15 July 2010

Baseline time accounting

CARB expert workgroup meetingTime accounting subgroup – Interim report

Jesper Hedal Kløverpris, PhD – NovozymesSteffen Mueller, PhD – University of Illinois

2

The four main steps

Determine -

1.…amount of land affected (in relation to baseline)

2.…types of land affected (grassland, forest etc.)

3.…carbon stocks/sequestration of land affected

4.…how to deal with time accounting

Although the ‘land use baseline’ is usually considered

in step 1, it is most often not considered in step 4.

Estimating GHG emissions from ILUC

Current time accounting approach

3

ILUC contribution based on 30 year production period:

30 g CO2e/MJ

Source: CARB (2009), Fig. C4-3

Result dependent on assumed biofuels production period

What would have happened to this land in the baseline?

Baseline land use change

4

Source: Bruinsma (2009), Fig. 6

Developing world: Arable land use mainly increasing

Developed world: Arable land use mainly decreasing

Arable land and land under permanent crops (only food and feed)

Accelerated expansion

5

Baseline

Human land use

Biofuels scenario (1 y prod.)

Human land use

Land for biofuelYear 1

Year 0

Year 2

Baseline

Human land use

Biofuels scenario (2 y prod.)

Human land use

Land for biofuelYear 1

Year 0

Year 2

The figures on this slides are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate any sizes or proportions of indirect land use change

ILUC taking place in a region where land use is already expanding (baseline)

Delayed reversion

6

Baseline

Human land use

Biofuels scenario (1 y prod.)

Human land use

Land for biofuelYear 1

Year 2

Year 0

Baseline Biofuels scenario (2 y prod.)

The figures on this slides are for illustrative purposes only and do not indicate any sizes or proportions of indirect land use change

ILUC taking place in a region where land use is ‘contracting’ (baseline)

Human land use Human land use

Land for biofuelYear 1

Year 2

Year 0

7

Cum

ula

tive G

HG

em

issi

on

s (g

CO

2e)

Time (y)

Baseline implications for time accounting

Baseline

Baseline

One year

ILUC: Accelerated expansion

ILUC: Delayed reversion

Regional baseline: Expansion of land use

Regional baseline: Contraction of land use

Direct (avoided) fossil emissions

Direct ethanol emissions

No GHG decay assumed above – graphs for illustrative purposes only and not meant to indicate proportions of GHG emissions

Areas indicated equivalent to ton·years of carbon

TA

Analytical time

horizon

Saved

Ind

uced

Land use projections literature review

Current trends in agricultural land use (sources)

Developing world

Cropland area expanding, forest area decreasing

Developed world

Cropland area contracting, forest area increasing

8

Sources: FAOSTAT (2010) and Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 – Key findings (FAO 2010)

Land use projections literature review

Future trends in agricultural land use (references)

Climate change and agricultural vulnerability(Fischer et al. 2002)

World Agriculture Towards 2015/2030 (Bruinsma 2003)

The resource Outlook to 2050 (Bruinsma 2009)

World Food and Agriculture to 2030/50 (Fischer 2009)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Alder et al. 2005)

Climate benefits of changing diet (Stehfest et al. 2009)

Background report to the OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030 (Bakkes et al. 2008)

9

Full references given at the end of the slideshow

Land use projections literature review

The studies mentioned on the previous slide differ in several aspects such as temporal scope, yield assumptions, modeling framework, land use type(s) considered, regional disaggregation, drivers etc.

The studies come out with different results but all of them predict a steady increase in global agricultural land use up to 2030 and, except for Stehfest et al. (2009); this increase is expected to continue until 2050

The conditions for ’baseline time accounting’ thereby seem to be in place for decades ahead

10

Converting ‘accelerated expansion’ and ‘delayed reversion’ into a GWP(100)

11

Following the definition of the GWP(100):

Take the cumulative radiative forcing (CRF) during 100 years caused by the emissions from the land conversion taking place as an indirect effect of biofuels production

Take the CRF within the same period of time for the same land area but for the emissions that would have occurred in the baseline (a shift in emissions by one year)

Divide the difference in CRF between these two situations by the CRF of a pulse emission of one unit of CO2 seen over 100 years

This procedure will result in an ILUC factor equivalent to the GWP(100) – consistent with the unit used for direct emissions

Preliminary results

”30 year method”Baseline time

accounting

BTIME numbers1 30 g CO2e/MJ 10 g CO2e/MJ

Searchinger et al. (2008)2 104 g CO2e/MJ 23 g CO2e/MJ

12

1 GTAP-WH, only accelerated expansion assumed (no regional disaggregation)2 Only accelerated expansion assumed

The preliminary results have been derived by use of a climate model kindly made available by Martin Persson, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Additional refinement of data input and quality control is still required.

