DOCSLIB.ORG

The Land Use Change Impact of Biofuels Consumed in the EU Quantification of Area and Greenhouse Gas Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Land Use Change Impact of Biofuels Consumed in the EU Quantification of Area and Greenhouse Gas Impacts Ref. Ares(2015)4173087 - 08/10/2015 The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU Quantification of area and greenhouse gas impacts The land use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU Quantification of area and greenhouse gas impacts By: Hugo Valin (IIASA), Daan Peters (Ecofys), Maarten van den Berg (E4tech), Stefan Frank, Petr Havlik, Nicklas Forsell (IIASA) and Carlo Hamelinck (Ecofys), with further contributions from: Johannes Pirker, Aline Mosnier, Juraj Balkovic, Erwin Schmid, Martina Dürauer and Fulvio di Fulvio (all IIASA) Date: 27 August 2015 Project number: BIENL13120 Reviewers: Ausilio Bauen (E4tech), Michael Obersteiner (IIASA) and the Scientific Advisory Committee: - Prem Bindraban, Don O’Connor, Robert Edwards, Jacinto Fabiosa, David Laborde, Chris Malins, André Nassar, Koen Overmars and Richard Plevin Project coordination: Michèle Koper (Ecofys) This study has been commissioned and funded by the European Commission. A cooperation of Ecofys, IIASA and E4tech ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Chamber of Commerce 30161191 ii Acknowledgements The study consortium is grateful for the useful information and the many comments, questions and recommendations we received throughout the preparation of the study between September 2013 and June 2015 from a wide variety of stakeholders, including representatives from industry associations, NGOs and scientific experts, either by attending one of the eight stakeholder meetings we organised during the study process or by corresponding with us per email. We also thank the European Commission Steering Committee for their input and reviews. In particular, we would like to thank our Advisory Committee members, who agreed to review the study approach, progress and draft results on a voluntary basis: Prem Bindraban, Don O’Connor, Robert Edwards, Jacinto Fabiosa, David Laborde, Chris Malins, Andre Nasser, Koen Overmars and Richard Plevin. We would also like to thank Alexandre Gohin for his critical comments on our initial study approach. The input received from many sides improved the quality of our study, while at the same time the study consortium bears the full responsibility for this study. ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Chamber of Commerce 30161191 iii Executive Summary Introduction Biofuels are promoted as an option to reduce climate emissions from the transport sector. As most biofuels are currently produced from land based crops, there is a concern that the increased consumption of biofuels requires agricultural expansion at a global scale, leading to additional carbon emissions. This effect is called Indirect Land Use Change, or ILUC. The EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) directed the European Commission to develop a methodology to account for the ILUC effect. The current study serves to provide new insights to the European Commission and other stakeholders about these indirect carbon and land impacts from biofuels consumed in the EU, with more details on production processes and representation of individual feedstocks than was done before. ILUC cannot be observed or measured in reality, because it is entangled with a large number of other changes in agricultural markets at both global and local levels. The effect can only be estimated through the use of models. The current study is part of a continuous effort to improve the understanding and representation of ILUC. Background Most biofuels today use feedstock grown on land that is suitable for food, feed or material production. An increase in biofuel consumption could therefore lead to cropland expansion in one of two ways: Directly, when new cropland is created for the production of biofuel feedstocks. This is called direct land use change, or DLUC; Indirectly, when existing cropland is used for biofuel feedstock production, forcing food, feed and materials to be produced on new cropland elsewhere. This expansion is called indirect land use change, or ILUC. Direct and indirect land use change are intertwined in reality. They can lead to changes in carbon stocks on land, most notably through loss of above and below ground living biomass and soil organic carbon, which leads to an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, the uptake of carbon by crops and the effective use of co-products from biofuel production can partly compensate these emissions. The outcome of emission quantification studies present the net result. This study aims to quantify emissions resulting from the existing EU biofuel policy up to 2020. The study therefore enables policy makers to assess the complete climate impacts associated with biofuel policies. Biofuel policies aim to mitigate climate change, but high emissions could compromise biofuels’ ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Chamber of Commerce 30161191 iv mitigation potential. Insights of this study can assist policy makers in designing future EU biofuel policy in such way that land use change impacts are effectively addressed. ILUC modelling Because ILUC occurs through global market mechanisms with many direct and indirect effects, it can only be modelled, not measured. Direct measurement will only provide partial accounting of the total effects. Previous studies have tried to quantify ILUC related emissions, to understand whether the use of biofuels really avoids greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale and by how much. The current study focuses on biofuels consumed in the EU. Note that it does not discuss whether biofuel producers should be held accountable for effects that are indirectly induced by their actions but which take place outside their control. Nor does it answer the question regarding how it can be ensured that biofuels actually reduce greenhouse gasses emissions