Faculty of Geosciences
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development

ILUC Prevention Strategies
for Sustainable Biofuels

Synthesis report from the ILUC Prevention
project
January 2015

Authors & Affiliation
Dr. Birka Wicke
Marnix Brinkman
Sarah GerssenGondelach
Carina van der Laan

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht
University

Prof. Dr. André Faaij

Energy and Sustainability Research Institute Groningen,
University of Groningen
Energy Academy Europe

Suggested citation
Wicke B, Brinkman MLJ, Gerssen-Gondelach S, van der Laan C and Faaij APC (2015).
ILUC prevention strategies for sustainable biofuels: Synthesis report from the ILUC
Prevention project. Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands:
http://www.geo.uu.nl/iluc.
2

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Funding
Funding

Umbrella project: Netherlands Enterprise Agency, Dutch Ministry
of Infrastructure and the Environment, Dutch Sustainable
Biomass Commission (Commissie Corbey), Rotterdam Climate
Initiative / Port of Rotterdam
Case studies: ePURE, MVO/FEDIOL, Neste Oil, Shell

Code of conduct

Research was conducted according to the Netherlands code of
conduct for scientific practice.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies.

3

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Non-technical summary (1)
Context:
-ILUC

Increased demand for and use of biofuels over the past decade has led to
closer scrutiny of the risks and benefits of their feedstock production. The
debate has focused particularly on the concept of Indirect Land Use Change
(ILUC). The risk of ILUC has so far been analyzed using aggregated, global
economic models. These models have, however, paid limited attention
to measures that can counteract displacement, such as improved
agricultural efficiency.

- ILUC prevention

Because ILUC is the direct land use change (LUC) of another activity, ILUC
can be mitigated or even prevented when taking a sustainable
approach to all crop production (whether for food, feed, fiber or
fuel purposes). This means:
•
Increasing productivity and resource efficiency in the production for all
of these purposes, and
•
Appropriate zoning of land for all purposes.

- Benefits of ILUC
prevention

Addressing ILUC in this way has the additional benefits of increasing the
performance of the entire agricultural sector, reducing its pressure on land
resources, and reducing GHG emissions in the biofuel supply chain.

Project aim

The ILUC Prevention project aimed at providing insights into
•
How ILUC (risks) can be mitigated by taking a sustainable approach to
all crop production for all purposes;
•
How this can be quantified; and
•
How ILUC (mitigation) may be regulated.

4

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Non-technical summary (2)
Approach

Key ILUC prevention measures (e.g. above-baseline yield increases and
cultivation of currently under-utilized land) were quantified for four case
studies by assessing how much additional biofuel feedstock can be
produced with low risk of causing ILUC (hereinafter also called lowILUC-risk potential - Sometimes this potential is called ILUC-free as no
displacement occurs. However, as this study did not account for marketmediated effects of the measures, it is here chosen to use the term “lowILUC-risk”). The case studies were assessed for three scenarios in order to
allow for uncertainties in the data used. The results are summarized and
compared to biofuel targets for the case study regions in the table below.

Key results from case
studies:
Large biofuel potentials
with low risk of causing
ILUC exist in all case
studies

Feedstock

Case study location

Low-ILUC-risk potential as a percentage
of the 2020 production targeta

Miscanthus ethanol

Lublin province, Poland

140 – 410 %

Maize ethanol

Hungary

200 – 860 %

Rapeseed biodiesel

Eastern Romania

Crude palm oil

50 – 340 %b

North-East Kalimantan,
120 – 180 %
Indonesia
a – The target is defined per case study as follows: Lublin province: Second generation
bioethanol target specified in the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP);
Hungary: bioethanol target specified in the Hungarian NREAP; Eastern Romania: the
regionally-disaggregated biodiesel target for the NREAP; North-East Kalimantan:
regionally-disaggregated production target projected in MIRAGE (target includes
demand for all uses, not only fuel).
b - Rapeseed is part of a four-year crop rotation so that only one fourth of the land is
used each year. Thus, more biofuels from other feedstocks could be produced each
year without causing ILUC.

5

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Non-technical summary (3)
Large biofuel
potential with low
risk of causing ILUC

The case studies show that large amounts of additional biofuels can
be produced with a low risk of causing ILUC. In the high scenario,
already 1.3% of the total energy use (or 13% of the renewable energy
use) in road transport in the EU in 2020 could be met by low-ILUC-risk
biofuels produced in only the three European case studies investigated in
this project. Thus, low-ILUC-risk biofuels produced from these three
EU case studies alone could meaningfully contribute to sustainable
biofuels in the EU in 2020. Note that the three case studies cover only
6% of agricultural land in the EU, so the potential for all of Europe is
substantial.

Key strategies to
prevent ILUC: Yield
increases and the use
of under-utilized land

Above-baseline yield developments and use of under-utilized land
are the most important measures for achieving ILUC prevention. In the
Eastern European case studies, increased yields contribute in most cases to
over 75% of the potential. In the Indonesian case study, use of underutilized land contributes over 90% to the potential.

Generalizability of
case study results

Other countries in Europe and elsewhere have untapped low-ILUC-risk
potentials that could be further explored and mobilized (e.g., mixed
production systems in Western Europe such as double cropping, pasture
intensification in Latin America, yield increases in Africa). Thus, ILUC as
determined in economic models is not an irreversible fact, but is a
risk that can be mitigated and in many cases even be prevented.

ILUC can be
prevented

6

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Non-technical summary (4)
Policy
recommendations

Substantial investment in the agricultural sector is essential to realize the
low-ILUC-risk potential of biofuels as estimated in this study as well as to
strengthen and enforce land use policies. The project’s key
recommendations to prevent ILUC and to promote sustainable production
practices for all crops include:
•
Stimulating increasing productivity and resource efficiency in the
agricultural sector through support and incentives schemes, including
access to capital and technology, and capacity building.
•
Providing support and incentives for production on currently underutilized land.
•
Promoting land zoning that excludes high carbon stock, high
conservation value and important ecosystem service areas from
conversion to any agricultural use, and incentivize forest maintenance.

EU legislation on
ILUC mitigation

Given the potential to produce large amounts of low-ILUC-risk biofuels
found in this study, EU legislation on ILUC mitigation should consider
including more ways to mitigate ILUC than just capping all first generation
biofuels. Implementing the measures proposed in this study and certifying
low-ILUC-risk biofuel production is the key option proposed to mitigate
ILUC. For this, a sustainable approach to all crop production for food, feed,
fiber and fuel purposes is essential. EU legislation on ILUC mitigation
should then consider allowing certified low-ILUC-risk biofuel production to
contribute to the renewable energy target.

