Agrocarburants et Développement Durable, organisé par le LEPII pour le MEDAD, MSH-Alpes, 28-29 Janvier 2008 1 Agrocarburants et Développement Durable Etat

Agrocarburants et Développement Durable, organisé par le LEPII pour le MEDAD, MSH-Alpes, 28-29 Janvier 2008 1

Agrocarburants et Développement Durable

Etat des connaissances,enjeux pour la recherche

Grenoble, Maison des Sciences de l’Homme Rhone-Alpes

27-28 janvier 2008


Contraintes énergie-climat et

développement des agrocarburants


A partir du graphique-clé du 4ème rapport du GIEC: SPM WG 3, Fig. SPM 8

Ref

TAR 2001


4ème rapport du GIEC WG1, Fig 10.21: CO2 stabilisation profiles


Le déclin des découvertes: pétrole (Source Laherrère, ASPO)

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

-20% in 2020, -60% in 2050

-30% in 2020, -80 in 2050

Les objectifs européens 2020 et au-delà

KyotoConseil européen

du 8-9 mars

-60 %

-80%

« 3 fois 20 en 2020 »

20% d’efficacité énergétique en plus et

20% d’énergies renouvelables (dont 10% de bio- dans les carburants)

pour réduire les émissions de 20 à 30% en 2020


Les propositions au congrès US (MIT, 2007)

-60%

-80%

-25%

-40%


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2001 2010 2020 2030 2050

Gtep

RenouvelablesNucléaireGazPétroleCharbon

Un scénario mondial de stabilisation 450 ppm CO2 (modèle POLES2005) La consommation mondiale d’énergie baisse de 22 à 14 Gtep

55% de l’approvisionnement provient maintenant des renouvelables et du nucléaire


Source DGTPE 2005 (Stratégies N°44)


Production mondiale ethanol + biodiesel, 2005:48 + 4 Mtep


Le remède pire que le mal ?

Enseignements de deux rapports récents



OECD Round Table on SD, 11-12 september 2007Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease ?Biofuels are championned as:

- Increasing security of supply

- Reducing vehicle emissions

- Increasing income streams for farmers

Critics assert that they increase:- Energy price volatility

- Food prices

- Life-cycle emissions of GHGs


The rush threatens food production and biodiversity Current production (2005) = 33,5 Mtep, (1% of transport

fuels) 840 Mtep technically feasible in 2050 (11% of projected

demand) Under scarcity of new available land, « Food versus fuel

debate » and price increases already seen today Biomass feedstocks in tropical regions threaten

biodiversity from forests, wetlands or pasture Only sugar-cane in Brazil, by-product ethanol (SW, CH) or

biodiesel from animal fats/used oil substantially reduce GHG emissions

Oil price increase will induce an upward pressure both on biofuels and agricultural products


Second generation techs. depend on breakthroughs

Second generation techs. could in theory

represent a potential of 960 Mtoe on marginal

and degraded land

However the logistical challenge is likely to

impose a floor on production costs

This may limit the development to niche-

markets where material is available in-situ

(bagasse, wood processing residues)


The economic outlook seems fragile

The market share of nearly a quarter of the liquid fuel market (11% + 12%) in 2050 will probably not materialize

More realistic is the 13% market share calculated by IEA (2006)

This would reduce GHG emissions by only 3% and only limit the growth in oil consumption

Technological progress may not compensate for the increasing prices of inputs and feedstocks


Government policies are inefficient ...

National policies use border protection (at least 25% of import costs )and production subsidies (7 billions of $ in the US)

As a result international trade is only 10% of total production, which is inefficient given the intrinsic advantage of tropical regions

Regulation mandating usage, blending percentages and fuel-tax preferences do not differentiate among feedstocks of very different environmental impacts

The cost of biofuel support policies is extremely high, well over 500 $/tCO2 for ethanol in the US

There is a high risk that biofuel quotas for demand are higher than potential sustainable supply



Liberalising biofuel trade is difficult but essential Ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil is by far the cheapest

way, South America and Africa have large potentials

But liberalising the market will prove difficult given the

Gordian knot of agricultural markets (subsidies, tariffs and

preferential treatments)

A lack of progress on this front should lower the ambitions

While according to the DG of FAO (J. Diouf, 2007)

bioenergy provides a possible renaissance in many poor

countries, not only through export opportunities but

through using biomass for local electricity


Certification of biofuels is useful ...but

cannot be trusted Certification and its control could prove an

enormous challenge (cf. wood products), certification might be undermined by displacement and expose exporters to high administrative costs

