to highways. Other means of transport such as rivers and railroads can also be used. Furthermore, map shows that close to the hardwood rich regions, there is the densely populated urban area around Cologne and Düsseldorf. This area is known for its chemical industry cluster. Not only does this region therefore the availability of feedstock, but also potential customers of bio-refinery products.

4.2.1.3 Forest structure

One aspect of the forestry structure that differs significantly between these states is the ownership structure. Forests in Germany can either be owned publicly by the federal government or the individual state governments, communally by the individual communes in the states or privately . It is well known, that the mobilisation of wood especially from small, privately owned forests is a big problem. Accordingly the rate of utilisation of wood is much higher in publicly owned than in privately owned forests. Another relevant socio-economic aspect is the very high use of hardwood for domestic log-wood heating : 64% of hardwood in Germany is used for direct domestic heating. It is very difficult to change this very inefficient use of wood, especially in rural areas. Furthermore, saw mills in Germany mostly process softwood, not hardwood. The demand and prices of softwood are therefore much more dependent on the economic development than those of hardwood.

4.2.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: NOVA)

Mainly due to the increasing demand for bio-energy, there is increasing competition for wood in Germany . Already, about 48% of wood in Germany is used for energy. Increasingly, not only residues are used for energy but also higher value materials that are used by the wood-based panel industry, also including whole stem wood. Estimations result in a wood deficit in Germany of approx. 32 Mio. m3 by 2020. Without taking into account 2G biofuels, the deficit would be approx. 20 Mio. m3.

4.2.3 Feedstock

4.2.3.1 Categories

The main prerequisite for wood to be used as a BIOCORE feedstock is that the material is free of bark. As such, different forms of woody feedstock are possible:

• Wood chips : Either directly produced from whole stem wood or as a by-product from saw mills

• Wood pellets : Produced from saw mill residues, either from saw dust or from pelletisation of further diminished wood chips or shavings (micro-chips).

Figure 36: Flow charts for forest wood or sawn wood (source: NOVA)

Parts of the saw mill residues accumulated in saw mills within the case study region do not come from wood from outside of this region. Realistically, these amounts should be included in the potentially available amount of feedstock. These amounts will therefore be treated as part of the available feedstock although it was decided that no "imported" biomass should be used . The total feedstock potential therefore consists of the potentially available amount of debarkable wood from forests (i.e. wood with a diameter > 7 cm) in the case study region, plus the amount of bark-free saw mill residues originating from outside of the region but accumulated in sawmills within the region. The main data on the feedstock potential is based on the German Forest Inventory ("Bundeswaldinventur"). This inventory was last done in 2002 and modeled forest development until 2042. A key figure that is modeled is the so-called potential raw wood availability ("Potenzielles Rohholzaufkommen"), which is the amount of wood (> 7 cm

diameter) potentially harvestable under a certain scenario, including models of tree growth, thinning, end use and grading.

4.2.3.2 Harwood/softwood

From the results of CIMV, it appears to be possible to use a maximum share of 10% of softwood adding to 90% of hardwood in the process. The final decision is still due whether also 100% of softwood could be used in a pelletised form.

4.2.3.3 Scenario for EIA

The present study needs one defined scenario regarding the form of wood and the shares of hardwood and softwood. For this purpose, the scenario will be defined as 100% wood chips from primary forest wood, divided b etween 90% hardwood and 10% softwood chips.

4.2.3.4 Current potential

a ) Description The planned capacity for this case study is 150,000 tons (dry feedstock). The planned raw materials will be a mixture of 90% hardwood with a maximum of 10% softwood. Softwood tree species are dominating in Germany (about 66% softwood and 34% hardwood). However, in the states of Western Germany, the share of hardwood tree species is comparably high : In Rhineland-Palatinate (RP) about 58%, in Saarland about 70%, in North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW) about 53% and in Hesse about 55%. The selected case study region is therefore in fact, as expected, characterised by higher shares of hardwood compared to the German average. The production of sawn hardwood in Germany amounted to 1,094,000 m3 in 2008 and 767,000 m3 in 2009, a decline of almost 30%, compared to a production of 21,966,000 m3 sawn softwood in 2008 and 19,656,000 m3 in 2009, respectively (Pepke 2009). According to different studies, the hardwood potential in Germany is growing. Important reasons are that there is relatively little demand for hardwood from the wood based panel industry, which prefers softwood, and also the wood pellet industry in Germany is almost exclusively using softwood. In the case of primary forest wood, an important prerequisite is that the diameter will need to be minimum 5–6 cm in order to allow debarking.

b ) Feedstock Then, there are 2.6 millions hectares of forest in the target area, including:

• 1.4 millions hectares of mature timber of broadleaf • 1.2 millions hectares of mature timber of resinous

The mean annual increment (MAI) is closed to 8 cubic meters for broadleaf and 15 for resinous; and currently, 31% of MAI on hardwood area is harvested (domestic fuel: 65%, particle boards: 12%; saw wood: 9%) and 65 % of MAI on softwood area is harvested (saw wood: 56%; particle boards: 16%; CHP: 12%; Pulp and viscose: 11%). Currently 7.0 millions tons of wood (dry matter of marketable wood) are collected and used mainly as saw wood (39%) and domestic fuel (26%).

Additional harvested wood for BRP supply (150,000 tDM : 135,000 tDM from broadleaf and 15,000 from resinous ) represents a very small increase of the current total harvest of marketable wood: 2.2% for broadleaf forest area and 0.2% for resinous forest area. It is assuming that forest in the target area can support this slight increase of the harvest. The regional forest reports show that the same situ ation applies as for Germany, apart from singular events such as storms, indicating that the forests could tolerate an increase of use of about 2% (sour ce: case study leader).

4.2.3.5 Available feedstock in 2025

a ) Competition for hardwood There is high competition for wood all over Europe . According to estimates, a wood deficit of approximately 290 PJ is projected for Germany by 2020. The main reason for the supply deficit lies in the increasing use of wood for energy. Without taking 2nd generation biofuels into account, the deficit would be approximately 20 million of solid cubic meters Specifically in the case of hardwood, the dominating use is in fact direct thermal use as split logs for domestic heating. Private small-scale wood buyers who have acquired a license to source wood for their domestic heating collect a large part of it. This practice is widespread in rural areas of Germany and is supported by local governments. If larger quantities of hardwood were to be mobilised for a bio-refinery, this competing use needs to be taken into account. Interviews with stakeholders have already indicated that there would be considerable resistance if these privileges to purchase firewood were to be compromised.

b ) Feedstock Then, there will be 2.7 millions hectares of forest in the target area in 2025 (forest area increases by 4% between 2010 and 2025), including:

• 1.5 millions hectares of mature timber of broadleaf • 1.2 millions hectares of mature timber of resinous

The mean annual increment (MAI) is closed to 8 cubic meters for broadleaf and 14 for resinous. 34% of MAI on hardwood area will be harvested (domestic fuel: 61%, particle boards: 10%; bio fuel: 8% saw wood: 7%) and 75 % of MAI on softwood area will be harvested (saw wood: 54%; particle boards: 14%; CHP: 12%; Pulp and viscose: 11%; domestic fuel and biofuels: 9%). In 2025 7.7 millions tons of wood (dry matter of marketable wood) will be collected mainly for saw wood (36%) and domestic fuel (25%). Additional harvested wood for BRP supply (150,000 tDM : 135,000 tDM from broadleaf and 15,000 from resinous) represents a very small increase of the current total harvest of marketable wood: 2.0% for broadleaf forest area and 0.2% for resinous forest area. It is assuming that forest in the target area can support this slight increase of the harvest.

4.2.3.6 Summary

The table below summarizes the feedstock availability for 2015 and 2025.

Tableau 48: Feedstock for 2015 and 2025

2015 2025

Broadleaf Resinous Broadleaf Resinous

Forest area (Mha) 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.2

MAI*** of marketable wood** (m3/ha)

8 15 8 14

MAI*** harvested initial (%) 31% 65% 34% 75%

Wood harvest (MtDM)* 1.9 5.1 2.2 5.5

Wood harvest (MtDM) 7.0 7.7

Additional need for BRP (MtDM) 0.150 0.150

Additional need for BRP (MtDM) 0.135 0.015 0.135 0.015

Additional need for BRP (%MAI harvested)

2.2% 0.2% 2.0% 0.18%

MAI harvested final (%) 33.2% 65.2% 36% 75.2%

*wood density: 0.44 tDM/m3 for resinous – 0.55 tDM/m3 for broadleaf **Marketable wood: tree trunk and branches with diameter larger than 7 cm ***MAI: Mean Annual Increment

4.2.4 Logistic from forest to factory gate

The wood is cut down, then back along the road. At the roadside, the wood is debarked and chipped, and put directly into trucks. The truck will ride an average of 100 km to the factory gate. On factory site, wood chips are stored and dried (from 60%-40% moisture content to less than 20%). Following assumptions are made for logistic:

• Energy consumption for chipping: 52,5 kwh/tDM • 1 cubic meter of solid wood equal 2.4 loose cubic meter of chips • Average distance from forest road to factory gate: 100 km ; • Transport category: truck (capacity 100 m3); • Fuel consumption: 40 liter of gasoil/100 km.

Figure 37: Chipping wood (stem > 7 cm diameter) in forest roadside and truck loading

4.2.5 Linkage between state of environment and forest pattern

4.2.5.1 Environmental situation or priorities of forest within the German case study

a ) Climate change Due to climate change, flora and fauna in forests are changing. There are increasing damages by insects that benefit from warmer and dryer springs, such as the Oak Processionary (Thaumetopoea processionea). In the four German federal states concerned, share of healthy trees decreased and the share of heavily damaged trees increased:

• North-Rhine-Westphalia (NW): 32% of trees with zero damage (only 16% for oak);

• Hessen (HE): The 2010 forest condition survey shows an average defoliation of 22 %;

• Rhineland-Palatinate (RP): the share of trees without any damages is 30% and the share of weakly damaged trees is 44% (oak: deterioration of the situation)

• Saarland (SL): the share of heavy damaged trees is 27%, and 77% of all trees show signs of damages. Pine is the species with the highest share of severe damages (51%), followed by oak (37%), beech (27%) and spruce (19%)

Furthermore, extreme weather incidents (storms) have increased and led to heavy damages especially in spruce forests. Therefore there is also an intense discussion about adapting the tree species and forest management sta nds to climate change :

• from pure even-aged stands into multi-layered uneven-aged mixed forest stands; • introduction of new species; • economical and environmental benefits of new forest stands.

b ) Soil in forest

♦Acidification and eutrophication Acidification and eutrophication remain to be a big problem, largely due to deposition from agricultural sources. Concentrations of other harmful substances like SO2 and heavy metals have decreased much in recent years. Only in some areas, concentrations are still high due to depositions from previous decades. Also ozone concentrations did not cause significant damages to the forest in recent years. In the German federal states concerned, soils are affected by:

• Hessen: that 65 % to 70 % of upper mineral soil layers of forest sites (5-10 cm and 10-30 cm soil depth) are still severely acidified (to face soil acidification, a wide ranging liming activities is done in Hessian forests);

• Rhineland-Palatinate (RP): o many forest eco-systems in RP still contain high levels of heavy metals

from previous periods of higher deposition, e.g. from before the introduction of unleaded gasoline;

o acid indicating species dominate in many places, showing that acidification is still a problem;

• Saarland (SL): For soils from bunter, quartzite and shale, the soil acidification has reached a degree that an irreversible destruction of the clay minerals and the partly loss of the soil function has taken place.

♦Soil nutrient depletion Important aspects of the case study are effects of increasing the use of forest wood (minimum 5–6 cm to allow debarking) on the forest nutrient balance. According to Rehfuess (1990) the switch from common solid volume wood utilisation without bark to whole tree utilisation leads to an increase of utilised mass of 40% to 70%. However, the nitrogen and phosphor removal at the same time increases 6 to 10 fold and those of potassium, calcium and magnesium 3 to 5 fold. If nutrients are increasingly taken out of the forest, this could have severe consequences on the forest ecosystem and forest economics. The management of forest residues is therefore a key issue within the forest management. In this case study, forest residues are left on the grounds in forest area.

c ) Flora and fauna Healthy trees decrease and air pollutant deposition affect flora and fauna:

• Oak is very important for biodiversity: 289 monophagous insect species depend on oak. The fact that pest particularly affects oaks (caterpillar), tends to reduce biodiversity in the forest;

• Due to air pollutant deposition (SO2 from industries, nitrogen), flora (as lichen) turns to nitrogen tolerant species or acid tolerant species.

4.2.5.2 Potential environmental impacts forest management

In this study, forest management includes forest operations from extraction of felled wood to the delivery point at the roadside (logging operations: forestry machines, thinning,…). During forest management, not only stem wood is produced but also branches and bark. The management (and the final destination) of these forest residues can affect environment (see above Soil forest depletion paragraph). In addition, forest provides other environmental benefits: soil and water protection, biodiversity, carbon storage, regulation of local and regional weather . Given the many functions of environmental protection played by a forest, the potential impacts of forest management (for wood production) are numerous. Table below summarizes the potential impacts of forestry activities.

Tableau 49: Potential impacts of forestry activities (logging and forest roads) – (FAO)

Forestry activity

Logging

Soil Rill or gully erosion

Loss of nutrients and organic matter

Decrease or alteration of microflora and fauna

Soil compaction

Water resources Decrease infiltration and groundwater recharge

Increase storm runoff

Climate and air quality Higher ground temperature

Local and regional desiccation of the climate

Release of CO2

PM emissions

Vegetation Decrease of forest regeneration (changes in populations of animals that act as pollinators or seed

vectors, seed trees may not survive mechanical damage and “isolation shock”)

Genetic erosion (selective cutting of superior trees)

Reduction of the total population of one species

Forest conversion

Wildlife Nesting site (eg.: hallow trees) may be eliminated

Feeding and bedding grounds (and bottom organism) may be affected (logging debris, machinery)

Animals disturbance (noise, human presence)

Rare or endemic species can be eliminated

Animals can be favoured and become pests or disease vectors

Forest road and logging camp

Soil compaction and increasing of runoff and erosion

May require additional forest removal

Increase local traffic: air pollution, source of accidents, …

a ) Linkage between state of environment and forest pattern: review Environmental impacts of the forest management and status of environment had been summarized using a qualitative approach. Table below describes colors and code used.

