Supporting Sustainable Energy Production from Biomass from Landscape Conservation and Maintenance Work

MINUTES – Stakeholder Working Group “Feedstock Supply Concepts”

Date: 28.01.2016, 2-4 p.m.

Organisation: Aline Clalüna, Chamber of Agriculture Lower Saxony (COALS)

Planned overall timing:

02.00-02.10: Connection, welcoming and registration of participants

02.10-02.20: Introduction to greenGain, purpose of the SWG

02.20-02.50: Self-presentation of participants (3 min. each)

02.50-03.10:

The different LCMW and feedstock types in greenGain.

Assessment of available biomass per LCMW.

03.10-04.00 Discussion about experiences of participants with different LCMW and feedstock types.

Knowledge about publications and existing work to determine the amount of biomass from any kind of LCMW.

Participants:

- Magdalena Sajdak Wood Technology Institute - David Butler Manning Projektträger Jülich (previously coordinator of the project AgroForNet) - Frederik Köster LiPRO Energy GmbH & Co. KG - Jan Weger Silva Tarouca Research Institute - Massimo Monteleone University of Foggia, project STAR AgroEnergy - Marie Bergmann FNR, greenGain - Federico de Filippi SOGESCA, greenGain - Maider Gomez CIRCE, greenGain - Aline Clalüna COALS, greenGain

Moderation and minute taker: Aline Clalüna, COALS

1

Publicly available summary of SWG results Please prepare a summary of all results of the SWG (telephone) conference, which can be published

as an article on the greenGain website and the greenGain Information Platform. Keep in mind the aim

of the SWG (to get first-hand information on applied concepts & actual developments on barriers and

bridges in the field of interest; to achieve specific expert information regarding LCMW topics & to

evaluate results from the project in these WGs; to discuss the good practices gathered in WP 4-6 & to

develop final recommendations).

SWG Feedstock Supply Concepts

Date of the

conference

28.01.2016

Participants - Magdalena Sajdak

- David Butler Manning

- Frederik Köster

- Jan Weger

- Massimo Monteleone

- Marie Bergmann

- Federico de Filippi

- Maider Gomez

- Aline Clalüna

Wood Technology Institute

Projektträger Jülich, (previously coordinator of the

project AgroForNet)

LiPRO Energy GmbH & Co. KG

Silva Tarouca Research Institute

University of Foggia, project STAR AgroEnergy

FNR, greenGain

SOGESCA, greenGain

CIRCE, greenGain

COALS, greenGain

Topics - Different landscape, conservation and maintenance work & feedstock types

- Assessment of the amount of biomass produced during any kind of landscape,

conservation and maintenance work (LCMW)

Summary The first meeting of the greenGain stakeholder working group 1 (SWG1) “Feedstock

Supply Concepts” was successfully held with the participation of a range of interested

experts.

The first part of the agenda was dedicated to the presentation of greenGain, its aims

and the function of the SWG. Every participant had the possibility to introduce

themself and their principal interests in this working group. Additionally, Aline Clalüna

from the German greenGain partner COALS, presented the eight LCMW types

greenGain is working with and how they are distributed in the different project

countries. The main topic of the first meeting of SWG1 was to discuss different

approaches, literature and the participants’ experiences in conducting biomass

assessments. As at that time the technical project partners were doing such an

assessment in their model regions, knowledge, helpful insights and tips from the

participating experts were to complete the ongoing work.

The contributions of the participants varied from new expert contacts, to information on projects and scientific literature related to the greenGain topic. Mr. David Butler Manning, former coordinator of the project AgroForNet, for instance elaborated biomass assessment methods and gained knowledge regarding short rotation coppices. But also the aspects of public acceptance of the utilisation of woody biomass which shapes the landscape were discussed.

For more detailed questions regarding the methods for biomass assessment used in AgroForNet Mr. Butler Manning referred to Professor Andreas Bitter and his staff from the Dresden University of Technology (DE). The group has developed methods using

2

remote sensing and large data quantities to assess the amount of wood in the landscape (hedgerows, forests, along streets) and how much is technically and economically harvestable.

Ms. Magdalen Sajdak, from the Wood Technology Institute in Poznan (PL), reminded

that one method to quantify urban tree biomass is remote sensing but also the use of

allometric equations may be considered. She pointed out that the quantity of residual

biomass obtained from urban trees during LCMW varies greatly, depending on the

species, type and frequency of pruning practice, and other factors. Moreover, she

advised to keep in mind that the quantity of biomass proceeding from pruning

operations in urban forests is different to the quantity of whole aboveground biomass

estimated with certain methods.

