View
712
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This presentation gives a detailed overview of the 2011 report done by IFPRI (Laborde, 2011) for the European Commission on the land use consequences of EU biofuel mandates (available at http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/biofuelsreportec2011.pdf ) The report aims to compute iLUC (indirect land use change) factor for different feedstocks using the MIRAGE-Biof CGE model.
Citation preview
Land Use Change and European
Biofuel Policies
David Laborde Debucquet -
April 2013
The views expressed by the author are not those of
IFPRI or the European Commission
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
References
• Presentation based on the 2011 report for the European
Commission: “Assessing the land use change consequences of
European biofuel policies”. David Laborde.
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/assessing-land-use-change-
consequences-european-biofuel-policies
• “Modeling land-use changes in a global CGE: Assessing the EU
Biofuel mandates with the MIRAGE-BioF model” David Laborde
and Hugo Valin.
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2010007812500170
• Previous report, 2010, “Global trade and environmental impact
study of the EU biofuels mandate”. Al-Riffai, Perrihan; Dimaranan,
Betina;Laborde, David
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/global-trade-and-environmental-impact-
study-eu-biofuels-mandate
Page 2
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
1. Land use changes driven by biofuel policies are a serious concern.
2. This finding is robust as more than 99 percent of crop LUC coefficients
are positive.
3. LUC regulation and the Pandora's Box: LUC for all, LUC for none? The
real challenge is to promote better land use practices for agriculture
widely.
4. Reducing the biofuel ambition is still the most direct way to limit
additional land use emissions
5. Crop specific LUC can be difficult to implement. Increasing the minimal
requirements of direct savings can be a first step.
6. Despite all uncertainties, our findings show the hierarchy between
ethanol and biodiesel in terms of LUC.
7. Using available technologies to increase yield (e.g. biotech) and crop
conversion technology, and low carbon agricultural practices to reduce
emissions.
Page 3
Main Policy Recommendations
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
New Commission proposal to minimise the climate
impacts of biofuel production 17 October 2012
The Commission is therefore proposing to amend the current legislation on biofuels through
the Renewable Energy1 and the Fuel Quality2 Directives and in particular:
• To increase the minimum greenhouse gas saving threshold for new installations to
60% in order to improve the efficiency of biofuel production processes as well as
discouraging further investments in installations with low greenhouse gas performance.
• To include indirect land use change (ILUC) factors in the reporting by fuel suppliers
and Member States of greenhouse gas savings of biofuels and bioliquids;
[ Figures from the MIRAGE Biof model}
• To limit the amount of food crop-based biofuels and bioliquids that can be counted
towards the EU's 10% target for renewable energy in the transport sector by 2020, to the
current consumption level, 5% up to 2020, while keeping the overall renewable energy and
carbon intensity reduction targets;
• [ 2010 IFPRI report: 5.6% target for 1st generation]
• To provide market incentives for biofuels with no or low indirect land use change
emissions, and in particular the 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels produced from feedstock
that do not create an additional demand for land, including algae, straw, and various types
of waste, as they will contribute more towards the 10% renewable energy in transport
target of the Renewable Energy Directive.
Page 4
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
INTRODUCTION
Page 5
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Why Biofuel Policies?
Page 6
From a pragmatic point of view: Because there are not competitive with
fossil fuels at market conditions
From a theoretical point of view: because they have a "social" value not
captured by the market. Externalities lead to market failure and justify
policies.
Why Biofuels? What is the "social" value not captured by the
market? • ENERGY Policy (Energy security, Energy Prices, External Trade
Balance)
• FARM Policy (A new way to support agricultural prices avoiding WTO
disciplines)
• ENVIRONMENTAL Policy to reduce emissions from fossil fuels
If greenhouse gas emissions are the "market failure" aimed to be
corrected, need to do proper CO2 accounting and consider the land use
change.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 7
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The Burden of Proof?
