The 25th AIM International Workshop
18‐19 November 2019

Global Advanced Bioenergy Potential under
Environmental Protection Targets
Wenchao Wu1, Tomoko Hasegawa2, Haruka Ohashi3, Naota
Hanasaki1, Jingyu Liu4, Tetsuya Matsui3, Shinichiro Fujimori5,
Toshihiko Masui1, Kiyoshi Takahashi1
1. National Institute for Environmental Studies
2. Ritsumeikan University
3. Forest Research and Management Organization
4. Shanghai Jiao Tong University
5. Kyoto University

Asia-Pacific Integrated Model
http://www-iam.nies.go.jp/aim/index.html

0Background
Bioenergy and climate mitigation:• Stringent climate targets difficult to achieve without negativeemissions (Rogelj et al., 2018).
• Bioenergy (dedicated energy crops with CCS) is one of the most
discussed negative emission options (Willianmson, 2016).
• IPCC 1.5‐degree SR: medium amount of 152 EJ/yr (40‐312 EJ/yr).
Environmental concern:• Plantation of large‐scale bioenergy crops puts pressure toterrestrial system (van Vuuren et al., 2013), such as soil quality
and biodiversity.
• Currently, more than 75% of the land on Earth is substantiallydegraded (IPBES, 2018). Intensive farming worsen the situation.
• Expansion of cultivated land area also threats biodiversity,segmentation and loss of habitat (Immerzeel et al., 2014).
1

Research objectives
Questions:• How much bioenergy can we produce without causing
further land degradation and biodiversity loss?
• What can we do to increase bioenergy potential to supply
the amount required for mitigation while protecting theenvironment?
In specific:• Technical and economic potential of dedicated bio‐crop.
• Geographic distribution of bioenergy potential.
* Technical potential: total quantity without considering production costs;* Economic potential: production quantity under certain production costs;* Production cost: input costs and land transition costs.
2

Environmental protection policies
Soil protection:• Moderate: severely degraded land (GLADIS)• Enhance: series degraded land (GLADIS)Biodiversity protection:• Moderate: protected area (WDPA & KBA);• Enhanced: protected area + biodiversity sensitive area(index > 0.9 by AIM/Biodiversity).
Implementation:
In soil protection, degraded land was excluded for annualcrops and allocated to bioenergy crops only.
In biodiversity protection implementation, areas wereexcluded both for annual and bioenergy crops.
3Areas protected(a) Protected area(b) Biodiversity sensitive areas(c) Severely degraded land(d) Seriously degraded land

Source: Wu et al. (2019)

Figure. Maps for environmental protection policies
4Dedicated bioenergy crops• Miscanthus & switchgrass; high yield in biomass

Source: Wu et al. (2019)

Figure. Bioenergy crop potential yield from the H08 model (tonne/ha/yr)
5Societal transformation measures
Demand side policy:• Sustainable diet: towards more plant‐based foods.
Supply side policy:• Advanced technology: assuming high irrigation growthrates;• Trade openness for food: increase freeness of trade.

6

Scenarios for simulation
Table. Scenario setting
Scenario name(1) No policy(2) Moderate biodiversity protection(3) Enhanced biodiversity protection(7) Demand‐side policy(8) Supply‐side policy

Environmental protection policy
WDPA (Ia, Ib, II, III)
WDPA (all) &KBA
WDPA (all) &KBA; biodiversity
sensitive area
Severely degraded land
Seriously degraded land
Enhanced biodiversityprotection; enhanced soilprotection
Full environmental policy
Full environmental policy(9) Demand‐ and supply‐side policy

Full environmental policy(4) Moderate soil protection(5) Enhanced soil protection(6) Full environmental policy

Societal transformation measure
×××××

Sustainable diet
Advanced technology; trade
openness for foodSustainable diet; advancedtechnology; trade openness forfood7

Full environmental policy map

Source: Wu et al. (2019)

Figure. Full environmental policy map (scenarios 6 – 9)8

Research framework(SSP2)

Source: Wu et al. (2019)