Mr. Massimo Monteleone, associated professor at the University of Foggia (IT) and

coordinator of the STAR* AgroEnergy research group, explained the situation of

LCMW biomass from olive groves and vineyards in the region of Puglia (IT). Here

maps and indications about the potential and technical availability of this kind of

pruning could be an important new information source for SOGESCA, the Italian

technical project partner working with this LCMW type in greenGain. In the case of

Puglia the feedstock is used to feed a pyrolysis plant to obtain energy and biochar for

soil conditioning in the same vineyards and olive groves from which the pruned

biomass originates.

During the course of the meeting the discussion was also led to the topic of biomass

along and especially in water channels. Mr. Monteleone for instance pointed out that it

is very difficult to quantify the amount of this biomass but according to his expert

opinion it could be a very relevant feedstock source ranging up to 1-1.5 t per ha

(rough estimate).

Regarding feedstock from wetlands Ms. Sajdak named the Life+ project as a good

example on how to energetically use this source of biomass. The project actually

concentrated on bird protection in a national park and according to the habitat laws

biomass had to be extracted to secure this aim. One of the side effects was that a

solid biofuel production facility was actually set up in order to utilise the obtained

biomass.

Based on the experiences made in the project AgroForNet and a project in Thüringen

(DE) Mr. Butler Manning confirmed that for nature protection purposes there are

areas which have to be kept open to prevent succession. The costs for this work

showed to reach about 10,000 Euros per year and ha. Through harvesting and using

the wood for energy it was not possible to make a profit but the costs for the work

could be reduced.

Mr. Frederik Köster, CEO of the German company LiPRO Energy, asked all

participants about experiences on the range of the costs for local authorities for

roadside management. What he sees is how complicated the LCMW often is

conducted and he wanted to know how a public-private partnership contract with

authorities may influence the management and the costs for the community.

Mr. Butler Manning suggested contacting Mr. Christoph Schurr from the Kreisforstamt

Bauzen who elaborated the cooperation between regional actors along wood-based

supply chains in the AgroForNet study. He also pointed out a report written during the

project AgroForNet considering the networking of producers and users of dendromass

for energetic purposes (see further information below).

At the end of the meeting problems were addressed with which the experts had to

cope during their projects and work. It was concluded that one of the most crucial

3

factors to facilitate new projects in the renewable energy sector is the simplification of

administrative processes.

Further information:

Research gate of Ms. Magdalena Sajdak and David Butler Manning.

Booklets on the STAR*AgroEnergy Unit and the STAR*Facility Centre (PDFs).

Homepage of the company LiPRO energy GmbH & Co. KG.

The final report of the projects AgroForNet and BEST entitled “Bioenergy from Dendromass for the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas” was published as a monograph by Wiley and is available for purchase.

A report from the AgroForNet project considering the networking of producers and users of dendromass for energetic purposes (in German).

AgroForNet book ‘Holzwege in eine neue Landschaft? Perspektiven für holzige Biomasse aus der Sicht von Akteuren’ presenting further practical examples of communities using word from various sources for energy projects.

A list of other related publications from the AgroForNet project.

Project “Landscape management without shepherd?” resp. “Landschaftspflege ohne Schäfer?” (In German with English summary).

Report “Energieholz auf Uferrandstreifen” of the Thuringian regional office for agriculture about energy wood on riparian strips.

Report “Gewässerrandstreifen als Kurzumtriebsplantagen oder Agroforstsysteme” of the German Federal Environment Agency about riparian strips as short rotation coppices or agro forestry systems:

4

Summary of conclusions/results for internal use Experiences of participants with different LCMW and feedstock types and knowledge exchange about

publications and existing work to determine the amount of biomass from any kind of LCMW:

David Butler Manning

- For more detailed questions regarding the methods for biomass assessment in the open

landscape used in AgroForNet1 contact Prof. Andreas Bitter (Dresden University of

Technology, Dept. of Forest Management Planning)2 and see chapter 19 of the final report of

the project3 (purchased by greenGain).

- Also as part of AgroForNet it was assessed how quickly wood grows in short rotation coppices

(SRC) and what kind of quantities of wood can be gained. Depending on the site and the

species roughly 10 odt4/ha per year in the first rotation can be achieved. For more

information on inventory methods, contact Dr. Hendrik Horn of the Dresden University of

Technology, Dept. of Forest Growth5 and see chapter 14 of the final report of the project

3

(purchased by greenGain).