• Should we prove that iLUC effects exist or that
does not exist?
• Working in a Farm or Working in Brussels teach
you two things: Level of agricultural production is
tied to the amount of land
• Increased demand of agricultural commodities
HAS land use effects
• The debate should be about their magnitude, not
their existence
Page 8
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Preamble: iLUC or LUC
An artificial differentiation from the point of view of Carbon
Accounting.
Total Land Use Change (LUC) = Direct Land Use Change
(dLUC) + Indirect Land Use Change (iLUC)
ASSUMPTION in our study : Regulations work.
No Direct LUC. dLUC=0.
Total Land Use Change (LUC) = 0+ Indirect Land Use
Change (iLUC)
Therefore the LUC computed in our study is the iLUC
considered by policy makers.
Page 9
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
EU BIODIESEL [84% OF EU MARKET]
• EU Imports of vegetable oils have accelerated
with the biodiesel expansion
• EU has started to import rape seeds (2012:
imports > 15% EU production!) and rapeseed oil
since the beginning of the biodiesel policy
• EU rapeseed yields have not increased
2001 - 2003 = 3,06 Ton / Ha
2010 - 2012 = 2,95 Ton / Ha
Page 10
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 11
Orange line = EU Biodiesel production – different scale
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 12
Orange line = EU Biodiesel production – different scale
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
MODEL - CORE
MODIFICATIONS
Since previous studies
Page 13
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The MIRAGE-BIOF
• The MIRAGE model has started to be developed in 2001 in CEPII,
Paris. Focusing on EU Integration and Trade Policy analysis of the
beginning
• Now used by several institutions around the World, numerous
versions ( trade policy focused, FDI, Services, Climate Change etc.)
• Biofuels assessment started in 2008
• On land use:
• First study for the DG Trade in 2009 (limited to ethanol)
• Second study for DG Trade in 2010 (part of the public consultation)
• This new study for: DG Trade in 2011
• But other applications: mandates of other countries, comparison of
“traditional” ag policies and biofuels etc., food prices and price
stability consequences
Page 14
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Modeling Biofuels in MIRAGE
• MIRAGE model
• Multi country, Multi sectoral, and global
• Recursive dynamic set-up
• Modified model and data components
• Improvement in demand system (food and energy)
• Improved sector disaggregation
• New modeling of ethanol sectors
• Co-products of ethanols and vegetable oils
• New modeling of fertilizers
• New modeling of livestocks (extensification/intensification)
• Land market and land extensions at the AEZ level
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Major Efforts on Data: from Values to Quantities
• Improvement from the GTAP7 database
• Split for fertilizers and fossil fuels
• Disaggregation with specific procedure for Maize, Soybeans, Sunflower
seed, Palm fruit, Rapeseed + relevant Oils + Co-products
• Production targeting (FAO) for all relevant crops
• Creation of a “harmonized” price database for calibration
• Case of co-products
• Creation of Ethanol and Biodiesel (2008 trade and production structure).
• Correction of some I-O data (e.g. China)
• Land use (AEZ GTAP database 2001 2004, + consistency with
FAO and M3)
• Correction for Sugar cane AEZ in Brazil
Page 16
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 17
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Sectoral Disaggregation (43)
Sector Description Sector Description Sector Description
Rice Rice SoybnOil Soy Oil EthanolW Ethanol - Wheat
Wheat Wheat SunOil Sunflower Oil Biodiesel Biodiesel
Maize Maize OthFood Other Food sectors Manuf Other Manufacturing
activities
PalmFruit Palm Fruit MeatDairy Meat and Dairy products WoodPaper Wood and Paper
Rapeseed Rapeseed Sugar Sugar Fuel Fuel
Soybeans Soybeans Forestry Forestry PetrNoFuel Petroleum products,
except fuel
Sunflower Sunflower Fishing Fishing Fertiliz Fertilizers
OthOilSds Other oilseeds Coal Coal ElecGas Electricity and Gas
VegFruits Vegetable & Fruits Oil Oil Construction Construction
OthCrop Other crops Gas Gas PrivServ Private services
Sugar_cb Sugar beet or cane OthMin Other minerals RoadTrans Road Transportation
Cattle Cattle Ethanol Ethanol - Main sector AirSeaTran Air & Sea transportation
OthAnim Other animals (inc.
