1 st Workshop – ESSP Bioenergy Bioenergy and Earth Sustainability 19-22 July 2008 Piracicaba, Brazil

1. 1st Workshop – ESSP Bioenergy Bioenergy and Earth Sustainability 19-22 July 2008 Piracicaba, Brazil Workshop Outcomes Draft version 1 Prepared by Pep Canadell Science committee and contributions: Anand Patwardhan, Carlos Nobre, Jill Jaeger, Rik Leemans, Dennis Ojima, John Ingram, Pep Canadell, Jean Ometto, Gernot Klepper, Mike Raupach, Norman Miller, Guenther Fischer, and Workshop Participants

2. Earth System Science Partnership IRS

3. How much bioenergy can be grown in sustainable ways? 1.1. Opportunity cost 1.2. Assessment of land availability 1.3. Assessment of optimality Scenario Development How Vulnerable Bioenergy Systems are to Climate Change? How Climate-Protective are Biofuels? Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy Systems Outline

4. 1.How much bioenergy can be grown in sustainable ways? There are several approaches to address this question which are largely complementary: 1.1. Opportunity Cost (an economic approach) or through the establishment of resilient systems and pathways (a system approach). We want to pursue brining together these two lines of work. 1.2. Assessment of Land Availability, eg. marginal or abandon lands. What can we do with those lands and how one can overlay potentials and constraints”; a synthesis product. 1.3. Assessment of Optimality, there are trade-offs and synergies, therefore, there are combinations that work better than others for a given region.

5. 1.1. Opportunity Cost Although opportunity cost is traditionaly associated with a short term economic profits, we use this approach here as one that would be combined with principles to design resilient systems in the long term. To explore the basic concepts and tools of economic opportunity cost with the approaches of resiliance in complex system science.

6. Informs the modellers in the different communities about the approaches and strengths and weaknesses of the different model results. Provides a platform to discuss the methodologies with which the potentials for food and bioenergy are computed. Allows for room to discuss ways to link the biogeochemistry assessments of the natural scientists with the economic models describing the determinants of land use decisions and the demand for bioenergy and food products. Looks at the trade-offs (opportunity costs in economic terms) that need to be faced when a conversion of land to food or bioenergy production tales place Proposed Task # 1 (i) Natural and economic potentials for additional food and bioenergy production: Exploring new modelling approaches (Leader: Gernot Keppler) Goals of Initial Workshop:

7. Models and institutions in economic modelling: Agricultural Market Models OECD Development Center IFPRI   (www.ifpri.org) FAPRI   (www.fapri.org) Computable General Equilibrium   (CGE) Models MIT      EPPA-Model   (http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/eppa.html) Kiel Institute     DART-Model Integrated Assessment Models MNP    IMAGE-Model   (http://www.mnp.nl/en/themasites/image/index.html) Models and institutions in biogeochemical modelling: Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (Jerry Melillo) Biome-BGC (Peter Thornton) LPJ (Colin Prentice) Others Proposed Task # 1 (ii) Initial thoughts on Participation

8. From a biophysical perspective, there is interest to assess how much land is potentially available for bioenergy production which would not compete with other land uses. This has brought the research community to explore the availability of land that is currently not in use as a simple criteria to ensure sustainability : abandoned land marginal land waste land land under optimal productivity There is a need to develope a functional definition of these type of lands. Once the availability of this type of land has been identified, it will be a combination of social and technical dimensions that will determine the actual potential of those lands to become productive (link to Proposed Task #1). This approach needs to include exploring lands with productivity under its realizable capacity which would allow additional cropping to take place. 2. Assessment of Land Availability (i)

9. Characterization of these type lands (indicators): Extending production boundaries of these lands to reduce land use change elsewhere Sustainability: biophysical, economic, and social Climate variability is greatest in these lands How technological advances can increase their productivity 2. Assessment of Land Availability (ii) Criteria of Marginal/abandoned Lands: • Biophysical indicators (water availability, ground relief, soil fertility) • Ecosystem services (what existing service they produce and what are the consequences of losing them or can we substitute them. Opportunities/requirements). • Governance (land tenure: who owns the land and the services that would create difficulties of access to these lands). How cultural systems are part of ecosystem and maintaining those services). • Technology(that can improve the chances to make the land more profitable)

10. Steps on project Implementation: To take currently available global maps and databases of the following types of lands: marginal, abandoned, degraded, waste, others, and synthesize the criteria, indicators and estimates underlying each category. Generate a biophsyical carbon map and potential productivity on the available lands. Do an analyses to show the extent these existing classifications can be useful to understand new land available for bioenergy crops and its potential. Publish these syntheses products. To identify and develop sustainability filters which would exclude land for bioenergy production (eg, conservation areas; step topography, high biodiveristy areas, etc). Proposed Task # 2 Top-down assessment of land availability

11. Assessment of land availability at the national and regional level with stakeholder involvement to provide detail information on land use, tenure, productivity, opportunity costs, population density, income levels, household size etc. Where is the extra carbon/bioenergy potential? What types of approaches are available Evaluation of existing datasets, requirement of establishing new databasets, assessment of the different resources Why is this potential not realized? Check yield gaps there is information on this (at the global scale). Where are the opportunity costs? if we want to achieve these targets, what is required and what is the cost? Trade offs need to be built in. Proposed Task # 3 (i) Bottom-up assessment of land availability

12. South America: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Uruguay. Central America: Guatemala, Southern Mexico and Honduras. Others: India, Southern Africa, and China. IAI has already an stakeholder network which could support Central and South America. The project is appropriate for GEF funding. Proposed Task # 3 (ii) Candidate regions