Tableau 50: Codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE)

Environmental impact Code SOE Code

Negative impact � Bad status

Positive impact � Medium status

No impact Ø Good status

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 102 / 172

Tableau 51: Environmental priorities and potential impacts of forest management on status of environment (SOE)

Theme Forest operations Pressure/Impact Impact SOE SOE

Environmental priorities - Climate change

Warmer and dryer springs

Increasing damages by insects �� Increasing the share of damaged trees

Environmental priorities – soil

Acidification and eutrophication

Deposition (and accumulation) of air pollutants and nitrogen in

forest

�� Acidification and eutrophication

Water

Quantity No water requirement

Ø

Quality No direct impact of forest

operations on water quality

Ø

Soil

Erosion Use of forestry machines

Rill or gully erosion � Very low or no erosion under forest area

Compaction Use of forestry machines Forest road and logging

camp

Additional pressure on soil � Surface soil compaction

Nutrient Wood (and forest residues exportation)

Nutrient exportation � Soil nutrient depletion

Biodiversity and organic matter

Ø

Air GHG emissions Use of fossil fuel for wood harvesting, chipping and

transportation

CO2 emission � Very low emissions of GHG from forest

exploitation

GHG sequestration Wood harvested

Reduction of carbon storage rate

� Forest still a carbon well

Biodiversity Vegetation Intensive logging and forest operations

Decrease of forest regeneration Genetic erosion

Forest conversion

�� Decreasing of the diversity of trees

Wildlife Intensive logging and forest operations

Wildlife disturbance � Reduction of wildlife

Resources Resources Use of fossil fuel for wood harvesting, chipping and

transportation

� Resource depletion

Solagro – rapport final provisoire - date - Page 104 sur 172

4.2.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation 150 kt

4.2.6.1 Intensification of forest activities

The increasing trend of logging is important between 2015 and 2025 for softwood (10%) and low for hardwood (3%). Whether in 2015 or 2025, the establishment of the BRP results in the increased intensity of forest operations. This increase is 2% for hardwood and almost zero for softwood (<0.3%). Tendentiously, the environmental situation is deteriorating because the forest is increasingly exploited. Consequently all the negative impacts described are increased by the introduction of the BRP. The Table below describes additional impacts on soil linked to BRP implementation.

Tableau 52: Additional impacts on soil linked to BRP implementation

150 kt Add. env. Impact

Soil Slight increase of use of forestry machines �

Vegetation Slight increase of logging and forest operations �

Wildlife Slight increase of logging and forest operations and disturbance �

Climate change* Ø

Acidification*and eutrophication*

new pollutant emissions related to the implementation of the factory ? �?

*environmental priorities of the German case study

4.2.6.2 GHG emission, carbon storage and fossil resource consumption

Combining collected data from forest practices in 2015 and evolution in 2025, indicators be estimated for each situations.

Tableau 53: GHG emissions, carbon storage and fossil resource consumption

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A*

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A* Situation B (A+BRP)

CO2 emissions from forest to

factory gate (kt of CO2)

51.3 57.4 55.84 80.0

Carbone storage (Million tons of

CO2) 854 853 929 928

Fossil fuel consumption from forest to factory

gate (ktOE)

16.41 18.35 17.84 19.76

Additional fuel consumption for

BRP from forest to factory gate (ktOE)

0 1.94 1.93

Additional CO2

emission for BRP from forest to

factory gate (kt CO2)

0 6 6

*Situation: stem wood production is transported by truck (100 km) The table below describes additional impacts on air linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 54: dditional impacts on air linked to bio-refinery implementation

150 kt Add. env. Impact

GHG emissions Increase of CO2emission by 9% in 2015 and by 8% in 2025 �

Carbone storage Slight decrease of carbon storage �

Fossil fuel consumption

Increase of fossil fuel consumption (logging, chipping and transport) by 10% �

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 106 / 172

Tableau 55: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE)

Theme SOEi* BRP implementation Impact Additional forest operation (trends)

Impact SOEf*

Environmental priorities - Climate change

Warmer and dryer springs

Ø Ø

Environmental priorities – soil

Acidification and eutrophication

Ø Ø

Water

Quantity

No additional water requirement

Ø No additional water requirement

Ø

Quality

No direct impact of forest operations on water

quality

Ø No direct impact of forest operations on

water quality

Ø

Soil

Erosion

Increasing of use of forestry machines

� Increasing of use of forestry machines

�

Compaction

Increasing use of forestry machines

and implementation of new forest road and

logging camp

� Increasing use of forestry machines

and implementation of new forest road and

logging camp

�

Nutrient

Low increasing of wood exportation (forest

residues left on site)

� Increasing of nutrient exportation

�

Biodiversity and organic matter

Ø Ø

Air GHG emissions

Slight additional Use of fossil fuel for wood

harvesting, chipping and transportation

� Additional use of fossil fuel for wood

harvesting, chipping and transportation

��

GHG sequestration

Low increase of wood exportation

� Increase of wood exportation

��

Biodiversity Vegetation

Slight increase of logging and forest operations

� Increase logging and forest operations

��

Wildlife

Slight increase of logging and forest operations

� Increase logging and forest operations

��

Resources Resources

Slight additional Use of fossil fuel for wood

harvesting, chipping and transportation

� Additional use of fossil fuel for wood

harvesting, chipping and transportation

��

Land use change

Ø Ø

*SOEi: initial status of environment; SOEf: final status of environment

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 108 / 172

4.2.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures

The establishment of the BRP will result in increased logging (forest operations) in the target area. This increase is 2% of the amount of hardwood harvested in 2015 or 2025 (and less 0.5% for softwood). It is assuming that forest in the target area (2.6 millions hectares of forest) can support this slight increase of the harvest: approximately 1/3 of the mean annual increment is harvested in hardwood forest: 31% in 2015 and 34% in 2025. This increase is also small because the case study area is very large and additional wood harvest is done on whole forest area. In real situation, the additional harvest can be done on smaller area (depending on forest owners agreement), and then the environmental pressure will be higher. However, this small increase (due to the establishment of the plant) increases anthropogenic pressure on the forest, and intensifi es environmental impacts : erosion and compaction (forestry machines), slight increase nutrient export (forest residues are left on the ground), increase use of fossil resource (forest operation, chipping, and transportation from forest to factory gate: 100 km), decrease forest regeneration, increase disturbance of wildlife, decrease the amount of carbon stored in forests. In addition to the damage associated with logging, the forest is affected by climate change (damages by insects, storm) and air pollution (acidification and eutrophication). Moreover, there is high competition for wood all over Europe. According to estimates, a wood deficit of approximately 290 PJ is projected for Germany by 2020. The main reason for the supply deficit lies in the increasing use of wood for energy. Without taking 2nd generation biofuels into account, the deficit would be approximately 20 million of solid cubic meters. Bio-refineries would add another competing use to t he already strong competition for wood . So, tendentiously, the environmental situation is deteriorating because the forest is increasingly exploited (+10% between 2015 and 2025 on the target area). Consequently all negative impacts described are increased by the introduction of the BRP. Specifically in the case of hardwood , the dominating use is direct thermal use as split logs for domestic heating. Private small-scale wood buyers who have acquired a license to source wood for their domestic heating collect a large part of it. This practice is widespread in rural areas of Germany and is supported by local governments. If larger quantities of hardwood were to be mobilised for a bio-refinery, this competing use needs to be taken into account. Local interviews have already indicated that there would be considerable resistance if these privileges to purchase firewood were to be compromised. It can be a strong social limit for BRP mainly based on hardwood supply.

Numerous measures should be implemented to minimize environmental impacts related to more intensive exploitation of the forest (mainly hardwood forest) and feedstock logistic:

• Design and use forestry management practices that can guarantee the integrity and/or improvement of forest resources:

o forest residues management (soil nutrient depletion); o old trees and hollow trees management ; o wildlife protection; o soil protection (erosion, compaction); o water protection; o protection of high conservation value forests.

• Continue intense discussion about adapting the tree species and forest management stands to climate change:

o from pure even-aged stands into multi-layered uneven-aged mixed forest stands;

o introduction of new species; o economical and environmental benefits of new forest stands.

• Logistic: o other means of transport than trucks, such as rivers and railroads, can

also be used. Another way, could be to reduce pressure on the forest in the target area:

• Use alternative raw material o use saw mill residues (sawdust) as feedstock for BRP instead of stem

wood; o use of SRC; o some raw material supply may also be planned from the neighboring

countries of Luxemburg, Belgium and France. • Reduce the demand of hardwood for thermal uses. If the currently high support

level for the thermal use of wood will be reduced, bio-refineries could provide a new market for the existing structure and capacities for wood chip and pellet production (see development of the next political framework for bioenergy). This would be a very high value use compared to use for energy, especially compared to direct burning

• Increase wood availability (especially from private forests) to distribute the pressure (forest exploitation) on maximum area. The German federal government has proposed three main measures to increase wood availability:

o felling of younger trees; o increase the use of wood from private forests; o increasingly plant exotic tree species such as Douglas fir and red oak.

4.3 Indian case studies: Sangrur and Faridkot 4.3.1 Current straw management in the Rice-Wheat Systems (RWS)

Indian case studies, being a rice-wheat cropping belt, have abundance of rice straw as residue. Currently, after the crop is harvested, rice residues are mostly burnt (90%) in field. Only 10% of rice straw is harvested and used for:

• bedding purposes for cattle; • pulp and paper mills; • harvesting of Basmati variety of rice is done manually to obtain unbroken grains; • used for fodder. Only 10% of the wheat straw is brunt after the crop is harvested. A large part (40%) of wheat straw is commonly used as fodder (mechanical harvesting).

Tableau 56: Current use of straw (rice and wheat) in the Indian case studies

Rice straw Wheat straw

Field burning 90% 10%

Fodder <10% 40%

Pulp and paper industry

<10% 25%

Others <10% 25%*

*the remaining 25% are either stored (and used when needed, filling in the following years), or exported to other states.

Figure 38: Current biomass (grain and crop residues) value chain (Source: TERI)

Burning of crop residues (mainly rice straw) is a prevalent practice in northwest India. For this study, it is important to well known the reasons why, 90% of rice straw is currently burnt:

• to design alternative uses; • to set up mitigation measures coherent with agriculture pattern.

Figure 39: Open field burning of crop residues (2)

The major constraint in the RWS is the available short time between rice harvesting and plantation of wheat (less than 20 days):

• Rice: o Sowing period: May-June o Harvest period: first or second week of October

• Wheat: o Sowing period: November (first week to end of November) o Harvest period: April

But generalization of open field burning of rice straw (as a solution to clear the field before wheat sowing) is a recent evolution within the rice wheat system (RWS) and it is due to a combination of factors (Gupta et al., 2004 and 1):

• adoption of Green Revolution technologies led to introduction of high yield cultivar for rice and wheat (high yield both grain as well as straw yield );

• performance of wheat crop is highly susceptible to any delay in planting, and presence of rice straw is a problem for an early wheat sowing (with the current agriculture practices and technologies): need time for straw mineralization, soil incorporation of straw immediately before sowing significantly lowers crop yield because of immobilization of inorganic N (N deficiency during a short period);

• Increasing labour wages and labour shortage prevent timely harvest of rice straw. This has resulted in mechanization of harvesting and introduction of combine harvesters . Combine harvester leaves behind a large amount of loose straw in the field (80% of the residues), whose disposal is difficult. In Northwest India 75% of cropped area use combine harvester (Gupta et al., 2004), and in Punjab 75% of wheat cropped area and 90% of rice cropped area use combine harvester (expert judgment). Only 10% of rice straw is harvested manually.

• Rice straw is inferior in feeding quality than wheat straw and hardly use for fodder, and during the past decades livestock number decline;

• Lack of economical feasibility of the other options.

Figure 40: Combine harvester in operation – loose straw on the ground

Thus, open burning of rice straw is the fast way and the best economical option, to clear the field of residual biomass and facilitating further land preparation and sowing. It also provides a fast way of controlling weeds, insects and diseases . Burning is also perceived by farmers to boost soil fertility.

4.3.2 Indian case study-1: Sangrur

4.3.2.1 Case study description: current situation (2010-2015)

a ) Location Sangrur is located in the South-Est part of Punjab.

Figure 41: Sangrur – Case study location

b ) Land use Among the 500,000 hectares of the target region, agriculture is the major land use. Forestry is negligible, in form of protected area in Sangrur:

• Total area: 500,000 hectares • Farmland area: 440,000 hectares (90%) • Urban area: 55,000 hectares (10%) • Forest and fallow: 10,000 hectares (2%)

Farming system is based on Rice-Wheat cropping systems. In this area, high production level is achieved thanks to:

• modern techniques; • minimum support prices guarantee remunerative prices to farmers; • well-equipped markets and connectivity had made market access easy and

affordable to farmers;

• promotion of agriculture through research and incentives given to farmers had been driver for sustaining the rice-wheat cropping systems.

Crops of rice and wheat are held in the same year. Then the region has (per year) 400,000 hectares of wheat and 370,000 hectares of rice. Other crops represent less than 100,000 hectares (maize,…). It represents a developed UAA of 770,000 hectares.

