miun.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 41 of 41
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1. Berndes, Göran
    et al.
    Cederberg, Christel
    Cintas Sanchez, Olivia
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Börjesson, Pål
    Olofsson, Johanna
    Sustainable biofuels: critical review of current views and case studies using extended systems analysis providing new perspectives and positive examples2018Report (Other academic)
  • 2. Cintas, Olivia
    et al.
    Berndes, Goran
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers tekniska högskola.
    Cutz, Luis
    Johnsson, Filip
    Geospatial supply-demand modeling of biomass residues for co-firing in European coal power plants2018In: Global Change Biology Bioenergy, ISSN 1757-1693, E-ISSN 1757-1707, Vol. 10, no 11, p. 786-803Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Biomass co-firing with coal is a near-term option to displace fossil fuels and can facilitate the development of biomass conversion and the build-out of biomass supply infrastructure. A GIS-based modeling framework (EU-28, Norway, and Switzerland) is used to quantify and localize biomass demand for co-firing in coal power plants and agricultural and forest residue supply potentials; supply and demand are then matched based on minimizing the total biomass transport costs (field to gate). Key datasets (e.g., land cover, land use, and wood production) are available at 1,000m or higher resolution, while some data (e.g., simulated yields) and assumptions (e.g., crop harvest index) have lower resolution and were resampled to allow modeling at 1,000m resolution. Biomass demand for co-firing is estimated at 184 PJ in 2020, corresponding to an emission reduction of 18Mt CO2. In all countries except Italy and Spain, the sum of the forest and agricultural residues available at less than 300km from a co-firing plant exceeds the assessed biomass demand. The total cost of transporting residues to these plants is reduced if agricultural residues can be used, as transport distances are shorter. The total volume of forest residues less than 300km from a co-firing plant corresponds to about half of the assessed biomass demand. Almost 70% of the total biomass demand for co-firing is found in Germany and Poland. The volumes of domestic forest residues in Germany (Poland) available within the cost range 2-5 (1.5-3.5) Euro/GJ biomass correspond to about 30% (70%) of the biomass demand. The volumes of domestic forest and agricultural residues in Germany (Poland) within the cost range 2-4 (below 2) Euro/GJ biomass exceed the biomass demand for co-firing. Half of the biomass demand is located within 50km from ports, indicating that long-distance biomass transport by sea is in many instances an option.

  • 3. Dimitriou, I.
    et al.
    Berndes, G.
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers tekniska högskola.
    Brown, M.
    Busch, G.
    Dale, V.
    Devlin, G.
    English, B.
    Goss, K.
    Jackson, S.
    Kline, K. L.
    McDonnell, K.
    McGrath, J.
    Mola-Yudego, B.
    Murphy, F.
    Negri, M. C.
    Parish, E. S.
    Ssegane, H.
    Tyler, D.
    Lignocellulosic crops in agricultural landscapes: production systems for biomass and other environmental benefits - examples, incentives, and barriers2018Report (Other academic)
  • 4.
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    On Sustainability of Biomass for Energy and the Governance Thereof2016Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Due to concerns about climate change, energy security, and resource scarcity, non- renewable resources are increasingly being displaced by biomass. As with most human activities, the production of biobased products can be associated with negative impacts. Primarily, this relates to the biomass supply systems, i.e., agriculture and forestry, which currently are major causes of biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystem services. Developing sustainable production systems when transitioning from non-renewable resources to biomass is imperative. This thesis aims to clarify the meaning of sustainability in the context of biomass for bioenergy, and contribute to our understanding of how different forms of governance can promote sustainably sourced biomass for bioenergy. The thesis is based on five appended papers: Paper I analyses to what extent, where, and under what conditions oil palm for biodiesel in Brazil can be produced profitably, and what risks and opportunities that can be associated with introducing large-scale oil palm production in Brazil. Paper II lays the foundation for understanding how new biomass production can be introduced into landscapes while supporting rather than compromising the ability of the landscape to supply other ecosystem services. Paper III describes different forms of governance and shows how these can play different roles in promoting sustainable bioenergy in different countries. Paper IV focuses on how short rotation coppice production systems are affected by EU policy and how different governance forms can assist in adapting production systems to conform to the corresponding sustainability requirements. Finally, Paper V assesses how sustainability certification (private governance) addresses biodiversity conservation and contributes to our understanding of possible improvements.

  • 5.
    Englund, Oskar
    Ekologistas.
    Politisk samsyn krävs för nya elnät och ny elproduktion2013Other (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 6.
    Englund, Oskar
    Ekologistas.
    Siffrorna för vindkraft stämmer inte2011Other (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 7.
    Englund, Oskar
    Ekologistas.
    Stämmer inte att svenskarna vill ha kärnkraft2012Other (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 8.
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Towards Sustainable Bioenergy - Governance, Resource potentials and Trade-offs2014Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The global energy system needs to be transformed from fossil dependent to renewable, to cope with the challenges of resource scarcity and climate change. Bioenergy can play an important role in this transformation, but land is scarce, and uncontrolled bioenergy expansion could have unacceptable consequences. This thesis contributes to the understanding of (i) how bioenergy governance can be improved to better safeguard sustainability; and (ii) the extent to which biomass can be used for energy, focusing on the potential for biodiesel from Brazilian oil palm.In Paper I, we present sustainability criteria that may affect a range of stakeholders involved with short rotation coppice (SRC) bioenergy, and attempt to outline a framework for engaging relevant stakeholders in the development of sustainable SRC. In Paper II, we present an assessment of how biodiversity is considered in different types of sustainability standards. We discuss key barriers to, and challenges for, certification schemes in general, and conclude that all the assessed standards can, to a varying degree, be improved to better consider biodiversity. In Paper III, we analyse the economic potential of producing oil palm for biodiesel in Brazil in different policy scenarios, as well as the corresponding trade-offs with various conservation objectives. The results unveil a very large economic potential: Without causing any direct land use change emissions and without inflicting on high conservation value areas, a total of 71-89 Mha land could support production of 6.9-7.8 EJ/year of biodiesel, corresponding to 13-15% of the global petrodiesel demand.