Next steps: Pilot
projects

Pilot projects for demonstrating the approach, for assessing trade-offs
between increasing data availability and quality vs. the time and costs to
do so, and for monitoring and certifying ILUC prevention in the field are the
next step to validate the concepts.

7

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Table of contents
Introduction

Bioenergy and its benefits; ILUC and ILUC prevention;
Project aim; Project components

9

Approach

General approach for assessing ILUC mitigation; overview
of case studies

16

Key results from
case studies

Overview; Results by case; Key discussion points per ILUC
mitigation measure; Data availability and quality

21

Framework for governing ILUC; Specific options for ILUC
prevention measures

36

Monitoring

Improving data availability and quality, setting thresholds,
key parameters for monitoring

41

Conclusions &
Recommendations

Key conclusions and recommendations; Proposal for next
steps; Pilot projects

44

Governing framework for ILUC prevention; Policy
recommendations

47

Policy & governance
options

Policy
recommendation

Bibliography
Bibliography
Methods to quantify ILUC prevention measures
Appendix
8
ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

49
50

Introduction (1)
Bioenergy

Biomass for energy (bioenergy) is an important option in making
future energy supply more sustainable. The key supporting
arguments are:
• If produced sustainably, bioenergy can reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions compared to fossil fuels.
• Biomass is a versatile source for producing heat, electricity,
liquid, solid and gaseous fuels.
• Rural development associated with increased agricultural
production.
• Diversification of agricultural markets.

Bioenergy in the
European Union

In the European Union, the main reason for support of bioenergy
has been its policy on renewable energy for reducing GHG
emissions. Two additional important motives are energy security
and alternative market outlets for European farmers (Swinbank
2009).

ILUC questions
the sustainability
of bioenergy

Potential indirect land use change (ILUC) triggered by increased
production of crops for biofuels became a central focus of
attention and controversy as it could result in increased GHG
emissions compared to fossil fuels (Searchinger et al. 2008) and
thereby could contradict the original motives for bioenergy.

9

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Introduction (2)
ILUC

Indirect land use change (ILUC) is land use change outside a
feedstock’s production area, which is induced by changing the
use or production quantity of that feedstock (Tipper et al 2009).
Two key underlying mechanisms for ILUC are:
•
In order to continue to meeting crop and livestock
demand, a direct displacement of pastureland, cropland or
crop use results in livestock or crops being produced
elsewhere; or
•
the diversion of the crop to other uses causes higher crop
prices, which results in more land being taken into
agricultural production elsewhere (Tipper et al 2009,
Searchinger et al. 2008).

Existing studies

Various studies have shown a large variability in the size of
potential ILUC of different crops and in different settings (see
example of corn ethanol next page); and results remain
uncertain. However, results of all economic models are above
zero and, therefore, ILUC must be addressed. But, existing
studies have not yet looked into possible mitigation options and
policies and their impacts.

10

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Introduction (3)
Variation in GHG
emissions from
LUC across
different studies Example corn
ethanol
(Adapted from
Wicke et al. 2012)

11

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Introduction (4)
ILUC prevention

As a result of uncertainties and shortcomings in existing studies
on ILUC factors, more emphasis is now being placed on ILUC
mitigation.
The different European Union government institutions consider
the mitigation of ILUC in different ways. But a common theme is
the cap on first generation biofuels (variation between 5 and 7%
of transport fuels in 2020 towards the Renewable Energy
Directive).

Simple cap on
first generation
as a solution?

12

However, a simple cap on first generation biofuels is not the
solution to the ILUC problem:
• ILUC of biofuels is the direct LUC (DLUC) of another activity.
Only if this DLUC is also addressed, can ILUC be prevented.
• Also second generation biofuels could cause ILUC if
competition with food production takes place in the form of
land (although effects are expected to be lower than for first
generation biofuels).
Therefore, ILUC must be tackled by taking a sustainable
approach to all crop production (whether for food, feed,
fiber or fuel purposes).

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Introduction (5)
ILUC prevention
by taking a
sustainable
approach to all
crop production

ILUC can be prevented if we take a sustainable approach to all
crop production. This means:
• Increasing productivity and resource efficiency in the
production for all of these purposes; and
• Appropriate zoning of land for all purposes.
ILUC prevention is about i) finding synergies between
agriculture and bioenergy, and clever modernization and
sustainable intensification of agriculture in combination with
producing biofuels, and about ii) steering any new expansion to
currently under-utilized land.

Benefits of ILUC
prevention

13

This approach to preventing ILUC can be beneficial for:
1) Farmers (especially smallholders) through support to achieve
modernization of their production,
2) Land owners of under-utilized land that are able to earn
income from new opportunities for their land,
3) Conservation of nature through reducing the pressure on
land use by agriculture and forestry in general, and
4) Reducing GHG emissions from the agricultural (incl.
bioenergy) supply chains.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Introduction (6)
ILUC prevention
measures –
multiple options are
available that
address prevention
by taking a
sustainable
approach to all crop
production

Mitigating or even preventing ILUC (and its effects) from
conventional biofuels is possible in various ways (see e.g. Wicke
et al., 2012 and Witcover et al., 2013):
• Increasing yields above-baseline (crops & livestock)
• Making more optimal use of agricultural land (e.g. multiple
cropping)
• Using co-products more optimally
• Reducing waste and losses in the food and biofuel supply
chains
• Better land zoning:
• Excluding land with high carbon stocks & biodiversity
values (also for non-biofuel production)
• Using only under-utilized land for additional expansion

Open questions

More information is needed on how these measures’ effects on
ILUC prevention can be quantified and how much different
measures can contribute to ILUC prevention. In addition, policy
and governance options are needed that can help translate
these technical measures to implementation and application in
practice.

14

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Introduction (7)
Project aim

The “ILUC prevention” project aims at providing insights into the
following questions:
• How can ILUC (risks) be mitigated by taking a sustainable
approach to all crop production for all purposes?
• How can ILUC mitigation be quantified, and
• How may ILUC (mitigation) be regulated.
In assessing ILUC prevention measures, this project accounts for
the various uses of land for food, feed, fiber and fuels production
and thereby takes an integral perspective of agriculture and
bioenergy as proposed above.