compared to fossil fuels, within a certain timeframe. The aim of this study is only to model biofuel induced land use change and its greenhouse gas emission consequences, as consistently as possible, using a tailored version of the GLOBIOM model. Whilst this is not the first study that quantifies land use change impacts of EU biofuels – it follows a study published by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in 2011 (Laborde, 2011) – the current study quantifies for the first time land use change emissions from advanced biofuel feedstocks as well as several ‘alternative scenarios’, as further explained below. The study is relevant for the discussion on the 2030 EU policy framework for energy and climate change. The study follows the general principles of ILUC modelling used in earlier studies, in which a “world with additional biofuels” (the policy scenario) is compared to the same world “as it would have developed without the additional biofuels” (the baseline). In this study, the policy scenarios are based on the European Union Renewable Energy Directive1 (commonly known as ‘the RES directive’ or ‘the RED’). The computed ILUC impact of the additional biofuels follows from the difference between emissions in the policy scenarios and those of the baseline. This difference is then attributed to the additional biofuel demand in the policy scenarios. The results of this study, commonly referred to as ‘ILUC values’ (or ‘factors’), are in fact the sum of direct and indirect emission effects. When comparing a policy scenario with a baseline, it is certain that the difference in quantity of land conversion and its greenhouse gas impact results from the difference between scenario and baseline: the additional biofuel demand. The modelling does not show to what extent the land conversion is caused directly or indirectly. For this reason, this study speaks about ‘LUC values’ rather than ‘ILUC values’ and about ‘land use change’ rather than ‘direct or indirect land use change’. Even the term ‘land use change emissions’ does not fully cover the different sources of emissions included in the final results, as some of the emissions are related directly to the change in crop or plantation type, which impacts carbon stock in biomass and soil. These emission savings are 1 Directive 2009/28/EC ECOFYS Netherlands B.V. | Kanaalweg 15G | 3526 KL Utrecht| T +31 (0)30 662-3300 | F +31 (0)30 662-3301 | E [email protected] | I www.ecofys.com Chamber of Commerce 30161191 v deducted from the land use change related emissions, leading to the LUC values. For each modelled scenario we provide a precise breakdown of the result into various contributing factors. This study includes various emission sources and sinks linked to related to biomass and soil carbon stocks. This includes direct soil carbon emissions resulting from the removal of forestry residues from forests2. Not included are emissions directly related to the biofuel production chain, including emissions related to feedstock cultivation and processing, biofuel production, transport and distribution. Box 1 gives an overview of emission sources included in this study. Box 1: Overview of emissions included in this study and emissions not included Emission sources included in this study Peatland oxidation: emissions caused by peatland drainage due to oil palm plantation expansion. Soil organic carbon: changes in carbon stored in soils. Natural vegetation reversion (foregone sequestration): avoided emission savings due to reduced afforestation or reduced return of cropland to other natural land due to increased use of cropland. This effect takes place in particular in Europe where a trend exists of cropland abandonment. Natural vegetation conversion emissions: release of carbon stored in forest biomass or natural biomass, at the moment the land use change occurs. Agricultural biomass: changes in carbon stored in agricultural crops. These can either be biofuel feedstocks cultivated as a direct consequence of increased biofuel demand, or other crop cultivation, triggered indirectly by increased biofuel demand.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Water, Land, and Carbon Footprints of Different Human Diets in China
    FACULTY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY WATER ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT The Water, Land, and Carbon Footprints of Different Human Diets in China Hang Song M.Sc. Thesis August 2017 Supervisors: Prof.dr.ir. A.Y. Hoekstra MSc. C.C.A. Verburg Water Management Group Faculty of Engineering Technology Water Engineering & Management University of Twente P.O. Box 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands THE WATER, LAND, AND CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF DIFFERENT HUMAN DIETS IN CHINA THE WATER, LAND, AND CARBON FOOTPRINTS OF DIFFERENT HUMAN DIETS IN CHINA Summary The demand for agricultural production is increasing significantly due to the growth of economic and population worldwide. The agricultural products have huge impact on water use, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions. This can be quantitatively expressed by three indicators: water footprint (WF), land footprint (LF), and land footprint (CF). While China is the most populated country in the world, the impact of the human food consumed in China is not only within the country but also in other parts of the world where food is imported. In this research, the water, land, and carbon footprints of consumption (퐹푐표푛푠) in China are analyzed for five different diets: the current diet (REF) from the statistics of FAO; a healthy diet (CDG) based on the recommendations by Chinese Nutrition Society; a pesco- vegetarian diet (PES), which includes fish, eggs, and dairy; an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet (OLV), which includes eggs and dairy; and a vegan diet (VEG), which excludes all animal products. While REF has a higher intake of kcal and protein per day than CDG, the other three diets are chosen such that the kcal and protein intake per day equals that of CDG.