4.3.2.2 Case study description: trends for 2025 (source: TERI)

The following assumptions have been set to describe the situation in 2025 (without taking into account a BRP implementation :

• area under cultivation of Paddy and Wheat would be constant ; • reduction of livestock number (10%); • rice straw exportation to reduce the burning to 45% of the cropped area ; • Given no competition (no bio-refinery) of rice straw, biomass based power plants

would be proposed and executed to utilize the residual rice straw by organisations looking for cheap raw materials;

• 50% of rice straw will be collected for biomass bas ed power plants and other uses ;

• 70% of the fertilizer requirement would be met through conventional fertilizers and rest through biofertilizers (mycorrhiza);

• water requirement to be decreased to 80% of normal through innovations in irrigation practices in case of rice;

• 10% of rice and wheat area under organic farming . Under organic farming, crop residue management change:

o wheat straw: � 50% incorporate into ground � 50% use for cattle feed and mulching

o rice straw: � 70% incorporate into ground � 30% for Biomass based power plants

• Assuming 20% reducing in fuel consumption due to fuel efficient mechanisms and use of green technology;

• Possible impacts of climate change on RWS: o grain yield would increase depending on new dwarf varieties being

developed; o straw availability may be reduced depending on the development of dwarf

varieties; o water demand: remain indifferent.

4.3.2.3 Feedstock

a ) Plant capacities, feedstock and surface require d Tow capacities are planned for this case study: 150 k tons (dry feedstock) and 500,000 tons (dry feedstock). The lingo-cellulosic biomass feedstock considered for these cases includes rice and wheat crop residues particularly the straw and the stalks, which is in considerable proportions to grain (1.5). Rice straw will cover ¾ of the feedstock and wheat straw ¼ .

Tableau 57: Plant capacities and area required

Rice straw Wheat straw

Crop residues ratio 3/4 1/4

Plant Capacities (tons)

500,000 375,000 125,000

150,000 112,500 37,500

Yield (tDM/ha) 4.7 4.8

Grain:straw ratio 1:1.5 1:1.5

Straw (harvestable + stubble) tDM/ha 7.0 7.2

Share of stubble (non-harvestable) and other things left at field

20% 20%

Straw (harvestable) tDM/ha 5.5 5.7

Needed area - Plant capacity 500 kt 70,000 22,000

Needed area - Plant capacity 150 kt 20,000 6,500

b ) Straw potential

♦Current straw potential The potential of straw is calculated in several steps. The first is to calculate the total amount of straw by multiplying surfaces by a straw production per hectare. For the region concerned, this represents 5.4 million tons. In a second step, competitive uses (fodder, paper and pulp industry) and non-harvestable part (stubble) are deducted. Open field burning is not considered here. At the end 2.5 million tons are available is the target area (currently burnt): 1.9 from rice straw and 0.6 from wheat straw.

Tableau 58: Current straw potential

Rice Wheat Total

UAA 1000 ha 370 400 770***

Straw (harvestable + stubble*) tDM/ha

7.0 7.2**

Straw production 1,000 tDM 2,575 2,865 5,440

Current use (expect field burning and BRP) - % and 1,000 tDM

255 1,860 2,115

Fodder 1,150 1,135

Other (sold out – other states paper and pulp industries,…)

255 710 965

Share of stubble (non-harvestable) - % and 1,000 tDM

10% - 260 10% - 290 550

Initial straw (harvestable) potential 1,000 tDM

2,060 715 2,770

Share of harvestable straw left on the soil for SOC maintenance % and 1,000 tDM

0% 0% 0%

Share of straw lost during harvesting - % and 1,000 tDM

10% - 200 10% - 70 270

Final straw (harvestable) potential 1,000 tDM

1,860 650 2,505

Currently brunt 1,000tDM 2,300 300

*Stubble: bottom part of the stems released on the soil (considered as non-harvestable) **Grain:straw ratio = 1:1.5 (grain yield=4,8 tDM); *** developed UAA

♦Available feedstock in 2025 In 2025, the situation is largely unchanged (same UAA). The main changes are:

• the number of dairy cows (10% reduction) • reserve straw for other use (30% increase to cover new needs: dairy/packaging

and biomass based power) Finally, 1,2 million tons will be available in this area for a proposed bio-refinery in 2025: 0.8 from rice straw and 0.4 from wheat straw.

Tableau 59: Straw potential in 2025

Rice Wheat Total

UAA 1,000 ha 370 400 770***

UAA (conventional farming) 1,000 ha

335 360 395***

Straw (harvestable + stubble*) tDM/ha

7.0 7.2**

Straw production 1000 tDm 2,590 2,880 5,470

Use (expect field burning and BRP) - % and 1000 tDM

1,275 1,980 3,255

Fodder 990

Other (sold out – other states paper and pulp industries,

biomass based power plant)

1,275 990

Share of stubble (non-harvestable)

10% - 260 10% - 290 550

Initial straw (harvestable) potential 1,000 tDM

1,055 610 1,665

Share of harvestable straw left on the soil for SOC maintenance

150 (OF) 115 (OF)

Share of straw lost during harvesting - % and 1,000 tDM

10% - 90 10% - 50 170

Final straw (harvestable) potential 1,000 tDM

810 440 1,250

*Stubble: bottom part of the stems released on the soil (considered as non-harvestable); **Grain:straw ratio = 1:1.5 (grain yield=4,8 tDM); *** developed UAA; OF: organic farming (rice: 70% of straw incorporation into ground – wheat: 50% of straw incorporation into ground)

♦Summary The available feedstocks are:

• in 2015: 2,4 million tons of straw (80% from rice field) • in 2025: 1,2 million tons of straw (75% from rice field)

Theses potential are estimated without taking into account soil carbon issue. Without new economic opportunities (like bio-refinery implementation), theses amount of straw will be burnt. Theses amount of straw are coherent with capacities of planned factories (150 kt and 500 kt) in 2015 or 2025. In the case of a plant capacity of 500 kt, feedstock requirements represent 40% of the available straw (with taking into account straw needs for soil organic matter issue, in a minimum way).

4.3.2.4 Logistic from field to factory gate

a ) Global design Straw is characterized by low bulk density and low energy yield per weight basis. The logistic of collection, transportation and storage is a major issue. A suggestive supply chain for rice straw (source: TERI) procurement could be :

• farmers to be communicated for procurement of rice straw at a predetermined price;

• rice straw located at farm gates of different farmers has to be collected (reapers and trolley ). This could be done by middle man (aggregator) on commission basis or directly by BRP by employing manpower;

• If middle man (aggregator ) is involved, then collection and storage center for rice straw would be his responsibility and aggregator will deliver the straw at the factory gate on predetermined price; else BRP has to create this facility and manage the procurement from farm gate to factory gate.

• bailing technology is not common, so aggregator will supply tightly bundled raw rice straw at factory gate.

Above mentioned suggested supply chain already exists to cater the wheat straw market so aggregator need to be contacted and contracted for delivery of tightly bundled wheat straw at factory gate.

b ) Straw collection Currently, utilization of combine harvester leaves behind a large amount of loose straw in the field whose disposal or utilization in the short time (before wheat planting) is difficult. Collection and disposal of straw remain a practicable problem. Options for straw collection can be:

• modification of combine harvesters , whereby the residues is separately collected and remove from the field;

• use of fuel efficient straw reapers used to collect straw in trolleys and transported from farm to aggregators;

• use of balers or bundles by biomass based power companies. For this case study, straw collection will be done by using straw reapers (and trolley). To estimate energy consumption, assumption had been used gasoil consumption of straw reapers (10 l/ha). It should be noted that all the rice straw should b e harvested during a period of up to 15 days (to allow wheat sowing in good conditions). This implies a very good logistics.

Figure 42: Straw reapers one field

c ) Straw transportation To estimate energy consumption, following assumptions had been used:

• Average distance from field to factory gate: 50 km (maximum distance) • Type of transport: Tractor with modified trolley (capacity of 10 tons of straw) • Gasoil consumption: 0.15 liter/km or 0.75 liter/t of straw

d ) Straw pre-treatment Aggregator provides tightly bundled raw rice straw at factory. This operation does not require energy (done manually).

4.3.2.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern

a ) Environmental priorities for the case study (so il and water)

♦Depleting groundwater (impact of RWS) Extensive groundwater development has taken place in the last 4-5 decades - particularly in the private sector - to meet the growing water demand for agriculture, domestic needs and industry. The number of pumping wells in Punjab has gradually grown to around one million (of which more than 90% are used for agriculture). This tremendous groundwater development has greatly helped the farmers in Punjab for increasing the cropping intensity to meet the ever growing demand for food and fiber (Punjab irrigation and power department, 2009).

Figure 43: Flood irrigation is the most wasteful irrigation system

However, this groundwater development – mainly, in the private sector - has resulted in aquifer mining - particularly in the tail reaches of the canal commands. Following a few factors warrant a systematic monitoring of groundwater resources:

• the farmers pump groundwater according to their crop water requirements - without any consideration to the annual recharge and or discharge;

• over pumping in many areas is resulting in the continuous decline of water level and deterioration of the groundwater quality by disturbing the groundwater regime;

• during the last few years authorities have completed a number of projects to ensure the uniformity and equity in irrigation supplies particularly the water supply in the tail reaches. Whereas this has helped the farmers in the tail reaches it has also changed the seepage and groundwater recharge pattern;

• during the development process of increasing road-network and other developments, the drainage paths have been obstructed in many areas of the Province – creating drainage problems in low lying areas located in and along the remnant channels;

• continuous discharge of untreated sewerage and industrial effluents in creating problems of groundwater quality by contaminating the groundwater reservoir.

The above factors have given birth to a number of adverse interactions such as:

• abnormal lowering of water table in some of the areas making the pumping more expensive, thus depriving farmers of using groundwater to supplement the canal water supplies;

• saline groundwater intrusion in the areas adjacent to the saline ground water zones due to excessive pumping in fresh groundwater areas;

• deterioration of groundwater quality in the areas with shallow lens of fresh ground water overlying saline ground water due to up coning of saline fresh water interface;

• pollution of the aquifer in many areas due to the continuous discharge of the untreated sewerage and industrial waste water

• water logging and salinity in the areas located along the major canals and/or in the topographic depressions.

The map below shows the area of Sangrur is particularly affected by the decline of groundwater levels: between 1975 and 2003 the drop in level is between 8 and 16 meters

Figure 44: Long term Fluctuations in ground water level 1975-2003 (source: central Ground Water Board)

♦Salinisation of soil Inland salinity is also caused due to practice of surface water irrigation without consideration of ground water status. The gradual rise of ground water levels with time has resulted in water logging and heavy evaporation in semi arid regions lead to salinity problem in command areas. The causes of salinization are explained in detail in the following case study, where the situation is more critical (see Faridkot case study)

b ) Environmental impact of the current feedstock m anagement: Open field burning of rice straw

♦Air pollution and human health Burning of crop residues is recognized as an important source of pollutant emission. It leads to emission of trace gases (CH4, CO, N2O, NOx, SO2) and hydrocarbons. Moreover burning of straw emits large amount of particulates that are composed of wide variety of organic and inorganic species (Gupta et al., 2004).

Tableau 60: Emission from crop residues burning (Gupta et al., 2004).

1 ton of straw burning

Units Note

Particulate matter

3 kg

CO 60 kg 7% of the C present in rice

straw

CO2 1,460 kg 70% of the C present in rice

straw

Ash 199 kg

SO2 2 kg

CH4 5 kg 0,66% of the C present in rice

straw

N2O 2,09 % of N in straw

NH3 40-80 % of N in straw

Other gases

VOCs/SVOCs/PAHs/PCBs/SOx/NOx

Gases (in the “biomass smoke”) are important for their global impact and my lead to (2):

• a regional increase in the levels of aerosols; • acid deposition; • increase in tropospheric ozone; • depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer.

Figure 45: SO2 concentration in air – Red circle = paddy harvesting period (S.K. Mittal et al. /

Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 238–244)

Figure 46: Aerosol concentration in air – Red circle = paddy harvesting period (S.K. Mittal et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 238–244)

Figure 47: N2O concentration in air – Red circle = paddy harvesting period (S.K. Mittal et al. /

Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 238–244)

Many of the pollutants found in large quantities in biomass smoke are known or suspected carcinogens and could be a major cause of concern leading to various air borne/lung diseases.

♦Soil nutrient depleting (N, P, K, S) Current RWS (double cropping system) with a high-level yield is heavily depleting the soil of its nutrient content. A rice-wheat sequence that yield 7 tons/ha of rice and 4 tons/ha of wheat removes more than (TERI, 2012):

• 300 kg of N/ha; • 30 kg of P/ha; • 300 kg of K/ha.

Crop residues contain an important amount of nutrients (TERI, 2012). About 25% of N and P, 50% of S and 75% of K uptake by cereal crops are retained in crop residues. A large part of theses nutrients is lost due to open field burning (Gupta et al., 2004):

• 100% of C; • 80% of N (whose 40-80% lost as ammonia); • 25% of P; • 50% of S; • 20% of K.

♦Impact of soil properties (heat effect and reduction of soil organic matter) The heat from burning straw, can penetrate into the soil up to 1 cm, elevating the temperature as high as 33.8-42.2°C. (Gupta et al., 2004). Bacterial and fungal population are decreased immediately and substantially only in the top 2.5 cm of the soil upon burning. Repeated burning in the field permanently diminishes the bacterial population by more than 50%, but fungi appeared to recover and also decreased soil respiration. Loss of soil organic matter is one of the recognized threats of the RWS sustainability. Burning (TERI, 2012) immediately increased the exchangeable ammonia (N-NH4+) and bicarbonate extractable-phosphorus content, but there was no buid-up of nutrients in the soil profile. Long-term burning reduces total N and C soil content, and potentially mineralized N in the 0-15 cm soil layer.

♦Biodiversity (flora and fauna) Open field burning of crop residues and intensive agriculture practices cannot have a positive impact on flora and fauna.

c ) Linkage between state of environment and agricu lture pattern: review Environmental impacts of the RWS and status of environment had been summarized using a qualitative approach. The table below describes the colors and codes used.