Project
components

15

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Approach (1)
Quantifying ILUC
prevention
measures

The analysis focusses on assessing how much additional biofuels
or their feedstocks can be produced with different ILUC
prevention strategies (herein after also called low-ILUC-risk
potential), and how this low-ILUC-risk potential compares to the
biofuel feedstock target of that region (see figure next page).
Sometimes this potential is called ILUC-free as no displacement
occurs. However, as this study did not account for marketmediated effects of the measures, it is here chosen to use the
term “low-ILUC-risk”.
Although the main focus is on how ILUC from biofuels can be
mitigated, ILUC from biofuels is the direct LUC of another
product and therefore all LUC needs to be addressed in order to
mitigate ILUC from biofuels. Consequently, the analysis includes
changes in production of all crops and also compares the final
results from the bottom-up assessment with the model
projections of all demand increases (not just for biofuels).

16

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Approach (2)
General approach
(see also the
appendix and
Brinkman et al.
(2015a) for more
information)

The share of each
measure is for
illustration
purposes only; the
applicability and
shares of the
measures differ
per region.

(1) Top-down
(from economic
models that assess
LUC factors)

Determine biomass production baseline (without additional
biofuels) and target (with a biofuel mandate) for each region.
The difference between target and baseline is the amount of
crop production induced by a biofuel mandate, which is the
cause of LUC (including ILUC) in the models.

(2) Bottom-up
(key activity of this
project)

Analyze the low-ILUC-risk biofuel/feedstock production potential
from key ILUC mitigation measures to determine how much
biofuels/feedstocks can be produced without unwanted LUC

(3) Comparison

See next page

17

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Approach (3)
(3) Comparison of
top-down & bottomup results

Compare top-down and bottom-up projections to assess
whether enough biomass can be produced to fulfil targets or
whether additional action is required to prevent ILUC.

Scenario approach
in the bottom-up
assessment

In the assessment of the low-ILUC-risk biofuel production
potential from key ILUC mitigation measures, a scenario
approach is taken in order to indicate uncertainty in projections
(depends also on the level of investment) and effects on the
results. Three scenarios for potential developments above the
business-as-usual (low, medium, high) are applied.

18

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Approach (4)
Bottom-up
assessment of
ILUC prevention
measures

The assessment focuses on six measures to reduce the extent of
ILUC, control the type of land use change, and limit GHG
impacts of biofuels:
1) Increasing agricultural crop yield production efficiencies
above the baseline level,
2) Using co-products from the biofuel supply chain as substitute
for other products,
3) Reducing losses in the food and biofuel chains,
4) Producing biofuel feedstocks on under-utilized lands,
5) Land zoning in order to prevent the conversion of lands with
high protection value
6) Reducing the GHG emissions of the biofuel supply chain.

Regional focus

ILUC prevention is assessed for specific regions because it allows
• defining feasible and desirable biofuel production targets per
region,
• ranking ILUC mitigation measures and their importance for
different regions, and
• defining regional strategies for ILUC prevention.

19

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Approach (5)
Four case studies

20

Regions were chosen that are expected to see large increases in
production in the future.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (1)
Overview of case
study results
(Detailed results of
the case studies are
described on the
following pages)

Large amounts of additional biofuels can be produced
with a low risk of causing ILUC. In the high scenario, already
1.3% of the total energy use (or 13% of the renewable energy
use) in road transport in the EU in 2020 could be met by lowILUC-risk biofuels produced in only the three European case
studies investigated in this project. Thus, low-ILUC-risk
biofuels produced from these three EU case studies alone
could meaningfully contribute to sustainable biofuels in
the EU in 2020. Note that the three case studies cover only 6%
of agricultural land in the EU, so the potential for all of Europe is
substantial.

Feedstock

Case study location

Low-ILUC-risk potential as a percentage of the
2020 production targeta

Miscanthus ethanol

Lublin province, Poland

140 – 410 %

Maize ethanol

Hungary

200 – 860 %

Rapeseed biodiesel

Eastern Romania

50 – 340 %b

Crude palm oil

North-East Kalimantan, Indonesia

120 – 180 %

a – The target is defined per case study as follows: Lublin province: Second generation bioethanol target specified in the National
Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP); Hungary: bioethanol target specified in the Hungarian NREAP; Eastern Romania: the
regionally-disaggregated biodiesel target for the NREAP; North-East Kalimantan: regionally-disaggregated production target
projected in MIRAGE (target includes demand for all uses, not only fuel).
b - Rapeseed is part of a four-year crop rotation so that only one fourth of the land is used each year. Thus, more biofuels from
other feedstocks could be produced each year without causing ILUC.

21

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (2)
Ethanol from
Hungarian corn
(Brinkman et al.
2015b)

Implementation of all the measures can provide 25-109 PJ (1.25.2 billion liters) per year of low-ILUC-risk bioethanol from
Hungarian corn in 2020 (see figure next page). This is 200%
to 860% of the amount set in the National Renewable
Energy Action Plan (NREAP) for 2020.
Increasing yields above the baseline is the most important
measure for realizing the potential. Depending on the scenario,
49%-79% of the low-ILUC-risk potential comes from yield
increases. Although the yield increases applied in this study are
high (for corn: 18%-61% growth in comparison to the present),
they are considered feasible given the currently high yield gap in
Hungary.
The second most important measure is the use of abandoned
agricultural land, which can provide additional low-ILUC-risk
corn production for bioethanol ranging from 12% to 30% of the
total low-ILUC-risk bioethanol potential.

22

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (3)

23

120
5000

100

4000

80

3000

60
40

2000

20

1000

0

0

NREAP bioethanol
Hungary: 12.7 PJ

LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
Above baseline yield increase
Chain integration
Chain efficiency

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

(million litres / year)

Figure: Production
potential for lowILUC-risk bioethanol
from Hungarian
corn: by ILUC
prevention measure
in the low, medium
and high scenario in
Hungary in 2020
compared to the
National Renewable
Energy Action Plan
(NREAP) target for
bioethanol in
Hungary in 2020.

Low-ILUC-risk bioethanol potential from
Hungarian corn 2020 (PJ/yr)

Ethanol from
Hungarian corn

Under-utilised land & land zoning

Key results from case studies (4)
Eastern Romania
(Macroregion 2)
(Brinkman et al.
2015c)

The low-ILUC-risk potential of rapeseed biodiesel in Eastern
Romania can reach 2-16 PJ (60 – 434 million liters) per year in
2020 (see figure next page). This is 16-118% of the
biodiesel target set in the National Renewable Energy
Action Plan (NREAP) for 2020 for the whole country or
48-344% of the biodiesel target of the NREAP
disaggregated to the case study region. Thus, only in the
low scenario ILUC cannot completely be prevented, indicating
that larger efforts, such as those assumed for the medium and
high scenario, are needed to prevent ILUC. However, assuming
rapeseed is part of a crop rotation and only produced every four
years, in the other years additional biofuels from other
feedstock can be produced and compensate for this.
Above baseline yield development contributes the most to this
potential (27% - 67%). This number not only includes yield
increases for rapeseed production, but for all crops in Eastern
Romania. Especially increased maize and wheat yields
contribute much to the potential.
The second most important measure is the use of abandoned
agricultural land, which can provide additional low-ILUC-risk
rapeseed biodiesel ranging from 5% to 13% of the total lowILUC-risk potential.