    [Show full text]
  • Land, Water and Carbon Footprints of Circular Bioenergy Production Systems T ∗ B
    Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 224–235 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser Land, water and carbon footprints of circular bioenergy production systems T ∗ B. Holmatova, , A.Y. Hoekstraa,b, M.S. Krola a Twente Water Centre, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Horst Complex Z223, P.O Box 217, 7500, AE Enschede, Netherlands b Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469C Bukit Timah Road, 259772, Singapore ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Renewable energy sources can help combat climate change but knowing the land, water and carbon implications Bioenergy of different renewable energy production mixes becomes a key. This paper systematically applies land, waterand Biofuel carbon footprint accounting methods to calculate resource appropriation and CO2eq GHG emissions of two Energy scenario energy scenarios. The ‘100% scenario’ is meant as a thinking exercise and assumes a complete transition towards Carbon footprint bioenergy, mostly as bioelectricity and some first-generation biofuel. The ‘SDS-bio scenario’ is inspired byIEA's Land footprint sustainable development scenario and assumes a 9.8% share of bioenergy in the final mix, with a high share of Sustainable development Water footprint first-generation biofuel. Energy inputs into production are calculated by differentiating inputs into fuelversus electricity and exclude fossil fuels used for non-energy purposes. Results suggest that both scenarios can lead to emission savings, but at a high cost of land and water resources. A 100% shift to bioenergy is not possible from water and land perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • CUBA's TRANSITION to ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY in Swedish
    CUBA’S TRANSITION TO ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY Jan Strömdahl KUWAIT 6 5 DENMARK USA 4 SWEDEN 3 GERMANY JAPAN RUSSIA 2 SOUTH AFRICA BRAZIL 1 CHINA CUBA NIGERIA ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT, NUMBER OF GLOBES/PERSON FOOTPRINT, ECOLOGICAL HAITI INDIA 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 LOW HDI MEDIUM HDI HIGH HDI VERY HIGH HDI HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX, HDI TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. CUBA AND SUSTAINABILITY 5 2.1 The Human Development Index 6 2.2 Ecological footprint 8 2.3 Later Living Planet Reports 10 2.4 Conclusions in the Living Planet Reports 12 2.5 Analysis of ecological footprints for selected countries 13 2.6 Global target for sustainability 14 2.7 Measures for protection against climate change 15 2.8 How has Cuba succeeded so far? 16 3. AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER LAND USE 18 3.1 Exploitation and Revolution - a historical background 18 3.2 Present situation 20 3.3 Food security 24 3.4 Organic farming 26 3.5 Organic urban and suburban agriculture 27 3.6 Permaculture 30 3.7 Environmental and health aspects 33 3.8 Outlook 33 4. WATER 36 4.1 Present situation 37 4.2 Water footprints 39 4.3 Fisheries 40 4.4 Water pollution 41 4.5 Water and sewage supply 43 4.6 Closing remarks 44 5 ENERGY 46 5.1 Energy revolution starts 47 5.2 Oil still dominate 50 5.3 Renewable fuels and technologies 50 5.4 Fossil fuels and technologies 54 5.5 The rise and fall of nuclear power 54 5.6 Efficiency and savings 57 5.7 Two forerunners - Granma and Guamá 57 5.8 A second energy revolution 59 5.9 Environmental and health impacts 62 5:10 Social aspects 63 6 TRANSPORTATION 65 6.1 Horses and bikes dominate locally 67 6.2 Railway tradition 71 6.3 Freight most by truck 73 6.3 Decentralization and improved effectiveness 73 6.4 Environmental and health implications 75 6.5 Social aspects 76 6.6 Cuba´s challenges 76 2 7 HOUSING 78 7.1 The housing policy of revolution 79 7.2 Current situation 81 7.3 Building tecchnics and materials 83 7.4 Havana 86 7.5 Housing as social right 86 7.6 What about the future? 87 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Construction Investment, Real Estate Development, and COVID-19: a Review of Literature in the Field
    sustainability Review Sustainable Construction Investment, Real Estate Development, and COVID-19: A Review of Literature in the Field Arturas Kaklauskas 1,*, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas 2,* , Natalija Lepkova 1 , Saulius Raslanas 1, Kestutis Dauksys 1, Ingrida Vetloviene 2 and Ieva Ubarte 2 1 Department of Construction Management and Real Estate, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] (N.L.); [email protected] (S.R.); [email protected] (K.D.) 2 Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania; [email protected] (I.V.); [email protected] (I.U.) * Correspondence: [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (E.K.Z.) Abstract: Aspects of sustainable construction investment and