Tableau 61: Codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE)

Environmental impact Code SOE Code

Negative impact � Bad status

Positive impact � Medium status

No impact Ø Good status

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 125 / 172

Tableau 62: Environmental impact of the rice-wheat system and resulting status of environment (SOE)

Theme Agricultural practices Pressure/Impact Impa ct SOE SOE

Water Water quantity Excessive irrigation Depleting groundwater �� Heavy water table

decline

Water quality Massive use of pesticides and mineral fertilizers

Transfers of contaminants to water bodies

� Current water quality decline

Soil

Fertility Excessive irrigation Soil salinization �� Soil fertility decrease

Soil Biodiversity

Open field straw burning Negative heat effect on soil micro-organisms

� Decline of soil

biodiversity Intensive tillage method Intensive soil disturbance and heat effect

�

Soil organic matter

Intensive crop rotation and burning of crop

residues

Massive exportation of biomass from field (harvested or burnt)

� Decline of soil organic matter (and soil

fertility)

Massive exportation of nutrients � Soil nutrient depleting

Air

Trace gases Burning of crop

residues Emission of trace gases �� Increase of air trace gases concentration

GHG

Flooded area (rice) Mineral N input

Burning of crop residues

GHG emission (CH4, N2O)

�

Biodiversity Flora and fauna

Massive use of pesticides Burning of crop residues

Contamination of trophic chain

��

Resources Resources Use of fossil resources (fuel, P)

� Resource depletion

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 126 / 172

4.3.2.6 Additional environmental impacts of bio-refinery implementation – 500 kt

a ) Water

♦Water consumption Combining collected data from agricultural practices in Sangrur and crop management evolution in 2025, irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume can be estimated for each situation.

Tableau 63: Irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume

500 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Irrigated surfaces (1,000ha)

768 768 768 768

Volume of irrigation water

(Mds m3) 6.9 6.9 5.9 5.9

♦Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) Moreover data about pesticides and mineral fertilizers application on crops for each scenario have been set taking into account current practices and evolution hypothesis.

Tableau 64: Water quality indicators

500 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Number of pesticide treatments (FTI/ha) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5

Quantity of mineral N (1,000 tons of N)

104 107 71 73

Quantity of mineral P (1,000 tons of P) 40 41 27 28

Quantity of mineral K (1,000 tons of K)

45 52 43 50

Pressure kg N/ha (Average including organic surfaces)

136 139 92 95

♦Summary The table below describes additional impacts on water quality and scarcity, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 65: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity

500 kt Add. env. Impact

Water quantity

In both 2015 and 2025 scenarios, the implementation of a bio-refinery won’t induce changes of irrigation water consumption

Ø

Water quality

No extra pesticides are needed in a case of bio-refinery implementation.

Ø

Extra nutrients are needed in a case of bio-refinery implementation (N, P and K exported from the field by straw removal are

compensated by mineral inputs)

�

b ) Soil The main positive effect of bio-refinery implantation is reduction of area under open field burning (mainly rice crop areas):

• In 2010 (500 kt): reduction by 35%; • In 2025 (500 kt): reduction by 50%.

Tableau 66: Evolution of area under open field burning

500 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Area managed with open field burning

(1,000 ha) Plant capacity :

500 kt

372 285 173 86

The table below describes additional impacts on soil linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 67: Additional impacts on soil

500 kt Add. env. Impact

Soil Salinization: implementation of a bio-refinery won’t induce changes of irrigation water consumption Ø

Soil Soil biodiversity: reduction of area under open field burning management (up to 50%) ��

Soil Decline of soil organic matter and soil nutrient content: reduction of area under open field burning management (up to 50%) ��

c ) Air (GHG and trace gases) An other positive effect, linked to BRP implementation is air quality improvement because of the decrease of area under open field burning:

• Reduction of GHG emissions by 3%; • Reduction of particulate matter emissions by 25% in 2015 (50% in 2025); • Reduction of CO and SO2 emissions.

Tableau 68: Evolution of air emissions

500 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

GHG emission (tons of CO2

eq./ha) 6.45 6.29 5.12 4.94

Amount of burning straw (1,000 tDM) 2,600 1,800 1,400 600

Energy consumption

(toe/ha) 0.97 0.98 0.79 0.80

Particulate matter (PM) emission (t) 7,800 6,000 3,600 1,800

CO emission (t) 155,000 108,000 84,000 36,000

SO2 emission (t) 5,200 3,600 2,800 1,200

Other gases (emission level*)

+++++ +++ +++ +

*emission level: high=*+++++; medium=++++; low=* The table below describes additional impacts on air linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 69: Additional impacts on air

500 kt Add. env. Impact

GHG

GHG emission: reduction of N2O and CH4 linked to straw burning (up to 50%)

��

Additional uses of fossil energy for straw collection and transport �

Other gases

and PM

Trace gases and PM emissions: reduction traces gases and PM emissions linked to straw burning (up to 50%) ��

d ) Resources Implementation of BRP increases slightly the consumption of fossil energy (<1%) for straw logistic, and the use of potash to offset nutrient exportation.

Tableau 70: Evolution of fossil resource consumption

500 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Use of fossil energy - grain

production (ktoe/year )

962 968 790 796

Use of fossil energy for straw

logistic (ktoe/year ) 5* 8* 5* 8*

Use of phosphorus (1,000 t of P) 39 41 27 28

Use of potash (1,000 t of K) 45 52 43 50

* For simplicity, we consider that all the straw harvested (whatever uses) has the same logistic. The table below describes additional impacts on fossil resources linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 71: Additional impacts on fossil resources

500 kt Add. env. Impact

Energy Additional uses of fossil energy for grain production, straw collection and transport �

P Implementation of a bio-refinery induces a slight increase in P use

�

K Implementation of a bio-refinery increase use of K use (K exported from the field by straw removal are compensated by mineral inputs)

�

4.3.2.7 Additional environmental impacts of bio-refinery implementation – 150 kt

a ) Water

♦Water consumption Combining collected data from agricultural practices in Sangrur and crop management evolution in 2025, irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume can be estimated for each situation.

Tableau 72: Irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Irrigated surfaces (1,000ha)

768 768 768 768

Volume of irrigation water

(Mds m3) 6.9 6.9 5.9 5.9

♦Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) Moreover data about pesticides and mineral fertilizers application on crops for each scenario have been set taking into account current practices and evolution hypothesis.

Tableau 73: Water quality indicators

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Number of pesticide treatments (FTI/ha) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5

Quantity of mineral N (1,000 tons of N)

104 105 71 72

Quantity of mineral P (1,000 tons of P) 40 41 27 28

Quantity of mineral K (1,000 tons of K)

45 47 43 45

Pressure kgN/ha (Average including organic surfaces)

136 137 92 93

♦Summary The table below describes additional impacts on water quality and scarcity, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 74: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity

150 kt Add. env. Impact

Water quantity

In both 2015 and 2025 scenarios, the implementation of a bio-refinery won’t induce changes of irrigation water consumption

Ø

Water quality

No extra pesticides are needed in a case of bio-refinery implementation.

Ø

Extra nutrients are needed in a case of bio-refinery implementation (N, P and K exported from the field by straw removal are

compensated by mineral inputs)

�

b ) Soil The main positive effect of bio-refinery implantation is reduction of area under open field burning (mainly rice crop areas):

• In 2015 (150 kt): reduction by 10%; • In 2025 (150 kt): reduction by 20%.

Tableau 75: Evolution of area under open field burning

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Area managed with open field burning

(1,000 ha) Plant capacity :

150 kt

372 343 173 144

The table below describes additional impacts on soil linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 76: Describes additional impacts on soil

150 kt Additional environmental impacts linked to bio-refinery implementation Add. env. Impact

Soil Salinization: implementation of a bio-refinery won’t induce changes of irrigation water consumption Ø

Soil Soil biodiversity: reduction of area under open field burning management (up to 20%) �

Soil Decline of soil organic matter and soil nutrient content: reduction of area under open field burning management (up to 20%) �

c ) Air (GHG and trace gases) An other positive effect, linked to BRP implementation is air quality improvement because of the decrease of area under open field burning:

• Reduction of GHG emissions by 7%; • Reduction of particulate matter emissions by 8% in 2015 (16% in 2025); • Reduction of CO and SO2 emissions.

Tableau 77: Evolution air emissions – plant capacity: 150 kt

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

GHG emission (tons of CO2

eq./ha) 6.45 6.40 5.12 5.07

Amount of burning straw (1,000 tDM) 2,600 2,400 1,400 1,100

Energy consumption

(toe/ha) 0.96 0.97 0.79 0.80

Particulate matter emission (t) 7,800 7,200 3,600 3,000

CO emission (t) 156,000 144,000 84,000 66,000

SO2 emission (t) 5,200 4,800 2,800 2,200

Other gases +++++ ++++ +++ ++

Table below describes additional impacts on air linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 78: Additional impacts on air

150 kt Additional environmental impacts linked to bio-refinery implementation Add. env. Impact

GHG

GHG emission: reduction of N2O and CH4 linked to straw burning (up to 50%)

�

Additional uses of fossil energy for straw collection and transport �

Other gases

and PM

Trace gases and PM emissions: reduction traces gases and PM emissions linked to straw burning (up to 50%) �

d ) Resources Implementation of BRP increases slightly the consumption of fossil energy (<1%) for straw logistic, and the use of potash to offset nutrient exportation.

Tableau 79: Evolution of fossil resource consumption

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Use of fossil energy - grain

production (ktoe/year)

738 740 606 608

Use of fossil energy for straw

logistic (ktoe/year) 4.5* 5.0* 6* 6.5*

Use of phosphorus (1,000 t of P) 40 41 27 28

Use of potash (1,000 t of K) 45 47 43 45

* For simplicity, we consider that all the straw harvested (whatever uses) has the same logistic The table below describes additional impacts on fossil resources linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 80: Additional impacts on fossil resources

150 kt Add. env. Impact

Energy Additional uses of fossil energy for grain production, straw collection and transport �

P Implementation of a bio-refinery induces a slight increase in P use

�

K Implementation of a bio-refinery increase use of K use (K exported from the field by straw removal are compensated by mineral inputs)

�

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 134 / 172

Tableau 81: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE) - *SOEi: initial status of environment; SOEf: final status of environment

Theme SOEi* BRP implementation Impact Additional m easures (trends) Impact SOEf*

Water Water quantity

Ø

Efficient irrigation methods �

Water quality

Ø

Reduction of fertilizer use �

Soil

salinization

Ø

Efficient irrigation methods �

Soil Biodiversity

Reduction of open field burning ��500 kt

�150 kt Reduction of open field burning

�

Soil organic matter

Reduction of open field burning ��500 kt

�150 kt Crop residues incorporation

Reduction of open field burning

�

Air

Trace gases

Reduction of open field burning ��500 kt

�150 kt Reduction of open field burning

GHG

Reduction of open field burning ��500 kt

�150 kt

Reduction of N and fossil energy use

Reduction of open field burning

�

Additional emissions linked to straw collection and

transportation

� Ø

Biodiversity Biodiversity

Reduction of open field burning ��500 kt

�150 kt

Reduction of smog and air pollution

�

Resources Resources

Additional fossil energy consumption for straw collection

and transportation

� Reduction of P, K and fossil energy use

�

Land use change

Economic valuation straw tends to keep the system in place and

thus freeze the occupation of land

Ø Ø

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 135 / 172

4.3.2.8 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures

The rice wheat system allows the production of two grains in the year. Targeted area, being a rice-wheat cropping belt, has abundance of available residues and especially rice straw: 2,5 million tons of straw in 2015 (80% from rice field); 1,2 million tons of straw in 2025 (75% from rice field). Thus, establishment of a plant with a capacity of 150 kt of straw (3/4 rice straw, ¼ wheat straw) is not a problem of availability in this area:

• where rice straw has no competitive use in 2015 (90% of the straw is burned); • other uses planned in 2025, can still have a sufficient resource (and add other

constraints: technical, environmental, social). However, the establishment of a BRP with a capacity of 500 kt on the territory of 500 kha could cause problems in 2025. Indeed, given the trends described (10% organic, 50% rice straw used for thermal uses or electrical) the amount of straw available would be only 0.7 million ton. BRP will use nearly 40% of the available straw . In this configuration, there is less flexibility to take account for:

• technical constraints (straw availability may be reduced by introduction of dwarf varieties to cope with climate change, farmers equipment for mechanical harvesting, ...);

• logistic constraints (harvest 500 kt or 150 kt in 20 days ) • social constraints (farmers' willingness to participate); • environmental constraints (additional straw needs for soil organic matter issue –

currently only stubble and straw lost during harvesting (20%) are left on the soil, modification of crop rotation for a better sustainability);

• economical constraints (farmers equipment for mechanical harvesting, additional competitive uses)

For this area, a capacity of 500 kt seems to be a m aximum for the near future. RWS pressures on the environment are numerous and important: massive use of water for irrigation of rice (14,000m3/ha) and wheat (4,500 m3), open field burning of rice straw (90%) to allow early sowing of wheat; use of fertilizers and pesticides. Therefore the environmental impacts are important: water table decline, water quality decline, soil fertility decline (salinization, heat effect, organic matter decline, nutrient exportation), GHG emissions (rice field and residues burning), air pollution (residues burning). In this context, the establishment of a plant will reduce the negati ve impacts on the environment of the RWS . This improvement is due to the fact that rice straw valorization, will result in a reduction of burning practices, and thus its negative effects: air quality (N2O and CH4 emissions, particulate matters emissions, trace gases emissions), soil quality (soil organic matter decline, heat effect on top soil micro-organism, soil nutrient decline). However, the establishment of the plant will not have any direct effect on the two environmental priorities of the target area: depleting ground water (and soil salinization). Indirectly, having a valuation for rice straw, will encourage farmers to continue growing rice (and thus maintain a high consumption of water).

Adverse environmental effects related to the establishment of a BRP are very low (given the current situation): very small increase (<1%) in energy consumption (and GHG emissions) for harvesting and transporting the straw. An indirect adverse effect of the establishment of a plant could be that the creation of an economic valuation of rice straw blocks the development of RWS towards a more sustainable system (change of rotation, introduction of leguminous crops, development organic farming). In a situation where rice straw is not burned, but buried for agronomic reasons, export of straw to a factory, would have negative effects, especially on soil organic matter. Then measures can be recommended to mitigate these impacts:

• Reduction of fossil fuel needs for straw logistic (straw baling and large truck capacity)

• Improvement of soil organic balance: • define a percentage of collectable straw compatible with a sustainable soil

organic matter management. • Implementation of reduced tillage or zero tillage methods to reduce soil

organic matter mineralization (e.g. Happy Seeder technology: tractor-mounted machine that can sow wheat into the rice residue left by the combine harvester thereby precluding its burning).