hogs and poultry)
EthanolC Ethanol - Sugar Cane PubServ Public services
PalmOil Palm Oil EthanolB Ethanol - Sugar Beet
RpSdOil Rapeseed Oil EthanolM Ethanol - Maize
Page 18
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Biodiesel Production
Page 19
Feedstock Crops
Veg.Oil sector
(+meals) Biofuel
Biodiesel
Sunflower oil
Sunflower seed
Soybean oil
Soybean
Rapeseed oil
Rapeseed
Palm oil Palm fruit & Kernel
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Ethanol Production
Page 20
Feedstock Crops
Ethanol (+ DDGS)
Biofuel
Blending
Ethanol
Ethanol W
Wheat
Ethanol M Maize
Ethanol B Sugar Beet
Ethanol C Sugar Cane
Imported Ethanol*
Imported Ethanol*
* for Central America and Caribbean
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Production Tree for an Ag. Sector
Page 21
Changes
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Livestock Sector and Intensification
Traditional approach
• Feedstock Intermediate
consumption
• Intermediate consumption &
Value Added (including Land)
complementary
• Increase in feedstock prices
Increase in production cost
Decrease in demand
Decrease in production
Decrease in Land Use
Intensification approach
• Like fertilizers
• Ratio price of land/price of
feedstocks Producer choice
• Increase in price of feedstock
Substitution effect =
Intensification + Overall price
effect = reduction in production
Overall, potential increase in
Land use
Page 22
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Land Markets – at the AEZ Level
Page 23
Managed land
Cropland
Managedforest
Othercrops
Pasture
Wheat Corn
Livestock1 LivestockN
Unmanaged landNatural forest - Grasslands
Land extension
CET
CET
Oilseeds
Substitutablecrops
CET
Vegetablesand fruits
CET
Agricultural land
CET
Sugarcrops
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Technical issue: Land Extension
Page 24
Total land available
for agriculture
Land
Crop
Land
price
Cropland
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Land Extension Allocation
from Winrock Intl. – EPA report
Forest
Primary
Other Savannah &
Grassland
Argentina 0.0% 24.7% 23.3%
Brazil 16.3% 11.2% 48.5%
CAMCarib 30.4% 10.7% 42.9%
Canada 7.8% 42.5% 16.1%
China 2.2% 27.3% 26.0%
CIS 5.6% 33.3% 26.7%
EU27 0.4% 23.5% 30.9%
IndoMalay 51.7% 7.0% 31.0%
LAC 10.8% 14.3% 33.8%
Oceania 0.0% 32.6% 22.5%
RoOECD 0.0% 18.8% 45.8%
RoW 3.7% 36.9% 16.7%
SEasia 20.4% 21.5% 33.8%
SouthAfrica 5.1% 28.4% 22.2%
SouthAsia 0.0% 32.4% 23.9%
SSA 13.0% 16.7% 41.7%
USA 2.5% 21.1% 23.7%
Methodology
• Amount of land extension:
“isoelastic” land supply
based on cropland price
• Evolution of the elasticity
• Where the land is taken:
• Ad Hoc coefficients: Winrock
• Limitations
• Done at the AEZ level
• RAS procedure to consider
land availability constraint at
the AEZ level
Page 25
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Technical issues: land substitution (1)
• CET function: concavity
• Aimed to capture imperfect transformation
• Adjustment costs / stylised facts
• Changes in productivity
• Nested CET: consequences of
concavity
• Sum (i, Land_i) ≠ CET (Land_I)
• In the model / out of the model rescaling
• In MIRAGE: in the model
• CET:
• Good in static
• More problematic in dynamics:
• Adjustment costs based on calibration year.