- As part of AgroForNet, the University of Hannover (Prof. Christina von Haaren, Institute of

Environmental Planning)6 assessed how the public might accept SRC in terms of the visual

effects on the landscape. It can be shown that if there is a structured landscape with forest

and hedgerows, the acceptance of SRC was lower. But in open landscapes without wood, the

acceptance was considerably higher. The impact of SRC was also assessed in a nature

conservation context and with respect to its impact on hydrological balances. See also

chapter 9 of the final report (purchased by greenGain).

- It was noted that when the project started in 2010 in Germany, very few people knew the

meaning of SRC. Through the comparison of public reaction regarding SRC at trade fairs,

where they presented the project and the idea of SRC, they saw that by the time the project

finished in 2015, much more people knew about SRC. Whereas in the first project year people

would just ask very general questions, by the end the questions had become much more

detailed. So even in these few years there was a big change in people’s perception.

- Project in Thüringen7: they found it costs about 10,000 Euros per year to keep 1 ha of this

nature protection area free of trees. Through harvesting and using the wood for energy they

were able gain money from the activity. They didn’t make any profit but could reduce the costs

for the work. So it was rather an offset of costs than subsidies for it.

1 http://www.energieholz-portal.de/1-0-Aktuelles.html; www.facebook.com/agrofornet 2 https://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_forst_geo_und_hydrowissenschaften/fachrichtung_forstwissenschaften/institute/oekonomie/fe/mitarbeiter_fe/vita_bitter/document_view?set_language=en; 3 Butler Manning, D.; Bemmann, A.; Bredemeier, M.; Lamersdorf, N.; Ammer, C. (2015): Bioenergy from Dendromass for the Sustainable Development of Rural Areas, Wiley Verlag, Weinheim, 576 pages. 4 Odt= oven dry tonne 5 http://tu-

dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_forst_geo_und_hydrowissenschaften/fachrichtung_forstwissenschaften

/institute/ww/waldwachstum/mitarbeiter/ma-ho/document_view?set_language=en 6 https://www.umwelt.uni-hannover.de/haaren.html 7 https://www.energetische-biomassenutzung.de/de/presse/pressemitteilungen/details/article/energiewende-und-naturschutz.html

5

Magdalena Sajdak:

- She totally agreed that there are methods to quantify the biomass via remote sensing. In her

research she used terrestrial laser scanners to do that. However, there are also other methods

like the allometric equations which allow making prediction models.

- She reminded that the quantity of residual biomass obtained from urban trees during LCMW

varies greatly, depending on the species, type and frequency of pruning practice, and other

factors.

- Moreover, she advised to keep in mind that the quantity of biomass proceeding from pruning

operations in urban forests is different to the quantity of whole aboveground biomass

estimated with certain methods.

- Research gate Magdalena Sajdak: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Magdalena_Sajdak

Massimo Monteleone:8

- The region of Puglia in Italy has many olive groves and vineyards. They have a map and good

information about the potential and technical availability of this kind of pruning. They also use

the biomass in order to feed a pyrolysis plant to obtain energy and biochar for soil amendment

in the same vineyards and olive groves. They are trying to implement a circular material flow

in order to use biomass as energy source but also to restore soil fertility in the same farm

where the biomass was produced.

- Discussion about the vegetation inside of water canals: It’s very difficult to quantify the amount

of biomass but he can consider it’s a huge amount, from 1 to 1.5 t per ha (rough estimate). In

his opinion it’s a very interesting activity to exploit this biomass as part of some project in order

to set up local energy facilities or produce pellets. So to become self-sufficient this kind of

biomass could be interesting also from the economic point of view to supply a local

community.

Magdalena Sajdak mentioned that regarding biomass from wetlands she can refer to the

Life+ project9 which actually concentrated on bird protection but it was according to the

habitat laws they had to extract the biomass. One of the side effects was actually setting

up a solid biofuel production facility and it was carried out in a national park. They also

worked with reed.

Regarding biomass along water bodies David Butler Manning mentioned two German

studies on energy wood on riparian strips and riparian strips as short rotation coppices or

agro forestry systems.10

- Another problem considering the vegetation from urban park maintenance work is that this

kind of biomass is considered as very attractive and useful for the composting companies.

There is a competition between these companies and the companies that want convert

the biomass into energy. We need to stress on our national administration in order to make

clear laws and regulations.

