Page - 17 - in options, Volume summer 2021

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 3 December 2015 Received in revised form 30 May 2016 Accepted 7 June 2016 Available online xxx Keywords: Oil palm production Suitability map Sustainability criteria Land availability A B S T R A C T Palm oil production has boomed over the last decade, resulting in an expansion of the global oil palm planting area from 10 to 17 Million hectares between 2000 and 2012. Previous studies showed that a significant share of this expansion has come at the expense of tropical forests, notably in Indonesia and Malaysia, the current production centers. Governments of developing and emerging countries in all tropical regions increasingly promote oil palm cultivation as a major contributor to poverty alleviation, as well as food and energy independence. However, being under pressure from several non-governmental environmental organizations and consumers, the main palm oil traders have committed to sourcing sustainable palm oil. Against this backdrop we assess the area of suitable land and what are the limits to future oil palm expansion when several constraints are considered. We find that suitability is mainly determined by climatic conditions resulting in 1.37 billion hectares of suitable land for oil palm cultivation concentrated in twelve tropical countries. However, we estimate that half of the biophysically suitable area is already allocated to other uses, including protected areas which cover 30% of oil palm suitable area. Our results also highlight that the non-conversion of high carbon stock forest (>100 t AGB/ ha) would be the most constraining factor for future oil palm expansion as it would exclude two-thirds of global oil palm suitable area. Combining eight criteria which might restrict future land availability for oil palm expansion, we find that 234 million hectares or 17% of worldwide suitable area are left. This might seem that the limits for oil palm expansion are far from being reached but one needs to take into account that some of this area might be hardly accessible currently with only 18% of this remaining area being under 2 h transportation to the closest city and that growing demand for other agricultural commodities which might also compete for this land has not been yet taken into account. ª 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 1. Introduction Palm oil production has boomed over the last decades driven by increasing use as frying oil, as an ingredient in processed food and non-edible products (detergents and cosmetics), and more recently in biodiesel production (Thoenes, 2006). Most observers expect this trend to continue in the coming years, even though probably at a slower pace than the last decade (OECD and FAO, 2013). The share of palm oil in global vegetable oil production has more than doubled over the last twenty years, today representing more than 30%, outstripping soya oil production (OECD and FAO, 2013). Reasons for this strong expansion include the substantially higher oil yield of palm oil compared to other oilseeds over four and seven times greater than rapeseed and soy, respectively (Product Board MVO, 2010) and its lower price, which has made it the primary cooking oil for the majority of people in Asia, Africa and the Middle East (Carter et al., 2007; USDA-FAS, 2011). Schmidt and Weidema (2008) estimate that palm oil is today the marginal oil” , i.e. future increases in demand for vegetable oils will be primarily satisfied by palm oil rather than by other vegetable oils. This resulted in an expansion of the global oil palm planting area from 6 to 16 Million hectares between 1990 and 2010, an area which now accounts for about 10 percent of the world s permanent cropland. Malaysia and Indonesia have been the epicenter of this dynamic development: in these two countries planted area has increased by 150% and 40%, respectively, over the last decade, and together they currently represent over 80% of the global palm oil production (FAO, 2016). As global demand increases and available land becomes increasingly scarce in the traditional production centers (Kongsager and Reenberg, 2012; USDA-FAS, 2011), govern- ments of developing and emerging countries such as Brazil, Peru and Central and Western Africa increasingly promote oil palm cultivation as a major contributor to poverty alleviation, and food and energy independence (Carrere, 2010; Feintrenie, 2014; Gutiérrez-Vélez and DeFries, 2013; Pacheco, 2012; Villela et al., 2014). * Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: pirker@iiasa.ac.at (J. Pirker), mosnier@iiasa.ac.at (A. Mosnier). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.007 0959-3780/ª 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). www.iiasa.ac.at/web/scientificUpdate/2014/program/esm/Tropical-Futures-Initiative.html www.geo-wiki.org www.iiasa.ac.at/bewhere www.iiasa.ac.at/g4m http://www.cger.nies.go.jp/gcp/magnet.html Negative emissions - interactions with other mitigation options : a bottom-up methodology for Indonesia Abstract BECCS (here the combination of forest -based bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) is seen as a promising tool to deliver la rge quantities of negative emissions needed to comply with ambitious climate stabilization targets. However, a land -based mitigation option such as large -scale bioenergy production (w/o CCS) might interfere with other land -based mitigation options popular for their large co- benefits such as reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+). We develop a systems approach to identify and quantify possible tradeoffs between REDD+ and BECCS with t he help of remote sensing and engineering modeling and apply this for illustration to Indonesia. First results indicate that prioritizing REDD+ does imply that there the BECCS potential remains limited. Further research is needed to take into account opportunities where the two options could be deplo yed synergetically , e.g. capitalizing on co -benefits. Definitely, BECCS and REDD+ have to be evaluated from a portfolio perspective, as estimating their potentials independently will not take such opportunities into account. Florian Kraxner*,1, Sylvain Leduc1, Ping Yowargana1, Dmitry Schepaschenko1, Sabine Fuss2, Petr Havlik1, Aline Mosnier1 1 Ecosystems Services and Management Program (ESM), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria 2 Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Resources and International Trade, Berlin, Germany July 2015 * Contact Figure 1:Carbon dioxide emission pathways until 2100 (Fuss et al. 2014 [3]). Background For complying with ambitious climate targets, land-based mitigation, i.e. through agriculture, forestry, and fossil fuel substitution by bioenergy, is an indispensable and significant part of the portfolio of mitigation strategies [1]. In addition, many scenarios and models featured in the IPCC’ s recent Assessment Repor t (AR5, [2]) rely on a substantial contribution of negative emissions to stabilize GHG concentration at levels consistent with 2°C above pre -industrial levels (see Figure 1 [3]). Model projections for 21st century’ s energy portfolio indicate a major contribution from the bioenergy sector, i.e. 200-300 EJ, in 2100 [4], often in combination with CCS (BECCS [4-6]). One major concern is that high feedstock potentials are supposed to be located in the tropics, which is where at the same time forests are most vulnerable to deforestation [7,8]. Furthermore, the deployment of large-scale bioenergy production (w/o) CCS might also have crucial impact on green growth in developing countries where energy supply is still projected to strongly increase [9]. Yet, many uncertainties remain with respect to BECCS [3]. Inter-alia, the immense amount of bioenergy would need to be generated from sustainably managed agriculture and forests in order to avoid additional deforestation. Clearly, an interference of BECCS needs with options that are popular for their large co-benefits such as reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+ [10]) has to be avoided. Moreover, downstream considerations, e.g. distribution and types of energy demand, are also important to ensure economic competitiveness with fossil fuel, particularly with limited presence of carbon price. At the end of the pipe, geological storage consideration and with it geographical optimization is important in ensuring negative emission results as well as economic feasibility of the BECCS technology. Figure 4:BeWhere optimized green-field bioenergy plant locations and capacities combined with geological suitability for in-situ CCS (BECCS) [19,20]. Indonesia as case study Calculations for global potentials of bioenergy or negative emissions demand, which