  • 9.
    Englund, Oskar
    Ekologistas.
    Vad ska ersätta våra gamla kärnkraftverk?2013Other (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 10.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, G.
    How do Sustainability Standards Consider Biodiversity?2015In: Advances in Bioenergy: The Sustainability Challenge / [ed] Lund PD, Byrne G, Berndes G and Vasalos IA, Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, p. 483-506Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This chapter presents an assessment of how biodiversity is considered in different types of sustainability standards. First, biodiversity is defined and strategies for biodiversity conservation are discussed. Then, standards for sustainable production of biomass in agriculture and forestry are evaluated on how they consider biodiversity, i.e., how they attempt to prevent actions that can threaten biodiversity and support actions that can conserve it. It is also assessed how sustainability standards address the conversion of certain ecosystem types. A broad set of standards is included relating to either sustainable agricultural management, sustainable forest management, or sustainable production of biofuel feedstocks. Similarities and differences within and between the three categories are identified. Finally, key barriers to, and challenges for, certification schemes are discussed, and recommendations are made for further development of sustainability standards. 

  • 11.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Goeran
    How do sustainability standards consider biodiversity?2015In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, ISSN 2041-8396, E-ISSN 2041-840X, Vol. 4, no 1, p. 26-50Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Sustainability certification schemes and standards are meant to prevent a range of unacceptable socioeconomic and environmental consequences, such as threats to biodiversity. While there is wide support for conserving biodiversity, operationalizing this support in the form of guiding principles, criteria/indicators, and legislation is complicated. This study investigates how and to what extent 26 sustainability standards (eleven for forest management, nine for agriculture and six biofuel-related) consider biodiversity, by assessing how they seek to prevent actions that can threaten biodiversity as well as how they support actions aimed at biodiversity conservation. For this purpose, a benchmark standard was developed, meant to represent a case with very high ambitions concerning biodiversity conservation. Of the assessed standards, the biofuel-related standards demonstrated the highest level of compliance with the benchmark. On average, they complied with 72% of the benchmark’s component criteria, compared to 61% for the agricultural standards and 60% for the forestry standards. Fairtrade, Sustainable Agriculture Network/Rainforest Alliance (SAN/RA), Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) were particularly stringent, while Green Gold Label S5 (GGLS5), PEOLG, Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practices (GLOBALGAP), European Union Organic (EU Organic), National Organic Program (NOP), Green Gold Label S2 (GGLS2), and International Sustainability & Carbon Certification (ISCC) were particularly unstringent. All eleven forestry standards, six of the nine agricultural standards, and all six biofuel-related standards addressed ecosystem conversion, ranging from requiring that high conservation value areas be identified and preserved to requiring full protection. Finally, key barriers to, and challenges for, certification schemes are discussed and recommendations are made for further development of sustainability standards. WIREs Energy Environ 2015, 4:26-50. doi: 10.1002/wene.118 For further resources related to this article, please visit the . Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

  • 12.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Goran
    Cederberg, Christel
    How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes-A systematic review2017In: Ecological Indicators, ISSN 1470-160X, E-ISSN 1872-7034, Vol. 73, p. 492-504Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Ecosystem services (ES) is a significant research topic with diverse modelling and mapping approaches. However, the variety of approaches along with an inconsistent terminology cause uncertainties concerning the choice of methods. This paper identifies and qualitatively assesses methods for mapping ES in terrestrial landscapes, based on a systematic review of the scientific literature. It further aims to clarify the associated terminology, in particular the concept of landscape and landscape scale. In total, 347 cases of ES mapping were identified in the reviewed papers. Regulating and maintenance services were most commonly mapped (165), followed by cultural (85), and provisioning services (73). For individual ES, a large variation in number of mapping cases was found. This variation may either reflect the perceived importance of the ES, or that different ES can be more or less easily mapped. Overall, Logical models and Empirical models were most commonly used, followed by Extrapolation, Simulation/Process models, Data integration, and Direct mapping. Only twelve percent of all ES mapping cases were validated with empirical data. The review revealed highly diverging views on the spatial extent of landscapes in studies of ES, and that the term landscape is sometimes used rather arbitrarily.