8 http://www.star-agroenergy.eu/ 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3833 10 http://www.tll.de/ainfo/pdf/ehol0607.pdf https://repository.publisso.de/resource/frl:5806790-1/data

6

Frederik Köster:

- Experiences of participants about the range of the costs for local authorities for roadside

management. What he sees in reality is how complicated the work is often conducted and he

wanted to know how a public-private partnership contract with authorities may influence

the management and the costs for the community.

Mr. Butler Manning suggested contacting Mr. Christoph Schurr from the Kreisforstamt

Bauzen11

who elaborated the cooperation between regional actors along wood-based

supply chains in the AgroForNet study. He also pointed out a report written during the

project AgroForNet considering the networking of producers and users of dendromass for

energetic purposes12

and another book produced as part of the project by Anders &

Fischer (2013) entitled ‘Holzwege in eine neue Landschaft? Perspektiven für holzige

Biomasse aus der Sicht von Akteuren’, which highlights the experiences of various

stakeholders in woodfuel supply chains.13

General conclusion after the discussion about legal, financial and administrative problems during the

work and projects of the participants: Simplification is crucial, especially for administrative

processes.

11 http://www.landkreis-bautzen.de/67.html 12 http://www.energieholz-portal.de/files/gerold___schneider__2014_-_erfahrungsberichte_agrofornet.pdf 13 http://auflandverlag.de/onlineshop/lesebuecher.html

7

Minutes

1. Connection, welcoming and registration of participants

All participants stated their agreement that the discussion can be recorded for internal purposes.

Aline Clalüna will provide the minutes and the power point presentation to all attendees.

2. Introduction to greenGain and purpose of the SWG

Aline Clalüna explained the aims of greenGain, presented who is involved in the project and how the aims are going to be reached.

Aline Clalüna referred to the homepage www.greengain.eu for further and more detailed information on the project.

Aline Clalüna explained that the SWGs should promote knowledge transfer between experts and the project partners, and also directly between the participating experts. She also named the SWGs 2 + 3 and informed about when they took resp. will take place.

The meetings are planned to be held every half year. Today’s attendees will get an invitation to all three groups on time for the next meetings in June/July where they can decide again if and in which group they like to participate.

3. Self-presentation of participants

All participants presented their background, relevant work and interest in SWG1.

Aline Clalüna shortly presented the passively attending greenGain project partners Maider Gomez (CIRCE) and Marie Bergmann (FNR).

4. The different LCMW and feedstock types in greenGain and assessment of available biomass per LCMW

Aline Clalüna presented the relevant LCMW types in greenGain:

- Roadside cleaning

- Park maintenance

- Riverside cleaning Plants only from along the river and not from the water body14

.

- Ravine cleaning (only in Spain) Invasive vegetation is cleared to restore these abandoned vegetation areas also for fire safety reasons.

- Vineyards and olive groves (only Italy) Biomass from yearly pruning.

- Moorland (only Germany) Manage trees and bushes regularly to maintain areas and prevent drying of the moors.

- Hedgerows on banks (only in Germany) Important landscape elements with historical and biodiversity importance. Country wants to maintain these and thus LCMW has to be done.

In total 8 LCMW types greenGain is working with. The selection can still change during the on-going and coming work.

Aline Clalüna summarised the steps for the biomass assessment in greenGain.

14 Studies provided by David Butler Manning (in German): Energy wood on riparian strips: http://www.tll.de/ainfo/pdf/ehol0607.pdf Riparian strips as short rotation coppices or agro forestry systems: https://repository.publisso.de/resource/frl:5806790-1/data

8

She explained that a status quo was already done and the relevant LCMW types in the project regions were defined.

At the moment the project partners try to assess the spatial dimensions of the defined biomass sources in the relevant regions and the production rate per treatment (theoretical potential).

The next step will be to determine the fractions which actually can be exploited (technical potential) thus including technical constraints, ownership issues and regulatory limitations.

The partners will work on this the next months and the responsible partner CIRCE is going to write a report about the gained results.

Aline Clalüna pointed out that one important information source for the biomass assessment is literature and other projects. As an example for a database which is valuable to cross-reference the gained results in greenGain she showed the results from the project BioBoost (www.bioboost.eu). This project assessed different LCMW types on the NUTS3 level for whole Europe.

Aline Clalüna asked the attendees that if they know similar projects or projects looking only at one specific LCMW type to please send the information to any partner of greenGain.