focus on the system interactions at an aggregate level, typically cannot shed much light on the situation on the ground. Thus, local- level analyses need to be carried out as shown by [11]. Indonesia is chosen as a case study due to its ambitious green growth target of 5-7% economic growth while at the same time reducing 26-41% GHG emissions from the BAU scenario [12]. A high rate of deforestation and monoculture- plantations with oil palm have been shadowing the country’ s rapid economic growth during the past decades. Moreover, recent policies show ambitious aspirations for further economic growth that is still highly dependent on Figure 2: Left, www.geo-wiki.org, visualization and validation platform for biomass datasets. Right, disagreement map for biomass estimates between WHRC and NASA datasets for Indonesia [14,15]. Figure 3: REDD map for Indonesia. 1, Biomass potential outside conservation and protected forest areas. 2, Biomass potential within conservation and protected forest areas which may be inaccessible under REDD+ policies [18]. Methodology For the analysis of BECCS potentials, the entire process chain needs to be assessed, starting from identifying the biomass potential and availability, particularly considering conventional” mitigation policies such as REDD+ (see Figure 3). The geographically explicit biomass availability is assessed using Geo-Wiki [15], a crowdsourcing validation platform, and G4M [16], a global forest management model, to complement satellite imagery-based biomass datasets. In a first step, taking into account that avoided deforestation carries other than carbon benefits which are difficult to quantify and monetize (e.g. the conservation of certain ecosystems services), areas with high carbon stocks, e.g. protected and conserved forest areas [17] are excluded from the calculation. Under the assumed REDD+ policy, such areas are not being utilized for BECCS-feedstock production to ensure maximum amounts of negative emissions (REDD+BECCS, also for other considerations on various ecosystem services) [18]. The calibrated biomass potential is then linked with the techno-engineering renewable energy systems optimization model BeWhere [18,19] to optimize demand, supply, and transport for sustainable feedstock and bioenergy generation with in-situ CCS in Indonesia. Moreover, BeWhere also estimates the entire supply chain emissions for the BECCS system and superimposes a map of the geological suitability for CO2 storage ([20] see Figure 4). Note that we focus on woody biomass only to model the potential of sustainably managed forest in order to exclude biomass potentially sourced from disputed land resources with risk of recent (plantations) or future deforestation (REDD+ area). Literature [1] Rose S, AhammadH, EickhoutB, Fisher B, Kurosawa A, Rao S, RiahiK, Van VuurenDP (2011) Land-based mitigation in climate stabilization. EnergyEconomics. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.06.004; [2] IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.; [3] Fuss, S., Canadell, J.G., Peters, G.P., et al. (2014) Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 850 853, doi:10.1038/nclimate2392 .; [4] Azar,C. Lindgren,K. Obersteiner,M. Riahi,K. van Vuuren,D.P. den Elzen,K.M.G. Moellersten,K. Larson,E.D. (2010). The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Climatic Change, 100(1):195-202 (May 2010); [5] Obersteiner, M., Azar, C., Kauppi, P., et al. (2001) Managing climate risk. Science, 294 (5543), 786– 787 .; [6] Kraxner, F., Nilsson, S., and Obersteiner, M. (2003) Negative emissions from BioEnergyuse, carbon capture and sequestration (BECS) the case of biomass production by sustainable forest management from semi-natural temperate forests. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24, 285 296 .; [7] Kraxner, F., Nordstrom, E.