4.3.3 Indian case study-2: Faridkot

4.3.3.1 Case study description: current situation

a ) Location Faridkot is located in the South-West part of Punjab.

Figure 48: Faridkot-Case study location

b ) Land use Among the 150,000 hectares of the target region, agriculture is the major land use. Forestry is negligible, in form of protected area in Faridkot:

• Total area: 150,000 hectares; • Farmland area: 130,000 hectares (85%), mainly annual crops; • Urban area: 17,000 hectares (11%); • Forest: 2,000 hectares (1%).

Farming system is based on Rice-Wheat cropping systems. In this area, high production level is achieved thanks to:

• modern techniques; • minimum support prices guarantee remunerative prices to farmers; • well-equipped markets and connectivity had made market access easy and

affordable to farmers; • promotion of agriculture through research and incentives given to farmers had

been driver for sustaining the rice-wheat cropping systems.

Then the region has (per year) 120,000 hectares of wheat and 95,000 hectares of rice. It represents a developed UAA of 215,000 hectares.

4.3.3.2 Case study description: trends for 2025 (source: TERI)

The following assumptions have been setted to describe the situation in 2025 (without taking into account a “biocore factory” implementation):

• area under cultivation of Paddy and Wheat would be constant ; • reduction of livestock number by 25% • rice straw exportation to reduce the burning to 50% of the cropped area; • Given no competition (no bio-refinery) of rice straw, biomass based power plants

would be proposed and executed to utilize the residual rice straw by organisations looking for cheap raw materials;

• 50% of rice straw will be collected for biomass bas ed power plants and other uses ;

• 70% of the fertilizer requirement would be met through conventional fertilizers and rest through biofertilizers (mycorrhiza);

• Also water requirement to be decreased to 80% of normal through innovations in irrigation practices in case of rice;

• 10% of rice and wheat area under organic farming. Under organic farming, crop residue management change:

o wheat straw: � 50% incorporate into ground � 50% use for cattle feed and mulching

o rice straw: � 70% incorporate into ground � 30% for Biomass based power plants

• Assuming 20% reducing in fuel consumption due to fuel efficient mechanisms and use of green technology;

• Possible impacts of climate change on RWS: o grain yield would increase depending on new dwarf varieties being

developed; o straw availability may be reduced depending on the development of

dwarf varieties ; o water demand: remain indifferent.

4.3.3.3 Feedstock

a ) Plant capacities, feedstock and surface require d The capacity planned for this case study is 150 k tons (dry feedstock). The lingo-cellulosic biomass feedstock considered for these cases includes rice and wheat crop residues particularly the straw and the stalks, which is in considerable proportions to grain. Rice straw will cover ¾ of the feedstock and wheat straw ¼ .

Tableau 82: Plant capacities and area required

Rice straw Wheat straw

Crop residues ratio 3/4 1/4

Plant Capacities (tons)

150,000 112,500 37,500

Yield (tDM/ha) 4.7 4.8

Grain:straw ratio 1:1.5 1:1.5

Straw (harvestable + stubble) tDM/ha 7.0 7.2

Share of stubble (non-harvestable) and other things left at field

20% 20%

Straw (harvestable) tDM/ha 4.2 4.3

Needed area* - Plant capacity 150 kt 27,000 8,500

b ) Straw potential

♦Current straw potential The potential of straw is calculated in several steps. The first is to calculate the total amount of straw by multiplying surfaces by a straw production per hectare. For the region concerned, this represents 1.5 million tons. In a second step, competitive uses (fodder, paper and pulp industry) and non-harvestable part (stubble) are deducted. Open field burning is not considered here. At the end 0.65 million tons are available is the target area (currently burnt): 0.48 from rice and 0.17 from wheat.

Tableau 83: Current straw potential

Rice Wheat Total

UAA 1000 ha 95 120 215***

Straw (harvestable + stubble*) tDM/ha

7.0 7.2**

Straw production 1,000 tDm 665 865 1,530

Current use (expect field burning and BRP) - % and 1,000 tDM

65 585 650

Fodder 250 250

Other (sold out – other states paper and pulp industries,…)

65 335 400

Share of stubble (non-harvestable) - % and 1,000 tDM

10% - 65 10% - 85 150

Initial straw (harvestable) potential 1,000 tDM

535 195 730

Share of harvestable straw left on the soil for SOC maintenance % and 1,000 tDM

0% 0% 0%

Share of straw lost during harvesting - % and 1,000 tDM

10% - 55 10% - 20 75

Final straw (harvestable) potential 1,000 tDM

480 175 655

Currently brunt 1,000tDM 590 90

*Stubble: bottom part of the stems released on the soil (considered as non-harvestable) **Grain:straw ratio = 1:1.5 (grain yield=4,8 tDM); *** developed UAA

♦Available feedstock in 2025 In 2025, the situation is largely unchanged (same UAA). The main changes are:

• the number of dairy cows (reduction by 25%); • reserve straw for other use (25% increase to cover new needs: dairy/packaging

and biomass based power). Finally, 340 k tons will be available in this area for a proposed bio-refinery in 2025: 205 from rice straw and 135 from wheat straw.

Tableau 84: Straw potential in 2025

Rice Wheat Total

UAA 1000 ha 95 120 215***

UAA (conventional farming) 1000 ha

85 110 195***

Straw (harvestable + stubble*) tDM/ha

7.0 7.2**

Straw production 1000 tDm 665 865 1,530

Use (expect field burning and BRP) - % and 1000 tDM

330 585 915

Fodder 210 210

Other (sold out – other states paper and pulp industries,

biomass based power plant)

330 375 705

Share of stubble (non-harvestable)

10% - 70 10% - 90 310

Initial straw (harvestable) potential 1,000 tDM

265 190 305

Share of harvestable straw left on the soil for SOC maintenance

35 (OF) 35 (OF) 70

Share of straw lost during harvesting - % and 1,000 tDM

10% - 25 10% - 20 45

Final straw (harvestable) potential 1000 tDM

205 135 340

*Stubble: bottom part of the stems released on the soil (considered as non-harvestable); **Grain:straw ratio = 1:1.5 (grain yield=4,8 tDM); *** developed UAA; OF: organic farming (rice: 70% of straw incorporation into ground – wheat: 50% of straw incorporation into ground)

♦Summary The available feedstock are:

• in 2015: 0.65 million tons of straw (80% from rice field) • in 2025: 0.34 million tons of straw (70% from rice field)

Theses potential are estimated with taking into account soil carbon issue in a minimum way. Without new economic opportunities (like BRP implementation), theses amount of straw will be burnt. Theses amount of straw are coherent with capacity of planned factory (150 kt) in 2015 or 2025. Moreover in 2025, for a plant capacity of 150 kt, feedstock requirements represent 45% of the available straw (70% for wheat straw and 85% for rice straw) , with taking into account soil carbon issue in a minimum way (stubble and straw lost during harvesting).

4.3.3.4 Logistic from field to factory gate

a ) Global design Straw is characterized by low bulk density and low energy yield per weight basis. The logistic of collection, transportation and storage is a major issue. A suggestive supply chain for rice straw procurement could be :

• farmers to be communicated for procurement of rice straw at a predetermined price;

• rice Straw located at farm gates of different farmers has to be collected. This could be done by middle man (aggregator) on commission basis or directly by BRP by employing manpower;

• If middle man (aggregator) is involved, then collection and storage center for rice straw would be his responsibility and aggregator will deliver the straw at the factory gate on predetermined price; else BRP has to create this facility and manage the procurement from farm gate to factory gate.

• Bailing technology is not common, so aggregator will supply tightly bundled raw rice straw at factory gate.

Above mentioned suggested supply chain already exists to cater the wheat straw market so aggregator need to be contacted and contracted for delivery of tightly bundled wheat straw at factory gate.

b ) Straw collection Currently, utilization of combine harvester leaves behind a large amount of loose straw in the field whose disposal or utilization in the short time (before wheat planting) is difficult. Collection and disposal of straw remain a practicable problem. Options for straw collection can be:

• modification of combine harvesters , whereby the residues is separately collected and remove from the field;

• use of fuel efficient straw reapers used to collect straw in trolleys and transported from farm to aggregators;

• use of balers or bundles by biomass based power companies.

For this case study, straw collection will be done by using straw reapers (and trolley). To estimate energy consumption, assumption had been used gasoil consumption of straw reapers (10 l/ha). It should be noted that all the rice straw should b e harvested during a period of up to 15 days (to allow wheat sowing in good conditions). This implies a very good logistics.

c ) Straw transportation To estimate energy consumption, following assumptions had been used:

• Average distance from field to factory gate: 50 km (maximum distance) • Type of transport: Tractor with modified trolley (capacity of 10 tons of straw) • Gasoil consumption: 0.15 liter/km or 0.75 liter/t of straw

d ) Straw pre-treatment Aggregator provides tightly bundled raw rice straw at factory. This operation does not require energy (done manually).

4.3.3.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern

a ) Environmental priorities for the case study (so il and water)

♦Salinisation Inland salinity is also caused due to practice of surface water irrigation without consideration of ground water status. The gradual rise of ground water levels with time has resulted in water logging and heavy evaporation in semi arid regions lead to salinity problem in command areas.

Figure 49: Salt scalds on the soil surface

Figure 50: Crop affected by salinity and waterlogging

♦Salinisation of soil linked to excessive irrigation Rain falls in the mountains, dissolves salts from the rocks and flows down rivers to diversion dams and into irrigation channels onto fields to grow crops. In the past, a piece of land would grow crops for a few years, and then another piece of land would be used for a few years. As population increased, more land was used to grow crops, so the land had fewer years to recover before it was used again. If the same piece of land is irrigated two time in a same year (with high water volumes: 4,500 m3 per hectare for wheat and 13,500 m3 per hectare for rice), and salt from the mountains ends up in the surface soil (high evaporation rate under Punjab climate). In times of monsoon, intensive rains leach important part of the salt accumulated on the surface soil. But in the last decades, with the intensification of irrigation practices (more 18.000 m3 per hectare per year), the rains are not enough to dissolve the salt and wash floors, and surface soil will keep on getting saltier and saltier.

♦Salinisation of soil linked to waterlogging and saline groundwater uses Punjab state is characterized with two distinct topographical and hydrogeological settings: high yielding fresh groundwater regions in northern and central districts (including Sangrur) and the saline groundwater regions in south western districts. While groundwater is declining alarmingly in fresh water regions, it has risen steadily in saline groundwater regions in Muktsar, Bhatinda and Faridkot districts. During the last two decades, watertable has risen by more than 10 m in 30 % and 10 % area of Muktsar and Bhatinda districts respectively (Source: Punjab irrigation and power department, 2009). Groundwater up to 15 m depth is saline and unfit for irrigation in about one fourth of south western districts; the quality generally deteriorates with depth. For example, the region, irrigated with Sirhind canal and an extensive distribution network, is experiencing extreme instances of waterlogging and soil salinity problems. The problems are particularly severe in depressional locations which have inadequate or non-functional surface drains With so much land under intensive agricultural use, rain and rivers don't provide enough water, so more is pumped from the ground and the groundwater contains more salt than surface water. In the state of Punjab, nearly 94% of the net sown area is irrigated, 38%of which depends on surface water received through canals from the rivers of Ravi, Satluj and Beas and the rest (62%) on underground water. Unlike surface waters, ground waters in south western districts (including Faridkot) contain varying and high concentrations of soluble salts (from 0.31 to 7.53 dS/m) and their use for irrigation adversely affects agricultural production and rise up a sustainable issue for these districts (Verma and al., 2007)

♦Depleting groundwater (impact of RWS) In comparison with Sangrur region, Faridkot is less affected by groundwater depletion (see detailed description in the previous case study). The map below shows that area around Faridkot is for a party affected by a drop in groundwater level (4 meters), and for another part (southern part) affected by an increase of groundwater level (causing problems of waterlogging and salinity).

Board

Figure 51: Long term Fluctuations in ground water level 1975-2003 (source: central Ground Water of Punjab)

b ) Environmental impact of the current feedstock m anagement: Open field burning of rice straw This part was detailed in the description of previous Indian case studies (air pollution and human health, soil nutrient depleting, heat effect, loss of soil organic matter).

c ) Linkage between state of environment and agricu lture pattern: review Environmental impacts of the RWS and status of environment had been summarized using a qualitative approach (see detailed description of the environmental impacts of the RWS in the previous ca se study: Sangrur ). Table below describes the colors and codes used.

Tableau 85: Codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE)

Environmental impact Code SOE Code

Negative impact � Bad status

Positive impact � Medium status

No impact Ø Good status

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 148 / 172

Tableau 86: Environmental impact of the rice-wheat system and resulting status of environment (SOE)

Theme Agricultural practices Pressure/Impact Impa ct SOE SOE

Water Water quantity Excessive irrigation Depleting groundwater � water table decline

Water quality Massive use of pesticides and mineral fertilizers

Transfers of contaminants to water bodies

� Current water quality decline

Soil

Fertility Excessive irrigation Soil salinization and waterlogging

�� Soil fertility decrease

Soil Biodiversity

Open field straw burning Negative heat effect on soil micro-organisms

� Decline of soil

biodiversity Intensive tillage method Intensive soil disturbance and heat effect

�

Soil organic matter

Intensive crop rotation and burning of crop

residues

Massive exportation of biomass from field (harvested or burnt)

� Decline of soil organic matter (and soil

fertility)

Massive exportation of nutrients � Soil nutrient depleting

Air

Trace gases Burning of crop

residues Emission of trace gases �� Increase of air trace gases concentration

GHG

Flooded area (rice) Mineral N input

Burning of crop residues

GHG emission (CH4, N2O)

�

Biodiversity Flora and fauna

Massive use of pesticides Burning of crop residues

Contamination of trophic chain Habitat destruction

��

Resources Resources Use of fossil resources (fuel, P)

� Resource depletion

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 149 / 172

4.3.3.6 Additional environmental impacts of bio-refinery implementation

a ) Water

♦Water consumption Combining collected data from agricultural practices in Faridkot and crop management evolution in 2025, irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume can be estimated for each situation.