24

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Figure: Production
potential for lowILUC-risk biodiesel
from rapeseed: by
ILUC prevention
measure in the low,
medium and high
scenario in
macroregion 2 in
Romania in 2020
compared to the
NREAP target for
biodiesel for Romania
and for macroregion 2
in 2020.

25

18
16

500
NREAP biodiesel
Romania: 13.7 PJ

14

400

12
10

300

8
200

6
4

NREAP biodiesel
Macroregion 2: 4.7PJ

100

2
0

0
LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Under-utilised land & land zoning

Chain efficiency

Chain integration

Above baseline yield increase

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

(milion lters/yr)

Eastern Romania
(Macroregion 2)

Low-ILUC-risk rapeseed biodiesel potential 2020
(PJ/yr)

Key results from case studies (5)

Key results from case studies (6)
Lublin Province,
Poland (GerssenGondelach et al.
2014)

Implementing the ILUC prevention measures would allow
realizing a significant bioenergy potential with a low risk of
causing ILUC while contributing to climate change mitigation: In
total, the bioethanol production potential in Lublin is 13 to 36 PJ
per year or 533 to 1,520 million liter per year in 2020 (see
figure next page). This low-ILUC-risk potential of
miscanthus-based ethanol from Lublin province (Poland)
is 1.4 – 4.1 times the 2020 2nd generation bioethanol
target specified in the National Renewable Energy Action
Plan (NREAP) for Poland.
Above baseline yield improvements and land abandoned due to
reduced food production can contribute most to this potential.
However, in the medium and high scenarios, not all of the total
surplus land area is suitable and legally available for miscanthus
cultivation (see panel B compared to panel a in figure on next
page).

26

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (7)
Lublin Province,
Poland

27

a)
Miscanthus bioethanol production
potential 2020 (PJ)

Figure: Production
potential for
bioethanol from
Miscanthus: a) on
surplus land by ILUC
prevention measure
in the low, medium
and high scenario,
and b) on land that
is considered to be
suitable for
Miscanthus
production.

120

b)

100
80
60

NREAP
Poland 2nd gen.
bioethanol
8.8 PJ

40
20
0

increased food chain efficiency

above baseline yield improvements

under-utilized land target scenario

current under-utilized land area

cropland suitable and not protected

grassland suitable and not protected

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (8)
North-East
Kalimantan,
Indonesia (van der
Laan et al. 2015)

The results from this case study show that between 2.7 and 4.1
Mt crude palm oil (CPO) per year can be produced in North-East
Kalimantan with low risk of ILUC. This low-ILUC-risk potential
is 1.2 to 1.8 times the regionally-disaggregated production
target of 2.3 Mt CPO per year projected in MIRAGE for
2020. While in MIRAGE this production target causes large GHG
emissions due to land use change (particularly the conversion of
forest and peatland forest), we show that this additional
production can be made possible without such land use change.
The key measure for generating this low-ILUC-risk potential is
using under-utilized land for production, making up more than
90% of the potential. In the analysis, we consider only 40% of
the under-utilized land area to be available for palm oil
production in order to account for that not all land identified is
actually available and suitable. This percentage is based on field
assessments for West Kalimantan, where 41% of the investigated
sites were unavailable or unsuitable due to e.g. the presence of
existing oil palm plantations, culturally important sites, intensive
land use and/or extreme flooding (Gingold, 2012). Ground
truthing specifically for NE Kalimantan is needed to determine the
share of the under-utilized land area actually available in NE
Kalimantan.

28

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

North-East
Kalimantan,
Indonesia
Figure: Low-ILUC
production potential
of CPO in North-East
Kalimantan,
Indonesia. For
reference purposes,
the current CPO
production in NE
Kalimantan is 0.4 Mt
per year

29

Low-ILUC-risk CPO potential for 2020 (Mt CPO/yr)

Key results from case studies (9)
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0

MIRAGEprojected
production
target for
palm oil for
all purposes
(2.3 Mt CPO
per year)

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Low

Medium

High

Land zoning & under-utilised lands

Chain efficiency

Chain integration

Above-baseline yield development

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (10)
ILUC prevention is
possible in all case
studies

In all case studies, unwanted LUC from biofuel targets can be
prevented by the proposed technical measures for modernizing
and sustainably intensifying the agricultural sector and by using
under-utilized land for additional production. Not only is the lowILUC-risk potential larger than the projected increased demand
arising from biofuel targets, it is also larger than the increased
baseline demand in most scenarios. Thereby, unwanted LUC from
all uses and ILUC from biofuels specifically can be prevented.

Yield increases
are a key strategy
in all cases

Increasing yields is the most important measure for ILUC
prevention in three of the four cases (in the case of North-East
Kalimantan, it can also provide a significant low-ILUC-risk
potential but is less important than under-utilized land, see next
page). Yield increases are not only beneficial for reducing the risk
of ILUC, but also for the farmers (particularly smallholders) to
increase their income. The case studies showed that technical
measures are available to increase the yields above the baseline.
However, the implementation of the measures especially for
smallholders requires large investments and support (see also
policy and governance options). The analysis of increased yields
focused on agricultural crops and livestock. Additional measures
that can contribute positively are multi-cropping and productivity
increases in the forestry sector (specifically forest plantations).

30

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (11)
Under-utilized
land is most
important in the
case on NE
Kalimantan

Use of under-utilized land is also a key measure for preventing
ILUC - for the case study on North-East Kalimantan, it is actually
the most important one. In the other cases, under-utilized land
in the form of abandoned agricultural land can also significantly
contribute to the low-ILUC-risk potential.
An important result is that data availability and quality
(especially detailed spatial data on where under-utilized land is
located and whether it is really available for conversion) is low.
Field verification of its availability for conversion and carbon
stocks is therefore needed.
In order to ensure that only under-utilized land is used for future
conversion to agricultural production, land zoning must be made
with detailed spatial and up-to-date data on land use and land
cover, excluding high carbon stock, high conservation value and
important ecosystem service areas. At the same time, land
zoning must be strictly enforced in order to be effective (see
also policy and governance options).