-M., Havlik, P., et al. (2013) Global bioenergy scenarios future forest development, land-use implications, and trade-offs. Biomass and Bioenergy, 57, 86 96 .; [8] Rokityanskiy, D., Benitez, P.C., Kraxner, F., et al. (2007) Geographically explicit global modeling of land-use change, carbon sequestration, and biomass supply. Technological Forecasting & Social Change (Special Issue: Greenhouse Gases Integrated Assessment), 74 (7), 1057 1082 .; [9] Kraxner F., Fuss S., KreyV., Best D., Leduc S., Kindermann G., Yamagata Y., Schepaschenko D., ShvidenkoA., Aoki K., Yan J. The role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) for climate policy. V. 3. P. 1466-1483. In: Yan J (Ed) 2015, The Handbook of Clean Energy Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; [10] Obersteiner, M., Huettner, M., Kraxner, F., et al. (2009) On fair, effective and efficient REDD mechanism design. Carbon Balance and Management, 4, 11.; [11] Kraxner, F., Aoki, K., Leduc, S., et al. (2012a) BECCS in South Korea analyzing the negative emissions potential of bioenergy as a mitigation tool. Renewable Energy, 61, 102 108.; [12] Masterplan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development 2011 2025, Jakarta, Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs (2011), 208p, ISBN 978-979-3754-14-7; [13] Fritz S, See L, van der Velde M, NalepaR, PergerC, Schill C, McCallumI, SchepaschenkoD, KraxnerF, et al. (2012). Downgrading Recent Estimates of Land Available for Biofuel Production. Environ. Sci. Technol. dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303141h; [14] Schepaschenko D, See L, LesivM, McCallum I, Fritz S, Salk C, PergerC, ShvidenkoA, Albrecht F, Kraxner F, DuerauerM, Obersteiner M (2015) Development of a global hybrid forest mask through the synergy of remote sensing, crowdsourcing and FAOstatistics. Remote Sensing of Environment, 162:208-220 (June 2015) ; [15] Fritz S, McCallumI, Schill C, PergerC, See L, SchepaschenkoD, van der Velde M, KraxnerF, Obersteiner M (2012). Geo-Wiki: An online platform for improving global land cover. Environmental Modelling & Software 31 (2012), pages 110-123;. [16] Kindermann, G., Obersteiner, M., Sohngen, B., et al. (2008) Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. PNAS, 105 (30), 10302 10307 .; [17] IUCN and UNEP-WCMC (2015), The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) [On-line], [07/2015], Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Available at:www.protectedplanet.net; [18] KalkulasiPenutupanLahan Indonesia tahum2013, Jakarta, Ministry of Forestry (2014). Available at: http://webgis.dephut.go.id:8080/kemenhut/index.php/id/fitur/unduhan; [19] Leduc, S., Schmid, E., Obersteiner, M., and Riahi, K. (2009) Methanol production by gasification using a geographically explicit model. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33 (5), 745 751.; [20] Leduc S., Kindermann G., Forsell N., Kraxner F. (2015) Bioenergy potential from forest biomass. Vol. 1. P. 35-48. In: Yan J (Ed) 2015, The Handbook of Clean Energy Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; [21] Bradshaw, J.B. and Dance, T. (2004) Mapping geological storage prospectivityof CO2 for the world sedimentary basins and regional source to sink matching. GHGT-7, 5 9 September 2004, Vancouver, Canada, v.I, 583– 592. Results and conclusions The calculated REDD+ area amounts to 41.6 million ha of undisturbed forest. The remainder of 46.7 million ha is partially available for sustainably managed forestry to supply feedstock to the BECCS system. The modeling results from this very conservative approach (low plant capacities, highest feedstock sustainability, very limited area to source the feedstock etc.) present the optimal location of bioenergy production plants by capacity (see Figure 4). The total capacity would be equivalent to 1,200 MWbio. It is assumed that only 20% of the increment from managed forest can be used for bioenergy purposes. Considering 80% capture efficiency, 2.5 MtCO2 can be captured and stored on site, which corresponds to 12.5 million US$ of carbon benefit (from negative emissions and substitution effects) for a CO2 price of 5US$. Thus, prioritizing REDD+ indeed leaves only relatively small potentials for BECCS., On the other hand for a full comparison not only the emissions saved need to be compared, but also the co-benefits (e.g. ecosystems services protection through corridor function for species migration) need to be taken into account. While it is straightforward to calculate and price the co-benefit of BECCS in terms of energy produced, limited data availability has prevented us from also comparing the worth of preserved or enhanced ecosystems services in this first analysis. Thus, being far from a complete analysis, the application to Indonesia still demonstrates very convincingly that BECCS and REDD+ have to be evaluated from a portfolio perspective, as estimating their potentials independently will