  • 13.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Goran
    Fredrikson, Fredrik
    Dimitriou, Ioannis
    Meeting Sustainability Requirements for SRC Bioenergy: Usefulness of Existing Tools, Responsibilities of Involved Stakeholders, and Recommendations for Further Developments2012In: Bioenergy Research, ISSN 1939-1234, E-ISSN 1939-1242, Vol. 5, no 3, p. 606-620Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Short rotation coppice (SRC) is considered an important biomass supply option for meeting the European renewable energy targets. This paper presents an overview of existing and prospective sustainability requirements, Member State reporting obligations and parts of the methodology for calculating GHG emissions savings within the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), and shows how these RED-associated sustainability criteria may affect different stakeholders along SRC bioenergy supply chains. Existing and prospective tools are assessed on their usefulness in ensuring that SRC bioenergy is produced with sufficient consideration given to the RED-associated criteria. A sustainability framework is outlined that aims at (1) facilitating the development of SRC production systems that are attractive from the perspectives of all stakeholders, and (2) ensuring that the SRC production is RED eligible. Producer manuals, EIAs, and voluntary certification schemes can all be useful for ensuring RED eligibility. However, they are currently not sufficiently comprehensive, neither individually nor combined, and suggestions for how they can be more complementary are given. Geographical information systems offer opportunities for administrative authorities to provide stakeholders with maps or databases over areas/fields suitable for RED-eligible SRC cultivation. However, proper consideration of all relevant aspects requires that all stakeholders in the SRC supply chain become engaged in the development of SRC production systems and that a landscape perspective is used.

  • 14.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Goran
    Persson, U. Martin
    Sparovek, Gerd
    Oil palm for biodiesel in Brazil-risks and opportunities2015In: Environmental Research Letters, ISSN 1748-9326, E-ISSN 1748-9326, Vol. 10, no 4Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Although mainly used for other purposes, and historically mainly established at the expense of tropical forests, oil palm can be the most land efficient feedstock for biodiesel. Large parts of Brazil are suitable for oil palm cultivation and a series of policy initiatives have recently been launched to promote oil palm production. These initiatives are however highly debated both in the parliament and in academia. Here we present results of a high resolution modelling study of opportunities and risks associated with oil palm production for biodiesel in Brazil, under different energy, policy, and infrastructure scenarios. Oil palm was found to be profitable on extensive areas, including areas under native vegetation where establishment would cause large land use change (LUC) emissions. However, some 40-60 Mha could support profitable biodiesel production corresponding to approximately 10% of the global diesel demand, without causing direct LUC emissions or impinging on protected areas. Pricing of LUC emissions could make oil palm production unprofitable on most lands where conversion would impact on native ecosystems and carbon stocks, if the carbon price is at the level $125/tC, or higher.

  • 15.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    Biodiversity considerations in certified biomass production2011Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    One important aspect of sustainability in biomass production concerns biodiversity, which is central in ecology and natural resource management. Biodiversity has both intrinsic value and instrumental value to humans and is important for ecosystem stability and provision of the numerous ecosystem services that are essential for human survival. Studies indicate that human activities have increased the species extinction rate, primarily through (i) habitat destruction, degradation and fragmentation; (ii) invasive species; (iii) pollution, including human induced changes in climate; and (iv) over-exploitation of essential resources, including overhunting. Bioenergy expansion may influence most of the causes of increased species extinction rate. The aim of this study is to assess the biodiversity considerations in certification standards for sustainable biomass production. In total, 23 standards for forest management, agricultural management and production of bioenergy crops, were included in the assessment. A harmonization of different definitions of biodiversity was made based on considering principles of conservation biology, in order to identify aspects of biomass production of relevance for biodiversity. Based on the identified aspects, a reference standard was constructed and all included standards were compared with this reference standard as a way to establish how the different standards showed similarities and differences regarding how biodiversity was considered. Restrictions on specific ecosystems conversion were also assessed for all standards. The results showed a noticeable variation in how the certification standards consider aspects of relevance for biodiversity. There was both a variation among similar standards and between different types of standards. In general, the bioenergy crop standards had the strictest rules and restrictions in relation to biodiversity followed by the forest management standards. The agricultural management standards had more lax rules and restrictions. It is proposed that biodiversity conservation in production of sustainable biomass can be improved by further developments of the certification standards.

  • 16.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    The Role of National Legislation in Bioenergy Governance2014In: World Bioenergy 2014 Proceedings, 2014, p. 180-184Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Bioenergy supply chains pass several layers of governance, including both emerging governance mechanisms that specifically address bioenergy and existing regulations, such as environmental codes affecting forestry and agriculture. The sustainability requirements associated with the EU Renewable Energy Directive (EU-RED) is an example of how norms and sustainability priorities in one region can be expressed so as to influence activities in other regions, when actors in these other regions aim to produce for the EU market. Achieving aspirations for developing sustainable bioenergy production systems and supply and value chains requires coordination among actors and parties to ensure that all necessary governance mechanisms are in place and capable of fulfilling the appropriate standards setting, control, governance and assurance roles that are required, collectively. In this paper, the capacity of public governance to promote bioenergy production for the EU-RED market was assessed for thirteen countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Environmental legislation was assessed on how it covers the sustainability requirements included in EU-RED, as well as general sustainability aspects. The countries’ capacities to enforce legislation were assessed by combining globally applicable indexes. While some aspects (e.g., nature protection) were found to be mostly covered well in legislation, other (e.g., wetland protection, GHG emissions) where covered less well. Results indicate that enforcement of legislation can be a challenge in many countries.

