Bioenergy in Central European Cultural Landscapes: Drivers and Impacts on Ecosystem Services

Bioenergy in Central European
Cultural Landscapes: Drivers and
Impacts on Ecosystem Services
Tobias Plieninger
Junior Research Group on Ecosystem Services
Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Center for Sustainable Agriculture
University of Vermont
Burlington, 19 November 2008
Structure of the Paper
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cultural landscape development in Europe
Emergence of bioenergy use
Pathways and drivers
Land use conflicts around bioenergy
Outlook
Project: Bioenergy and ecosystem services in cultural
landscapes
„Suddenly landscape seems to be
everythere…“ (Lowenthal 1997)
300
Papers per year
250
200
150
100
50
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Keyword „cultural landscapes“ in the ISI Web of Science
European Cultural Landscapes
• „An area, as perceived by people, whose
character is the result of the action and
interaction of natural and/or human factors“
(Council of Europe)
• Provision of ecosystem services despite or
precisely because of a continued land-use
pressure
• Cultural ecosystem services of great importance
(Photo: Werner Konold)
Interactions of Land Use and Nature
Conservation in Europe
• Long-term codevelopment of soils, vegetation,
fauna, and humans since the end of the ice-age
• Diversity of indigenous, immigrated, and introduced
species, although no biodiversity hotspot
• Heavy resource exploitation since Medieval, but
little species loss; peak of biodiversity around 1850
• In the 20th century massive species loss through
intensification of land use
Long and intensive interactions between human
uses and natural settings have created diverse and
resilient landscapes
Conservation depends on maintenance of
extensive agricultural practices
(Photo: Ulrich Hampicke)
Threatened Landscapes?
„The richness and diversity of rural landscapes in Europe
is a distinctive feature of the continent. There is probably
nowhere else where the signs of human interaction with
nature in landscape are so varied, contrasting and
localised […]
Despite the immense scale of socio-economic changes
that have accompanied this century‘s wave of
industrialisation and urbanisation in many parts of
Europe, much of this diversity remains, giving distinctive
character to countries, regions, and local areas“
(Photo: Werner Konold)
(First assessment of Europe‘s environment, Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995)
Polarization of Land Use
Intensification
• Urbanized,
commercialized,
industrialized
landscapes
• Increase of population
density, activities,
infrastructure
Extensification
•
•
•
•
•
Land abandonment
Forest expansion
„Controlled wildness“
„Rural residue“
„Emptiness“ (also:
„Luxury of emptiness“?)
Both situations: Simplification of landscape
structure, loss of biodiversity
(Antrop 2007)
Landscape Change: Urbanization,
Extensification, Intensification
ca. 1925
2001
(www.landschaftswandel.com)
Bioenergy – A Novel Land Use?
Agriculture
Forestry
Nature conservation
Regional development
A New and Old Land Use!
Traditional
biomass
Coal
Oil, gas
Renewables
???
Nuclear
(Source: Shell)
Bioenergy Headlines in German Media
2004/2005
• “Age of biomass“
• “The power of renewable resources“
• “Revolution in agriculture“
• “The farmer and the oil-sheik“
2006/2007
• “Biofuels in the climate trap“
• “Next price shock: Bread more expensive with
more rye being converted into fuel“
• “Biofuels: Major assault on biodiversity“
• “Crime against humanity“
(Sources: Der Spiegel, Die Zeit, Süddeutsche
Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, BILD)
Cultivation of Renewable Resources
Energy Supply from Renewables, 2007
• Primary energy supply: 6.6%
• Gross electrical power consumption: 14.7%
• Roadfuel consumption: 7.6%
17,6%
20,8%
9,2%
10,6%
1,6%
1,0%
1,7%
Biofuels
Biomass, electricity
Biomass, heat
Solar thermal energy
Geothermal energy
Photovoltaics
Hydropower
Wind power
37,6%
(BMU 2008)
Bioenergy Targets: Germany and EU
GHG emissions reduction through use of
biofuels (≈ 20% blending) 2020 (D)
10%
Biogas share in natural gas consumption