5. Experiences of participants with different LCMW and feedstock types and knowledge exchange about publications and existing work to determine the amount of biomass from any kind of LCMW

David Butler Manning explained that the assessment of the amount of woody material in the landscape was a large part of the project AgroForNet

15 where they wanted to create real

functioning wood fuel supply chains in local regions. It was clear that it is not realistic to put short rotation coppices (SRC) everywhere, because valuable agricultural land is used and farmers don’t want crops they need (from an economic viability perspective) to leave standing for 25 years. So it was decided to first assess how much wood is in the landscape already, so that not only SRC are used but their biomass would rather fill gaps in the supply chain.

Professor Bitter (Dresden University of Technology, Dept. of Forest Management Planning)

16 and his staff have developed methods using remote sensing and large data

quantities to assess how much wood is in the landscape (hedgerows, forests, along streets). He mapped this for large regions in the state Saxony, depending on the amount of provided data. This was not only to determine the theoretical amount of wood which is in the landscape but also how much is actually technically and economically harvestable. They adopted an approach where they tried to determine where we can harvest wood and where we also have a quantity which we can use and in such a way that we don’t have large transport distances, etc. He would be a good person to talk to about these technical matters and to determine how much wood is currently in the landscape.

Another member of Professor Bitter´s staff, Christoph Schönbach quantified biomass of hedgerows in the landscape for large areas in Sachsen.

Also as part of AgroForNet it was looked at how quickly wood grows in SRC and what kind of quantities of wood one can get. It was known that it is very site and species dependent and that roughly 10 odt/ha and year in the first rotation can be achieved. Prior to AgroForNet there was little information on the yields obtained in second and later rotations. Using new data from established plantations it was possible to develop yield models for later rotations. A lot more work on how rotations increase over the years, and on the lowest and highest possible yield was done. An assessment on the state level for all of Saxon was conducted dependent on local elevation, rainfall, etc. Also forecasts were made on what kind of yield one can get if SRC are planted in a certain region.

15 http://www.energieholz-portal.de/1-0-Aktuelles.html 16 https://tu-

dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_forst_geo_und_hydrowissenschaften/fachrichtung_forstwissenschaften/institute/oekonomie/fe/mitarbeiter_fe/vita_bitter/document_view?set_language=en

9

These are the assessments which were done in regions of Germany. The methods are available. If you want to make the assessment in other regions you need slightly different data but the way to do it and guideline data is already available.

Aline Clalüna asked if during the project there were problems with acceptance in society. Not just the farmers but also in the general public.

David Butler Manning answered that they mostly focused on their target audience. This included farmers but much central was the need to address local council people, local mayors, etc. People in small communities who are responsible for heating in schools and municipal buildings. They were the people they wanted to convince that wood fuel is a good idea. They knew that if the local council people can be convinced that they in turn can convince the farmers.

The project group didn’t look too much at the general public. They did try to assess how the public might accept SRC in terms of the visual effects on the landscape. It could be shown that if there was already a really structured landscape with lots of forest and hedgerows acceptance was lower. But where there was open landscape and no wood, acceptance was considerably higher.

What they also noted in general among the target audience was that when the project started in 2010 in Germany, very few people knew what SRC was. From having a stand at trade fairs presenting the project and the idea of SRC they saw that by the time the project finished in 2015 much more people knew what SRC was. Whereas in the first year people would just ask very general questions by the end of the project the questions asked focused much more on details. So even in these few years there was a big change in people’s perception. The group´s feeling was that the recognition of the environmental aspect was generally seen as quite positive. Lots of people at the time were very annoyed about the large quantity of oil seed and maize in the landscape and automatically everything else was positive. From the nature protection side there were mixed views. Lots were very positive but if it was a nature protection person focusing e.g. primarily on birds they were a bit more negative.

Aline Clalüna pointed out that she did not go much in detail when explaining the single LCMW types because every partner works on his types in this regions and she cannot talk for them about the problems they may have doing the biomass assessment. Thus, she asked the greenGain partners to feel free to ask specific questions regarding their LCMW types.

Magdalena Sajdak asked Mr. Butler Manning for further detail on the research conducted in Germany. She wanted to know if that research was about roadside trees. She totally agreed that there are methods to quantify the biomass via remote sensing; in her research she used terrestrial laser scanners to do that. However, there are also other methods as the allometric equations which allow making prediction models.

She asked if the team of the AgroForNet project did the estimation of the whole above ground biomass that in general exists, because the pruned biomass is not the whole above ground biomass. The quantity of biomass obtained during LCMW which is going to be available later for e.g. bioenergy is very different from the quantity of whole aboveground biomass they may have measured.

