microsoft powerpoint - oliver_forescene2006oct26

‘Visions on Land Use in Industrial Regions in Europe‘, Budapest, October 26, 2006 - 1

PD Dr. Oliver DillyEmail [email protected]

Land use in European industrial regions –

a vision of sustainability

O. Dilly1, B. U. Schneider1, T. Plieninger2, R. F. Hüttl1 and T. Stuczynski3

1 Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany2 Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, Berlin, Germany

3 Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, Pulawy, Poland

Email [email protected]



RegionPolicy case -

Silesia, Poland

Lusatia, Germany

High Tatra, Slovakia

Eisenwurzen, Austria

Valais, Switzerland

Saaremaa coastal zone,

Estonia

Malta

Bioenergy x x x x ?? x

Structural cohesion fund x x x x x

CAP x x x x

Transport tax x ?? x x

Forest strategy x x x x x x

Biodiversity x x x ?? x

Policy cases in European sensitive area case studies discussed in the EU IP SENSOR consortium

industrialTabbush, 2006 mod.



SENSOR Sustainability Impact Assessment: Tools for Environmental, Social and Economic Effects of Multifunctional Land Use in European Regions //

www.sensor-ip.org

� EU FP 6 Integrated Project 33 Partners // 12.3 M€ // Dec 2004 – Nov 2008Central coordination: Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape and Land Use Research ZALF, Müncheberg Germany (Katharina Helming)

� To deliver ex-ante Impact Assessment Tools (SIAT) to support decision making on policies related to multifunctional land use in European regionsIntegration of European and regional scale, spatial and temporal dimension, various land use sectors, social, economic, and environmental issues, top-down and bottom-up approach



E.U. Integrated Project SENSOR

M2

M6M7

M3

Policy maker

Scenario

Land use

Indicator assessment

Sustainability Impact Assessment Tools

SIAT

Ecological Social EconomicIssues

Regional perspectives

M5

M4

Stakeholder analysis

Validation

Agriculture ForestNature ConservationEnergyTourismTransport



EC Impact Assessment GuidelinesJuly 15, 2005 - SEC(2005)791

Impact Assessment• Identifying the policy problem• Defining the objectives• Developing the main policy

options• Analysing their impact• Comparing the options• Outlining policy monitoring

and evaluation

IQ ToolsSIATetc.

Stakeholders in response to

critical issues

EC levelconsultation



Impact issues in sensitive regions in Europe

� Most impact issues are addressed.

��



Agric. Forestry Tourism Transport EnergyNat. Cons.

Societal

Environmental

Economic

Migration

Welfare

Abiotic resources

Biotic resources

Buffering, Mitigation

Aesthetics

unemployment

Growth

Gender issues

SectorIssues / Indicators

Multifunctionality

Mountains Islands Coasts Post-industrial zonesEU 25 regions

Growth

What do we look at?

Tabbush, 2005



SENSOR NUTS-X resolution (NUTS2 to NUTS3)

� 484 cells for EU-25� 581 cells for

EU-25+5~ 31 % are located in

sensitive post-industrial zones, mountains, coasts and islands.



Main sustainability issues in industrial regions

� Energetic efficiency (e.g., renewable energy)

� Pollutants

� Food quality

� R+D

Water • Biodiversity • Soil • Waste • Resources



Atmospheric CO2 and mean temperature

Vattenfall ‘Curbing Climate Change’

Vattenfall

‘Business as usual‘



North pole - Break of the ice shield in 2006



Global distribution of organic carbon (~ ‘free energy’)after Gleixner et al. (2005)

� Currently mainly in soil� Increasing importance

of the atmosphere



Human impact on the global N cycle

� Humans have more than doubled the natural rate of N input to ecosystems

� Fossil fuel combustion: 20 Tg N yr-1

a. combustion forms nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, NOxb. deposited as nitric acid in acid rain

� N2 fixation in agriculture: 40 Tg N yr-1

� Fertilization in agriculture: 80 Tg N yr-1

Haber-Bosch Process (very high temperature, very high pressure)3 CH4 + 6 H2O → 3 CO2 + 12 H24 N2 + 12 H2 → 8 NH3

� 50 % of the N input in the field may be lost



Effect of N inputs

Marine ecosystems

� N inputs to oceans have likely increased microbial oceanic productivity by around 0.5 x 1015 g C yr-1 and increased particulate organic carbon transfer to deep ocean, a sink for atmospheric CO2 (but fairly small)

Terrestrial ecosystems

� N inputs to terrestrial ecosystems have likely increased productivity by 1.0 x 1015 g C yr-1 and much of the N added to terrestrial ecosystems is immobilized in soil, possibly facilitated by microorganisms



Link between C and N

� NPP increases in direct response to added N up to inputs of about 10 g N m-2 yr-1