• Recalibration issue
Page 26
wheat
corn
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Modifications in Modelling for this new report
• Dynamic baseline and food demand
• Dynamic recalibration to maintain price elasticity in the CES LES.
Standard of living evolution
• Co-products substitution: one level
• Two type of effects:
• Displacement of other crops
• Intensification
• Modification of central values for elasticities
• Marginal shock simulations
• From a marginal 1 to 60 Mios GJ
• But still, concept to manipulation with precaution:
• Substitution effects vs expansion effects
• Peat emissions and Indonesia land availability
Page 27
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SIMULATION DESIGN
Page 28
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Baseline
• Sugar reform (still a source of numerical problems)
• End of the Land Set Aside
• EU trade measures vs US Biodiesel
• No change in trade policy for Ethanol
• Some restrictions on Brazilian exports to the US in the baseline:
• Partially capture the change in the real exchange rate real/USD
• Avoid too much confusion between corn and sugar cane ethanol for the central
scenario
• Stronger Brazilian domestic consumption: but still large export
supply response
• Modification of initial profitability in Argentina
• New yield changes: Aglink Cosimo
• VERY IMPORTANT EFFECTS but no SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS on this
assumption
• ISSUE ON EU WHEAT New Members catch up
Page 29
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Scenarios
• Biofuel mandate:
• Member states Action Plan
• Trade policy options:
• Status Quo
• Full Liberalization in the EU of Ethanol and Biodiesel
Page 30
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Sensitivity Analysis
• On linearity/non linearity issue
• Estimation of crop LUC at a “half mandate”, at a full mandate
• But still weak on Ethanol: no saturation effects
• On food consumption
• Endogenous vs Fixed to Baseline level
• On Co-products: with or without
• Monte Carlo simulations on selected parameters
• But in reality, much more uncertainties (see Box 2, 25 items related
to LUC, but even more regarding net emissions…)
• About the land (amount, location, carbon values)
• About future technologies
• Both behavioral and technical uncertainties
Page 31
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Monte Carlo Simulations
• 1000 runs = 240 days of computations time
• Some restrictions for the model version
• Iterative process during the earlier stage
• Any modification of the model or data has to be done
of the core version and for the sensitivity analysis
• Log Uniform distribution
• Wide uncertainty
• We focus mainly on elasticities
• We do not have distribution estimates
Page 32
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
RESULTS
Page 33
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Scenario Design
(Table 3) EU consumption pattern by feedstock. Percent
Palm Oil Rapeseed Soya Sun-
flower
All
Biodiesel
Maize Sugar
Beet
Sugar
Cane
Wheat All
Ethanol
Structure of consumption in 2008 – Total =11.7 MTOE
Baseline 4 57 20 2 83 3 3 5 5 17
Structure of consumption in 2020 – Total =27.2 MTOE
Baseline 11 60 10 3 83 3 3 7 4 17
No Trade
liberalization
17 41 11 4 72 4 5 13 6 28
Full Trade
Liberalization
17 41 11 4 72 1 1 25 1 28
Additional Mandate Composition +10 Mtoe +5Mtoe
No Trade
liberalization
22 26 12 5 65 4 6 18 7 35
Full Trade
Liberalization
22 26 12 5 65 -1 -1 38 -
1
35
Page 34
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Table 5) EU biofuel production in 2020 by
feedstock. Energy content. Percent.