real estate development (CIRED) and their interrelations during the period pre-, intra-, and post-COVID-19, are presented in the research. Applications of the topic model, environmental psychology theory, building life cycle method, and certain elements of bibliometrics, webometrics, article level metrics, altmetrics, and scientometrics make it possible to perform a quantitative analysis on CIRED. The CIRED topic model was developed in seven steps. This paper aims to present a literature review on CIRED throughout the pandemic and to look at the responses from the real estate and construction sector. This sector is a field that appears to be rapidly expanding, judging from the volume of current research papers. This review focuses on last year’s leading peer-reviewed journals. A combination of various keywords was Citation: Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, applied for the review and the criteria for paper selections included construction investment, real E.K.; Lepkova, N.; Raslanas, S.; estate development, civil engineering, COVID-19, and sustainability, as well as residential, industrial, Dauksys, K.; Vetloviene, I.; Ubarte, I.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy and Land Use
    GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK WORKING PAPER ENERGY AND LAND USE Prepared by: Uwe R. Fritsche (coordinating author), International Institute for Sustainability Analysis and Strategy (Darmstadt, Germany); Göran Berndes, Chalmers University (Gothenburg, Sweden); Annette L. Cowie, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries/University of New England (Armidale, Australia); Virginia H. Dale and Keith L. Kline, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee); Francis X. Johnson, Stockholm Environment Institute (Stockholm, Sweden & Nairobi, Keny); Hans Langeveld, Biomass Research (Wageningen, the Netherlands); Navin Sharma, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (Nairobi, Kenya); Helen Watson, KwaZulu-Natal University (Durban, South Africa); Jeremy Woods, Imperial College London (United Kingdom). Copy editing by Margie Peters-Fawcett. September 2017 DISCLAIMER The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) or the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by UNCCD or IRENA in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the authors or contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNCCD or IRENA or their members. © UNCCD and IRENA 2017 Unless otherwise stated, material in this publication may be freely used, shared, copied, reproduced, printed and/or stored, provided that appropriate acknowledgement is given of UNCCD and IRENA as the source and copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Riskier Business: the Uk’S Overseas Land Footprint
    WORKING TOGETHER TO UNDERSTAND RISKS TO NATURAL CAPITAL RISKIER BUSINESS: THE UK’S OVERSEAS LAND FOOTPRINT SUMMARY REPORT MAY 2020 2 RISKIER BUSINESS: THE UK’S OVERSEAS LAND FOOTPRINT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 SUMMARY - RISKIER BUSINESS: THE UK’S OVERSEAS LAND FOOTPRINT The UK’s overseas land footprint, a key element of the UK’s total environmental footprint overseas, has increased by 15% on average compared to our 2011-15 analysis. Between 2016 and 2018, an area equivalent to 88% of the total UK land area was required to supply the UK’s demand for just seven agricultural and forest commodities – beef & leather, cocoa, © DAVID BEBBER / WWF-UK A large fire burns in the Cerrado in Brazil, one of the world’s oldest and most diverse tropical palm oil, pulp & paper, rubber, soy, and timber. This rise is in response to an ecosystems and one of the most endangered on the planet. One million hectares of forest is lost in the Cerrado each year to make way for soy plantations for food, animal feed and biofuels. increasing demand for agricultural and forestry products, including those led by shifts in UK policy (notably, the greater demand for fuel wood as a source of renewable energy). This summary is based on the upcoming full report, Riskier Business: the UK’s Overseas Land Footprint. Growing demand for forest and agricultural commodities drives greenhouse gas emissions and can have negative impacts on biodiversity overseas, but current UK legislation does not require these impacts to be monitored or mitigated. Greenhouse 1 This report updates and extends our 2017 assessment, Risky Business , gas emissions arising from imported commodities are included in UK environmental accounts, but which focused on the impacts resulting from the UK’s trade in the same seven agricultural and forest not in the UK carbon budget or climate strategy – so there are no requirements to mitigate them.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Bioenergy Toward a Clean Energy and Forest-Positive Future with Social Justice at Its Heart