� Inputs in excess of 10 g N m-2 yr-1 are rarely found in natural ecosystems, but are seen in polluted environments and agricultural soils



Lignite Mining Districts in Germany



Lignite mining



� Lowering of the water table on 2000 km2

� Water supply for long-distant users (e.g. Berlin)� Landscape fragmentation and soil degradation � Emigration and immigration: Loss of cultural integrity

(Decline 35 % with 30 % immigration and 65 % emigration)

� Multifunctional land use systems� Regional mining/energy industry

- Sustaining employment- Change of paradigm: fossil + regenerative energy

Post-industrial zone near Cottbus, GermanyBerlin

Cottbus

120 km

Taken from Google Earth for non-commercial use



Cottbus (100000 Inhabitants) has Premier League Team



Brandenburg University of TechnologyCottbus (BTU), Germany

Chair of Soil Protection and Rehabilitation



Lausitz



Post-industrial zone in Poland

Taken from Google Earth for non-commercial useTaken from Google Earth for non-commercial use



Iron mountain in ‘Eisenwurzen’, Austria




Functions for re-cultivated regions

� Agriculture� Forestry� Nature Conservation � Recreation� Tourism� Estheticism� Infrastructure� Water Supply� Industry

New ecosystems

Recreation

New economic structures



“

Nature conservation

� Integrated nature conservation, e.g. alley cropping

� Priority regions for nature conservation, e.g. succession

Photo from the archive of the Chair of Soil Protection and Recultivation, BTUC

Photo from the archive of the Chair of Soil Protection and Recultivation, BTUC



Implementing new land use systemse.g. production of crop + bio-energy

1. Diversification of agricultural products2. Substitution of fossil resources 3. Self-supply and decentralized energy supply4. Environmental benefits and resource protection

e.g. carbon sequestration in soil (Soil Protection Strategy KOM (2002) 179)

�� !

�� "!

��#� �!

�� !



Development of the bio-energy market in Germany from 1990 to 2004



CO2

� 60 %aboveground

� 40 %belowground

5MgC•ha-1•a-1

Short-rotation plantation

CO2

� 60 %aboveground

� 40 %belowground

5MgC•ha-1•a-1

Short-rotation plantationModified after Rytter 2001

C-Sequestration



Carbon accumulation in young soils (%)in Alley-Cropping-Trails after 9 years (n=17)

2005Alley

2005Hedge/Alley

2005Hedge

1996Depth(cm)

0,99(0,28)*

1,03(0,34)*

0,85(0,28)*

10-30

1,04(0,24)*

1,13(0,25)*

1,55(0,64)*

0,45(0,26)*

0-10

Standard deviations in bracket

Unpublished data from BTU



Hedgerow (black locust)

Evapo-ration17%

Inter-zeption

12%Tiefen-sicke-rung33%

Trans-piration

39%

Alley (rye)

Trans-piration

26%

Tiefen-sicke-rung39%

Inter-zeption

3%

Evapo-ration33%

See-page

33%See-page

39%

� Greater water consumption at bio-mass production here� Less groundwater generation at Alley-Cropping

Water balance



Regional advantages of bioenergy production

� Impulse for jobs and investment in rural regions(In entire Germany: 57.000 workplaces in 2004)

� Minus 84 Mio t (11 % of the German CO2 emissions)

� Vision of Germany‘s sustainability strategy: 50% of total energy supply with renewable energy by 2050



Plant cultivation for industrial purpuses in Brandenburg

Resource Area in ha for 2005

Other crops

23.233

Energy crops for Biogas and Bioethanol

31.532

91.111 (8.8 % of agricultural crop land)

Rape oil for Biodiesel

36.346



Prognosis for bio-energy use in Germany

00

0,840,320,28

1,44

0,45

0,55

1,48

0,86

0,55

2,06

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5Mio. ha

2004 2010 2020 2030

Acker (einjährigeEnergiepflanzen)

Acker (mehrjährigeEnergiepflanzen)

Grünland

Jahr

(Source: Öko-Institut et al.)



Bioenergy plants in Brandenburg in 2004

Anlagentyp In Betrieb In Planung Biogasanlagen 35 ca. 24 Biodiesel-Raffinerien 7 Bioethanol-Anlagen 1 ca. 5 Biomasse-Heizkraftwerke 14 ca. 7 Biomasse-Heizwerke > 1 MW 20 Biomasse-Heizwerke > 100 kW 870 �

(ETI Brandenburg)



High resource needs of the bio-ethanol plant in Schwedt

� Rye requirement: 0.6 Mio t a-1

� Rye production in Brandenburg in 20011.3 Mio t

� 12% of EU grain production needed for a 5.75 % share of bioethanol in gas



European Biomass Action Plan (COM 2005, 628 final)