  • 17.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    The Roles of Public and Private Governance in Promoting Sustainable Bioenergy2016In: The Law and Policy of Biofuels / [ed] Yves Le Bouthillier, Annette Cowie, Paul Martin and Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016, Vol. s. 30-58, p. 30-58Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Governance is the sum of formal and informal ways actors and institutions, public and private, manage common affairs. It is a continuing process through which diverging interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. Sustainability governance is concerned with promoting the positive effects of production or development processes whilst avoiding/mitigating their negative impacts, considering environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. Bioenergy supply chains involve several layers of governance, including mechanisms that specifically address bioenergy (for example bioenergy sustainability standards and certification systems) and regulation of sectors involved in bioenergy supply chains. This can involve environmental legislation, labour regulations, environmental codes, best-management agriculture/forestry practices and international trade standards. This chapter refers to three forms of governance for the promotion of the sustainable production of biomass and bioenergy: domestic public governance, domestic private governance and international private governance.

  • 18.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    Cederberg, Christel
    Börjesson, Pål
    How to Analyse Ecosystem Services in Landscapes2018Report (Other academic)
  • 19.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    Franzén, Maria A M
    Palm, Alvar
    Pestana, Maria Inês
    Legislative Readiness for RED2011Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    An analysis of the legislative readiness among exporting countries to produce biofuels in compliance with the sustainability criteria in the EU Renewable Energy Directive

  • 20.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    Johnson, Hannes
    Recent progress in developing renewable energy sources and technical evaluation of the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels in transport in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2001/77/EC and Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/30/EC2011Report (Other academic)
  • 21.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers University of Technology.
    Berndes, Göran
    Chalmers University of Technology.
    Johnsson, Hannes
    Chalmers University of Technology.
    Ostwald, Madelene
    Linköpings universitet, Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning.
    Environmental Impact Assessments: Suitable for supporting assessment of biofuel sustainability?2011Report (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
    Abstract [en]

    The European Union requires that 10% of the energy in the transport sector shall come from renewable sources by 2020. In addition, biofuels used for transport need to fulfill certain sustainability requirements set out in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). To meet these requirements, the EU will need to produce and import large amounts of sustainable biofuels. Therefore, there is a need for ways to verify the sustainability of imported biofuels, so that unsustainable biofuels can be avoided. One strategy may involve analyzing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports (EIRs) conducted for specific biofuel projects. For EIRs to be useful as such information sources they need to be sufficiently comprehensive in relation to the RED but also sufficiently reliable. In this study, 19 biofuel project EIRs are analyzed with respect to how they cover the RED sustainability considerations. In addition, EIA legislation, requirements, quality, and enforcement are discussed to determine not only whether EIRs can be sufficiently comprehensive, but also sufficiently reliable for supporting information to studies intended to assess the sustainability of biofuels, from an RED perspective. Notable differences between EIRs for different types of projects were found. EIRs for projects including both plantation establishment and the construction of a biofuel plant had better RED coverage than EIRs for projects including either the plantations or the biofuel plant. As might be expected, EIAs for “plantation projects” generally leave out features related to biofuel processing, and EIAs for “biofuel plant” projects generally leave out features related to feedstock production. In general, EIA legislation is insufficient and most target countries seem to have rather low potential to enforce legislation. Several additional EIA-related problems need to be overcome in order for EIRs to be regarded as sufficiently reliable information tools.

  • 22.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    Lundgren, Lina
    Palm, Matilda
    Engström, Linda
    Bäckman, Carol
    Marquardt, Kristina
    Stephansson, Eva
    Producing Feedstock for Biofuels: Land-Use and Local Environmental Impacts2011Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Feedstock production and conversion to biofuels can affect the local environment in many different ways. Given that biofuels presently mostly are produced from conventional food crops, impacts resemble those characterising the present day agriculture. These depend on the crops produced, the production systems employed, governance conditions, and local environmental conditions. In the main report, production system characteristics and current documented environmental impacts related to e.g. air and water quality and biodiversity – associated with the production of relevant biofuel crops are presented in each country land-use profile

  • 23.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    Persson, Martin
    Sparovek, Gerd
    Oil Palm for Biodiesel in Brazil: Potentials and Trade-offs2014In: World Bioenergy 2014 Proceedings, 2014, p. 140-148Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Oil palm is a land efficient feedstock alternative for biodiesel production and can be a very profitable alternative for farmers. In this study, a spatially explicit model is used to: (i) map and quantify areas in Brazil where oil palm establishment for biodiesel production would be profitable (positive net present value, NPV) in different future scenarios; (ii) estimate corresponding biodiesel production volumes and analyze trade-offs between such biodiesel production, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and nature conservation; and (iii) investigate whether pricing of carbon emissions from land use change might help to steer oil palm production away from lands where conversion would bring the largest impacts on biodiversity or ecosystem carbon stocks. The scenarios include oil, coal, and carbon price pathways from the IEA World Energy Outlook and both the present and prospective situations concerning road infrastructure in Brazil. It is found that palm oil production for biodiesel can be profitable (positive NPV) on very large areas; that such production can conflict with greenhouse gas emissions reduction and nature conservation objectives in many places, but also provide opportunities to meet multiple objectives. Depending on scenario, some 65-80 Mha of land could support biodiesel production corresponding to more than 10% of the global diesel demand, without causing any direct land use change emissions and without inflicting on high conservation value areas.