31

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (12)
Using co-products
reduces overall
land requirements

Benefits of distillers’ grain solubles (DGS) and oilseed meals
have already been demonstrated by ILUC studies in the past.
This is confirmed here. But our analysis clarifies that the benefits
vary depending on how and where these products are used.
While DGS can contribute important benefits, compared to
above-baseline yield developments and use of under-utilized
land, this measure has less impact.
We also approximated the benefits of other co-products (such as
crop residues, corn oil, palm trunks, palm kernel oil). These can
also contribute to the low-ILUC-risk potential.
The analysis focused on biofuel co-products, but residues from
other crop production could also provide a significant low-ILUCrisk potential (Daioglou et al, forthcoming).

Increasing chain
efficiency allows
using more of
what is produced,
thereby reducing
overall land
requirements

This study focused on crop losses in the production chain.
Increasing chain efficiency allows using more of what is
produced and thereby reduces overall land requirements. In the
case studies of this project, increased chain efficiency only has a
small contribution to the low-ILUC-risk potential compared to
other measures.

32

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (13)
GHG emissions

The analysis of GHG emissions in the biofuel supply chains
focused on assessing how and how much the chains can be
improved. The key factor in the GHG balance is LUC. In the case
of North-East Kalimantan, production of palm oil on previously
(primary or secondary) forestland results in more emissions
than fossil fuels, while production on under-utilized land can
reduce emissions compared to fossil fuels. In the case of
miscanthus production in Poland, potentially large soil carbon
sequestration can even result in a reduction of GHG emissions
with 85% or more compared to fossil fuels.

Best management
practices

In addition, the application of best management practices during
the cultivation of the biofuel feedstocks can further improve the
GHG balance. Although measures vary per case, a key common
measure to reduce emissions per biofuel units is optimized
fertilizer use in terms of quantity, composition and timing.

Waste streams

For the case study on palm oil in North-East Kalimantan, the
treatment of palm oil mill effluents (POME) is crucial for the GHG
balance. Treatment in closed anaerobic digesters and collection
and combustion of the gas reduces emissions, while it can also
serve as a source for electricity generation.

33

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (14)
Data availability
and quality

34

Data availability and quality was assessed in detail in the
case study analyses. Although the low-ILUC-risk potentials can
be determined, key constraints by data limitations exist:
1) Spatially explicit data about actual land use and land
cover: This is needed to assess the suitability and legal
availability of (agricultural) land (this is especially important
for developing currently under-utilized land) but also to
monitor ILUC prevention (see Monitoring).
2) Disaggregated data on crop yields: Particularly for the case
of North-East Kalimantan, availability and quality of yield
data was low. More regionally specific yield data (including
ranges), disaggregated for oil palm age classes and by
producer type are needed in order to better identify where
efforts to increase yields are needed most.
3) Data on food chain efficiencies: Existing data on crop
losses are often estimated as a fixed percentage of the total
available amount of the agricultural product, not always
specific per crop, and not spatially detailed enough to
determine difference between regions.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Key results from case studies (15)
Scenario analysis

In order to take account of uncertainty in input data and
projections and effects on results (as a form of sensitivity
analysis), for each measure and case, three scenarios (low,
medium, high) for potential developments above the baseline
were applied. The scenario analyses are based on the range of
values for the key parameters as found in the literature and in
discussion with experts. All chosen parameter values are
technically feasible and already reached in neighboring regions
or comparable settings.
The results show that there is significant leeway for
improvements but the magnitude of these improvements
depends largely on the level of investment and efforts
made. The implementation in practice may be hampered by
various factors. Policy and governance options may help to
reduce these barriers, as described in the following.

35

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Policy and governance options (1)
Framework for
governing ILUC

This study has shown that ILUC can be prevented if we take a
sustainable approach to all crop production for food, feed, fiber
and fuels. This means
• Increasing productivity and resource efficiency in the
production for all of these purposes.
• Appropriate zoning of land for all purposes.
Both a governing framework for ILUC prevention and policies for
ensuring a sustainable pathway for biofuels in general need to
take a broader and more integrated perspective by i) addressing
all land use and ii) stimulating increases in resource efficiency
and productivity for all these uses. Such an approach is in line
with and supports the European Council Conclusions on 2030
Climate and Energy Policy (European Council, 2014) related to
the agriculture and land use sector: ”The European Council
invites the Commission to examine the best means of
encouraging the sustainable intensification of food production,
while optimising the sector's contribution to greenhouse gas
mitigation and sequestration, including through afforestation.”
The graphic on the following page illustrates how such a
framework could look like based on the regional approach taken
in this project.

36

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Policy and governance options (2)
Framework for
governing ILUC

37

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Policy and governance options (3)
Options specific to
ILUC prevention
measures

The case studies demonstrate that (large amounts of) additional
biomass for fuels can be produced without causing ILUC. However,
the analysis of these case studies assumes that additional action
is taken so that surplus land is generated and only suitable and
available under-utilized land is used for additional production
(whether for food, feed, fiber or fuels). In order to support and
stimulate these actions, policy and governance are needed.
Important options per ILUC prevention measure are listed here:

Above baseline
yield development

•

•
•
•

38

Knowledge and capacity building (e.g. seed quality; optimal
fertilizer use in terms of composition, quantity and timing;
machinery; earlier replanting for palm oil)
Support cooperation between smallholders
Improve availability & access to capital, technology and highyielding seeds
Incentivize investments in the agricultural sector

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Policy and governance options (4)
Production on
under-utilized
lands & land
zoning

•

Improved chain
integration

•

•
•
•
•

•

39

Improve land use, cover & soil information (spatially and
temporally detailed)
Make more informed decisions on land zoning
Improve monitoring & enforcement
Incentivize forest maintenance
Additional incentives must be considered to promote the
production of biofuel feedstocks on land that is currently
under-utilized so that missed opportunities from converting
higher quality land or clearing forest are compensated.
Certification for using under-utilized land and then receiving
a financial bonus on the price of the crop may be such an
option.
Research & development for optimal use of under-utilized coproducts (in terms of economics, environment & social
aspects)
For waste products (e.g. palm oil mill effluent), tighter waste
management regulation are needed to reduce environmental
impacts of production.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Policy and governance options (5)
Increased chain
efficiencies