� 90 Mio t OE* in 2005

� 150 Mio t OE in 2010

� 230 to 250 Mio t OE in 2020, ~ 10 % increase per year

* million tonnes of oil equivalent

Oil: 0.84 t C or 3.08 t CO2 per t OE Natural gas: 0.64 t C per t OECoal: 1.08 t C per t OE

0.200.73Electricity0.0570.30Oil0.0570.21Gas0.130.48Other Solid Fuel0.120.44Coke0.0850.31Coal

kg C kWh-1kg CO2 kWh-1Fuel



Environmentally compatible primary bioenergypotential in the EU (EEA Report No. 7/2006)



Risks when producing too much bioenergy(EEA Report No. 7/2006)

� Soil erosion

� Soil compaction

� Nutrient leaching

� Water deficiency

� Salinisation

� Loss in biodiversity of cultivated plants



Coal combustion waste sites near Tuzla in Bosnia-Herzegovina

Power Plant Tuzla

45 ha

N

1000 m

Divkovici

Drežnik

Jezero

Plane

Figure by Frank Repmann, mod.



Coal combustion waste sites near Tuzla in Bosnia-Herzegovina




Plane, near Tuzla in Bosnia-Herzegovina

Photo by Frank Repmann



Sensitive indicators and methodological approaches

� Soil C and N stocks

� Soil microbial C and N

� Biological active C and N in soil

� Microbial communities involved C and N cycling

� Metabolic quotients for C and NqCO2 and qNmin - ‘Energomics’

� Biotic C in organic C, biotic N in total N

� Ratio between C and N in soil, microbial biomass and mineralised fraction

� Isotopic 13C and 15N signature



Soil basal respiration (BAS), maximal initial respiratory response (MIRR) and substrate-induced respiration (SIR) in

soil and ash layer near Tuzla in Bosnia and HerzegovinaAsh age increase from left to right and different letters indicate different values at P ≤ 0.05.

� Increase in microbial activities over 15 years� High microbial biomass and activity values after 15 years� However, the eco-toxicological situation is unclear

MIRR

Jezero Divkovici Plane Dreznik

Soil Ash Soil Ash Soil Ash Soil Ash

BAS



µg C

O2-

C g

-1 so

il h-1

-20

-10

0

10

20

ND

b a a ab a abab

SIR



b a a ab a abab b a a ab a abab



��

�

��

�

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

Relationship between area of abandoned lands and soil quality index in Silesia, Poland



Soil pollution with Cd in Poland



Land abandonment relative to soil pollution with heavy metals in 2002 and 2005 in Silesia, Poland

� Decrease in abandonment land due to European Agricultural Policy

Lead

Arable land [ha]

Abandoned land [ha]

2002

Abandoned land [ha]

2005

difference 2002-2005

[ha]

% change 2002-2005

Non polluted (0 - 50) 70228 8424 7012 -1412 -16,8Elevated levels (50 - 100) 18758 1953 1562 -391 -20,0Above legal threshold (>100) 4305 475 410 -65 -13,7CadmiumNon polluted (0 -1) 63115 7582 6355 -1227 -16,2Elevated levels (1-4) 27958 3054 2437 -617 -20,2Above legal threshold (>4) 2218 216 192 -24 -11,1ZincNon polluted (0 - 100) 58750 7306 6104 -1202 -16,5Elevated levels (100-300) 29070 3044 2466 -578 -19,0Above legal threshold (>300) 5471 502 414 -88 -17,5



Summary

1. Multifunctional optimisation of land, e.g. for food + energy and tourism.

2. Research needed to study the impact of land-use changes, e.g. for bio-energy production, on cross-cutting ecological, social and economic issues.

3. Special attention needs to be given on contaminated sites, e.g. when used for food production.



Thanks to all SENSOR partners, in particular to the experts below, and the E.U. for funding (Project no. 003874)

www.sensor-ip.orgThank you for Listening !!!

1. Post-industrial zones (T. Stuczy�ski, G. Siebielec, R. Korzeniowska-Pucułek, P. Koza, R. Pudełko, M. Kowalik, A. Łopatka, Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, Pulawy, Poland)

2. Coasts(T. Oja, A. Kull, Ü. Mander, Institute of Geography, University of Tartu, Estonia)

3. Mountains(N. Kräuchi, D. Hallenbarter, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Switzerland)

4. Islands(S. Moncada, M. Camilleri, Maltese Environmental ProtectionAgency, Malta)

5. Data mining + Mountains(H. Hasenauer, F. Putzhuber, W. Wenzel, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna)

microsoft powerpoint - oliver_forescene2006oct26

Documents

estoniamaltabioenergy

european industrial

oliver dillyemail

land use research zalf

various land use sectors

sensitive regions

impact issues

sec2005791impact assessment