not take such opportunities into account. The presented methodology can furthermore be applied at the global scale to verify the on the ground” feasibility of 2°C scenarios featuring BECCS. Future studies should factor in investment barriers and the techno-economic feasibility (i.e. achieving sufficient economies of scale over short time horizons) of BECCS applications within the existing and planned energy system. There is thus a need for further adaptation involving e.g. co-firing schemes, and the use of different feedstock types. In the context of Indonesia, this would mean assessing co-firing options from existing and planned coal-fired thermal power plants with existing biomass resources such as waste and residues. Florian Kraxner, Deputy Director Ecosystems Services and Management Program (ESM) International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) E-Mail: kraxner@iiasa.ac.at Web: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/ESM Thus, based on a simplified multi-scale bottom-up modeling approach, this study aims to introduce the first steps to developing a systems approach to identify and quantify possible tradeoffs (i.e. land use-based mitigation options competing for the same land) and synergies (i.e. both options provide incentives to keep an intact and sustainably managed forest) between REDD+ and BECCS. land and natural resources as well as fossil energy. The country is still in the process of unfolding on-the-ground complexity in managing land and forest areas, while large-scale investments in REDD+ are being undertaken by the international community (e.g. by Norway, US, ADB). Adding BECCS to the mitigation portfolio would add to this complexity being subject to uncertainty about the actual land use situation, tenure rights, and governance, that results in high uncertainty of biomass availability [13] and sustainability of these resources (see Figure 2 [14]). energies Article Opportunities toOptimize thePalmOilSupply Chain inSumatra, Indonesia FumiHarahap 1,2,* ,SylvainLeduc 2,SennaiMesfun 2 ,DilipKhatiwada 1 ,FlorianKraxner 2 andSemidaSilveira 1 1 EnergyandClimateStudiesUnit,DepartmentofEnergyTechnology,KTHRoyal InstituteofTechnology, SE-10044Stockholm,Sweden;dilip.khatiwada@energy.kth.se (D.K.); semida.silveira@energy.kth.se (S.S.) 2 International Institute forAppliedSystemsAnalysis (IIASA),A-2361Laxenburg,Austria; leduc@iiasa.ac.at (S.L.);mesfun@iiasa.ac.at (S.M.);kraxner@iiasa.ac.at (F.K.) * Correspondence: harahap@kth.se;Tel.:+46-8-790-74-31 Received: 17December2018;Accepted: 25January2019;Published: 29January2019 Abstract: Signi cantamountsofbiomass residuesweregenerated in Indonesia. Whileuntreated, residuesemitgreenhousegasesduring thedecompositionprocess. Ontheotherhand, ifef ciently utilized, these residues could be used to produce value-added products. This study investigates opportunities forharnessing the fullpotentialofpalmoil residues(i.e.,empty fruitbunches,kernel shells, ber, andmill ef uent). As farasweareaware, thestudy is the rst attempt tomodel the palmoil supplychain inageographicallyexplicitwaywhileconsidering regional infrastructures inSumatra Island, Indonesia. TheBeWheremodel,amixed integer linearprogrammingmodel for energy system optimization, was used to assess the costs and bene ts of optimizing the regional palmoil supplychain. Differentscenarioswere investigated,consideringcurrentpoliciesandnew practicesleadingto improvedyields insmall-scaleplantationsandpowergridconnectivity. Thestudy shows thatamoreef cientpalmoil supplychaincanpave theway for thecountry tomeetup to 50%of itsnationalbioenergy targetsby2025,andemission reductionsofup to40MtCO2eq/year. Asmuchas50%of theelectricitydemand inSumatracouldbemet if residuesareef cientlyused andgrid connectionsare available. We recommend that system improvements bedone in stages. In theshort tomediumterm, improving thesmallholderplantationyield is themostoptimalway to maximizeregionaleconomicgainsfromthepalmoil industry. In themediumtolongterm, improving electricitygridconnection topalmoilmillscouldbringhighereconomicvalueasexcesselectricity iscommercialized. Keywords: oil palm; palm oil mills; palm oil residues; value-added products; supply chains optimization;spatialanalysis; techno-economicanalysis 1. Introduction Oil palm is the largest biomass source in Indonesia. The country housed 11 million hectares (Mha)ofoilpalmplantationsandproduced31million tons(Mt)ofcrudepalmoil (CPO) in2015[ 1]. Oil extraction from palm fruits occurs in palm oil mills. One ton (t) of CPO production results in nearly 5 t of solid biomass waste, including empty fruit bunches (EFB), palm kernel shells (PKS), palm mesocarp bers (PMF), and palm oil mill ef uent (POME), see Figure 1. This implies that, in2015, Indonesiaproducedaround155Mtofpalmbiomassresidue. Theseresiduesare thesource of signi cant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to biomass decomposition and, at the same time, result in lostopportunities in termsofeconomicgains frombio-basedproducts (e.g., fuel for steamboilers,organic fertilizer,or furtherprocessed intovalue-addedproducts,suchasbriquettes and‘ pellets) [2,3]. Energies2019,12,420;doi:10.3390/en12030420 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Contents lists available atScienceDirect Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol Shifting patterns of oil palm driven deforestation in Indonesia and implications for zero-deforestation commitments K.G. Austina, , A. Mosnierb, J. Pirkerb, I. McCallumb, S. Fritzb, P.S. Kasibhatlaa a Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA b International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Palm oil Agriculture Deforestation Voluntary sustainability commitments Zero-deforestation A B S T R A C T Oil palm plantations in Indonesia have been linked to substantial deforestation in the 1990s and 2000s, though recent studies suggest that new plantations are increasingly developed on non-forest land. Without nationwide data to establish recent baseline trends, the impact of commitments to eliminate deforestation from palm oil supply chains could therefore be overestimated. We examine the area and proportion of plantations replacing forests across Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Papua up to 2015, and map biophysically suitable areas for future deforestation-freeexpansion.Wecreatednewmapsofoilpalmplantations for theyears1995,2000,2005,2010 and2015,andexamined landcover replaced ineachperiod.Nationwide,oilpalmplantationexpansionoccurred at an average rate of 450,000hayr 1, and resulted in an average of 117,000hayr 1 of deforestation, during 1995 2015. Our analysis of the most recent ve-year period (2010 2015) shows that the rate of deforestation due to new plantations has remained relatively stable since 2005, despite large increases in the extent of plantations. As a result, the proportion of plantations replacing forests decreased from 54% during 1995 2000, to18%during2010 2015. Inaddition,weestimate thereare30.2millionhectaresofnon-forest landnationwide which meet biophysical suitability criteria for oil palm cultivation. Our ndings suggest that recent zero-de- forestation commitments may not have a large impact on deforestation in Sumatra, where plantations have increasinglyexpandedontonon-forest landover thepast twentyyears,andwhichhosts largepotentiallysuitable areas for future deforestation-free expansion. On the other hand, these pledges could have more in uence in Kalimantan,whereoilpalmdrivendeforestation increasedoverourstudyperiod,and inPapua,anewfrontierof expansion with substantial remaining forest cover. 1. Introduction Oil palm production has been under scrutiny over the past decade, due to concerns that the economic bene ts of rapid plantation expan- sionareoutweighedbythesocialandenvironmentalcosts. In Indonesia andMalaysia, where87%ofglobal palmoil isproduced (USDA,2014), plantations nearly quadrupled in extent between 1990 and 2010, from 3.5 to 12.9 million hectares (Mha) ( Gunarso et al., 2013). This rapid expansion resulted in negative environmental impacts including forest loss, peatland destruction, and biodiversity degradation (Koh et al., 2011). In recognition of these consequences, dozens of multi-national retailers, consumer goods companies, and producers of palm oil made pledges to eliminate deforestation from their palm oil supply chains (United Nations, 2014). By 2015, more than 96% of internationally traded palm oil was controlled by companies with a commitment to zero-deforestation palm oil sourcing (Butler, 2015), though less than half of these companies have time bound plans to achieve compliance (Climate Focus, 2016). Much of the research investigating deforestation due to oil palm expansion in Indonesia focused on