Abstract
In the light of a controversial discussion on the net benefit of biofuels and bioenergy, the European Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC, RED)—which sets out a mandatory target for the share of renewable energy in the transport sector (10 % by 2020)—has established a number of mandatory sustainability criteria, which biofuels and bioliquids have to meet to be able to be counted towards the target. However, these mandatory sustainability criteria so far only address selected environmental impacts (greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and biodiversity) and omit impacts on soil, water, and air as well as GHG emissions due to indirect land-use change (iLUC). Social and socio-economic impacts are not covered at all. The latter gap was addressed by the EU-FP7-funded Global-Bio-Pact project. The project’s main aim was to improve and harmonize global sustainability certification systems for biomass production, conversion systems and trade in order to prevent negative socio-economic impacts. Within the project, linkages between socio-economic and environmental impacts of biofuels/bioenergy and bio-based products were analyzed in order to avoid an increase of negative environmental impacts while trying to prevent negative socio-economic impacts. After an introduction and some insights into the environmental impacts of biofuels/bioenergy and bio-based products, this chapter presents the results of a SWOT analysis (analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), revealing trade-offs as well as positive and negative correlations between socio-economic and environmental impacts. These linkages are subsequently interpreted using the concept of ecosystem services. Finally, conclusions are drawn and a recommendation is made how the current list of mandatory sustainability criteria in the RED could be amended.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning, regulating, and cultural services that directly affect people and supporting services needed to maintain the other services (see Sect. 4.3).
- 2.
Protected areas and nonnatural highly biodiverse grassland may be used provided that the raw material production does not interfere with nature protection purposes and that the harvesting of the raw material is necessary to preserve its grassland status, respectively. Primary forests and natural highly biodiverse grassland, however, may not be used at all.
- 3.
A SWOT analysis is a tool to assess the performance of a project, a product, or a company. It originates from business management and it is a strategic planning tool to identify and assess the Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T) of the surveyed project, product, or company. Internal factors are determined by the project/ product itself. All others are external.
- 4.
Provided that no direct land-use changes (dLUC) and indirect land-use changes (iLUC) occur.
- 5.
An overall evaluation has to be based on (subjective) value-choices, e.g. by ranking the impact categories in a certain hierarchy (e.g. high, medium, and low priority). For obvious reasons, different individuals, organizations, and societies have different preferences; therefore different rankings may be the outcome of the same (objectively obtained) scientific results.
References
BioGrace. (2011). Excel based biofuel GHG calculations, version 4b—Public. Developed by the BioGrace consortium within the framework of the IEE-funded project “Harmonised Calculations of Biofuel Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Europe”. http://www.biograce.net/content/ghgcalculationtools/calculationtool. Accessed 15/02/2012
Bringezu, S., Schütz, H., O’Brien, M., Kauppi, L., Howarth, R. W., & McNeely, J. (2009). Assessing biofuels: Towards sustainable production and use of resources. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Eickhout, B., van Meijl, H., Tabeau, A., & van Rheenen, T. (2007). Economic and ecological consequences of four European land use scenarios. Land Use Policy, 24(3), 562–575.
European Parliament and Council of the European Communities (EP and CEC). (2001). Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. OJ L197/30, Brussels, Belgium.
European Parliament and Council of the European Communities. (EP and CEC) (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. OJ L140/16, Brussels, Belgium.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Hawthorne, P. (2008). Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science, 319, 1235–1238.
Fernando, A. L., Duarte, M. P., Almeida, J., Boleo, S., & Mendes, B. (2010). Environmental impact assessment of energy crops cultivation in Europe. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining, 4(6), 594–604.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2012). Impacts of bioenergy on food security. Guidance for assessment and response at National and Project levels. Report produced within FAO’s “Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators” (BEFSCI) project.
Fritsche, U. R., Hennenberg, K. J., Wiegmann, K., Franke, B., Köppen, S., Reinhardt, G. A., Dornburg, V., Faaij, A. P. C., & Smeets, E. M. W. (2010). Bioenergy Environmental Impact Analysis (BIAS): Analytical Framework. Environ Nat Resour Manag Series, 46 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO), Rome, Italy.
Gallagher, E. (2008). The Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuel production. London: Renewable Fuels Agency.
Gibbs, H. K., Johnston, M., Foley, J. A., Holloway, T., Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., & Zaks, D. (2008). Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: The effects of changing yield and technology. Environment Research Letters, 3, 034001.