    Beyond Bioenergy Toward a Clean Energy and Forest-Positive Future with Social Justice at its Heart Strategy Overview | 2020 - 2024 October 2020 1 | BEYOND BIOENERGY TOWARD A CLEAN AND FOREST-POSITIVE FUTURE WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE AT ITS HEART ver the last decade, our societies have made and local communities, and advance sustainable land Oincremental progress toward building a clean energy use and agriculture, in line with the joint philanthropic and forest-positive future to fight the climate crisis and statement on ‘Supporting Forests, Rights, and Lands safeguard the well-being of our children and for Climate.’ Our support is intended to contribute to grandchildren. Despite continuing progress, the threat to global cooperation efforts to achieve the Paris agreement our climate is escalating. Renewable energy deployment targets, international human rights frameworks, and is only just keeping pace with growth in energy demand, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. political polarization limits our ability to conserve critical carbon-sinks like the Amazon rainforest, and continued Although much of this strategy is focused on reducing reliance on fossil fuels puts us at significant risk of demand for bioenergy that does not support overshooting the Paris agreement targets. climate stability or other Sustainable Development Goals (e.g. food security, forest health), the Packard Although often overlooked, our forests Foundation supports the development and use of contain more carbon than all exploitable oil, gas, those bioenergy resources that generate benefits and coal deposits. for the climate as well as local communities. Together with oceans and wetlands, they play a vital “Climate-positive” bioenergy includes organic waste role in stabilizing our planet’s climate by removing streams (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Buy Property in Patna
    Buy Property In Patna contravening:inequitablyCayenned andwhile braided escapism supratemporal and Barth stellar stead Gaspar Wye some pluralize constellated uniform quite so andreminiscently modernly! announces. Shurlock but Isolating boogie is bilocular her Florian Rikki andstill immanely. weaken Semi commercial property in patna and anytime, homes that strikes a sum insured of The new localities in Patna real estate gets started by people and they are aided by infra development in Patna and amenities lie Schools. We mean best reason with devendra green city: the design schools in patna by just a service provider, patna is transacting every individual authorities, there is key trigger for. Experience of patna is unique in buying your budget residential project approvals provided. See the Section on Understanding Filesystem Permissions. At Ashiana, adhering to project completion timelines is a key priority for us. Secure yourself having any unseen eventuality by looking a PA policy. You can point your own CSS here. Exel marketing group works in real estate marketing. Crore biggest real estate development near my business loan from feasibility study to buy a blend of properties in buying a problem with the bypass. Here in properties are there is now regarding our level of. Cookies allow us to order you better. Property in Patna Real Estate Properties for Sale & Rent in. Moneyfy enables users to be investment ready by helping them complete their KYC digitally. Where you will lessen and features a selected are properties available on. Easy accessibility to the bypass. Bank loan is approved from major banks such as State Bank of India.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts
    Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts Research Department | April 2016 Updated: April 26, 2018 Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts WORKING PAPER Version 1.2 (2018-04-26) Authors: David Lin Laurel Hanscom Jon Martindill Michael Borucke Lea Cohen Alessandro Galli Elias Lazarus Golnar Zokai Katsunori Iha Mathis Wackernagel Suggested Citation: D. Lin, L. Hanscom, J. Martindill, M. Borucke, L. Cohen, A. Galli, E. Lazarus, G. Zokai, K. Iha, D. Eaton, M. Wackernagel. 2018. Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts. Oakland: Global Footprint Network. The designations employed and the presentation of materials in the Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Global Footprint Network or its partner organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Special thanks to Lea Cohen for her outstanding work on the 2016 update of this guidebook. For further information, please contact: Global Footprint Network 426 17th Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 USA Phone: +1.510.839.8879 E-mail: [email protected] Main website: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/ Open data website: http://data.footprintnetwork.org/ © Global Footprint Network 2018. All rights reserved. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Imported Deforestation: Understanding Switzerland's Overseas Footprint for Forest-Risk Commodities WWF-Switzerland