•
•

•

Lower GHG
emissions in the
biofuel supply
chain

40

•

•
•

Improve data quality to be better understand where losses
occur (crop-specific and by chain components)
Capacity building on reducing pre- and post-harvest losses for
producers with high losses (e.g. important for smallholder
palm oil producers)
This study focused on crop losses in the production chain. Food
waste at households was not included because it involves
behavioral changes by consumers and this falls outside the
scope of this project. However, in industrialized countries
reducing food waste has a significant potential that could
contribute to making more food/land available for additional
production. Therefore, the extent of food wastage in
households and the potential to reduce it need be better
assessed.
Capacity building on reducing GHG emissions in chain by e.g.
optimized fertilizer usage (timing, frequency, composition and
amount)
Waste management regulation (particularly relevant for POME)
Land zoning (excluding high carbon stocks as well as other
high conservation value areas)

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Monitoring (1)
Improving data
availability and
quality

Based on the case study assessment of input data described
earlier, data availability and quality need to be improved. This is
important for reducing uncertainties in the low-ILUC-risk
potential but also for monitoring the implementation of ILUC
prevention measures and the risk of ILUC itself. The key
parameters that require improvement in data and that are useful
for monitoring are presented in the tables on the following
pages.

Setting thresholds
and determining
actions plans for
the event that
thresholds are
crossed

For monitoring to be useful and effective in mitigating ILUC, it is
important to set thresholds for the key parameters used in
monitoring (the risk of) ILUC and to determine action plans for
the event that thresholds are crossed. For example, at the
moment increased biomass production would lead to crossing
pre-determined threshold values on such parameters (e.g.
biomass crops clearly expanding at the expense of food crops),
further expansion could be halted until improvements in
conventional agricultural are expected or proven. Within such a
concept, regional parameters that are regularly monitored
(partly with public data complemented by audits) and verified to
stay within threshold values for sustainable land use and overall
biomass production would be a novelty and can in principle
become part of certification procedures.

41

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Monitoring (2)
Table: Key
parameters for
monitoring ILUC
risk

42

Key parameters
for monitoring

Purpose for monitoring

Frequency

Spatial
scale

- Land use and land
cover (remote
sensing
supplemented
with field
verification), land
ownership

What land use change is taking
place and where? Is expansion
taking place? And if so, where?
Are under-utilized lands taken
into production? How much
under-utilized land is still
available? Who owns the land
and how is that changing?

Yearly to
twice-yearly

Spatially
specific at
high
resolution

- Agricultural
production volume

What crops are produced and at
what quantity? Is production
developing as projected?

Year
(averaged
over several
years)

Regional
to country
level

- Trade volumes

No major increase in imports of
agricultural products or
processed goods? Decrease in
soy and other feed imports?

Yearly
(averaged
over several
years)

Country

- Food prices

What are absolute and relative
(comparing different crops)
food prices?

Monthly to
yearly

Country to
global

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Monitoring (3)
Table: Key
parameters for
monitoring ILUC
prevention
measures

43

Key parameters
for monitoring

Purpose for monitoring

Frequency

Spatial scale

- Crop/livestock
yields (five year
moving average)

Is the yield and yield
increase as high as
desired? How does the
individual yield vary
compared to averages?

By cropping
seasons/
yearly

Individual
farmers to
regional to
national

- Development of
under-utilized
land

How much land is underutilized? What quantity is
converted and for what?
What are yields? Where is
reforestation taking place?

Yearly

Spatially
explicit

- Product specific
food losses in the
supply chain

Where are the losses? How
high are the losses? Are
they reducing as much as
expected?

Continuously

Crop specific
at regional/
country level

- Use of coproducts

How are co-products used
and where? What does it
displace and how much?

Yearly

Feed specific
at regional/
country level

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Conclusions (1)
ILUC can be
prevented

Not only is the low-ILUC-risk potential larger than the increased
demand due to biofuel targets in 2020, but in most scenarios it
is also larger than the projected increased demand from food,
feed and fibers. Consequently, unwanted LUC from all uses
and specifically ILUC from biofuels can be prevented. This
is possible by the proposed technical measures for modernizing
and sustainably intensifying the entire agricultural sector and by
using under-utilized land for additional production.

Most important
measures

Above-baseline yield developments and use of underutilized land are the most important measures for achieving
ILUC prevention. In the Eastern European case studies,
increased yields contribute in most scenarios to over 75% of the
potential. In the Indonesian case study, use of under-utilized
land contributes to over 90% of the potential.

Generalizability of
case study results

44

Although specific case studies were assessed in this project, the
results are also generalizable to the broader regions in
which the cases are located, i.e. Eastern Europe and Southeast
Asia. Other countries in Europe and elsewhere also have
untapped low-ILUC-risk potentials that could be further explored
and mobilized (e.g. mixed production systems in Western
Europe such as double cropping, pasture intensification in Latin
America, yield increases in Africa).
ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Conclusions (2)
ILUC is a risk that
can be mitigated

Thus, ILUC as determined in economic models is not an
irreversible fact, but is a risk that can be mitigated and in some
case be prevented.

ILUC prevention
has additional
benefits

Addressing ILUC by taking a sustainable approach to all crop
production has the additional benefits of increasing the
performance of the agricultural sector as a whole, reducing the
pressure on land by agricultural and forestry, and reducing GHG
emissions from the agricultural (incl. bioenergy) supply chains.

Translation of ILUC
prevention
measures from
theory to practice

The technical options for preventing ILUC assessed in this study
show a large potential for improvements in the agricultural
supply chain and from using under-utilized land, which together
lead to a low-ILUC-risk biomass production potential that in all
case studies is larger than the projected additional demand for
food, feed, fiber and fuels. Translation of the measures from
theory to practice is needed. This is possible through pilot
projects.

45

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Conclusions (3)
Pilot projects (Key
aspects for pilot
projects)

46

Pilot projects for demonstrating the approach and for monitoring
are the next step to validate the concepts. Pilot projects can
help provide insights into the different considerations that need
to be made with regard to implementing, certifying and
monitoring ILUC prevention measures. Key aspects for pilot
projects are:
• Comparing publically available data with monitoring and
ground truthing in the field in order to assess the reliability of
existing, statistical data.
• Assessing to what extent uncertainty in the analysis can be
reduced by improved data quality and whether the additional
time and money needed for (field) data collection are
acceptable and appropriate for the improvements.
• Translating ILUC prevention measures to implementation
and monitoring in practice. A link with certification schemes
is useful for making ILUC prevention verifiable (e.g. in
collaboration with the LIIB project, van de Staaij et al. 2012).
• Making a risk assessment of a particular region and defining
their specific strategies for ILUC prevention.
• Assessing how quickly the ILUC prevention measure
proposed in this study can be implemented, at what costs,
and what practical hurdles and challenges for implementation
at farm and regional level are.
ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Policy Recommendations (1)
A governing
framework for
ILUC prevention is
needed

Both, a governing framework for ILUC prevention and policies
for ensuring a sustainable pathway for biofuels in general need
to take a broader and more integrated perspective by i)
stimulating increases in resource efficiency and
productivity for all these uses and ii) addressing all land
use. Both of these are goals defined in the European Council
Conclusions on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy (European
Council, 2014), which promotes sustainably intensifying food
production and optimizing the sector's contribution to
greenhouse gas mitigation and sequestration.