2020 (D, percentage refers to 2007
6%
Renewable energy share in heat supply
2020 (D)
14%
Renewable energy share in power supply
2020 (D)
25-30%
Renewable energy share in total energy
consumption 2020 (EU)
20%
Biofuels share in roadfuels consumption
2020 (EU)
0,0%
10%
5,0%
10,0%
15,0%
Targets
20,0%
25,0%
30,0%
Why bioenergy?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Climate change mitigation
Substitution of petroleum
Security of energy supply
Technology development
Largest still unexploited renewable energy potential
Multi-purpose and continuous energy source:
conversion to electricity/heat/fuel, storable, base load
compatible
Advantages for Rural Areas
• Impulses for integrated development or rural areas:
Jobs, investment
• Decentralized energy supply and support of regional
economic cycles
• Diversification of farm production
• Utilization of marginal agricultural and forest lands,
e.g. post-mining landscapes
• High degree of acceptance among society
Avoided GHG Emissions
in Germany (2007)
• Biomass for power generation: 16.9 Mio. t CO2 equivalents
• Biomass for heat generation: 19.5 Mio. t CO2 equivalents
• Biofuels: 12.7 Mio. t CO2 equivalents
• All renewable energy carriers : 101.5 Mio. t CO2 equivalents
(13% of German GHG emissions)
(Source: BMU)
Policy Drivers of Bioenergy Diffusion
• Guaranteed feed-in tariff, to be paid by electricity
consumers (power sector)
• Minimum quotas for bioenergy use, to be paid by fuel
consumers and house owners (transportation and heat
sector)
• Subsidies and tax breaks, to be paid by taxpayers
(various sectors, cross-sectoral)
High demands for compliance with common welfare
Opportunities for societal control of development
Example: EEG
Biofuels vs. Biogas
Biofuels
• Big scale (e.g. 180.000
t/years output, Schwedt)
• Production of roadfuels
• Centralized production
• Low energy efficiency,
high mitigation costs
• Demands specific,
homogeneous substrates
• Competition with
imported biofuels
• Farms only provide
feedstocks
Biogas
• Small scale (e.g. 300 kWel)
• Generation of power (and
heat)
• Decentralized and
diversified production
• Optimized nutrient cycles
• Allows potentially more
heterogeneous substrates,
but: 90% of installations
use corn
• Disposal of farm wastes
• High potential for on-farm
creation of value
Fundamental Challenge
Fossil energy and bioenergy sources strongly differ in their
densities
The direct spatial impact of resource extraction for
bioenergy is manifold higher compared to fossil energy
Biomass: diffuse,
low spatial density
Fossil energy:
High spatial
density
(Photos: Rode)
Conflicts Around Bioenergy in
Germany
Climate change mitigation and
energy balances
Competition for land and resources
Nature and landscape conservation
(Photo: Florian Schöne)
Energy Yields in GJ / ha
(SRU 2007)
GHG Mitigation Performance
(tons CO2 eq./ hectare arable land)
(Source: Wiss. Beirat Agrarpolitik, BMELV, 2007)
Regional Sustainability and Biomass
Transportation
Annual demand of the ethanol plant in Schwedt/Brandenburg:
600,000 t rye;
Rye production in the state of Brandenburg, 2003: 504,199 t
Bioenergy and Nature Conservation:
Conflicts
Intensive feedstock production in
monocultures of corn, rapeseed, etc.
Conversion of grassland to arable land
Intensification of biodiverse grasslands
Loss of ecological compensation
function of set-aside lands
Simplification of crop rotations
Decrease of soil organic content
Homogenization of landscape structure
Rollback from the post-productivist
to the productivist countryside??
Potential Conservation Benefits of
Bioenergy
• Reduced use of biocides and mineral fertilizer due to
lower quality demands
• Diversification of agricultural crops (polycultures, new
crop rotations etc.)
• Enhancement of landscape structure in intensively used
agricultural landscapes
• Closure of nutrient cycles
• Improved profitability of cultural landscape management,
e.g. hedgerows, coppices, extensively used mountain
grassland, meadows with scattered fruit trees
Environmental Criteria for
Bioenergy Support Policies
Coupling of payments to environmental conditions:
• Limitation of crops shares per biogasification plant (e.g.
