Indirect Land Use Change - Principles for a correct evaluation of emissions

Adrian Long/BirdLife BirdLife urges for fresh thinking on how to really tackle climate change while preserving natural habitats Zoom In

When demand for biofuel was low due to low biofuel susbstitution rates, looking only at direct effects of the production of biofuels was acceptable as most of the extra crops for energy production had its origin on set-aside land or other unused arable land (JRC 2008). However, in order to meet more ambitious targets most of the EU biofuel feedstock will come from use of agricultural land. 

Indirect land use change could potentially release enough greenhouse gas to negate the savings from conventional EU biofuels. (JRC 2008)

Modelling carried out by the European Research Center indicates that emissions for indirect land use change are between 25 and 110g C02 eq/MJ whereas other studies suggest even a higher correction factor of 120g CO2 eq/MJ (Searchinger 2008). Applying these values would cancel out the GHG savings calculated for biofuels.

The inclusion of indirect impacts is one of the biggest challenges the biofuel policy faces, but should be urgently addressed if the EU wants to portray itself as a serious global leader in the fight against climate change.

Birdlife proposes the following principles for an adequate evaluation of the impacts of biofuels:

1. Take into account the land that is likely to be converted due to an increase demand for agriculture commodities and the carbon stock of that land. It is important that both the carbon stored in vegetation and the carbon stored in soil are taken into account. In addition, not only are calculations to reflect the release of previously stored carbon, but also the foregone carbon sequestration by devoting the land to alternative uses.
2. Take into account yield responses based on historic trends and future limits to yield improvements.
3. Take into account future increase demand for food. Even without additional demand for biofuels, the need for food and animal feed will continue to grow as diet in developing countries are shifting towards higher consumption of meat and dairy products and world population increases. The models should assume no reduction in food demand so as not to undermine possible impacts of increase on food prices due to biofuel production.
4. Take into account different risks associated with specific feedstocks in order to distinguish clearly between those feedstocks with low and high risks of ILUC.
5. Do not assume sustainability criteria will be applied. Sustainability criteria only applies to the area of direct conversion for biofuels production and thus are irrelevant for ILUC. They do not prevent the displacement of other agricultural goods. In addition, even direct safeguards have been shown to be ineffective due to weak governance and lack of land use planning in biofuel production countries.
6. Do not assume that most biofuel production would move to “marginal” areas. It is necessary to know which land will be most likely to be used and what are the likely yields. The specifications of those marginal lands should be clearly specified and a regulatory regime put in place. Moreover, the use of marginal land for biofuels doesn’t necessarily mean there are no other alternative uses both for people or for ecosystem services. These should also be considered when deciding upon its suitability.
7. Give special consideration to emissions from nitrous oxide (N2O). Several studies suggest that IPCC figures are underestimated by up to 5 times on N2O's warming effect. There will be a probable increase on its use to improve yields and enable production on marginal land for biofuel production. Therefore not considering these emissions would add a high level of uncertainty to models.
8. Split the ILUC factor over no more than 20 years, as is the case of direct land use change.
9. Ensure that modelling is transparent and peer reviewed by other scientist. Different stakeholders should be invited to discuss approaches and assumptions.
10. Ensure regular reassessment and monitoring of the safeguards in place in order to swift action and modify policies if the approved system fails to safeguard effectively the conversion of land.

References:

European Joint Research Centre 2008. Biofuels in the European Context: Facts and Figures.

Searchinger, T. et al (2008): Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gasses through Emmissions from Land Use change. Science, Feb 8, 2008.