Tableau 87: Irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Irrigated surfaces (1,000ha)

215 215 215 215

Volume of irrigation water

(Mds m3) 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6

♦Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) Moreover data about pesticides and mineral fertilizers application on crops for each scenario have been set taking into account current practices and evolution hypothesis.

Tableau 88: Water quality indicators

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Number of pesticide treatments (FTI/ha) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5

Quantity of mineral N (1,000 tons of N)

29 30 20 21

Quantity of mineral P (1,000 tons of P) 11 12 8 8

Quantity of mineral K (1,000 tons of K)

13 15 13 15

Pressure kgN/ha (Average including organic surfaces)

137 142 95 101

♦Summary The table below describes additional impacts on water quality and scarcity, linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 89: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity

150 kt Add. env. Impact

Water quantity

In both 2015 and 2025 scenarios, the implementation of a bio-refinery won’t induce changes of irrigation water consumption

Ø

Water quality

No extra pesticides are needed in a case of bio-refinery implementation.

Ø

Extra nutrients are needed in a case of bio-refinery implementation (N, P and K exported from the field by straw removal are

compensated by mineral inputs)

�

b ) Soil The main positive effect of bio-refinery implantation is reduction of area under open field burning (mainly rice crop areas):

• In 2015 (150 kt): reduction by 10%; • In 2025 (150 kt): reduction by 20%.

Tableau 90: Evolution of area under open field burning

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Area managed with open field burning

(1,000 ha) Plant capacity :

150 kt

85 58 42 15

The table below describes additional impacts on soil linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 91: Additional impacts on soil

150 kt Additional environmental impacts linked to bio-refinery implementation Add. env. Impact

Soil Salinization: implementation of a bio-refinery won’t induce changes of irrigation water consumption Ø

Soil Soil biodiversity: reduction of area under open field burning management (up to 20%) �

Soil Decline of soil organic matter and soil nutrient content: reduction of area under open field burning management (up to 20%) �

c ) Air (GHG and trace gases) An other positive effect, linked to BRP implementation is air quality improvement because of the decrease of area under open field burning:

• Reduction of GHG emissions by 4%; • Reduction of particulate matter emissions by 33% in 2015 (70% in 2025); • Reduction of CO and SO2 emissions.

Tableau 92: Evolution air emissions – plant capacity: 150 kt

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

GHG emission (tons of

CO2eq./ha) 3.62 3.47 2.74 2.57

Amount of burning straw (1,000 tDM) 700 400 360 110

Energy consumption

(toe/ha) 0.44 0.45 0.35 0.36

Particulate matter – (PM) emission (t) 2,100 1,300 1,100 340

CO emission (t) 42,000 24,000 21,600 6,600

SO2 emission (t) 1,400 800 720 220

Other gases +++++ ++++ +++ ++

The table below describes additional impacts on air linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 93: Additional impacts on air

150 kt Additional environmental impacts linked to bio-refinery implementation

Add. env. Impact

GHG

GHG emission: reduction of N2O and CH4 linked to straw burning (up to 50%)

(other positive effects on GHG: better inputs management) �

Additional uses of fossil energy for straw collection and transport �

Other gases and PM

Trace gases and PM emissions: reduction traces gases and PM emissions linked to straw burning (up to 50%) �

d ) Resources Implementation of BRP increases slightly the consumption of fossil energy (1%) for straw logistic, and the use of potash to offset nutrient exportation.

Tableau 94: Evolution of fossil resource consumption

150 kt 2015 2025

Situation A

Situation B (A+BRP)

Situation A Situation B (A+BRP)

Use of fossil energy - grain production

(ktoe/year ) 92.84 95.05 73.68 75.89

Use of fossil energy for straw logistic

(ktoe/year ) 1.3* 1.7* 1.5* 1.9*

Use of phosphorus (1,000 t of P) 11 12 8 8

Use of potash (1,000 t of K) 13 15 13 15

* For simplicity, we consider that all the straw harvested (whatever uses) has the same logistic The table below describes additional impacts on fossil resources linked to bio-refinery implementation.

Tableau 95: Additional impacts on fossil resources

150 kt Add. env. Impact

Energy Additional uses of fossil energy for grain production, straw collection and transport �

P Implementation of a bio-refinery induces a slight increase in P use

�

K Implementation of a bio-refinery increase use of K use (K exported from the field by straw removal are compensated by mineral inputs)

�

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 153 / 172

Tableau 96: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE) *SOEi: initial status of environment; SOEf: final status of environment

Theme SOEi* BRP implementation Impact Additional m easures (trends) Impact SOEf*

Water Water quantity

Ø Efficient irrigation methods �

Water quality

Ø Reduction of fertilizer use �

Soil

salinization

Ø Efficient irrigation methods �

Soil

Biodiversity

Reduction of open field burning

� Reduction of open field burning ��

Soil organic matter

Reduction of open field burning

� Crop residues incorporation Reduction of open field burning

��

Air

Trace gases

Reduction of open field burning

� Reduction of open field burning

GHG

Reduction of open field burning

� Reduction of N and fossil energy use

Reduction of open field burning

�

Additional emissions linked to straw collection and

transportation

� Ø

Biodiversity Biodiversity

Ø

Resources Resources

Additional fossil energy consumption for straw

collection and transportation

� Reduction of P, K and fossil energy use

�

Land use change

Economic valuation straw tends to keep the system in place and thus freeze the

occupation of land

Ø Ø

Biocore Project – D1.3 Environmental impact assessment - Page 154 / 172

4.3.3.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures

The rice wheat system allows the production of two grains in the year. Targeted area, being a rice-wheat cropping belt, has abundance of available residues and especially rice straw: 0.46 million tons of straw in 2015 (80% from rice field); 0.19 million tons of straw in 2025 (75% from rice field). Thus, establishment of a plant with a capacity of 150 kt of straw (3/4 rice straw, ¼ wheat straw) is not a problem of availability in this area in 2015, where rice straw has no competitive use (90% of the straw is burned); However, the establishment of a BRP with a capacity of 150 kt on the territory of 150 kha can cause problems in 2025. Indeed, given the trends described (10% organic, 50% rice straw used for thermal uses or electrical) the amount of straw available would be only 0.34 million ton. BRP will use 45% of the available straw . In this configuration, there is less flexibility to take account of:

• technical constraints (straw availability may be reduced by introduction of dwarf varieties to cope with climate change, farmers equipment for mechanical harvesting, ...);

• logistic constraints (harvest 500 kt or 150 kt in 20 days ) • social constraints (farmers' willingness to participate); • environmental constraints (additional straw needs for soil organic matter issue –

currently only stubble and straw lost during harvesting (20%) are left on the soil, modification of crop rotation for a better sustainability);

• economical constraints (farmers equipment for mechanical harvesting, additional competitive uses)

For this area, a capacity of 150 kt seems to be a m aximum for the near future. RWS pressures on the environment are numerous and important: massive use of water for irrigation of rice (14,000m3/ha) and wheat (4,500 m3), open field burning of rice straw (90%) to allow early sowing of wheat; use of fertilizers and pesticides. Therefore the environmental impacts are important: water table decline, water quality decline, soil fertility decline (salinization, heat effect, organic matter decline, nutrient exportation), GHG emissions (rice field and residues burning), air pollution (residues burning). In this context, the establishment of a plant will reduce the negati ve impacts on the environment of the RWS . This improvement is due to the fact that rice straw valorization, will result in a reduction of burning practices, and thus its negative effects: air quality (N2O and CH4 emissions, particulate matters emissions, trace gases emissions), soil quality (soil organic matter decline, heat effect on top soil micro-organism, soil nutrient decline). However, the establishment of the plant will not have any direct effect on the two environmental priorities of the target area: soil salinization (and depleting ground water). Indirectly, having a valuation for rice straw, will encourage farmers to continue growing rice (and thu s maintain a high consumption of water). Adverse environmental effects related to the establishment of a BRP are very low (given the current situation): very small increase (1%) in energy consumption (and GHG emissions) for harvesting and transporting the straw. An indirect adverse effect of the establishment of a plant could be that the creation of an economic valuation of rice

straw blocks the development of RWS towards a more sustainable system (change of rotation, introduction of leguminous crops, development organic farming). In a situation where rice straw is not burned, but buried for agronomic reasons, export of straw to a factory, would have negative effects, especially on soil organic matter. Then measures can be recommended to mitigate these impacts:

• Reduction of fossil fuel needs for straw logistic (straw baling and large truck capacity)

• Improvement of soil organic balance: • define a percentage of collectable straw compatible with a sustainable soil

organic matter management. • Implementation of reduced tillage or zero tillage methods to reduce soil

organic matter mineralization (e.g.: Happy Seeder technology: tractor-mounted machine that can sow wheat into the rice residue left by the combine harvester thereby precluding its burning).

5. Final conclusions and recommendations

Feedstock availability Whatever the situations studied (area, feedstock mix, plant capacities -150 kt or 500 kt), the biomass availability is not a problem in 2015. Quantities are at least 3 times higher than those required for the plant. This allows to consider important additional constraints limiting the availability of biomass (farmer agreements, …) . In the near future (2025), competition for biomass is increasingly strong for several reasons:

• the quantities produced are equal or lower: o no reserve of agricultural land in areas used, o new agriculture pattern less intensively managed, diversification of crop

rotation, organic farming, conservation agriculture (most of the time, these agricultural systems reduce environmental impacts of agriculture).

• the constraints are stronger (adaptation to climate changes, drought periods, new environmental regulation on soil conservation, ...),

• additional competitive uses (power plants, fire wood, …), and markets are more difficult to access.

For all these reasons, the amount of available biomass is greatly reduced (reduction by 2 to 4 of the available biomass between 2015 and 2025). In Indian case studies, in 2025, the biomass needed for the plant is 40 to 45% of the available biomass (considering trends). In French case studies, in 2025, the biomass needed for the plant is 80% of the available biomass (considering trends). In these configurations, there are less flexibility (or no flexibility in the French case study) to take account of:

• new technical constraints (climate change, farmers equipment, ...); • logistic constraints (e.g. Indian case studies: harvest 500 kt or 150 kt in 20 days); • social constraints (farmers' willingness to participate); • environmental constraints (new standards on soil quality, introduction of new and

less productive agricultural systems,…) • economical constraints (additional competitive uses)

For the German case study, biomass availability is not a major issue (but case study area is very large). This case study is base on stem wood (90% hardwood, 10% softwood). In comparison, with straw (or SRC and Miscanthus), wood is a biomass with a high density, easy to transport on long distances. Thus, the German case study area is larger than other case studies, and in that way, biomass availability is not a major issue. Furthermore, additional GHG emissions (or energy consumption) linked to biomass transport, represent less than 10% of the total GHG emission (form forest to factory gate). At the end, for some case studies further work will be necessary before setting up a factory:

• reduction of plant capacity to face new constraints; • reduce competitive uses; • adapt the process to the available biomass for each year; • take into consideration a larger area; • find new feedstock in the neighboring regions (wood).

For the two last points, the flexibility of the CIMV process is an important advantage.

Environmental impacts – Case study approach Overall, the establishment of a BRP is, in the case studies: an export of biomass from existing agricultural land and / or existing forest, establishment of new dedicated crops instead of food crop (SRC and Miscanthus in very small proportion in Biocore approach), arable land conversion into forest (Hungarian case study) and transport of the harvested biomass (possibly with pre-treatment: chipping, baling, drying). In all situations, harvesting and transporting biomass contribute to increase fossil fuel consumption (and GHG emissions), but in very low proportions (in comparison with the energy needs and GHG emissions, to produce biomass and inputs). According to the initial situation, the environmental impacts can be positive or negative. In the case of Punjab (Faridkot and Sangrur case studies), the establishment of the BRP reduces negative impacts of the rice-wheat system (RWS) on environment. Indeed, the harvest (and recovery) of straw, avoids burning as a technique for residue management before planting wheat. Unburned straw decreases the pressure on the environment and its negative impacts (air quality, soil quality). Also in the case of Punjab, the establishment of the factory did not have a direct effect on local environmental priorities (ground water depletion and salinization). Indirectly, having a valuation for rice straw, will encourage farmers to continue growing rice (and thus maintain a high consumption of water). The establishment of the BRP has no impact on Indian environmental priorities (depleting groundwater and salinization). In the European case studies, environmental pressures and environmental impacts are mainly negative:

• intensification of forest harvesting (excluding forest residues exportation), • export of straw from plots (reducing the return to the soil of organic matter,

nutrient export), • changes in crop rotation for setting up dedicated crops (reducing food production

in a very short proportion). The establishment of the BRP has no impact on European environmental priorities, except in the Hungarian case study where forest area extension reduces erosion hazard. In the French case study, having a valuation for straw, will encourage farmers to continue with this intensive agricultural pattern (and maintain environmental pressure). The Hungarian case study is different: Negative effects on environment (within the study area) are partially offset by the conversion of arable land (10%) into forest. On one hand, negative effects are minimized through preventive actions:

• forest residues are left on soil, • targeted area are high density biomass areas, • a large proportion (>70% in European case studies) of crop residues are left on

the ground to have a minimum impact on soil carbon balance. On the other hand, negative effects could be reduced through mitigation actions:

• improvement of biomass logistic, • design and use forestry management practices that can guarantee the integrity

and/or improvement of forest resources, • reduction of pressure on the forest stem wood (use alternative raw material,

reduce the demand of hardwood for thermal uses, increase wood availability), • introduction of reduced (or no tillage) method, reduction of pressure on straw

(use of alternative raw material in cereal area as fine cut straw, reduction of straw needs for livestock).

Environmental impacts – Themes The table below sums up the impacts of BRP on environmental themes.