Furthermore, discrimination of trade on the basis of production methods is highly contentious and disputed at the WTO

From an environmental perspective, only world wide certification stands a chance of making a difference


Policy implications for the near future

The strategic importance and objectives of first generation biofuels should be refocussed (IEA, OECD, FAO, WB)

Priority should be given to research into 2nd generation biofuels, not only on technologies but also on long term availability of feedstocks

Current biofuel support policies should be replaced by more technology-neutral policies, such as carbon taxes

Certification of biofuels should be urgently placed on the WTO agenda and WTO should also lower trade barriers for biofuels

More help should be provided to help developing countries in identifying appropriate ways to develop bioenergies


21 January 2008


What are the possible impacts of biofuels ?

Environmental impacts:

- The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership indicated that the level of GHG savings associated with the conversion of wheat to ethanol can vary anywhere from 7 to 77% (!). Biofuels CAN reduce GHG emissions

- A sustainable biofuel market could bring an environmental benefit through a better regulation of all internationally traded agricultural commodities (!)

- But biofuels could cause damages through land use changes, release of carbon from natural stores, intensification of agricultural production, displaced food production, use of unregulated GMOs


The Swiss government study

UBP = Umwelt Belastung Punkt


A moratorium ? The sustainability standards in the UK

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (2010: 80% of feedstocks meeting a standard of 60% GHG saving, with at least 80% of information in the sustainablility report) are unlikely to prevent environmental damages

Standards should encompass wider impacts such as fertilizer or pesticide pollution, similarly to those developed by the Swiss

Until they are developed, the government should place a moratorium on biofuel policies


International sustainability standards

The EU Commission mean that the « 10% in 2020 » target

may require 10 to 20% of imported feedstocks

An agreement on international sustainability standards for

biofuels is a matter of urgency

The government took a conservative approach to lessen

the risk of a WTO challenge to RTFO by not requiring

mandatory standards for « not known » categories

However, the development of robust international

sustainability standards, if challenging, is not impossible

(see the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil ... and its

difficulties)


Land Use changes Deforestation has been occuring in countries like

Malaysia and Indonesia before the development of biofuels

But it is expected that they can provide up to 20% of the EU biofuel market and palm oil imports already doubled for substitution to European rapeseed oil used for biofuels

Wasteland and degraded land exist in UK and developing countries, but due to controversies ...

The development of earth observation technologies should be given as much support as possible to control their use


Managing land to store carbon A landscape « integrated carbon accountancy model » should be developed. Before such a model is in place, it is too early to talk about a biofuel industry

Current biofuel policies fail in relation to the principles of DEFRA’s « Ecosystems approach »:

- Biofuels could undermine « healthy ecosystems »

- The value of ecosystems services is not recognised

- Intensive agriculture will be promoted

- The cumulative impacts e.g. for diffuse pollution are not reflected

- The added stress might undermine the ability of ecosystems to adapt


Food securityA large biofuel industry based on

current technology is likely to increase agricultural commodity prices

« Given long term demographic and climate change trends that might add further to food security problems, we question whether transport biofuels have a long term role »


Les Sustainability Impact Assessment studies

Une évaluation de la durabilité ?


Economie Société

Environnement

L’ « économie du DD » voir Dvt Durable\

_PezzeyToman_EcoSust.pdf Substituabilité ou complémentarité de Kn et Ka ?

Ka Investissement

Ressources

Kn

actu

alis

atio

n

Maximisation de l’ Utilité Sociale Actualisée


Economie Société

Environnement

Ressources globales

Milieux: air, eau, sols

Biodiversité

Pauvreté Education

Santé

Consommation (welfare)

Emploi

Investissement

Les SIA* suggèrent une approche « fractale » du problème

*Sustainability Impact Assessment studies

Energie X-CO2

Matériaux

Sols Air

Eau

Mal. Transmiss. Alimentation

Mal. Env.


March 2006



1. Economie


2. Social-1


2. Social-2


3. Environnement


4. Institutions


Méthode: « sans » et « avec » politique de libéralisation du commerce

Documents

Agrocarburants et Développement Durable, organisé par le LEPII pour le MEDAD, MSH-Alpes, 28-29 Janvier 2008 1 Agrocarburants et Développement Durable Etat