  • 24.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Ecotechnology and Suistainable Building Engineering. Englund GeoLab; Chalmers.
    Börjesson, Pål
    Lund University.
    Berndes, Göran
    Chalmers.
    Scarlat, Nicolae
    European Commission. Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
    Dallemand, Jean-Francois
    European Commission. Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
    Grizzetti, Bruna
    European Commission. Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
    Dimitriou, Ioannis
    SLU.
    Mola-Yudego, Blas
    SLU; University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland.
    Fahl, Fernando
    European Commission. Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
    Beneficial land use change: Strategic expansion of new biomass plantations can reduce environmental impacts from EU agriculture2019Other (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Society faces the double challenge of addressing negative impacts of current land use, while increasing biomass production to meet the future demands for food, materials and bioenergy. Potential impacts of increasing the biomass supply are subject to debate. In the discourse, land use change (LUC) has often been considered as negative, referring to impacts of deforestation and cropland expansion. At the same time, LUC is considered necessary for mitigating impacts of existing land use. Strategic establishment of suitable crop cultivation systems in agricultural landscapes can mitigate environmental impacts of current crop production, while providing biomass for the bioeconomy. Here, we explore the potential for such “beneficial LUC” in EU28, based on high-resolution land use modeling. First, we map and quantify the degree of accumulated soil organic carbon losses, wind and water erosion, nitrogen emissions to water, and recurring flooding, in ~81.000 individual sub-watersheds in EU28. We then estimate the effectiveness in mitigating these impacts through establishment of perennial plants, in each sub-watershed. Finally, we identify areas where perennialization may be particularly beneficial from an environmental point of view. The results indicate that there is a substantial potential for effective mitigation, regarding all the assessed impacts. Depending on criteria selection, some 10-46% of the land used for annual crop production in EU28 is located in landscapes that could be considered priority areas for beneficial LUC. While some recent policy development is favorable for promoting beneficial LUC, the effectiveness could be increased by seeking synergies between climate change mitigation, energy security, and other societal goals. One way forward can be to identify and promote options for biomass production in the context of SDG implementation.

  • 25.
    Englund, Oskar
    et al.
    Chalmers University, Energy and Environment.
    Sparovek, Gerd
    University of São Paulo, Soil Dep..
    Berndes, Göran
    Chalmers University, Energy and Environment.
    Freitas, Flavio L. M.
    KTH, Hållbar utveckling, miljövetenskap och teknik.
    Ometto, Jean P.
    Valle, Pedro C. E. O.
    Costa, Ciniro
    Lapola, Jean
    A new high-resolution nationwide aboveground carbon map for Brazil2017In: Geo: Geography and Environment, ISSN 2352-3808, E-ISSN 1749-8198, Vol. 4, no 2, article id e00045Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Brazil is home to the largest tracts of tropical vegetation in the world, harbouring high levels of biodiversity and carbon. Several biomass maps have been produced for Brazil, using different approaches and methods, and for different purposes. These maps have been used to estimate historic, recent, and future carbon emissions from land use change (LUC). It can be difficult to determine which map to use for what purpose. The implications of using an unsuitable map can be significant, since the maps have large differences, both in terms of total carbon storage and its spatial distribution. This paper presents comparisons of Brazil's new ‘official’ carbon map; that is, the map used in the third national communication to the UNFCCC in 2016, with the former official map, and four carbon maps from the scientific literature. General strengths and weaknesses of the different maps are identified, including their suitability for different types of studies. No carbon map was found suitable for studies concerned with existing land use/cover (LULC) and LUC outside of existing forests, partly because they do not represent the current LULC sufficiently well, and partly because they generally overestimate carbon values for agricultural land. A new map of aboveground carbon is presented, which was created based on data from existing maps and an up-to-date LULC map. This new map reflects current LULC, has high accuracy and resolution (50 m), and a national coverage. It can be a useful alternative for scientific studies and policy initiatives concerned with existing LULC and LUC outside of existing forests, especially at local scales when high resolution is necessary, and/or outside the Amazon biome. We identify five ongoing climate policy initiatives in Brazil that can benefit from using this map.

  • 26.
    Freitas, Flavio L M
    et al.
    KTH, Hållbarhet, utvärdering och styrning.
    Englund, Oskar
    Sparovek, Gerd
    Berndes, Göran
    Guidotti, Vinicius
    Mörtberg, Ulla
    KTH, Hållbar utveckling, miljövetenskap och teknik.
    Who owns the Brazilian carbon?2018In: Global Change Biology, ISSN 1354-1013, E-ISSN 1365-2486, Vol. 24, no 5, p. 2129-2142Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Brazil is one of the major contributors to land-use change emissions, mostly driven by agricultural expansion for food, feed and bioenergy feedstock. Policies to avoid deforestation related to private commitments, economic incentives, and other support schemes are expected to improve the effectiveness of current command and control mechanisms increasingly. However, until recently, land tenure was unknown for much of the Brazilian territory, which has undermined the governance of native vegetation and challenged support and incentive mechanisms for avoiding deforestation. We assess the total extent of public governance mechanisms protecting aboveground carbon (AGC) stocks. We constructed a land tenure dataset for the entire nation and modeled the effects and uncertainties of major land-use acts on protecting AGC stocks. Roughly 70% of the AGC stock in Brazil is estimated to be under legal protection, and an additional 20% is expected to be protected after areas in the Amazon with currently undesignated land undergo a tenure regularization. About 30% of the AGC stock is on private land, of which roughly two-thirds are protected. The Cerrado, Amazon and Caatinga biomes hold about 40%, 30% and 20% of the unprotected AGC, respectively. Effective conservation of protected and unprotected carbon will depend on successful implementation of the Forest Act, and regularization of land tenure in the Amazon. Policy development that prioritizes unprotected AGC stocks is warranted to promote conservation of native vegetation beyond the legal requirements. However, different biomes and land tenure structures may require different policy settings considering local and regional specifics. Finally, the fate of current AGC stocks relies upon effective implementation of command and control mechanisms, considering that unprotected AGC in native vegetation on private land only accounts for 6.5% of the total AGC stock.