    IMPORTED DEFORESTATION UNDERSTANDING SWITZERLAND’S OVERSEAS FOOTPRINT FOR FOREST-RISK COMMODITIES © Richard Carey / AdobeStock 2 IMPORTED DEFORESTATION IMPORTED DEFORESTATION 3 CONTENTS BACKGROUND ........................................................4 KEY FINDINGS FOR SWITZERLAND .................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 10 COMMODITY SPECIFIC FINDINGS ................................. 14 SOY ............................................................ 14 PALM OIL ...................................................... 18 COCOA ......................................................... 22 TIMBER, PULP & PAPER ..................................... 26 COFFEE ........................................................ 30 SUGARCANE................................................... 34 COCONUT ...................................................... 38 This report summarises findings of original research undertaken by 3Keel, commissioned by WWF-Switzerland; Authors: Dr Steve Jennings and Caitlin McCormack (3Keel), Romain Deveze (WWF Switzerland) OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY ................................... 42 Design: 3Keel Publication date: December 2020 The full report is available at www.wwf.ch/de/stories LIMITATIONS ....................................................... 43 4 IMPORTED DEFORESTATION IMPORTED DEFORESTATION 5 Area of overseas land required each year to supply Switzerland’s imports BACKGROUND of forest and agricultural commodities (annual average 2015-19) The demand for agricultural
    [Show full text]
  • The Footprint and Biocapacity of Ontario, Canada: Comparing Results for 2005 and 2010
    The Footprint and Biocapacity of Ontario, Canada: Comparing Results for 2005 and 2010 March 2015 www.footprintnetwork.org Produced for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry TECHNICAL SUMMARY REPORT Completed March 20, 2015 Authors: Golnar Zokai Jason Ortego David Zimmerman Mathis Wackernagel For further information, please contact: 312 Clay Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607-3510 USA Phone: +1.510.839.8879 [email protected] www.footprintnetwork.org © Text and graphics: 2015 Global Footprint Network. All rights reserved. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the aforementioned publisher as the copyright owner. 2 Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ 4 1. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT .................................................................................................................... 5 2. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Humanity’s Ecological Footprint ................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Canada’s Ecological Footprint ....................................................................................................... 6 3. ONTARIO’S ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND BIOCAPACITY .................................................................... 9 3.1 Ontario’s Ecological
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental Impact of Sieben Linden Ecovillage
    The Environmental Impact of Sieben Linden Ecovillage Environmental impact assessment is widely taught and researched, but rarely covers both lifestyle and building construction in a town or neigh- bourhood. This book provides a broad assessment of the environmental impact of the ecovillage Sieben Linden in Germany. The ecovillage was founded in 1997 and has a population of over one hundred people. This book shows how raising the awareness of individuals and adopting a consistent way of community living can be environmentally friendly. This applies both to everyday practices and the way the houses in the ecovillage are built. The tools used to measure the impact are Ecological Footprint and Carbon Footprint methodologies, making use of indicators such as Primary Energy Intensity and Global Warming Potential. Despite the diffi culties encountered by using standardised methodologies, these research tools provide an overall assessment and have allowed comparisons with selected, similar cases and general values from statistic sources. This book will be of great use to professionals and scholars in the fi elds of environmental impact assessment, particularly at the town/district/city level, and of city and ecovillage management. It will particularly appeal to those engaged in a Sustainable Development Goal #11 perspective, as well as environmental policy makers at the local level. Andrea Bocco is Associate Professor of Architectural Technology at the Politecnico di Torino, Italy. His research interests cover the work and thoughts of unconventional contemporary architects, local development and construction with natural materials. Martina Gerace graduated in architecture at the Politecnico di Torino (Master’s in Architecture Construction City ), Italy, in 2017.
    [Show full text]