Tableau 97: Impacts of BRP on environmental themes

Case study French Hungary German Sangrur Faridkot

Soil organic matter (carbon storage) -- ++ 0 + + Soil biodiversity - - 0 ++ +

Erosion 0 ++ 0 0 0 Salinization

(Indian CS only) 0 0 Water quality - + 0 - -

Water use 0 + 0 0 0 Use of fossil resource - - - - -

GHG emissions - - - - - Wildlife 0 + - 0 0

Landscape + ++ 0 0 0 The table below sums up the impacts of BRP on GHG emissions, carbon storage and energy consumption

Tableau 98: Impacts of BRP on GHG emission, carbon storage and energy consumption

Case study French Hungary German Sangrur 500 Sangrur 150 Faridkot

GHG 2015 t CO2eq/ha

2.71 1.89 0.019 6.45 6.45 3.62

GHG 2025 trends t CO2eq/ha

2.54 1.80 0.021 5.12 5.12 2.74

GHG 2025 Trends+BRP t CO2eq/ha

2.56 1.64 0.023 4.94 5.07 2.57

Carbon storage* 2015 tC./ha

43 93 158 - - -

Carbon storage* 2025 Trends - tC./ha

43 98 164 - - -

Carbon storage* 2025 Trends + BRP - tC./ha

43 104 163 - - -

Energy 2015 tOE/ha 0.455 0.32 0.0062 0.97 0.97 0.44 Energy 2025

Trends - tOE/ha 0.457 0.30 0.0066 0.79 0.79 0.35

Energy 2025 Trends+BRP

tOE/ha

0.463 0.28 0.0073 0.80 0.80 0.36

*Carbon storage: soil and forest biomass

Bibliography Gutpa et al., 2004. Residue burning in rice–wheat cropping system: Causes and implications. Current science, Vol. 87, NO. 12, December 2004 Kaur khosa et al. 2011. Methane emission from rice fields in relation to management of irrigation water. Journal of Environmental Biology 32, 169-172, March 2011 Punjab irrigation and power department, 2009. Time-rate changes in groundwater levels and quality – Groundwater monitoring in Punjab, LAHORE June 2009. TERI, 2012. Management of Crop Residues in the Context of Conservation Agriculture – Draft Base Paper from case study leader Varallyay. Soil survey and soil monitoring in Hungary. European Soil Bureau – Research report N°9 Verma et al., 2007. Ionic composition and hazards of poor quality waters for irrigation in southwestern part of Punjab. Hydrology Journal, 30 (3-4) July-December 2007. Waterlogging and Soil Salinity Problems in South West Punjab.

Table of content (detailed)

1. General .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Background and objective ................................................................................................................. 4

1.1.1 The BIOCORE concept .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1.2 Environmental assessment within BIOCORE (LCA and EIA) ....................................................... 5 1.1.3 Scope and perimeter (from field to factory gate) ............................................................................. 6 1.1.4 Objective ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Elements of environmental impact assessment (EIA) ............................................................. 8 1.2.1 Introduction to EIA methodology (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for

sustainability benchmarking) .................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2.2 Regulatory frameworks (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability

benchmarking) ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.3 The EIA procedure (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability

benchmarking) ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2.4 EIA report (source: WP 7-Interim report on settings for sustainability benchmarking) 9

1.3 Key environmental issues ................................................................................................................ 10 1.4 Structure of the report ...................................................................................................................... 10

2. Description of the case studies (selection process and overview) ........................... 11 2.1 Selection process ................................................................................................................................. 11

2.1.1 Hardwood (stem biomass) surplus and location in Europe (source: WP1-1 feedstock

provision and availability requirement) ........................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1.1 Definition and method .......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.1.2 Results: stem wood surplus and location ..................................................................................................... 12

a ) Hardwood surplus (kt/country) .............................................................................................................................. 12 b ) Hardwood surplus density (t/km2) ........................................................................................................................ 12

2.1.2 Straw surplus in Europe (source: WP1-1 feedstock provision and availability

requirement) ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 2.1.2.1 Definition and method .......................................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.2.2 Results: removal straw and location .............................................................................................................. 15

2.1.3 Biomass surplus in Europe (straw and hardwood) ...................................................................... 17 2.1.4 Straw (rice) production in North West of India ............................................................................. 18

2.2 General description ............................................................................................................................ 19 2.2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.2.1.1 European case studies ........................................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1.2 Indian case studies.................................................................................................................................................. 20

2.2.2 Feedstock and plant capacities .............................................................................................................. 21 2.2.3 Case studies – Summary ........................................................................................................................... 21

3. Methodology: EIA adapted to BIOCORE concept – Upstream processes & case

studies .................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Screening and scoping ....................................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Screening ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 3.1.2 Scoping ............................................................................................................................................................ 23

3.2 Principles: proportionality and preventive actions ............................................................... 25 3.2.1 Principle of proportionality .................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2 Principle of preventive actions .............................................................................................................. 26

3.3 Impact assessment: methods and indicators ............................................................................ 27 3.3.1 Method ............................................................................................................................................................. 27 3.3.2 Criteria and indicators .............................................................................................................................. 28

3.3.2.1 State of environment ............................................................................................................................................. 28 3.3.2.2 Impact assessment .................................................................................................................................................. 29

3.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 33

3.5 Specific tools and data collection .................................................................................................. 34 3.5.1 Data collection tool (DCT) ....................................................................................................................... 34 3.5.2 GHG and energy calculator ...................................................................................................................... 35

4. Case studies analysis: state of environment – impacts – mitigation measures .... 37 4.1 French case study ................................................................................................................................ 37

4.1.1 Case study description: current situation ......................................................................................... 37 4.1.1.1 Location ....................................................................................................................................................................... 37 4.1.1.2 Land use ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38

4.1.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: case study leader) ................................. 40 4.1.3 Feedstock ........................................................................................................................................................ 41

4.1.3.1 Current situation ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 4.1.3.2 Available feedstock in 2025. ............................................................................................................................... 43

4.1.4 Logistic from field to factory gate ......................................................................................................... 44 4.1.4.1 Wheat / barley straw ............................................................................................................................................. 44 4.1.4.2 Miscanthus ................................................................................................................................................................. 45

4.1.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern ............................................ 46 4.1.5.1 Water management: scarcity ............................................................................................................................. 46 4.1.5.2 Water quality ............................................................................................................................................................. 49

a ) Nitrates issues .................................................................................................................................................................. 49 b ) Pesticide issue .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

4.1.5.3 Soil organic content ................................................................................................................................................ 51 a ) State ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 b ) Corg deficit ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52

4.1.5.4 Other environmental issues................................................................................................................................ 53 a ) Air pollution ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53 b ) Fauna and flora ................................................................................................................................................................ 53

♦ Natura 2000 .................................................................................................................................................................. 53 ♦ High Nature Value farmland .................................................................................................................................. 54

c ) Human health ................................................................................................................................................................... 55 4.1.5.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern: review ...................................... 55

4.1.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation ....................................... 57 4.1.6.1 Water ............................................................................................................................................................................ 57

♦ Water consumption ................................................................................................................................................... 57 ♦ Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) .................................................................... 57 ♦ Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 58

4.1.6.2 Soil .................................................................................................................................................................................. 59 4.1.6.3 Air ................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 4.1.6.4 Resources .................................................................................................................................................................... 61 4.1.6.5 Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................................................ 62 4.1.6.6 Land use change ....................................................................................................................................................... 63 4.1.6.7 Climate change ......................................................................................................................................................... 64

4.1.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures ........................................ 67 4.1 Hungarian case study ......................................................................................................................... 69

4.1.1 Case study description: current situation ......................................................................................... 69 4.1.1.1 Location ....................................................................................................................................................................... 69 4.1.1.2 Land use ....................................................................................................................................................................... 70

a ) Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................. 70 b ) Forest ................................................................................................................................................................................... 70 c ) Agriculture ......................................................................................................................................................................... 71

4.1.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: case study leader) ................................. 72 4.1.3 Feedstock (current and future) ............................................................................................................. 73

4.1.3.1 Straw ............................................................................................................................................................................. 73 a ) Current straw potential................................................................................................................................................ 73 b ) Future straw potential ................................................................................................................................................. 74

4.1.3.2 Hardwood ................................................................................................................................................................... 75 a ) Current hardwood potential ...................................................................................................................................... 75 b ) Future hardwood potential ........................................................................................................................................ 75

4.1.3.3 SRC potential: current and future situation ................................................................................................ 75 4.1.3.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 76

4.1.4 Logistic from field to factory gate ......................................................................................................... 77 4.1.4.1 Straw collection storage and transportation .............................................................................................. 77 4.1.4.2 Hardwood collection storage and transportation .................................................................................... 78 4.1.4.3 SRC collection storage and transportation .................................................................................................. 78

4.1.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern ............................................ 79 4.1.5.1 Environmental priorities for the case study ............................................................................................... 79 4.1.5.2 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern: review ...................................... 80

4.1.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation ....................................... 82 4.1.6.1 Water ............................................................................................................................................................................ 82

♦ Water consumption ................................................................................................................................................... 82 ♦ Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) .................................................................... 82 ♦ Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................ 82

4.1.6.2 Soil .................................................................................................................................................................................. 83 4.1.6.3 Air ................................................................................................................................................................................... 84 4.1.6.4 Resources .................................................................................................................................................................... 85 4.1.6.5 Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................................................ 86 4.1.6.6 Land use change ....................................................................................................................................................... 87

4.1.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures ........................................ 90 4.2 German case study .............................................................................................................................. 91

4.2.1 Case study description: current situation ......................................................................................... 91 4.2.1.1 Location ....................................................................................................................................................................... 91 4.2.1.2 Land use ....................................................................................................................................................................... 91 4.2.1.3 Forest structure ....................................................................................................................................................... 92

4.2.2 Case study description: scenario of 2025 (source: NOVA) ........................................................ 92 4.2.3 Feedstock ........................................................................................................................................................ 93

4.2.3.1 Categories ................................................................................................................................................................... 93 4.2.3.2 Harwood/softwood ................................................................................................................................................ 94 4.2.3.3 Scenario for EIA........................................................................................................................................................ 94 4.2.3.4 Current potential ..................................................................................................................................................... 94

a ) Description ........................................................................................................................................................................ 94 b ) Feedstock ........................................................................................................................................................................... 94

4.2.3.5 Available feedstock in 2025 ................................................................................................................................ 95 a ) Competition for hardwood ......................................................................................................................................... 95 b ) Feedstock ........................................................................................................................................................................... 95

4.2.3.6 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 96 4.2.4 Logistic from forest to factory gate ...................................................................................................... 97 4.2.5 Linkage between state of environment and forest pattern ....................................................... 98

4.2.5.1 Environmental situation or priorities of forest within the German case study .......................... 98 a ) Climate change ................................................................................................................................................................. 98 b ) Soil in forest ...................................................................................................................................................................... 98

♦ Acidification and eutrophication ......................................................................................................................... 98 ♦ Soil nutrient depletion.............................................................................................................................................. 99

c ) Flora and fauna ................................................................................................................................................................ 99 4.2.5.2 Potential environmental impacts forest management ........................................................................ 100

a ) Linkage between state of environment and forest pattern: review ...................................................... 101 4.2.6 Additional environmental impacts linked to BRP implementation 150 kt .....................104

4.2.6.1 Intensification of forest activities ................................................................................................................. 104 4.2.6.2 GHG emission, carbon storage and fossil resource consumption ................................................... 105

4.2.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures ......................................108 4.3 Indian case studies: Sangrur and Faridkot ............................................................................. 110

4.3.1 Current straw management in the Rice-Wheat Systems (RWS) ...........................................110 4.3.2 Indian case study-1: Sangrur ................................................................................................................113

4.3.2.1 Case study description: current situation (2010-2015) ..................................................................... 113 a ) Location ............................................................................................................................................................................ 113 b ) Land use ........................................................................................................................................................................... 113

4.3.2.2 Case study description: trends for 2025 (source: TERI) .................................................................... 114 4.3.2.3 Feedstock ................................................................................................................................................................. 115

a ) Plant capacities, feedstock and surface required .......................................................................................... 115 b ) Straw potential ............................................................................................................................................................. 116

♦ Current straw potential ........................................................................................................................................ 116 ♦ Available feedstock in 2025 ................................................................................................................................ 117 ♦ Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 118

4.3.2.4 Logistic from field to factory gate ................................................................................................................. 118 a ) Global design .................................................................................................................................................................. 118 b ) Straw collection ............................................................................................................................................................ 119 c ) Straw transportation .................................................................................................................................................. 119 d ) Straw pre-treatment .................................................................................................................................................. 120

4.3.2.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern .................................................... 120 a ) Environmental priorities for the case study (soil and water) ................................................................. 120

♦ Depleting groundwater (impact of RWS) ..................................................................................................... 120 ♦ Salinisation of soil ................................................................................................................................................... 122

b ) Environmental impact of the current feedstock management: Open field burning of rice straw

.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 122 ♦ Air pollution and human health ........................................................................................................................ 122 ♦ Soil nutrient depleting (N, P, K, S) .................................................................................................................... 124 ♦ Impact of soil properties (heat effect and reduction of soil organic matter)................................ 124 ♦ Biodiversity (flora and fauna) ............................................................................................................................ 124

c ) Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern: review ........................................... 124 4.3.2.6 Additional environmental impacts of bio-refinery implementation – 500 kt .......................... 126

a ) Water ................................................................................................................................................................................. 126 ♦ Water consumption ................................................................................................................................................ 126 ♦ Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) ................................................................. 126 ♦ Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 127

b ) Soil ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 c ) Air (GHG and trace gases) ........................................................................................................................................ 128 d ) Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................ 129

4.3.2.7 Additional environmental impacts of bio-refinery implementation – 150 kt .......................... 130 a ) Water ................................................................................................................................................................................. 130

♦ Water consumption ................................................................................................................................................ 130 ♦ Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) ................................................................. 130 ♦ Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 131

b ) Soil ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 131 c ) Air (GHG and trace gases) ........................................................................................................................................ 132 d ) Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................ 133

4.3.2.8 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures ............................................... 135 4.3.3 Indian case study-2: Faridkot ..............................................................................................................137