IFEU. (2011). GEF greenhouse gas calculator, final version 30 November 2011. Developed by ifeu—Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH within the GEF funded targeted research project “Global Assessments and Guidelines for Liquid Biofuels Production in Developing Countries”. http://www.unep.org/bioenergy/Activities/TheGlobalEnvironmentFacilityGEFProject/tabid/79435/Default.aspx. Accessed 02/02/2012.
IFEU. (2012). ENZO2 Greenhouse gas calculator—Ethanol from sugar cane. Developed by ifeu—Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH, commissioned by the Federal Agency for Food and Agriculture (BLE). http://www.ifeu.de/english/index.php?bereich=nac&seite=ENZO2. Accessed 13/02/2012
Melillo, J. M., Reilly, J. M., Kicklighter, D. W., Gurgel, A.C., Cronin, T. W., Paltsev, S., Felzer, B. S., Wang, X., Sokolov, A. P., & Schlosser, C. A. (2009). Indirect emissions from biofuels: How important? Science, 326,1397–1399.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington DC: Island Press.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2001). Poverty-Environment-Gender Linkages. DAC J 2(4), pre-print.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2011). Strategic environmental assessment and biofuel development. OECD DAC guidelines and reference series “Good practice Guidance for Development Co-operation: Applying Strategic Environmental Assessment”. Paris, France.
Ravidranath, N. H., Manuvie, R., Fargione, J., Canadell, J. G., Berndes, G., Woods, J., Watson, H., & Sathaye, J. (2009). Greenhouse gas implications of land use and land conversion to biofuel crops. In R. W. Howarth & S. Bringezu (Eds.), Biofuels: Environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22–25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany:111–125. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Rettenmaier, N., Köppen, S., Gärtner, S. O., & Reinhardt, G. A. (2010a). Life cycle analyses (LCA)—Final report on tasks 4.2 & 4.3. Deliverable D 13 within the 4F CROPS project (“Future Crops for Food, Feed, Fibre and Fuel”), supported by EC’s FP7 programme. Heidelberg: IFEU.
Rettenmaier, N., Köppen, S., Gärtner, S. O., & Reinhardt, G. A. (2010b). Set of environmentally friendly options—Final report on task 4.4. Deliverable D 14 within the 4F CROPS project (“Future Crops for Food, Feed, Fibre and Fuel”), supported by EC’s FP7 programme. Heidelberg: IFEU.
Rettenmaier, N., Köppen, S., Münch, J., Bottriell, K., & Diaz-Chavez, R. (2011). General environmental impacts, principles, criteria and indicators of biomass production and conversion. Deliverable D 5.1 within the Global-Bio-Pact project “Global Assessment of Biomass and Bio-product Impacts on Socio-Economics and Sustainability”
Rettenmaier, N., Schorb, A., Hienz, G. & Diaz-Chavez, R. A. (2012a). Report on Show Cases and linkage of environmental impacts to socio-economic impacts. Deliverable D 5.3 within the Global-Bio-Pact project ‘Global Assessment of Biomass and Bio-product Impacts on Socio-economics and Sustainability’.
Rettenmaier, N., Hienz, G., Schorb, A., Diaz-Chavez, R. A., Rutz, D., & Janssen, R. (2012b). Strategies for the harmonization of environmental and socio-economic sustainability criteria. Deliverable D 5.5 within the Global-Bio-Pact project ‘Global Assessment of Biomass and Bio-product Impacts on Socio-economics and Sustainability’.
Searchinger, T. D., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., & Yu, T. H. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands of biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use-change. Science, 29(319):1238–1240.
U.S. Congress. (2007). Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Public Law 110–140, Washington DC.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). (2008). Sustainable development report on Africa.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Oeko-Institut, IEA Bioenergy Task 43. (2011). The bioenergy and water nexus. Nairobi.
United Nations (UN). (2011). World population prospects: The 2010 revision, highlights and advance tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.220. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2(4).
Wright, A. (2011). Socio-Economic impacts of the palm oil chain in Indonesia. Case study report (D 2.3) within the Global-Bio-Pact project “Global Assessment of Biomass and Bio-product Impacts on Socio-economics and Sustainability”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rettenmaier, N., Hienz, G. (2014). Linkages Between Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Bioenergy. In: Rutz, D., Janssen, R. (eds) Socio-Economic Impacts of Bioenergy Production. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03829-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03829-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-03828-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-03829-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)