Baseline No Trade
Liberalization
Trade Liberalization
Biodiesel 79.29 69.25 92.54
PalmFruit 7.55 12.87 16.96
Rapeseed 62.04 44.37 59.58
Soybeans 6.52 7.45 9.90
Sunflower 3.17 4.56 6.09
Ethanol 20.71 30.75 7.46
Maize 5.83 7.59 2.16
Sugar_cb 6.53 10.96 2.17
Wheat 8.35 12.20 3.12
Page 35
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Table 6) Commodity balance sheet - World -
Full mandate - No trade liberalization. 1000 tons
Biofuel
demand Additional
Supply Total Demand
displacement Livestock
demand
displacement
Ratio Additional
Supply / Biofuel demand
Share of livestock
demand
displacement in
total demand displacement
Wheat 5,366.6 -1,595.9 -6,962.5 -6,326.6 -30 90.9 Maize 4,353.0 -2,986.3 -7,339.3 -6,471.7 -69 88.2 Sugar Cane & Beet
76,616 69,574 -7,042 -6.6 91 0.1
Soybeans 4,677.6 4,677.6* -1,889.9 -40.4 Sunflower 2,676.0 2,676.0* -344.2 -12.9 Rapeseed 7,135.4 7,135.4* -544.2 -7.6 PalmFruit 22,207.0 22,207.0* -208 -0.9 Rice -101.9 -101.9 418.1 -410.4 OthCrop -765.9 -765.9 -363.4 47.5 OthOilSds -395.4 -395.4 -322.4 81.5 VegFruits -3,372.2 -3,372.2 25.6 -0.8 OilPalm 3,850.6 5,342.0 1,491.4 139 0.0 OilRape 4,456.9 2,474.4 -1,982.5 56 0.0 OilSoyb 2,063.5 1,270.8 -792.8 62 0.0 OilSunf 933.3 1,172.4 239.1 126 0.0
Page 36 back
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 37
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 5) Land use changes for main
crops, 1000 Ha
Page 38
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 6) Location of cropland extension.
Changes compared to the baseline. Km2
Page 39
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 7) Distribution of source of
cropland (world)
Page 40
43.8%
41.8%
36.2%
38.6%
3.7%
3.0%
16.3%
16.5%
Full Trade Liberalization
No Trade Liberalization
Pasture (1) Managed Forest (1) Primary Forest (2) Savannah and Grassland (includes Cerrado in Brazil) (2)
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 8) Cropland extension vs.
Exploited land extension. Km2
Page 41
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
LUC coefficient (grCO2/MJ)
Page 42
495 MtCo2 for
15.5 MToe
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 10) Source of emissions
Page 43
with a value of peatland emissions of 55gTCO2 HA/an
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 11) Intensification and Extensification drivers. Normalized
effects: Additional Mandate, Trade Policy Status Quo
Page 44
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 14) Crop specific LUC. Source of
emissions
Page 45
5 4 26 8
18 19 1775
3
7
13
2223
22
2
12
0
33
16 10 15
Wheat Maize Sugar Beet Sugar Cane Palm fruit Soybean Sunflower Rapesed
Annual carbon release from palm extension on peat lands (gCO2Eq/MJ)
Annual carbon release from forest biomass (gCO2Eq/MJ)
Annual carbon release from carbon mineral soil (gCO2Eq/MJ)
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Emissions grCO2/MJ
Page 46
If
considerin
g oil
leakage
effects
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Differences? DEMAND effect
Page 47
Table 10 Ratio
Additional
Supply/Biofuel
demand. Percent.
Sugar Beet 94.40
Sugar Cane 98.30
Maize 56.69
Wheat 51.38
Palm Fruit 96.6
Rapeseed 78.2
Soybeans 40.3
Sunflower 71.0
mandate
Ethanol Maize
Ethanol Wheat
Biodiesel Rapeseed
Biodiesel Soybean
Maize -2693 -213 -2000 -4431
Wheat -333 -2799 -2228 -1740
Palm Fruit -1 -2 -81 -110
Rapeseed -4 -5 -465 -126
Soybeans 11 12 -810 -2747
Sunflower -6 -6 -126 -131
DDGS 3485 2419 1 -32
Meal-Palm 1 1 23 29
Meal-Rape -37 -78 3841 813
Meal-Soyb -187 -105 2431 8954
Meal-Sunf -1 -5 253 272
Other Crops
174 411 -154 -834
Table 10 Evolution of Livestock consumption of feedstocks. Selected Crop
specific scenarios (60GJ incremental demand of biofuel in the EU). Tons.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Differences? Supply effect
• Yield reactivity
• Land displacement
Page 48
Table 14 Land Use
displacement Summary.