4.3.3.1 Case study description: current situation ................................................................................................. 137 a ) Location ............................................................................................................................................................................ 137 b ) Land use ........................................................................................................................................................................... 137

4.3.3.2 Case study description: trends for 2025 (source: TERI) .................................................................... 138 4.3.3.3 Feedstock ................................................................................................................................................................. 139

a ) Plant capacities, feedstock and surface required .......................................................................................... 139 b ) Straw potential ............................................................................................................................................................. 140

♦ Current straw potential ........................................................................................................................................ 140 ♦ Available feedstock in 2025 ................................................................................................................................ 141 ♦ Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 142

4.3.3.4 Logistic from field to factory gate ................................................................................................................. 142 a ) Global design .................................................................................................................................................................. 142 b ) Straw collection ............................................................................................................................................................ 142 c ) Straw transportation .................................................................................................................................................. 143 d ) Straw pre-treatment .................................................................................................................................................. 143

4.3.3.5 Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern .................................................... 144 a ) Environmental priorities for the case study (soil and water) ................................................................. 144

♦ Salinisation ................................................................................................................................................................. 144 ♦ Salinisation of soil linked to excessive irrigation ...................................................................................... 145 ♦ Salinisation of soil linked to waterlogging and saline groundwater uses ...................................... 145 ♦ Depleting groundwater (impact of RWS) ..................................................................................................... 146

b ) Environmental impact of the current feedstock management: Open field burning of rice straw

.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 146 c ) Linkage between state of environment and agriculture pattern: review ........................................... 146

4.3.3.6 Additional environmental impacts of bio-refinery implementation ............................................. 149 a ) Water ................................................................................................................................................................................. 149

♦ Water consumption ................................................................................................................................................ 149 ♦ Water quality (pesticides and mineral nutrient pressures) ................................................................. 149 ♦ Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 150

b ) Soil ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 150 c ) Air (GHG and trace gases) ........................................................................................................................................ 151 d ) Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................ 152

4.3.3.7 Conclusion: impacts, cumulative effects and mitigation measures ............................................... 154

5. Final conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................ 156

List of tables

Tableau 1: Summary of the regional case studies ...................................................... 21

Tableau 2: Selected environmental factors for EIA of the “upstream processes” and links with main inputs used ............................................................................................ 24

Tableau 3: Criteria and indicators to describe the current state of the environment in connection with agriculture and/or forest pattern ........................................................... 29

Tableau 4: Criteria and indicators to describe pressure of farming practices and forest management on environment ........................................................................................ 31

Tableau 5: Criteria and indicators to describe additional pressures (of farming practices and forest management) linked to biomass removal or production (dedicated crops or SCR) ................................................................................................................ 32

Tableau 6: N, P, K content in crop residues ................................................................ 33

Tableau 7: Main emission factors used ....................................................................... 36

Tableau 8: Straw potential in 2015 .............................................................................. 42

Tableau 9: Straw potential in 2025 .............................................................................. 44

Tableau 10: Status of Beauce ground water body form European Water Framework Directive (directive 2000/60) in 2009 ............................................................................. 49

Tableau 11: : codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE) 55

Tableau 12: Environmental impact of agriculture in Beauce and resulting status of environment (SOE) ........................................................................................................ 56

Tableau 13: .................................................................................................................... 56

Tableau 14: Irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume......................................... 57

Tableau 15: Pesticides ................................................................................................ 57

Tableau 16: Fertilisation .............................................................................................. 58

Tableau 17: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity ..................................... 58

Tableau 18: Impacts on soil ........................................................................................ 59

Tableau 19: Additional impacts on soil ........................................................................ 59

Tableau 20: Evolution of air emissions ....................................................................... 60

Tableau 21: additional impacts on air ......................................................................... 60

Tableau 22: Evolution of fossil resource consumption ................................................ 61

Tableau 23: additional impacts on resource consumption .......................................... 61

Tableau 24: impacts on biodiversity ............................................................................ 62

Tableau 25: additional impacts on biodiversity ............................................................ 62

Tableau 26: Land use effect ........................................................................................ 63

Tableau 27: additional impacts on land use ................................................................ 63

Tableau 28: potential impacts of climate changes ...................................................... 64

Tableau 29: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE) ................ 65

Tableau 30: Feedstock mix ......................................................................................... 73

Tableau 31: Straw potential in 2015 ............................................................................ 74

Tableau 32: Straw potential in 2025 ............................................................................ 74

Tableau 33: SRC potential in 2010 and 2025 ............................................................. 75

Tableau 34: Available feedstock in 2010 and 2025 ..................................................... 76

Tableau 35: codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE) .. 80

Tableau 36: Environmental impact of agriculture/forest patterns in Hungarian case study and resulting status of environment (SOE) .......................................................... 81

Tableau 37: Fertiliser pressures (agriculture only) ...................................................... 82

Tableau 38: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity ..................................... 83

Tableau 39: Additional impacts on soil ........................................................................ 83

Tableau 40: Evolution of air emissions ....................................................................... 84

Tableau 41: Additional impacts on air ......................................................................... 84

Tableau 42: Evolution of fossil resource consumption ................................................ 85

Tableau 43: Additional impacts on fossil resource consumption ................................. 85

Tableau 44: additional impacts on biodiversity ............................................................ 86

Tableau 45: Land use effect ........................................................................................ 87

Tableau 46: additional impacts on land use ................................................................ 87

Tableau 47: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE) ................ 88

Tableau 48: Feedstock for 2015 and 2025.................................................................. 96

Tableau 49: Potential impacts of forestry activities (logging and forest roads) – (FAO) 100

Tableau 50: Codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE)101

Tableau 51: Environmental priorities and potential impacts of forest management on status of environment (SOE) ....................................................................................... 102

Tableau 52: Additional impacts on soil linked to BRP implementation ...................... 104

Tableau 53: GHG emissions, carbon storage and fossil resource consumption ....... 105

Tableau 54: dditional impacts on air linked to bio-refinery implementation ............... 105

Tableau 55: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE) .............. 106

Tableau 56: Current use of straw (rice and wheat) in the Indian case studies .......... 110

Tableau 57: Plant capacities and area required ........................................................ 115

Tableau 58: Current straw potential .......................................................................... 116

Tableau 59: Straw potential in 2025 .......................................................................... 117

Tableau 60: Emission from crop residues burning (Gupta et al., 2004). ................... 122

Tableau 61: Codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE)124

Tableau 62: Environmental impact of the rice-wheat system and resulting status of environment (SOE) ...................................................................................................... 125

Tableau 63: Irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume....................................... 126

Tableau 64: Water quality indicators ......................................................................... 126

Tableau 65: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity ................................... 127

Tableau 66: Evolution of area under open field burning ............................................ 127

Tableau 67: Additional impacts on soil ...................................................................... 127

Tableau 68: Evolution of air emissions ..................................................................... 128

Tableau 69: Additional impacts on air ....................................................................... 128

Tableau 70: Evolution of fossil resource consumption .............................................. 129

Tableau 71: Additional impacts on fossil resources .................................................. 129

Tableau 72: Irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume....................................... 130

Tableau 73: Water quality indicators ......................................................................... 130

Tableau 74: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity ................................... 131

Tableau 75: Evolution of area under open field burning ............................................ 131

Tableau 76: Describes additional impacts on soil ..................................................... 132

Tableau 77: Evolution air emissions – plant capacity: 150 kt .................................... 132

Tableau 78: Additional impacts on air ....................................................................... 133

Tableau 79: Evolution of fossil resource consumption .............................................. 133

Tableau 80: Additional impacts on fossil resources .................................................. 133

Tableau 81: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE) - *SOEi: initial status of environment; SOEf: final status of environment ................................... 134

Tableau 82: Plant capacities and area required ........................................................ 139

Tableau 83: Current straw potential .......................................................................... 140

Tableau 84: Straw potential in 2025 .......................................................................... 141

Tableau 85: Codes used for EIA to qualify impacts and state of environment (SOE)147

Tableau 86: Environmental impact of the rice-wheat system and resulting status of environment (SOE) ...................................................................................................... 148

Tableau 87: Irrigated surfaces and irrigation water volume....................................... 149

Tableau 88: Water quality indicators ......................................................................... 149

Tableau 89: Additional impacts on water quality and scarcity ................................... 150

Tableau 90: Evolution of area under open field burning ............................................ 150

Tableau 91: Additional impacts on soil ...................................................................... 151

Tableau 92: Evolution air emissions – plant capacity: 150 kt .................................... 151

Tableau 93: Additional impacts on air ....................................................................... 152

Tableau 94: Evolution of fossil resource consumption .............................................. 152

Tableau 95: Additional impacts on fossil resources .................................................. 152

Tableau 96: Final environmental impact and status of environment (SOE) *SOEi: initial status of environment; SOEf: final status of environment ............................................ 153

Tableau 97: Impacts of BRP on environmental themes ............................................ 158

Tableau 98: Impacts of BRP on GHG emission, carbon storage and energy consumption 158

List of figures

Figure 1: A schematic view of BIOCORE ........................................................................ 5

Figure 2: Sustainability assessment in BIOCORE: The concept of life cycle assessment (LCA). Responsibilities of WP 1 and WP 7. ..................................................................... 5

Figure 3: Elements of the BIOCORE system and environmental assessment perimeters ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 4: Hardwood surplus per country (source: Biocore project) ................................ 12

Figure 5: Map of hardwood surplus in Europe (source: Biocore project) ....................... 13

Figure 6: Annual quantity of removal straw (millions tons of dry matter) per country (EU-27; Ukraine; Balkan countries) - (source: Biocore project) ............................................ 15

Figure 7: Map of annual quantity of removal straw from cereal without maize (density – dry tn/km2) at regional level (NUTS2) for European countries (EU-27; Ukraine; Balkan countries) - (source: Biocore project) ............................................................................. 16

Figure 8: Map of annual quantity of removal straw from cereal without maize (density – dry tn/km2) at regional level (NUTS2) and hardwood surplus for European countries (EU-27; Ukraine; Balkan countries) ............................................................................... 17

Figure 9: Biomass surplus production in Punjab and Haryana ...................................... 18

Figure 10: European case studies location .................................................................... 19

Figure 11: Indian case studies location ......................................................................... 20

Figure 12: Methodological approach ............................................................................. 28

Figure 13: Location of the French case study – Beauce (agricultural region) ................ 37

Figure 14: dominant land use in Beauce (wheat and rapeseed crops) .......................... 38

Figure 15: Dominante land uses in Beauce (Corine Land Cover, 2006) ........................ 39

Figure 16: Usable agricultural area of Beauce............................................................... 39

Figure 17: Flow chart of wheat / barley straw ................................................................ 41

Figure 18: Map of the distribution of the feedstock (scale: NUTS 4). ............................. 43

Figure 19: Pressing and loading straw on a trailer ......................................................... 44

Figure 20: Miscanthus harvest ....................................................................................... 45

Figure 21: Administrative map of Beauce ground water body. Source: DIREN Centre – SEMA ............................................................................................................................ 46

Figure 22: Distribution of withdrawals by use in Beauce ground water body in 2005 in Eure-et-Loir department (a) and in full Beauce ground water body (b) (Source: Agence de l’eau Loire Bretagne et Agence de l’eau Seine Normandie) ..................................... 47

Figure 23: Graphs of indicator “Beauce Centrale” based on 4 piezometric readings, in meters from 1974 to 2011 (1st graph) and from 1999 to 2011 (2nd graph) (Source: DREAL Centre) .............................................................................................................. 48

Figure 24: Evolution of nitrates concentration (mg/l) in ground water bodies in Beauce from 1980 to 2007 (Source: DDAS) ............................................................................... 50

Figure 25: Organic carbon content in Beauce region in tC/ha. ...................................... 51

Figure 26: Distribution of organic carbon content in French soils in tC/ha (Source: Arrouays et al.,2001) ..................................................................................................... 52

Figure 27: C saturation deficit in French soils in gC/kg (Anger et al., 2012) .................. 52

Figure 28: Natura 2000 area in Centre region (Source: DREAL Centre 2011) .............. 53

Figure 29: HNV score at NUTS 5 level, Solagro / JRC, 2010 ........................................ 54

Figure 30: Location of the Hungarian case study .......................................................... 70

Figure 31: Hungarian case study – woodlands land (excluding coniferous forests) ...... 71

Figure 32: Hungarian case study – arable land ............................................................. 72

Figure 33: Pressing and straw load on a trailer ............................................................. 77

Figure 34: limiting factors of soil fertility and soil degradation processes (Varallyay) .... 79

Figure 35: Map of regions for hardwood sourcing in Germany (Source: NOVA 2011) .. 91

Figure 36: Flow charts for forest wood or sawn wood (source: NOVA) ......................... 93

Figure 37: Chipping wood (stem > 7 cm diameter) in forest roadside and truck loading97

Figure 38: Current biomass (grain and crop residues) value chain (Source: TERI) ..... 110

Figure 39: Open field burning of crop residues (2) ...................................................... 111

Figure 40: Combine harvester in operation – loose straw on the ground .................... 112

Figure 41: Sangrur – Case study location ................................................................... 113

Figure 42: Straw reapers one field ............................................................................... 119

Figure 43: Flood irrigation is the most wasteful irrigation system ................................ 120

Figure 44: Long term Fluctuations in ground water level 1975-2003 (source: central Ground Water Board) .................................................................................................. 121

Figure 45: SO2 concentration in air – Red circle = paddy harvesting period (S.K. Mittal et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 238–244) ................................................ 123

Figure 46: Aerosol concentration in air – Red circle = paddy harvesting period (S.K. Mittal et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 238–244) ....................................... 123

Figure 47: N2O concentration in air – Red circle = paddy harvesting period (S.K. Mittal et al. / Atmospheric Environment 43 (2009) 238–244) ................................................ 123

Figure 48: Faridkot-Case study location ...................................................................... 137

Figure 49: Salt scalds on the soil surface .................................................................... 144

Figure 50: Crop affected by salinity and waterlogging ................................................. 144

Figure 51: Long term Fluctuations in ground water level 1975-2003 (source: central Ground Water of Punjab) ............................................................................................. 146