  • 27.
    Freitas, Flavio L. M.
    et al.
    KTH, Hållbarhet, utvärdering och styrning.
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Sparovek, Gerd
    Berndes, Göran
    Guidotti, Vinicius
    Pinto, Luis F. G.
    Mörtberg, Ulla
    KTH, Hållbar utveckling, miljövetenskap och teknik.
    Legal protection over the Brazilian carbon stocks2018Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Brazilian native vegetation stands as one of the largest global carbon storages.  Here is also where most of the emissions related to land use change take place,  mostly driven by agricultural expansion. Policies of incentives and support to  avoid deforestation are expected to play a significant role to improve the  effectiveness of the prevailing command and control regulation and expand the  protection of carbon stocks in the native vegetation. However, the limited  available resources require wise targeting policies that maximise the outcomes  regarding carbon protection. In this study, we conducted a quantitative  assessment of the effect of command and control regulations in the protection of  above-ground carbon (AGC) stocks employing a land use policy assessment (LUPA)  model. The model enabled the construction of a land tenure dataset of national  coverage and modelled the effects of the major pieces of land use legislation in  the protection of AGC stocks. The outcomes suggest that roughly 70% of the AGC  stock in Brazil is protected and additional 20% is expected to be protected  after the tenure regularisation process of undesignated land. Private territory  sustains about 30% of the AGC stocks, half within small or medium sized private  properties which represent 98% of the Brazilian landholders and the other half  in the 2% larger properties. Roughly 20% of the AGC in private land is under  command and control protection, and the remaining 10% is unprotected. We argued  that targeting policy may prioritise the unprotected AGC stocks; however,  different biomes may require different policy settings considering the  specificity of each biome.

  • 28.
    Freitas, Flavio L M
    et al.
    KTH, Hållbarhet, utvärdering och styrning.
    Sparovek, Gerd
    Univ Sao Paulo, Soil Sci Dept, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
    Berndes, Göran
    Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Space Earth & Environm, Phys Resource Theory, Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Persson, Martin
    Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Space Earth & Environm, Phys Resource Theory, Gothenburg, Sweden.
    Englund, Oskar
    Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Ecotechnology and Suistainable Building Engineering. Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Space Earth & Environm, Phys Resource Theory, Gothenburg, Sweden .
    Baretto, Alberto
    Univ Sao Paulo, Soil Sci Dept, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
    Mörtberg, Ulla
    KTH, Hållbar utveckling, miljövetenskap och teknik.
    Potential increase of legal deforestation in Brazilian Amazon after Forest Act revision2018In: Nature Sustainability, E-ISSN 2398-9629, Vol. 1, no 11, p. 665-670Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The Brazilian Amazon rainforest is protected largely by command and control regulation of public and private land. The Brazilian Forest Act requires private landholders within the Amazon to set aside 80% of their land as legal reserves for nature protection, but this requirement can be reduced to 50% if more than 65% of a state’s territory is protected public land (for example, public conservation units and indigenous reserves). In the ongoing land designation process in Brazil, some Amazonian states may cross this 65% threshold. We assess the potential reduction in the legal reserve requirement from 80% to 50%, through spatially explicit modelling of scenarios concerning land tenure consolidation, employing up-to-date databases on land ownership. Depending on the outcome of land designation processes and political priorities, some 6.5–15.4 million hectares of private land previously protected as legal reserves may become available for legal deforestation. While protection of public land is crucial for safeguarding the Amazon, revisions of federal and state legislation may be needed to avoid the further extension of protected public land triggering increased legal deforestation on private lands. Zero-deforestation commitments and other initiatives may mitigate impacts in the absence of such revision.