maximum 50% corn)
• Creation of ecological compensation areas
• Prohibition of grassland conversion
• Incentives for waste uses
Introduction of a nature conservation bonus, e.g. for
the use of biomass from landscape management
Outlook
The limits of biomass availability need to be recognized
Biomass have be allocated to the most efficient pathways
Existing policy tools must be used to enhance sustainability
Integrity of ecosystem services and multifunctional
landscapes needs to be maintained, eg. through
disseminating low input production systems
Bioenergy use will never become sustainable without boosting
energy efficiency and energy saving
(Photo: IKEE)
Interdisciplinary Junior Research Group
Bioenergy in Central European
Cultural Landscapes –
Incentives, Interactions with
Ecosystem Services and Impacts on
Human Well-Being
(Photo: Werner Konold)
BMBF-Junior Researchers Development in Social-Ecological Research
• Safeguarding and extension of the performance of
socio-ecological research for the solution of societal
problems
• Qualification for young scientists for the independent
management of inter-/transdisciplinary research groups
• Consolidation of scientific young professionals in
teaching and research in the environmental, natural,
and social sciences
The Ecosystem Services Concept
(Simoncini 2007)
Framework
Quality of life
Indirect drivers
• Objective living conditions
• Subjective satisfaction with life
• Payment mechanisms and other
institutional arrangements for
carbon management:
- Policy development
- Policy implementation
Ecosystem services and
biodiversity
• Provisioning services, e.g. food,
energy carriers
• Regulating services, z.B. climate
regulation, control of water
balance
• Cultural services, e.g. recreation,
cultural heritage, aesthetics
Direct drivers
• Land use and land cover change
• Changes in management practices
and resource use
Overall objectives
• To study the impact of newly established bioenergy
markets on ecosystem services in central European
cultural landscapes and the effect of these aspects on
quality of life
• Focus: Interactions between biomass production, nature
conservation, and ecosystem services
• Practical result: To apply ecosystem services concept to
make conflicting and synergizing land use demands to
cultural landscapes visible
• To link social-ecological research with cultural landscape
studies and test the applicability of the resilience concept
as a link for natural and social sciences research at two
study areas
Project Structure
Communication with politics and practice
Project management
Module 1: Payment schemes for
bioenergy as indirect drivers
Module 2: Direct drivers and impacts on ecosystem services
Module 3: Quality of life and
human well-being
Subproject 1.1
Analysis of global governance
structure relevant to payment
schemes for ecosystem services
Subproject 2.1
Ecosystem hotspots and
coldspots: Spatial analysis of the
interactions between ES
Subproject 3.1
Cultural ecosystem services,
quality of live, and private land
use
Subproject 1.2
Institutional arrangements to the
supply of agricultural and forestry
biomass
Subproject 2.2
Contributions of agroforestry
systems to biomass production
and other ecosystem services
Subproject 3.2
Economic assessment of ecosystem services under certain land
use scenarios
Cross-section project 1
Potential, limits, and sustainable development of payment schemes for ecosystem services
Cross-section project 2
Ecological and social resilience of cultural landscapes
Study Areas:
Central European Cultural Landscapes
• Biosphere Reserve Schwäbische Alb
• Biosphere Reserve Oberlausitzer Heideund Teichlandschaft
(Photos: Wikipedia
Ecosystem Hotspots and Coldspots:
Spatial Analysis of Interactions
Between Ecosystem Services (2.1)
• What land use and land cover changes have taken place
in the biosphere reserves?
• How do these changes impact several ecosystem
services?
• What are the trade-offs between these ecosystem
services (Conflicts, synergies, potential for optimization)?
• How can ecosystem services / landscape functions be
quantified in a spatially explicit way (e.g. cultural
heritage, livestock, fisheries, tourism)?
• Links between land use/land cover change and
ecosystem services
Agroforestry Systems as Multiple
Ecosystem Service Providers (2.2)
• How can traditional and modern agroforestry systems in
central Europe be categorized, what outstanding
ecosystem services do they provide, and how do they
develop?
• How has the composition, density, and structure of these
landscape elements changed over the past centuries?
What biophysical and socioeconomic drivers can explain
this?
• How can target regions for new agroforestry systems be
identified? How can the ecosystem services (especially:
mitigation performance) they provide be quantified?
Questions for discussion
• How does bioenergy fit into the „ecosystem services“
concept:
– Commodity production: Provisioning service?
– Mitigation activity: Regulating service?
• How can biodiversity / biological conservation be
incorporated into the „ecosystem services“ concept?
• Do „market-based instruments“ really create markets?
(Photo: Werner Konold)