Legislation on
ILUC mitigation

Given the i) large low-ILUC-risk potential found in this study, ii)
applicability of the results to other regions, and iii) additional
ILUC prevention options in the case studies and other regions,
legislation on ILUC mitigation should consider including more
ways to mitigate ILUC than just capping first generation
biofuels. Certifying low-ILUC-risk biofuel production as
assessed in this study and allowing its contribution to the
renewable energy target is proposed here as the key option
to mitigate ILUC. For this, a sustainable approach to all crop
production for food, feed, fiber and fuel purposes is crucial.

47

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Policy Recommendations (2)
Taking a sustainable approach to all crop production for food,
feed, fiber and fuel purposes in order to prevent ILUC, specific
recommendations from this project are:
Promote land
zoning

•

Promote land zoning that excludes high carbon stock, high
conservation value and important ecosystem service areas
from conversion to any use, particularly outside of Europe.
This is a key element in making commodity production more
sustainable. This may also include support for enforcing land
zoning and incentivize forest maintenance.

Use under-utilized
land

•

Provide (financial) incentives for production on currently
under-utilized land.

Increase
productivity and
resource efficiency

•

Stimulate increasing productivity and resource efficiency
in the agricultural sector through support and incentives
schemes, incl. increasing access to capital and technology,
and capacity building.

48

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Bibliography
Brinkman et al. (2015a)
Brinkman et al. (2015b)
Brinkman et al. (2015c)
Daioglou et al.
(forthcoming)
European Council (2014)
Gerssen-Gondelach et al.
(2014)
Gingold et al. (2012)
Tipper et al. (2009)
Searchinger et al. (2009)
Swinbank (2009)
van de Staaij et al. (2012)
van der Laan et al. (2015)
Wicke et al. (2012)
Witcover et al. (2013)

49

Brinkman MLJ, Wicke B, Gerssen-Gondelach S, van der Laan, C and Faaij A 2015 Methodology for
assessing and quantifying ILUC prevention. Utrecht University. Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Brinkman MLJ, Wicke B, Faaij A 2015. ILUC prevention case study on ethanol from Hungarian corn.
Utrecht University. Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Brinkman MLJ, Pisca, I, Wicke B, Faaij A 2015. ILUC prevention case study on rapeseed biodiesel
production in Eastern Romania. Utrecht University. Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Daioglou V, Stehfest E, Wicke B, Faaij A.P.C, van Vuuren D.P. Projections of global theoretical,
ecological and available potentials and costs of agricultural and forestry residues. Article
forthcoming.
European Council Conclusions on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy 2014
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/145356.pdf
Gerssen-Gondelach S, Wicke B, Faaij A 2014. Case study on the bioethanol production potential
from miscanthus with low ILUC risk in the province of Lublin, Poland. Utrecht University.
Gingold B, Rosenbarger A, Muliastra Y, Stolle F, Sudana I, Manessa M, et al. How to identify
degraded land for sustainable palm oil in Indonesia. Washington DC: 2012.
Tipper R, Hutchison C, Brander M 2009. A practical approach for policies to address GHG emissions
from indirect land use change associated with biofuels. Ecometrica, Edinburgh, UK.
Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA et al. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases
greenhouse gases through emissions from land use change. Science 319(5867), 1238–1240
(2008).
Swinbank, A. (2009). EU Support for Biofuels and Bioenergy, Environmental Sustainability Criteria,
and Trade Policy. ICTSD Programme on Agricultural Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue
Paper No.17, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.
J. van de Staaij, D. Peters, B. Dehue, S. Meyer, V. Schueler, G. Toop, V. Junquera, and L. Máthé
2012. Low Indirect Impact Biofuel ( LIIB ) Methodology - version Zero. Ecofys, EPFL and WWF
International.
van der Laan, C, Wicke B, Faaij A 2015. ILUC prevention case study on palm oil production in NorthEast Kalimantan case study Utrecht University. Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Wicke, B., Verweij, P., van Meijl, H., van Vuuren, D. P., & Faaij, A. P. 2012. Indirect land use
change: review of existing models and strategies for mitigation. Biofuels. 3(1):87-100.
Witcover, J., Yeh, S., Sperling, D. 2012. Policy options to address global land use change from
biofuels, Energy Policy 56: 63-74.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (1)
Methodology
described in detail
in Brinkman et al.
(2015a)

The method used to analyze and quantify the ILUC prevention
measures in terms of their low-ILUC-risk potential is described in
detail in the methodology document prepared for this project
(Brinkman et al. 2015a). In the following, an overview of the
key aspects of the method are given:
•

Selection of crops and livestock

•

Production volumes

•

General aspects of ILUC prevention

•

ILUC prevention measures

•

50



Above-baseline yield developments of crops



Above-baseline yield developments of livestock



Chain integration



Chain efficiency



Under-utilized land for biofuel production and land zoning



Reducing GHG emissions in the biofuel supply chain

Analysis integration

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (2)
Selection of crops
& livestock

For each case study, an overview of the most important crops in
terms of areal extent and their share in total agricultural land in
the region is made. Based on this overview, those crops are
selected that together cover at least 75% of the total arable
land, depending on the case study.
With regard to livestock production, the importance of the
livestock sector in the case study region is assessed by
parameters such as the area of land under pasture and meadow,
livestock population, and current production of milk and beef.
Poultry and pigs are not grazing animals and are mainly fed with
processed feed. The land use (change) related to this feed is
already taken into account by assessing agricultural crops.
Cattle production is closely related to the use of meadows and
pastures. Thus, the area of meadows and pastures that can
become available for bioenergy production mainly depends on
changes in cattle production.

51

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (3)
Projected
production volume

The projected production volume in the case study in 2020 is
determined by disaggregating the projected production in the
world region (from MIRAGE) to the case study region based on
the current share of crop production in the case study compared
to the world region.
If livestock cattle production makes up a significant user share
of land, also the projected production in 2020 needs to be
assessed. However, the production for beef and milk in 2020
cannot be derived from the MIRAGE model. Therefore, the
projected production is derived from extrapolating the historical
trend line.