David Butler Manning answered that the questions goes into details which are beyond his knowledge, because the responsible person is Prof. Bitter, who specifically did this aspect of the project. What Mr. Butler Manning can remember is that the roadside part of the project was situated in Bautzen where they made with remote sensing an inventory of the roadside trees, number of trees and probably also calculating the diameter and from that the volume. He is not sure in terms of how it was calculated in detail. Regarding this issue he would directly talk to Prof. Bitter because this particular part of the project was not published but is in the library in Dresden.

10

Magdalen Sajdak stated that if the project is aiming to estimate the quantity of biomass which is extracted during pruning operations, it should be taken into account that this quantity is highly dependent on what type of pruning is applied (this is related for example to tree location, pruning conditions,…). She doesn’t know in what detail the greenGain partners want to do their assessment but it’s worth to take into account that the estimation may be probably with a high bias. She would be cautious with stating an estimation for a certain type, because it will always be dependent on species, type of pruning practice and other factors.

In a former work Magdalena Sajdak was also assessing the biomass of palm trees which led her to the conclusions that when the biomass is assessed, in the end much less material can be effectively used because of the high moisture content of palm fronds.

She advised to consider the type of pruning and species in greenGain´s assessment.

Aline Clalüna thanked for pointing out and summing up this important factors. The partners of greenGain are aware that these factors have a great influence on the assessment. They will probably rather get estimation ranges than exact numbers. In the regions, the partners are working on quite small areas and when they get results they maybe can assume that the landscape is similar or the same through the whole region. They will not be able to go out and measure in every case what species or water content can be found on every site and thus probably get result in a range.

Aline Clalüna asked Magdalena Sajdak about the other scientific papers she mentioned to have worked at and if they are available.

Magdalen Sajdak provided the following link to her research gate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Magdalena_Sajdak

Massimo Monteleone stated that he is quite surprised about the LCMW type pruning from vineyards and olive groves. He usually sees these rather as crop residue rather than a LCMW biomass. However, if greenGain is interested in these, in the region of Puglia they have many olive groves and vineyards. They have a map and good information about the potential and technical availability of this kind of pruning and also use the biomass in order to feed a pyrolysis plant to obtain energy and biochar for soil amendment in the same vineyards and olive groves. They are trying to experiment a circular material flow in order to use biomass as energy source but also to restore soil fertility in the same farm where the biomass was produced.

So greenGain is very interesting for the region, also because their work is rather small scale. This is very relevant to set up small size conversion facilities in order to serve the local community and to overcome the problem of social acceptance of the energy plants. Pruning from vineyards and olive groves is one type of feedstock on which they have a good amount of experiences and research.

Relating to the LCMW biomass Massimo Monteleone was more focused on park maintenance and riverside cleaning. In his region there are some very important national parks which need maintenance and especially wetland along the Adriatic coast. Here they have the problem of LCMW biomass from along riverbanks, buffer strips or the management of the weed that are found in drainage canals in wetlands. At the moment they don’t have any experience on these LCMW which are very difficult to carry out.

Federico de Filippi answered that regarding the prunings from olive groves and vineyards the greenGain consortium had a big discussion about the viability of this type of biomass as LCMW. We now actually use it on the motivation that we are working in pilot regions in Umbria in the Trasimeno lake area which is a protected landscape. That’s why we could consider olive groves and vineyards as landscape elements and their maintenance as relevant to the project topics.

We especially found that there is a problem of abandoning of the fields in the area. So many olive groves and vineyards have overgrowing problems and they need some

11

maintenance which is not actually an agricultural practice but rather landscape maintenance work.

Another issue is that the residues of the prunings are often left on the ground. There is sometimes the problem of phytosanitation with the proliferation of bacteria and fungus. This is why it is preferable to make another use of this kind of prunings. The traditional agricultural practice was to dig the residuals into the ground or leave them there but now we find that it’s much better to valorise them in an energetic way.

Regarding the small scale conversion facilities: Federico de Filippi has picked up a good practice which is close to Padova in Motta di Livenza (not in the project region). It’s a consortium of farmers which are using the pruning from vineyards to produce heat for drying wood purposes. Actually, the biomass which is collected from vineyard prunings is not sold but used directly to produce heat and then the heat is sold to another drying facility of a cooperative of farmers (300 kW). We should stay in contact regarding the data we gain in greenGain and the existing data of the Puglia region. Actually, we know that your region is very strong about that kind of cultivation.

Massimo Monteleone: of course, we can share information.