Figure. Integrated assessment framework for estimating bioenergy potential• AIM/PLUM: Asian‐Pacific Integrated Model/Platform for Land‐Use and Environmental
Model. Global land use allocation model with spatial resolution of 0.5‐degree (Hasegawaet al., 2017).
9Results: Global technical potential

Source: Wu et al. (2019)

Figure. Global bioenergy potential in 2050 under each scenario• Full environmental policy reduces global technical potential to 149 EJ.
• Larger impact of biodiversity protection: wider coverage and stronger
implementation.
• Societal transformation measure (combining demand‐ and supply‐sidepolicy) could increase technical potential to 186 EJ.
10Results: Regional technical potential

Source: Wu et al. (2019)

Figure. Bioenergy potential map in 2050 underdemand‐ and supply‐side policy scenario
Source: Wu et al. (2019)

Figure. Regional bioenergy potential in 2050 under each scenario• South America and sub‐Saharan Africa are themain production regions.
• High yield in biomass.
11

Results: economic potential

Source: Wu et al. (2019)

Figure. Bioenergy supply curve• Economic potential also reduces under environmental protection policies.
• Demand and supply‐side measures could increase economic potential.
• US$5/GJ: Baseline scenario ‐ 192 EJ/year; full policy scenario ‐ 110 EJ/year;
Societal transformation measures: 143 EJ/year.
12Conclusion and implication (1)Technical potential and policies:• Global technical bioenergy potential is reduced underenvironmental protection policy (from 245 EJ to 149 EJ).
• Demand‐ and supply‐side policy could compensate somepotential loss and increase the technical potential to 186 EJ.
Economic feasibility of bioenergy:• We could provide an economic potential of 143 EJ/yr at
US$5/GJ with the efforts from societal transformation
measures. Slightly lower than the median amount for 1.5°
• Economically feasible potential depends on carbon priceand energy price (facing uncertainties).
13

Conclusion and implication (2)• IPCC SR on Climate Change and Land:
Interlinkages between Land Degradation,
Biodiversity loss, and climate mitigation.
• To achieve these multiple sustainable targets, important tocombine with societal transformation policies.
• Relying heavily on bioenergy might cause trade‐off withenvironment protection. We should keep exploring mitigation
pathways that are compatible with terrestrial system protection.
• Uneven distribution of potential: a challenge to the logisticsystem and international trade.
14Reference• Hasegawa, T., Fujimori, S., Ito, A., Takahashi, K. and Masui, T., 2017. Global land‐use
allocation model linked to an integrated assessment model. Science of the Total
Environment, 580, pp.787‐796.
• Wu, W., Hasegawa, T., Ohashi, H., Hanasaki, N., Liu, J., Matsui, T., Fujimori, S., Masui, T. andTakahashi, K., 2019. Global advanced bioenergy potential under environmental protection
policies and societal transformation measures. GCB Bioenergy, 11(9), pp.1041‐1055.
• Rogelj, J., Popp, A., Calvin, K.V., Luderer, G., Emmerling, J., Gernaat, D., Fujimori, S., Strefler,J., Hasegawa, T., Marangoni, G. and Krey, V., 2018. Scenarios towards limiting global mean
temperature increase below 1.5 C. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), p.325.
• Williamson, P., 2016. Emissions reduction: scrutinize CO 2 removal methods. Nature News,530(7589), p.153.
• IPBES (2018) Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration.
• Immerzeel, D.J., Verweij, P.A., van der Hilst, F.L.O.O.R. and Faaij, A.P., 2014. Biodiversity
impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state‐of‐the‐art review. Gcb Bioenergy, 6(3),pp.183‐209.
• Van Vuuren, D.P., Van Vliet, J. and Stehfest, E., 2009. Future bio‐energy potential undervarious natural constraints. Energy Policy, 37(11), pp.4220‐4230.
• IPCC special report: Climate Change and Land, 2019, IPCC.

15

Thank you for your attention.

16Sensitivity test of biodiversity index

Figure. Sensitivity to biodiversity index for bioenergy potential in 2050

17