  • 29. Goh, C S
    et al.
    Junginger, M
    Joudrey, J
    Chum, H
    Pelkmans, L
    Smith, C T
    Stupak, I
    Cowie, A
    Dahlman, L
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Goss Eng, A
    Goovaerts, L
    Impacts of sustainability certification on bioenergy markets and trade2013Report (Other academic)
  • 30. Goovaerts, L
    et al.
    Pelkmans, L
    Goh, C S
    Junginger, M
    Joudrey, J
    Chum, H
    Smith, C T
    Stupak, I
    Cowie, A
    Dahlman, L
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Goss Eng, A
    Examining Sustainability Certification of Bioenergy2013Report (Other academic)
  • 31. Hamelinck, Carlo
    et al.
    Koper, Michèle
    Berndes, Göran
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Diaz-Chavez, Rocio
    Kunen, Emily
    Walden, David
    Biofuels Baseline 20082012Report (Other academic)
  • 32.
    Hansson, Julia
    et al.
    IVL Swedish Environm Res Inst, Climate & Sustainable Cities, Energy, Gothenburg, Sweden.;Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Mech & Maritime Sci, Maritime Environm Sci, Gothenburg, Sweden..
    Berndes, Goran
    Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Space Earth & Environm, Phys Resource Theory, Gothenburg, Sweden..
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Space Earth & Environm, Phys Resource Theory, Gothenburg, Sweden..
    Mazzaro de Freitas, Flavio Luiz
    KTH, Hållbarhet, utvärdering och styrning.
    Sparovek, Gerd
    Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Soil Sci, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil..
    How is biodiversity protection influencing the potential for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands?2019In: Global Change Biology Bioenergy, ISSN 1757-1693, E-ISSN 1757-1707, Vol. 11, no 3, p. 517-538Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Sustainable feedstock supply is a critical issue for the bioenergy sector. One concern is that feedstock production will impact biodiversity. We analyze how this concern is addressed in assessments of biomass supply potentials and in selected governance systems in the EU and Brazil, including the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the Brazilian Forest Act. The analysis focuses on grasslands and includes estimates of the amount of grassland area (and corresponding biomass production volume) that would be excluded from cultivation in specific biodiversity protection scenarios. The reviewed assessments used a variety of approaches to identify and exclude biodiverse grasslands as unavailable for bioenergy. Because exclusion was integrated with other nature protection considerations, quantification of excluded grassland areas was often not possible. The RED complements and strengthens the CAP in terms of biodiversity protection. Following the RED, an estimated 39%-48% (about 9-11 Mha) and 15%-54% (about 10-38 Mha) of natural and non-natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse in EU-28. The estimated biomass production potential on these areas corresponds to some 1-3 and 1.5-10 EJ/year for natural and non-natural grassland, respectively (depending on area availability and management intensity). However, the RED lacks clear definitions and guidance, creating uncertainty about its influence on grassland availability for bioenergy feedstock production. For Brazil, an estimated 16%-77% (about 16-76 Mha) and 1%-32% (about 7-24 Mha) of natural and non-natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse. In Brazil, ecological-economic zoning was found potentially important for grassland protection. Further clarification of grassland definitions and delineation in regulations will facilitate a better understanding of the prospects for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands, and the impacts of bioenergy deployment on biodiversity.

  • 33. Hansson, Julia
    et al.
    Berndes, Göran
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Consideration to Highly Biodiverse Grasslands in Sustainability Certification and other Regulation: Implications for Bioenergy Supply Potentials2016Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 34.
    Henders, Sabine
    et al.
    Linköpings universitet, Tema vatten i natur och samhälle.
    Palm, Matilda
    Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
    Englund, Oskar
    Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
    Sustainability criteria for land use activities in the carbon market2011Report (Other academic)
  • 35. Pelkmans, L
    et al.
    Goovaerts, L
    Smith, C T
    Joudrey, J
    Stupak, I
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Junginger, M
    Goh, C S
    Chum, H
    Cowie, A
    Recommendations for improvement of sustainability certified markets2013Report (Other academic)
  • 36. Pelkmans, L.
    et al.
    Goovaerts, L.
    Stupak, I.
    Smith, C. T.
    Goh, C.S.
    Junginger, H. M.
    Chum, H.
    Goss Eng, A.
    Cowie, A.
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Joudrey, J.
    Dahlman, L.
    Monitoring Sustainability Certification of Bioenergy - Short Summary2013Report (Other academic)
  • 37. Pelkmans, L.
    et al.
    Goovaerts, L.
    Stupak, I.
    Smith, C.T.
    Junginger, M.
    Goh, C.S.
    Kranzl, L.
    Dahlman, L.
    Cowie, A.
    Bird, N.
    Chum, H.
    Goss Eng, A.
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Monitoring the Impact of Sustainability Certification in Relation to Biomass Use for Energy2012In: EUBCE 2012 proceedings, 2012, p. 2013-2018Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Since the public has expressed concern about unintended consequences associated with potentially unsustainable biomass production and use for energy (or biofuels), producers of biomass feedstocks in the private sector as well as governmental and non-governmental organisations have initiated many generally unlinked efforts to define 'sustainable' bioenergy production and supply chains. These 'sustainability' standards may be implemented through certification systems involving 3rd party audit, and influence production systems and trade of bioenergy products from producers to consumers of ‘green' energy. At present numerous biomass and biofuel sustainability certification systems are being developed or implemented by a variety of private and public organisations. Systems are applicable to different feedstock production sectors (forests, agricultural crops), different bioenergy products (relatively unprocessed forest residues, ethanol, biodiesel, electricity), and whole or segments of supply chains (production system, chain of custody from growers to energy consumers). It is expected that such a wide range of systems, developed largely without coordination among the organisations involved, could be problematic for all stakeholders along the supply chain in individual sectors and for those involved in deployment of bioenergy systems globally. These are individual feedstock producers, companies and commodity sectors that must comply with these systems either to maintain market access and share or to comply with legislative mandates, and also consumers who prefer to purchase certified green energy, and regulatory agencies and local to national governments that may be involved in enforcing sustainability standards. The potential for confusion among the actors, depression of markets, and unnecessary restrictions on sustainable trade seems high. Within IEA Bioenergy a strategic study was initiated between Task 40, Task 43 and Task 38 to monitor the actual implementation process of sustainability certification of bioenergy, evaluate how stakeholders are affected by certification initiatives, quantify the anticipated impact on worldwide bioenergy trade, assess the level of coordination among schemes, and make recommendations to remove barriers which may depress markets and reduce sustainable trade. Interaction with different stakeholder groups is one of the main objectives of this study, so we anticipate the recommendations being representative of the whole bioenergy certification sector and therefore having high potential to improve an otherwise uncoordinated interest in ensuring bioenergy trade is sustainable.