impacts in the 1990s and 2000s. Thesestudies report that52%– 79%ofplantationsnationwide ( Gunarso et al., 2013; Koh and Wilcove, 2008), and 89% 90% of plantations in Kalimantan (Carlson et al., 2013), replaced forests. However, recent research suggests that the proportion of oil palm plantations driving deforestation may be declining. For example, Gaveau et al. report that more than half of oil palm plantations in Kalimantan replaced forest prior to 1990, but that approximately one-third replaced forests after 2000 (Gaveau etal., 2016).Vijay etal. also report an overall decline in the proportion of plantations driving deforestation across the tropics, and nationally in Indonesia, from 1984 to 2013 ( Vijay et al., 2016). Thus, using trends from the 1990s and early 2000s to establish a baseline could result in an overestimation of the impacts of zero-de- forestation pledges. This study extends the scope of previous research by estimating oil http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.036 Received 10 February 2017; Received in revised form 28 August 2017; Accepted 28 August 2017 Corresponding author. E-mail address:kemen.austin@duke.edu(K.G. Austin). / D Q G 8 V H 3 R O L F \ † 7 K H $ X W K R U V 3 X E O L V K H G E \ ( O V H Y L H U / W G 7 K L V L V D Q R S H Q D F F H V V D U W L F O H X Q G H U W K H & & % < 1 & 1 ’ O L F H Q V H K W W S F U H D W L Y H F R P P R Q V R U J O L F H Q V H V % < 1 & 1 ’ International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria Tel: +43 2236 807 342 Fax: +43 2236 71313 E-mail: publications@iiasa.ac.at Web: www.iiasa.ac.at Interim Reports on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis receive only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute, its National Member Organizations, or other organizations supporting the work. Interim Report IR-03-015 A Comparative Analysis of the Accuracy of the United Nationsʼ Population Projections for Six Southeast Asian Countries H.T. Abdullah Khan (A.Khan@napier.ac.uk) Approved by Wolfgang Lutz (lutz@iiasa.ac.at) Leader, Population Project April 7, 2003 Bio-energy and carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in low -emission scenarios An increasingly active debate in the scientific community revolves around the possibility that using bio-energy in combination with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) could put CO2 emissions into negative territory. In the face of increasing pressures to reach and maintain low levels of stabilization, BECCS actually turns out to be a substantial ingredient in any low emission mitigation portfolio . However, many obstacles and uncertainties remain both in the techno -economic and biophysical dimension and in terms of public perception and incentivization . In this joint IEA-IIASA research, we zoom into both opportunities and difficultiesof BECCSand offer insights for certain key countries such as Indonesia . Sabine Fuss1,*, Florian Kraxner1, Wolf Heidug2, Dennis Best2 Background BECCSexperts workshop at IIASAin November 2011: Factors perceived as main obstacles to a large-scale diffusion of BECCS named by the experts: (1)Biomassavailability (regional vs. central) (2)Amounts (3)Costs of bothcapture andstorage (4)Availabilityof storage capacity (5)Accountancy issues GHG calculations (6)Lackof awareness of policy-makers Policiessuggested to overcome these obstacles: BECCS Challenges & Opportunities Create price advantage for non -food competing biomass o Decrease fossil fuel subsidies while supporting subsidies for sustainable bioenergy production on marginal land o Reducing barriers to a global biomass market Support for demonstration projects o Subsidies and other incentive mechanisms o Stimulate capacity building, facilitating demo’ s (removing bureaucrat hurdles, tax incentives, etc.) o Risk guarantees Full scale commercial projects o Promote carbon market o Portfolio standardsand clarifying (% BECCS) o Enhance international cooperation Explore international funding mechanisms o CDM o NAMAS o REDD+ Storage capacity: IEA harmonization of assessment requirements and methodologies Accountancy issues: standardize international GHG mechanisms Sustainability reporting should be mandatory Bridging the science -policy gap through stakeholder engagement Indonesia has seen a large expansion in biofuel production over recent years (IEA, 2011). It also features two more