Massimo Monteleone further commented on the feedstock from drainage channels. In his region they live in a low and flat area and so depend on their interconnected drainage system to remove access water. The vegetation inside the channels presents a problem to block the flow of water. It’s very important to maintain the drainage of the channels and to remove the vegetation of inside the bed. He referred especially to Phragmites Australis, the common reed, or Arundo Donax but also in more aquatic systems to Typha Latifolia. They have a huge amount of this kind of feedstock in the region and at the moment nobody is taking care of the growth of this vegetation which is a very relevant problem.

Massimo Monteleone pointed out that not the ecosystem at the side of the canal is meant, but the vegetation inside the canal. It’s a duty of the public administration to manage the growth of this vegetation. It’s very difficult to quantify the amount of biomass but he can consider it’s a huge amount, relevant to 1-1.5 t per ha (rough estimate).

He thinks it’s a very interesting activity to exploit this biomass as part of some project in order to set up local energy facilities or produce pellets. So to become self-sufficient this kind of biomass could be interesting also from the economic point of view to supply a local community. The problem probably is how to manage the costs of cutting this vegetation. But it has to be considered that this kind of intervention in the natural vegetation is absolutely necessary to protect the ecological value of this natural parks and especially the wetland.

Maider Gomez stated that the case in the model regions in Spain is slightly different. Here reeds which are growing along the river are relevant and not in the channels. It’s not a really wide river but still an open channel but different than a coast channel. They have significant problems regarding the collection of rates data, so the tons per ha that we could get on weed. The options up to this point are to go into the field and make some samplings.

Massimo Monteleone agreed that a direct survey and direct measurements are absolutely necessary. Also if remote sensing can be used, in the end the direct measurement is inevitable.

Magdalena Sajdak mentioned that regarding biomass form wetlands she can refer to the Life+ project

17 which actually concentrated on bird protection but it was according to the

habitat laws they had to extract the biomass. She knows that one of the side effects was actually setting up a solid biofuel production facility and it was carried out in a national park. They also worked with reed.

17

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3833

12

Regarding the vegetation which is inside the river bed she would be a bit more careful with considering it as feedstock for solid biofuel production. It is known that if there is very high moisture content it might not be economically viable to make energy because it has to be invested much more just to be able to burn it. When you have vegetation from wetlands and in general herbaceous vegetation and you use it for energy purposes then you might have problems with the boilers because these types of vegetation contain elements which are associated with corrosion of the boiler.

Massimo Monteleone replied that today these technological constraints can be overcome. We can also overcome the problem of green vegetation because harvesting could be done during the winter period when all the vegetation is completely dry and the leaves are on the ground. So we can take just the stem which also increases the energetic power of the biomass and removes elements which could damage the boilers.

Federico de Filippi asked the experts which, in their experiences, are the regulations, policies or the financial supporting instruments more favourable to feedstock harvesting or also bottle necks hindering an appropriate harvesting of LCMW biomasses. He asked if the attendees met problems with rules, laws and regulations during their work that had a negative or positive influence on the work.

David Butler Manning answered that in terms of landscape material he has no experiences that there are any subsidies available. They saw through AgroForNet and the project in Thüringen

18 that for nature protection purposes there are areas which have to

be kept open to prevent succession. They found it costs them about 10,000 Euros per year to keep one ha of this nature protection area free of trees. Through harvesting and using the wood for energy they were able to make some money from the activity. They never made a profit but could reduce the costs for the work. So it was rather an offset of costs than subsidies for it.

In AgoForNet they had one example19

were the provincial government wanted to do a trial related to a wood fuel project. They worked with the local forestry authority and identified a local school which had to be refurbished. Part of this meant to renew the heating system. The forestry authority suggested that they use a wood fuel based boiler. That was discussed at community level so that if the forestry manager could provide the wood and showed that it was economically feasible this approach would be chosen.

David Butler Manning recounted that the project members were confronted with a lot of administrative problems. The forestry authority is usually responsible for issues regarding wood, except for roadside wood. They may provide the service to cut and harvest the wood but they are not responsible for the roads and the wood they harvest they don’t own. The roadside authority owns the wood.

The next problem was that even though the school was completely in favour of this wood based energy system, the school did not own the building in which the school was, rather it was owned by the local authority. The local authority school department was in favour of the new system but the department which actually owned the building did not know anything about wood systems and wood fuel boilers.