13. To generate global maps of marginal land by iteration between the estimates from bottom-up and top-down. Using biogeochemical models to estimate the potential for bioenergy production. To outline the options for transition to bioenergy taking into account the regional realities with emerging markets, financial incentives, etc. To identify the sustainability criteria which shoud underpin any new land use development. To develop scenarios of bioenergy production over time based on climate change, technology innovation, test multiple trade-offs, constrained by sustainable criteria, etc. (linked to 2. Scenario Development) Proposed Task # 4 Assimilation of top-down and bottom-up information to produce realistic estimates of bioenergy potential

14. Steps on project Implementation: Top-down: take currently available global maps and databases of the following types of lands: marginal, abandoned, degraded, waste, others, and synthesize the criteria, indicators and estimates underlying each category (Proposed Task # 2). Do an analyses to show the extent these existing classifications can be useful to understand new land available for bioenergy crops. Synthesis product. Bottom-up: Take 6-8 national cases studies to contrast global approaches with regional expert opinion (Proposed Task # 3). To generate global maps of marginal land by iteration between the estimates from bottom-up and top-down (Proposed Task # 4). Using biogeochemical models to estimate the potential for bioenergy production. Develop scenarios of bioenergy production over time based on climate change, technology innovation, test multiple trade-offs, constrained by sustainable criteria, etc. Summary Proposed Task # 2, 3, 4 Assessment of how much marginal land exist

15. Initial exploration of the following questions: How much abandoned and marginal lands are available for bioenergy crops? What bioenergy crop species are most suitable on the different available lands, what types are most optimal with minimal ecologic (and socio-economic) impacts? How well do bioenergy crop models compare with observations and to one another? What level of process detail is suitable at site-, hectare-, and regional-scales? What domains, time periods, and datasets will be used for this baseline intercomaprison? Proposed Task # 5 An initial workshop organized by Norman Miller (UC, Berkeley)

16. Energy Security resources Climate Mitigation Development 1.3. Assessing for Optimality • Energy vs. Sequestration • Biophysical • Full radiative forcing (multiple GHGs, albedo, energy partitioning) • Food security • Water availability • Domestic vs. export • Farms vs. large industry • Soil conservation • Biodiversity • Equity There are trade-offs and synergies between the three components (Energy Security, Climate Mitigation, and Development) and within each component.

17. Develop story-lines with regard to land use/resource competition/development /environmental targets; focusing on bio-energy development; based on/ consistent with (existing) global/regional energy scenarios. It is more important the pathways to reach a target than the target itself. Identify axis/dimensions of choices to be made and provide parameterization based on global story-lines and regional priorities and constraints. Identify feasible (technologically, resource constraints, regional priorities) pathways to meet bio-energy targets. Assess scenarios to determine and quantify trade-offs (synergies and antagonisms) in terms of a common set of system dimensions/axis. 2. Scenario Development (i) Purpose of scenario development

18. Local/regional – global emphasis (trade; technology transfer; security) Slow – fast technology deployment (technology options and availability; regional technology adoption; surprises) Energy access, energy security Climate mitigation (GHG reduction; full radiative forcing) Robustness/resilience => yet, do not forget that pathways are the outcome 2. Scenario Development (ii) Scenario dimensions/axis

19. Establish links to existing/ongoing scenario work. Define dimensions/axis of choices used in scenario story-lines. Bio-energy systems (technology issues related to feedstock types and productivity; biomass use and conversion; agriculture technologies). Link to resources (water; marginal land; intensification potential; biodiversity impacts). Establish dialog between global and regional level to achieve consistency. Scenario assessment. Capacity development. 2. Scenario Development (iii) Tasks

20. Climate change is predicted to increase climate variability in the future, and therefore pose an inherent greater risk to any land-based industry. As large scale land transformation occurs driven by socioeconomic changes at the farm and industrial levels, climate change and its climate variability component must be evaluated to avoid creating risks for new agricultural systems in parts of the world. Climate change and climate variability can now put at risk the production of both food and energy. Examples of great success such as Mauritius where 40% of all energy comes from biofuels requires further analyses to ensure the resilience of its food and energy production systems. Target region should be semi-arid regions and Sub-Sahara Africa. 3.Vulnerability of Bioenergy Systems to Climate Change

21. Three components need to be considered: Industrial life-cycle Cultivation, harvest, conversion, including fertilizers, energy requirements, embedded C in machinery, etc. (sensitive to boundary conditions) Co-products (easy for electricity and heat co-generation, difficult for others) Full GHGs life cycle (CO2 equivalents) Ecological life-cycle Shifting from GHG emissions per GJ biofuel or per v-km to emissions per ha y-1. Land use change and ecosystem carbon lost (Ecosystem Carbon Repayment Time, ECRT) Soil carbon sequestration CO2 sink lost Full radiative forcing life-cycle All GHGs Biophysical factors, such as reflectivity (albedo), evaporation, and surface roughness 4. How Climate-Protective are Biofuels? Full radiative forcing of bioenergy pathways

22. To extend the mandate of the Full Radiative Forcing activity of the Global Carbon Project to include biofuels. At present the group (funded by US-NCEAS) is focusing on plantations for carbon sequestration. Link to existing work from Carnegie Institution and John Foley’s group. Proposed Task # 5

23. 5. Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy Systems Many countries are developing bioenergy plans, many with little experience and exposure to the larger issue of sustainability pathways, both at the regional and global levels. There was interest from the group to develop sustainability guidelines with principles general enough that could be useful to countries around the world beginning to develop their bioenergy plans.