Value by feedstock. Ha by Tj
Scenario
Feedstock
Net Energy
Crops
Net
Cropland
Pasture Net Exploited
Land
Biodiesel_Rapeseed
EU27 4.42 2.94 0.51 -0.10 0.14
World 10.91 11.72 3.90 -1.39 0.64
Biodiesel_Soybean
EU27 0.14 0.77 0.10 -0.02 0.03
World 11.61 11.41 3.86 -1.50 0.76
Ethanol_Maize
EU27 2.40 1.13 0.08 -0.02 0.01
World 6.52 3.69 0.88 -0.40 0.00
Ethanol_Wheat
EU27 3.27 1.77 0.17 -0.04 0.03
World 7.64 4.99 1.39 -0.54 0.10
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Differences: Carbon stocks
Page 49
Note : The bars (left y-axis) show the amount of additional net cropland by TJ of biofuel
produced for one feedstock. The line (right x-axis) shows the average tons of CO2
equivalent by net Ha of cropland.
(Figure 16) More cropland or More Carbon (Ha by TJ and Tons
CO2 eq by Ha of cropland)
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Sensitivity Analysis
Page 50
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 21) Correlation matrix of LUC factor,
grCO2eg/MJ. Trade policy Status quo.
Page 51
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(Figure 22) Consequences of alternative
closures on LUC (grCO2e/MJ)
Page 52
Worst case (all demand fixed, no
coproducts) can x3 total LUC
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
From model results to the policy space
Page 53
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
1. Land use changes driven by biofuel policies are a serious concern.
2. This finding is robust as more than 99 percent of crop LUC coefficients
are positive.
3. LUC regulation and the Pandora's Box: LUC for all, LUC for none? The
real challenge is to promote better land use practices for agriculture
widely.
4. Reducing the biofuel ambition is still the most direct way to limit
additional land use emissions
5. Crop specific LUC can be difficult to implement. Increasing the minimal
requirements of direct savings can be a first step.
6. Despite all uncertainties, our findings show the hierarchy between
ethanol and biodiesel in terms of LUC.
7. Using available technologies to increase yield (e.g. biotech) and crop
conversion technology, and low carbon agricultural practices to reduce
emissions.
Page 54
Main Policy Recommendations
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
New Commission proposal to minimise the climate
impacts of biofuel production 17 Octobre 2012
The Commission is therefore proposing to amend the current legislation on biofuels through
the Renewable Energy1 and the Fuel Quality2 Directives and in particular:
• To increase the minimum greenhouse gas saving threshold for new installations to
60% in order to improve the efficiency of biofuel production processes as well as
discouraging further investments in installations with low greenhouse gas performance.
• To include indirect land use change (ILUC) factors in the reporting by fuel suppliers
and Member States of greenhouse gas savings of biofuels and bioliquids;
[ Figures from the MIRAGE Biof model}
• To limit the amount of food crop-based biofuels and bioliquids that can be counted
towards the EU's 10% target for renewable energy in the transport sector by 2020, to the
current consumption level, 5% up to 2020, while keeping the overall renewable energy and
carbon intensity reduction targets;
• [ 2010 IFPRI report: 5.6% target for 1st generation]
• To provide market incentives for biofuels with no or low indirect land use change
emissions, and in particular the 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels produced from feedstock
that do not create an additional demand for land, including algae, straw, and various types
of waste, as they will contribute more towards the 10% renewable energy in transport
target of the Renewable Energy Directive.
Page 55