52

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (4)
Above-baseline
yield
developments Crops

1. Assess yield developments of
all major crops of the region
2. Determine 2020 production
volumes per crop from MIRAGE
projections – fixed for baseline
and above-baseline yield
developments
3. Calculate surplus land area
through increases in crop
yields, i.e. the difference
between the area needed for producing the crop production
volumes set in step 2 in the baseline yield scenario (as
determined by MIRAGE) and the above-baseline yield
scenarios (as determined in step 1).
4.

53

This surplus area and projected biofuel crop yield are used
for assessing the low-ILUC-risk biofuel crop production
potential.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (5)
Above-baseline
yield
developments Livestock

54

1. Assess developments in cattle
density and livestock
productivity
2. Determine 2020 milk and beef
production volume based on
recent trends in case study
region (as MIRAGE does not
provide physical volumes for
livestock)
3.

Calculate surplus land area through increases in cattle density
and beef and milk productivity, i.e. the difference between the
area needed for producing the production volumes set in step
2 in the baseline productivity/density scenario and abovebaseline productivity/density scenarios (step 1).

4.

This surplus area and projected biofuel crop yield are used for
assessing the low-ILUC-risk biofuel crop production potential.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (6)
Chain integration

When co-products from the biofuel production chain are
integrated in the agricultural production system, the replaced
products do not need to be produced anymore and the land can
be used for production of biomass for energy.
Consequential analysis –as used in life cycle assessment- is
applied to determine the reduction in production of the crop that
is replaced and the corresponding amount of land that is
needed.
Steps in the calculation:
1. Assess the increased availability of co-products based on
projected increased production (incl. additional biofuel
production from surplus land generated in other measures).
2. Calculate reduction in feed and other crop production in the
target scenario.
3. Calculate surplus land available for biomass production.

55

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (7)
Chain efficiency

Reduced losses in the production chain between agriculture and
households reduces the demand for agricultural crops. As a
consequence less land is needed for the production of these
crops. This leaves more land available for the production of
biomass for energy.
Steps in calculations:
1. Establish current losses in food and biofuel chain.
2. Determine potential reduction in losses in food and biofuel
chain by assessing the sources of losses and comparison to
other regions.
3. Calculate reduced losses of production in the target scenario.
4. Calculate surplus land available for biomass production.

56

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (8)
Biofuels
production on
under-utilized
land & land zoning

Under-utilized lands include set-aside land, abandoned land,
degraded land, marginal lands and other land that does not
currently provide services, i.e., “unused lands” (van de Staaij et
al. 2012). This land can be used to cultivate extra biomass for
bioenergy. In some cases, this land is less productive than
existing agricultural land and then a marginal yield factor is
applied in assessing the potential production on this land
(based on literature and expert opinions). But not in all cases,
the yields are actually lower.
Land zoning helps avoid the conversion of land with e.g. high
carbon stocks, biodiversity or other ecosystem services to
biofuel feedstock production. Land zoning is often combined
with the measure on under-utilized land in order to define what
is under-utilized and when is it available for conversion.
However, it can also be important when surplus land generated
from ILUC prevention measures is not currently legally
available for biomass production for energy purposes (e.g. in
some areas in the case study on Lublin province (Poland), food
crops are allowed to be produced but energy crops are not. This
comes despite the fact that some energy crops can actually
benefit the soil and biodiversity levels compared to food crops.

57

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (9)
Reduced GHG
emissions

58

Lower GHG emissions in the biofuel value chain help to increase
the GHG emission reduction potential of biofuels compared to
fossil fuels. To assess possibilities for GHG mitigation, first GHG
emission data for the biofuel supply chain is collected from
literature. Key data to be included are:
•
direct land use change, including soil organic carbon
changes due to cultivation
•
fertilizer management in the crop cultivation (type and
amount of fertilizer)
•
consumption of fossil energy during crop production (e.g.
due to use of machinery)
•
transportation method(s) and distances
•
GHG emissions from feedstock conversion and credits from
co-products
•
biofuel end-use (e.g. transport to refueling station)

Then, the data are combined into a low and high GHG balance.
Based on these two balances, potential GHG mitigation strategies
in different parts of the value chain are identified and discussed.
These could, for example, include best management practice with
regard to tillage and fertilizer use, improved yields, and reduction
or capture of emissions from waste streams. Finally, the GHG
balances are compared to the GHG emissions of fossil fuels to
give an indication of GHG Emission savings.
ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (10)
Integrated
analysis
Figure: Integrating
the different
measures accounts
for the interactions
and feedback
between different
measures.

Key interactions
(continued on next
page)

59

• Reducing food losses decreases the food production volume
required for supplying the same amount of food. As a result,
above baseline yield developments result in lower surplus
area.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Appendix – Method for quantifying ILUC prevention (11)
Integrated
analysis Interactions
between
measures

60

• Using co-products from the biofuel supply chain more
optimally reduces the production of crops that are substituted
by the biofuel co-product. The crop yield determines how
much land is saved.
• Above baseline yield developments in existing food, feed and
biofuel production result in surplus agricultural area when
projected demand is met. The biofuel crop yield is then used
to assess how much low-ILUC-risk biofuels can be produced on
the surplus agricultural land and under-utilized land. For the
assessment of the potential on under-utilized land a
potentially lower yield on under-utilized land compared to
surplus agricultural land is considered.
• The improvements in the chain efficiency for food and biofuel
production result in making surplus land area available for
biofuel feedstock production. The biofuel chain efficiency is
also used in the conversion of feedstock to biofuel low-ILUCrisk potential.
• Land zoning helps avoid the use of land with high carbon
stocks, biodiversity or other ecosystem services for biofuel
feedstock production. Land zoning is often combined with the
measure on under-utilized land in order to define what is
under-utilized and when is it available for conversion.

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report

Contact information
Dr. Birka Wicke

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development
Faculty of Geosciences
Utrecht University
Web: www.uu.nl/copernicus
Email: b.wicke@uu.nl

Prof. Dr. André Faaij

Energy and Sustainability Research
Institute Groningen
University of Groningen
Web: http://www.rug.nl/research/esrig/
Email: A.P.C.Faaij@rug.nl

Energy Academy Europe

www.energyacademy.org

For more information on the project, see http://www.geo.uu.nl/iluc

61

ILUC prevention project – Synthesis report