Regarding the logistics, the wood that was harvested had to be collected and brought to a central area for storage and the question was who would be responsible for collecting it, making wood chips, bringing the chips to the school, etc. There were so many different

18 https://www.energetische-biomassenutzung.de/de/presse/pressemitteilungen/details/article/energiewende-und-

naturschutz.html 19 A brief outline of the supply chain is presented in a report from the AgroForNet project considering the networking of producers and users of dendromass for energetic purposes (in German): Gerold & Schneider (2014): Erfahrungsberichte zur Vernetzung von Erzeugern und Verwertern von Dendromasse für die energetische Verwertung, forum ifl, Heft 24, Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde, 127 pages, http://www.energieholz-portal.de/files/gerold___schneider__2014_-_erfahrungsberichte_agrofornet.pdf

13

administrative levels involved in this project that it nearly collapsed at numerous nodes along the supply chain.

They also discovered that the people form the roadside authority actually had kind of a system of favours where they know people who wanted to use the wood for private purposes and during the project they had to break up all of those structures as well.

So what seemed like a small and simple project in a small system turned out to be a huge problem which took almost four to five years to solve.

Federico de Filippi thanked for the told story. To know that in Germany you have this kind of administrative and management problem due to different administrative levels is interesting. Simplification is something which is very important.

He pointed out that in Italy they have also problems for example regarding the management of waterways. Because depending on the size you have different authorities which manage it.

Federico de Filippi further explained that in Italy there is a problem that in fact the road side wood collected in urban areas is considered as waste. So in order to manage it one would need an authorisation for waste management and not only for biomass collection. So that would be even one further complication.

Last summer in June, the Ministry of Environment released a communication which stated that the biomass from urban areas is not considered as waste as long as it fits into the thresholds of pollution. So now at least one has only to deal with the contamination of the feedstock and not just that it comes from the roadside.

Massimo Monteleone added that there is still a great confusion on how to define what is a biomass product, what is a biomass by-product or waste or residue. In Italy they are still in a very confusing regulatory framework and this is a great problem in order to exploit this biomass in a proper way. He agrees with Federico de Filippi that when he says that there are different regulatory frameworks considering the national, regional and local level.

Another problem considering the vegetation from urban park maintenance work is that this kind of biomass is considered as very attractive and useful for the composting companies. There is a competition between these companies and the companies that want to convert the biomass into energy. At the moment this competition e.g. in the Puglia region is very high in order to have the availability of this kind of biomass. And again the regulation is not clear in order to understand what should be the preferential use of this biomass. At the moment we are in a total state of confusion according to the Italian law but it’s also a law that is changing very rapidly every year, which is also not fair in order to plan investment in the sector. This is another constraint for planning and making a useful assessment of the investment that is necessary to set up a facility plant and to gain some money from this investment. We need to stress on our national administration in order to make clear laws and regulations.

Frederik Köster wanted to know if anyone has any experiences with the costs for local authorities for roadside management, like an amount of Euros per year and km. What he sees in reality is how complicated they usually work, so his idea was to try to set up in his region a public-private partnership contract with the authorities to manage these and to lower the costs for the community. But as mentioned this is really complicated because then they have to lower their budget. From his point of view it would be much better, also for the community members to reduce costs and to produce proper fuel for local CHT or district heating. Does anyone have any experiences with these two topics: costs or public-private partnership contracts with authorities?

Aline Clalüna answered that regarding the costs the partners are coming to that in the project as well. This will happen in the next months. She has some reports from Germany about this that look at this more closely which she can send Frederik Köster. Of course as soon as there are results from greenGain he can access them on the homepage. Regarding the cooperation maybe someone else could say something. She has not much experience with it.

14

Federico de Filippi answered that at the moment they don’t have this kind of assessment. For the moment it’s difficult to provide numbers about the actual costs of this practice but he will ask the Trasimeno community which had the task of maintaining roads on behalf of their municipalities.

David Butler Manning answered that he also has no concrete numbers from AgoForNet but suggested to contact Christoph Schurr from the Kreisforstamt Bauzen

20. He did this

part of the study for the AgroForNet project. He also pointed out a report written during the project AgroForNet considering the networking of producers and users of dendromass for energetic purposes

21.

20 http://www.landkreis-bautzen.de/67.html 21 Gerold & Schneider (2014): Erfahrungsberichte zur Vernetzung von Erzeugern und Verwertern von Dendromasse für die

energetische Verwertung, forum ifl, Heft 24, Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde, 127 pages

http://www.energieholz-portal.de/files/gerold___schneider__2014_-_erfahrungsberichte_agrofornet.pdf