Conclusions

The ILUC factor must be consistent with direct emissions

Under current and near term baseline conditions, indirect land use change (ILUC) will likely be constituted by

Accelerated expansion (typical for the developing world)

Delayed reversion (typical for the developed world)

Under those conditions, assumptions about the biofuels production period are unnecessary – however:

If a 30 year biofuels program is considered, projections of the land use baseline 30 years into the future is required

Global agricultural land use is expected to increase at least to 2030 and most likely also to 2050

13

Conclusions (continued, input from K. Kline)

Interacting with baseline conditions, the ILUC could also be constituted by use of previously cleared lands and -

Reduced fire and avoided (decreased) expansion (developing world)

Avoided reversion to urban/commercial/industrial and other uses that (in absence of ILUC) is representing loss of productive capacity and carbon carrying capacity (developed world)

14

Thank you

15

Extra slides and references

Graphs for discussion

16

Baseline

Biofuels

Acc. exp.: Accelerated expansion

Del. rev.: Delayed reversion

Legend

Acc. exp. Del. rev.

Ha

Time

Acc. exp. Del. rev.

Additional expansionHa

Time

Del. rev.Acc. exp.

Ha Additional expansion

Time

Hertel et al. (2010)

Not straight forward to apply ’baseline time accounting’ to this study because it has partly been considered already:

‘It may be […] that technological change will increase maize yields so much […] that total maize acreage actually falls, but our analysis is directed (in that case) to how much more it would fall without the biofuel increase.’

In Europe, we use a lower emission factor for deforestation because cropland is already reverting to forest and biofuel cropland demand merely slows this process. The result is avoided [slow] sequestration rather than [rapid] release of aboveground carbon.

Baseline not considered in time accounting

17

Delayed reversion!

Delayed reversion

Land quality (Kløverpris et al. 2010)

18

19

Sustainable development and time accounting

In 1987, The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as:

…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Do we only care about the next 30 years?

GWP values for CO2, CH4, and N2O

20

20 years 100 years 500 years

CO2 1 1 1

CH4 72 25 8

N2O 289 298 153

Source: IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report

References Alder et al. (2005): Changes in Ecosystem Services and Their Drivers across the Scenarios. Chapter 9 in: Carpenter

SR, Pingali PL, Bennett EM, Zurek MB (eds) (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios, Volume 2. 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington·Covelo·London

Bakkes et al. (2008): Background report to the OECD environmental outlook to 2030. Overviews, details, and methodology of model-based analysis. MNP Report 500113001/ 2008, ISBN 978-90-6960-196-0, available at www.pbl.nl/en

Bruinsma J (ed) (2003): World Agriculture: towards 2015/2030. An FAO Perspective. FAO, Earthscan, London

Bruinsma J (2009): The resource Outlook to 2050. By how much do land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050?, FAO Expert meeting on how to feed the world in 2050, 24-26 June 2009.

CARB (2009): Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Vol. 1, California EPA

FAO (2010): Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 – Key findings. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, available at www.fao.org/forestry/fra2010

FAOSTAT (2010): http://faostat.fao.org, United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation

Fischer G, Shah M, van Velthuizen H (2002): Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability, IIASA, Remaprint, Vienna

Fischer (2009): World Food and Agriculture to 2030/50: How do climate change and bioenergy alter the long-term outlook for food, agriculture and resource availability? FAO Expert meeting on how to feed the world in 2050, 24-26 June 2009.

Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Kammen DM (2010): Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of U.S. Maize Ethanol: Estimating Market-Mediated Responses, BioScience 60 (3) 223-231

Kløverpris JH, Baltzer K, Nielsen PH (2010): Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption Part 2: Example of wheat consumption in Brazil, China, Denmark and the USA, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15:90-103

Searchinger et al. (2008): Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change, Science 319: 1238–1240

Stehfest E, Bouwman L, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Eickhout B, Kabat P (2009): Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change 95:83–102

21