characteristics, which makes it attractive for BECCS. Indonesia has large offshore sequestration sites . Government studies examine the role of CCS in EOR and EGR activities (Lemigas, UK, Shell 2008) in conjunction with significant industrial bioenergyplantations. Based on current policy Indonesia’ s energy mix is largely reliant on oil (43%), coal (34.5%) and gas (18.5%) with less than 5% in non-fossil energy. With an annual growth of energy consumption of 7%, and more than 30% of households still to be electrified amid limited national resources, bioenergy may play a significant role in Indonesia’ s carbon mitigation scheme and energy security, as the government aims to reduce Indonesia’sdependence on fossil fuels . Preliminary results (see map below) delineate the technical potential for BECCS Indonesia. However, at the 2012 BECCS workshop in Jakarta co-organized with the Republic of Indonesia’ s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (KESDM), the President’ s Delivery Unit for Monitoring and Oversight (UKP4), the School of Business & Management at Bandung Institute of Technology (SBMITB), IEA and IIASA, the need for integrated analysis with focus on socio-economic and ecological co-benefits such as rural development and implications for conservation of biodiversity came strongly forward. Further research will also explore synergies with efforts to reduce deforestation and support for sustainable forest management . Case Study: BECCS in Indonesia 1Ecosystems Services and Management Program (ESM), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria 2International Energy Agency (IEA) *Corresponding author: Tel: +43 2236 807 550, Fax: +43 2236 807 299, E-mail: fuss@iiasa.ac.at Research Questions What are the main challenges for BECCS adoption and what are the opportunities? How can we provide incentives for BECCS? Can we offer insights into BECCS potentials in specific countries such as Indonesia? Acombination of bio-energy technologies together with CCS could therefore decrease costs and increase attainability of low stabilization levels, producing a negative emissions” situation and thus achieving a double dividend: CO2 fixation by photosynthesis (i.e. bio-energy under certain criteria, is considered to be carbon neutral) plus capture and storage of CO2 from biomass combustion (negative emissions). To quote the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), BECCS is a potential rapid-response prevention strategy for abrupt climate change. The BECCS concept revolves around using biomass to produce bio-energy, then capturing and diverting the CO2 produced during combustion/processing into a long-term geological storage facility. Injection of CO2 in suitable geological reservoirs, which could lead to permanent storage of CO2, is the most mature of a variety of storage methods including both onshore and offshore, or conversion into solid materials through mineralization, biomass cultivation among other processes. Anumber of pilot capture and storage projects are already inoperation e.g. in Canada, the USand Scandinavia. What is BECCS BECCS as a mitigation tool: open issues Overshooting Climate science assumptions Timing issues Lifecycle emissions across the supply chain Incentive mechanisms Funding and costs Impact on health, the environment & public acceptance The role of BECCS in different technology contexts: a portfolio view Economic considerations: Enhanced Oil Recovery? Abatement alternatives? Adapted from Azar C., K. Lindgren, M. Obersteiner, K. Riahi, D.P. Vuuren, K.M.G.J. Elzen, K. Möllersten , and E.D. Larson, “The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS),” Climatic Change, vol. 100, 2010, pp. 195-202. Preliminary BECCS in-situ estimates by IIASA’ s BeWheremodel (http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/modelsData/Bewhere/BEWHERE1.en.html). Sequestration Feedstock Capture r r t r t r '  ¶ ' “ ¶ “ ' “ › › „ „ 'š › “ › ' › “ 'ž ˆ › “ participants of the Young Scientists Summer Program since 2011 research partners publications with research partners in Indonesia, about Indonesia, or by Indonesian IIASA researchers 7 12 66 Areas of research collaboration ¡ ⁄ ¢ Ecosystem restoration Negative emissions Land use sustainability Low carbon transition Disasters: wildfires and floods INTERNATIONAL MODELING COLLABORATIONS CENTERED ON INDONESIA › « µ‰’ °fl ` ¶ ‡‰’ «fl › › › “ ›