  • 38. Pelkmans, Luc
    et al.
    Goovaerts, L
    Goh, S C
    Junginger, M
    van Dam, J
    Stupak, I
    Smith, C T
    Chum, H
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Berndes, Göran
    Cowie, A
    Thiffault, E
    Fritsche, U
    Thrän, D
    The role of sustainability requirements in international bioenergy markets2013In: International Bioenergy Trade: History, status & outlook on securing sustainable bioenergy supply, demand and markets / [ed] Martin Junginger, Chun Sheng Goh, André Faaij, Springer, 2013, Vol. :1, s. 125-149, p. 125-149Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    As the main driver for bioenergy is to enable society to transform to more sustainable fuel and energy production systems, it is important to safeguard that bioenergy deployment happens within certain sustainability constraints. There is currently a high number of initiatives, including binding regulations and several voluntary sustainability standards for biomass, bioenergy and/or biofuels. Within IEA Bioenergy studies were performed to monitor the actual implementation process of sustainability regulations and certification, evaluate how stakeholders are affected and envisage the anticipated impact on worldwide markets and trade. On the basis of these studies, recommendations were made on how sustainability requirements could actually support further bioenergy deployment. Markets would gain from more harmonization and cross-compliance. A common language is needed as ‘sustainability’ of biomass involves different policy arenas and legal settings. Policy pathways should be clear and predictable, and future revisions of sustainability requirements should be open and transparent. Sustainability assurance systems (both through binding regulations and voluntary certification) should take into account how markets work, in relation to different biomass applications (avoiding discrimination among end-uses and users). It should also take into account the way investment decisions are taken, administrative requirements for smallholders, and the position of developing countries.

  • 39. Stupak, I
    et al.
    Joudrey, J
    Smith, C T
    Pelkmans, L
    Chum, H
    Cowie, A
    Dahlman, L
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Goh, C S
    Goss Eng, A
    Junginger, M
    Goovaerts, L
    Survey on governance and certification of sustainable biomass and bioenergy2013Report (Other academic)
  • 40. Stupak, Inge
    et al.
    Joudrey, Jamie
    Smith, C. Tattersall
    Pelkmans, Luc
    Chum, Helena
    Cowie, Annette
    Englund, Oskar
    Chalmers.
    Goh, Chun Sheng
    Junginger, Martin
    A global survey of stakeholder views and experiences for systems needed to effectively and efficiently govern sustainability of bioenergy2016In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, ISSN 2041-8396, E-ISSN 2041-840X, Vol. 5, no 1, p. 89-118Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Different governance mechanisms have emerged to ensure biomass and bioenergy sustainability amidst a myriad of related public and private regulations that have existed for decades. We conducted a global survey with 59 questions which examined 192 stakeholders’ views and experiences related to (1) the multi-leveled governance to which they are subjected, (2) the impacts of that governance on bioenergy production and trade, and (3) the most urgent areas for improvement of certification schemes. The survey revealed significant support along the whole supply chain for new legislation which uses market-based certification schemes to demonstrate compliance (co-regulation). Some respondents did not see a need for new regulation, and meta-standards is a promising approach for bridging divergent views, especially if other proof than certification will be an option. Most respondents had so far experienced positive or neutral changes to their bioenergy production or trade after the introduction of new sustainability governance. Legislative requirements and a green business profile were important motivations for getting certified, while lack of market advantages, administrative complexity and costs all were barriers of varying importance. A need to include, e.g., regular standard revision and dealing with conflicting criteria was identified by respondents associated with bioenergy schemes. Respondents associated with forestry schemes saw less need for revisions, but some were interested in supply chain sustainability criteria. Significant differences among schemes suggest it is crucial in the future to examine the tradeoffs between certification costs, schemes’ inclusiveness, the quality of their substantive and procedural rules, and the subsequent effectiveness on-the-ground. 

  • 41.
    Vogt, Melissa
    et al.
    University of New South Wales, Australia.
    Englund, Oskar
    Mid Sweden University, Faculty of Science, Technology and Media, Department of Ecotechnology and Suistainable Building Engineering. Chalmers, Gothenburg.
    Biodiversity outcomes associated with sustainability certifications: Contextualising understanding and expectations, and allowing for ambitious intentions2019In: Sustainability Certification Schemes in the Agricultural and Natural Resource Sectors: Outcomes for Society and the Environment / [ed] Melissa Vogt, Routledge, 2019, p. 65-92Chapter in book (Other academic)
1 - 41 of 41
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf