Environmental impact assessment of energy ... - Wiley Online Library

0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Aug 11, 2010 - exhausting, while giant reed and cardoon are very depleting. ... to short vegetation.30 Intensive soil amendment in annual systems may lead to ...
On the Map

Environmental impact assessment of energy crops cultivation in Europe Ana L Fernando, Maria P Duarte, Joana Almeida, Sara Boléo and Benilde Mendes, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal Received April 30, 2010; revised version received July 9, 2010; accepted August 11, 2010 View online at Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.249; Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4: 594–604 (2010) Abstract: The production of energy crops must be studied and evaluated in terms of environmental impact, in order to integrate them into a sustainable agricultural development. As bioenergy carriers they offer ecological advantages over fossil fuels by contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases and acidifying emissions. However, there could be ecological shortcomings related to the intensity of agricultural production. There is a risk of polluting water and air, losing soil quality, enhancing erosion, and reducing biodiversity. In the scope of the project Future Crops for Food, Feed, Fiber and Fuel (4F Crops), supported by the European Union, an environmental impact assessment study was developed and applied to the production of potential energy crops in Europe. The following variables were selected as categories: use of water and mineral resources, soil quality and erosion, emission of minerals and pesticides to soil and water, waste generation and utilization, landscape, and biodiversity. In addition, a normalization and weighting procedure was applied, which attempts to aggregate environmental impacts. Results suggest that growing energy crops does not inflict higher impact on the environment compared to potato and wheat farming (regarding the studied categories). Although the different indicators did not yield a common pattern, overall results suggest that woody and lignocellulosic crops have an advantage over annual crop systems, namely regarding erodibility and biodiversity. Some crop management options, such as pesticides and fertilizers inputs, can influence the outcomes. However, site-specific factors should be accurately assessed to evaluate the adequacy between crop and location. Environmental hotspots in the systems are detected and options for improvement are presented. © 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Supporting information may be found in the online version of this article. Keywords: energy crops; environmental impact assessment; sustainability; agro-environmental indicators

Introduction

T

he use of renewable energy sources has been promoted as an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as sustaining energy

security and technological innovation. The European Union (EU) is endorsing the expanded use of biomass for energy covered partially by domestic EU biomass production.1 Notwithstanding, bioenergy sustainability has been in the spotlight of heavy criticism, namely regarding

Correspondence to: Ana Luísa Fernando, UBIA, Grupo de Disciplinas da Ecologia da Hidrosfera, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, FCT, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected]

594

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

environmental performance and the liabilities of dedicated crops.2–6 Most energy crop systems require intensive use of land. Thus, meeting the demands of increased production of energy crops might put pressure on natural resources such as biodiversity, water, and soil as well increasing the inputs of agrochemicals in farmland.7–14 Hence, the scientific community and policy-makers have been driven to assess the environmental impacts of bioenergy carriers. In the framework of the project Future Crops for Food, Feed, Fiber and Fuel (4F Crops, http://www.4fcrops.eu/), supported by the EU, this study aimed to assess the environmental impact of the cultivation of a set of energy crop species. These species have been allocated to the climatic regions of Europe most suited for their development. Focus was on the use of water and mineral resources, soil quality and erosion, emission of minerals and pesticides to soil and water, waste management, landscape, and biodiversity.

Methodological approach This study is divided into the following steps: (1) goal and scope definition; (2) data collection; and (3) environmental impact assessment (EIA). Goal and scope definition The goal of this work was to evaluate the possible environmental impacts associated with the production of different energy crops in Europe. Fifteen crops have been allocated to the climatic regions of Europe most suited for their

AL Fernando et al.

development (Fig. 1). The selection of the crops and their allocation had been previously carried out in the framework of the 4F Crops project. Besides the energy crops, two food crops, potato and wheat, were also analyzed. As these are traditional crops in Europe, their performance will serve for comparison with the studied energy crops. The reference system was grass fallow.

Data collection Most energy crops in Europe are cultivated in small-scale and often in experimental sites. Therefore, assessment of field data from literature was supplemented with, and crosschecked by, expert opinions. Some data were acquired as well from national and international organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Eurostat. The complete list of the surveyed results and references are available for consultation in the supporting information. Environmental impact assessment We followed the approach suggested by Biewinga and van der Bijl,16 adjusting the methods whenever relevant. The focus is on the impact of cultivation on biotic and abiotic resources, through the analysis of the crop’s interaction with its environment and management practices. These processes are intertwined; segregating out individual effects can be difficult. However, this EIA is divided into several categories, which comprise individual impact indicators (Table 1). Energy savings, greenhouse effects, and acidification issues are being dealt in Rettenmaier et al.17

Figure 1. Allocation of the investigated crops to the environmental zones (defined according to Metzger et al.15).

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

595

AL Fernando et al.

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

Table 1. Environmental impact assessment methodological steps for each impact category. Category

Indicator

Assessment steps i.

Quantification of nitrogen (N) fertilizer applied.

ii.

Estimation of emissions:18

Fertilizer-related emissions Emissions to soil, air and water Pesticiderelated emissions

a.

NH3 volatilization (10%);

b.

NH4/NO3 leaching and run-off (30%);

c.

N2O direct emissions (1%).

i.

Quantification of active substances (A.S.) applied.

ii.

Toxicity evaluation of each A.S. according to its effects on the environment, fauna and human health.16,19

iii. Aggregation of (i) and (ii) in a pesticide score:

(

Pesticide score = ¨ amount A.S. ( kgha1) × toxicity A.S.

Nutrient status

Impact on soil Erosion

)

i.

Quantification of N, phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) fertilizers applied (input).

ii.

Quantification of crop N, P and K uptakes and of N emissions.

iii. Calculation of nutrient status in the soil as: Balance = input – uptake – emissions (for N) *K surpluses may contribute to eutrophication of terrestrial ecosystems and this is accounted in the indicator ‘Fertilizer-related emissions’ i.

Division of crop cultivation in development phases from start of growth (A), to closure of crop (B), to start of senescence (C) and harvest (D).

ii.

Estimation of a soil cover ratio (C-value) and of a regional amount of rainfall in each phase (R-value).

iii. Assessment of an erosion control factor (P-value) reflecting the intensity of erosion control in each region. iv. Calculation of the harmful rainfall: Total harmful rainfall = ¨ ( C × R )stage and region × Pregion

Soil properties

Groundwater depletion Impact on mineral and water resources

i.

Quantification of crop water requirement.

ii.

Quantification of rainfall available to the crop during its permanence on soil.

iii. Calculation of soil water balance: Groundwater balance = rainfall – water requirement i.

Effects on hydrology

Mineral ore depletion Waste

Literature survey of the negative and/or positive impacts of each crop on structure, organic matter and pH.

Effects on water flow and run-off and on refill of aquifers as influenced by: a.

crop permanence on soil;

b.

crop water needs;

c.

crop root system.

i.

Quantification of P and K fertilizers applied.

ii.

Sum of P and K fertilizers use (P fertilizer is more scarce, thus it will weight five times more than K).

Literature survey on the possible generation of impactful wastes during cultivation and on the possibility of using each crop to the following waste valorization options: phytoremediation, irrigation with wastewater, soil amendment with sludge, etc. Literature review and evaluation of generic effects of crops regarding:

Biodiversity

i.

biodiversity disturbance as related to management practices and intensity;

ii.

aggressiveness, nativeness and allelopathy;

iii. reported increase or decrease of abundance and diversity of floral and faunal species. Landscape

596

Evaluation of the variation of crop scene in terms of structure (height, density, heterogeneity and openness) and color. Variation was considered to be a benefit when gains in structure and/or color were noticed. Variation implying loss of structure and/or color debited the landscape values.

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

Normalization Indicator results were scaled from 0 (lower impact) to 10 (higher impact) against fallow (in the middle of the range with a score of 5). For each quantitative indicator ‘0’ or ‘10’ are determined by the most extreme result among the crops for each environmental zone (to overcome the inter-regional differences observed, e.g. rainfall, crop productivity). Regarding soil properties and the categories waste, biodiversity, and landscape, qualitative evaluation was used to fulfi ll the lack of quantitative data. Qualitative scoring consisted on the individual evaluation of each crop for a set of pertinent parameters, through expert judgment and literature review (Table 1 and supporting information).

AL Fernando et al.

concern in the Mediterranean regions, 22,23 while fertilizer emissions have deeper impacts in northern regions.16 In order to assess the influence of a weighting system (WS) on the fi nal results, three different classifications were applied (Table 2). • WS1: All indicators have the same weight. • WS2: Greater emphasis on GHG emission drivers, namely N-fertilizer related emissions and soil degradation. • WS3: Greater emphasis on biodiversity. For each weighting system, a final score for each crop was estimated (Eqn 1).

¨ ( scoreindicator × weightindicator ) ¨ weightindicator

Weighting Defi ning weighting factors is a value-based pronouncement, which brings ambiguity and subjectivity to the study at hand. Some authors agree that, whenever applied, weighting should reflect the relative importance of the impact categories in the organizational context of the study. 20 Since this study was performed at European level,

Nevertheless, these weighting factors have to be considered as a try-out once a simplified approach was considered.

the weighting factors were built up according to the relative importance of each indicator studied considering the EU Environmental Policies, which highlight GHG emissions, biodiversity and chemical pollution. 21 Moreover, it was considered that erosion and water availability are of greater

Emissions to soil, air, and water To ensure high productivities, agrochemicals are required, which set off a chain of noxious effects that hinge on the compounds released upon application (Fig. 2). In this study, as inputs we only considered fertilizers and not manure.

Scorecrop =

(1)

Results and discussion

Table 2. Weighting systems applied. North: Nemoral, Continental, Atlantic North and Central, Lusitanian; South: Mediterranean North and South. Weighting factors Category

Indicator

Emissions to soil, air and water

Fertilizer-related emissions

WS1

WS2 North

1

2.5

WS3 South 2.25

North

South

1

0.75

Pesticide-related emissions

1

1

1

1

1

Nutrient status

1

0.5

0.25

0.5

0.25

Erosion

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

Soil properties

1

2

2

1

1

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

1

0.5

0.25

0.5

0.25

Waste

1

0.5

0.25

0.5

0.25

Biodiversity

1

1.5

1.5

4

4

Landscape

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Impact on soil

Groundwater balance Impact on mineral and water resources

Effects on hydrology Mineral ore depletion

Total

10

10

10

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

10

10

597

AL Fernando et al.

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

Figure 2. Normalized scores of fertilizer-related and pesticide-related emissions impact of the energy crops cultivation in Europe.

Deposition from air and symbiotic N-fi xation were also not considered. In terms of pesticide-related emissions, most of the energy crops studied showed low impact. Yet, pesticides application penalizes sunflower, sugarbeet, switchgrass, and food crops. Concerning fertilizer-related emissions, eucalyptus is the crop that shows the lowest impact due to a balanced K application and to low N input. On the contrary, rapeseed and flax present a higher impact owing to excess K. Poplar and willow are also hampered by K surplus. Rapeseed is also burdened by high N-related emissions, which are also verified for most of the annual crops (except sunflower and flax) and cardoon. However, N emission factors do not take into account root and rhizome dynamics, which has been pointed as reducing nitrate leaching and run-off in perennials.16,24–26 Impact on soil Common cropping management activities and crop characteristics affect soil quality through the change of nutrient, organic matter (SOM), structural and acidic status and erosion potentials.16 Fallow’s nutrient status was considered to be neutral, under the assumption that the deposition of decayed matter

598

on the ground offsets the uptake (Fig. 3). Hence, when compared with grass fallow, all crops, more or less, disturb the soil’s nutrient status. Whereas P accumulation or neutrality in the soil is verified for all the cases, N and K reserves are built up or depleted depending on the crop. Noticeably, the trees, Miscanthus, switchgrass, and the fiber crops are least exhausting, while giant reed and cardoon are very depleting. These results suggest that fertilizer application is unbalanced, since it is not in conformity with the crops’ needs. While P should be applied in lower levels, particularly in the case of sweet sorghum and potato, N and K application ought to be increased, for most of the crops, in order to avoid plant malnutrition and soil depletion. Deeper N deficits are observed for sunflower, giant reed, and cardoon. Giant reed and cardoon also exhibit high K deficits as well as sugarbeet, sweet sorghum, reed canary grass, and wheat. Crops that produce large amounts of harvest litter, leaving it on the field can compensate nutrient withdrawal, for example, sunflower stalks.27 Our findings corroborate the suggestions by Kort et al.13 that lignocellulosic and woody crops exhibit average lower erodibility potential owing to greater interception of rainfall and more surface cover for a longer time period (Fig. 3). In

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

AL Fernando et al.

Figure 3. Normalized scores of soil-related indicators impact of the energy crops cultivation in Europe.

contrast, annual crops pose higher erosion risks, particularly potato, sweet sorghum, and sunflower. Regarding sweet sorghum and sunflower, in a Mediterranean setting this may be an important factor, since that region has the highest erosion potential in Europe.22 Although our erosion impact analysis only considered the exposure of the soil to rainfall, factors such as SOM and soil structure also influence the soil’s integrity. Concerning soil properties, lignocellulosic crops provide organic matter accumulation and structural enhancement related to permanence, high inputs of residues and vigorous root development.9,14 Consequently, these crops present a positive impact regarding SOM and soil structure (Fig. 3). Woody crops are reported to accumulate less SOM than herbaceous perennials,14 whereas eucalyptus induces further stress through the depletion of ground-level vegetation by allelopathy.28,29 Annual cropping systems are the most damaging in terms of SOM content and structure due to high soil revolving, short permanence, and litter removal.9 The impact is minor when crops have deep roots (e.g. hemp) and if litter is left on field and enhanced when the harvesting process removes a portion of the soil (e.g. sugarbeet). Regarding soil pH, woody crops significantly increase soil acidity compared

to short vegetation.30 Intensive soil amendment in annual systems may lead to sharp pH variations from the native status of the soil. The same processes can affect herbaceous perennials systems, but such has not been verified.31 Impact on water and mineral resources Previous reports have supported the idea that energy crops can be water demanding to the point of compromising natural availability.26,32 According to our results, the needs of most of the crops in the study are sufficed by rainfall and the verified depletion rates (sugarbeet, sweet sorghum, hemp, and potato) are less salient than positive balances. Allocation of higher-water-demanding crops to regions with higher precipitation contributed to this result. However, all crops excepting Miscanthus and eucalyptus show a higher impact in comparison with fallow. Nevertheless, hydrological impact of energy crops does not relate only to reducing stocks. Soil covering minimizes surface run-off,10,16 which can be verified in perennials. Nonetheless, shortcomings concerning aquifer refi lling should be expected as effects of higher water needs (e.g. sugarbeet and hemp) and deeper root systems (e.g. perennials, hemp, and sweet sorghum).33 Miscanthus and eucalyptus have overall lower impact on

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

599

AL Fernando et al.

water resources. Sugarbeet, hemp, and potato are highly damaging comparing to fallow (Fig. 4). Since most crops exhibit a wide range of P and K applications, they induce variable mineral ore depletion depending on management. Perennials are less P and K demanding, although differences to most of the annual crops studied are not significant (Fig. 4). Lower impact is observed for eucalyptus and willow whereas sweet sorghum and potato present the highest risk concerning mineral resources (Fig. 4). Waste Though the cultivation of energy crops may produce undesired waste, this is partly counterbalanced by the ability to take up contaminants and nutrients from sludge, slurry, landfi lls, and soils.9 It was assumed that all crops generate waste in the form of pesticide and fertilizer disposed packages, and old machinery.16 Being less management intensive, perennials generate less waste than annual crops (Fig. 5). Soil sticking to the sugarbeet during the harvest further increases the impact of this crop because this waste cannot return to the field due to phytosanitary reasons.16 Energy crops have been thoroughly documented as apt remediators of heavy metal-contaminated soils24,31,34–37 and

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

landfi ll leachates.9,38 Irrigation with wastewaters and soil amendment with sewage sludge is reported as well.31,39–43 Notwithstanding the advantages explained above, opting for application of organic fertilizers, such as animal manures, may increase N emissions.18 Biodiversity Establishing a monoculture is an infringement to biodiversity, yet its extent depends on the crop itself and its setting. Perennial rhizomatous grasses require a reduced soil tillage and use of agrochemicals and have high above- and belowground biomass, which favors soil microfauna and shelters invertebrates and birds.9,44 However, aggressiveness hinders the advantages of reed canary grass and giant reed (Fig. 5). Some crops benefit from being native to European regions (e.g. cardoon in the Mediterranean region).2 Willow and poplar support more biodiversity than perennial grasses owing to their structure and longer life cycle, creating habitat for birds, vertebrates and flora.9–10,45 Although the impact might be negative for changing the dynamics of local populations,46 the overall effect is stated as negligible or even positive.30 Eucalyptus does not follow that trend due to more aggressive management, allelopathy28,29 and its aggressive behavior.

Figure 4. Normalized scores of the impact on water and on mineral resources of the energy crops cultivation in Europe.

600

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

AL Fernando et al.

Figure 5. Normalized scores of the waste, biodiversity, and landscape impact categories of the energy crops cultivation in Europe.

Annual crops are regarded as a source of biodiversity loss, due to short permanence on soil and intensive management.45,47 The blossoming period may, though, increase bird and insect abundance and diversity, as has been reported in sunflower fields.48 Landscape The variation in structural richness that underlies the variation in biodiversity values motivates variation in landscape values as well. Gains are verified in blossoming crops (oilseed crops, cardoon, flax, and potato), as well as in crops that have richer structure (perennials). Negative scoring resulted from the opposite (as in sugarbeet, a highly uniform and ground-hugging crop). Non-variation was considered to be neutral (Fig. 5). Overall results Figure 6 shows the overall environmental impact of the different energy crops studied in Europe. Results show that the application of the weighting step aggravates the impact of all crops. Emphasis on biodiversity (WS3) in detriment to GHG emission drivers (WS2) inflicts a higher impact except for rapeseed, Ethiopian mustard, cardoon, poplar, willow, and

potato. However, if crops were to be sorted according to their performance, weighting would not significantly influence their relative position. The most striking observation to emerge from the data is the lower overall impact of lignocelullosic and woody crops when compared to annual species. Among perennials no significant differences were observed either. Among the annual species, potato and sugarbeet present the highest impact. All the other annual systems were more or less even. All the investigated crops present higher overall environmental impact than fallow, but, less impact than potato and, except sugarbeet, than wheat as well. Therefore, the results suggest that growing energy crops would benefit the environment (regarding the studied categories) compared to potato and wheat farming. On the other hand, cultivating them in fallow land shows an increased impact. On this matter, concerns related to the impact of land-use change should also be considered. These and other issues, such as socioeconomic analysis, fall outside the scope of this study, though, and would sustain relevant future research. Caution must be applied, nonetheless, when the results rely on quantified ranges dependent upon the intensity level of

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

601

AL Fernando et al.

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

Figure 6. Final environmental impact assessment of energy crops cultivation in Europe (I – WS1; II – WS2: III – WS3).

inputs. The wider the range, the more pertinent the suggestion that impact can be reduced if fertilizers and pesticides are applied in a moderate manner. Still, other than implying less room for optimization, narrower ranges might indicate fewer available data, since the results arise from literature surveys. Further, we verified N and K soil depletion, which indicates that reducing fertilizers would stress nutrient soil reserves. This fact is even more pertinent considering that some of the studied crops have not yet been upscaled to a commercial level in Europe. Upscaling of new crops in Europe can also induce an increment of pesticides use due to the emergence of new pests and diseases. However, their impact can be minored if lower toxicity pesticides are selected. The impact of a crop is site-specific. Nevertheless, as long as cultivation takes place in appropriate locations, and is accurately assessed, the overall environmental performance can differ depending on crop management options.

Conclusions This study provides a generic framework on the expected environmental consequences of cultivating a set of energy crops previously allocated to different European regions.

602

Results suggest that growing energy crops does not infl ict higher impact on the environment compared to potato and wheat farming (regarding the studied categories). The assessed impact pathways rely primarily on management intensity and crop traits. Annual cropping systems (oil, sugar, fiber, and food) are more management-intensive than the remaining types, since they require more inputs and land disturbance, build up less biomass, and have shorter permanence periods. Thus they have a more negative impact on the environment than lignocellulosic and woody species. Annual crops stand out as being more burdening than the remaining types regarding erodibility and biodiversity. Annual systems and woody crops are also more damaging to soil quality than herbaceous perennials. However, differences among crop types are not as evident in the remaining indicators. Further, each crop type often contains uneven outcomes among species, a consequence of the environmental zone allocation, but also of crop management options. Impact reduction strategies are limited to crop management options which can influence emissions, nutrient status, and mineral ore depletion. All other impacts are site-specific dependent, intertwined with crops traits. Therefore, the implementation of impact-lean bioenergetic agrosystems

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

should root also on the adequacy between crop and location. For that, adding to the generic trends we hereby set, decisionmakers and stakeholders should assess site-specific factors (e.g. on-field emission fluxes, quality assessment of soil and groundwater, effect on local biodiversity, and landscape).

AL Fernando et al.

12. Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MJ, Morel A, Danielsen F, Brühl CA, Donald PF et al., How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23(10):538–545 (2008). 13. Kort J, Collins M and Ditsch D, Review of soil erosion potential associated with biomass crops. Biomass Bioenerg 14(4):351–359 (1998). 14. Brandão M, Millá-i-Canals L and Clift R, Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: Implications for GHG bal-

Supporting information Supporting information can be found in the online version of this article.

ances and soil quality for use in LCA. Biomass Bioenerg doi:10.1016/j. biombioe.2009.10.019 (2010). 15. Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Mucher CA and Watkins JW, A climatic stratification of the environment of Europe. Global Ecol Biogeogr 14(6):549–564 (2005).

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the European Union (Project 4F Crops – Future Crops for Food, Feed, Fiber and Fuel, Grant Agreement No: 212811, Coordination and Support Actions, FP7-KBBE-2007-1). Precipitation data were supplied by Joint Research Centre.

16. Biewinga EE and van der Bijl G, Sustainability of energy crops in Europe: a methodology developed and applied. CLM, Utrecht, 209 pp (1996). 17. Rettenmaier N, Köppen S, Gärtner SO and Reinhardt GA, Life cycle assessment of selected future energy crops for Europe. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref. 4:620–636 (2010). 18. IPCC, Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, ed. by Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T and Tanabe K. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan (2006).

References 1. EU, Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

19. Portaria 732-A/96, Regulamento para a notificação de substâncias químicas e para a classificação, embalagem e rotulagem de substâncias

of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable

perigosas. Diário da República, I Série – B, 286, 4434 – (2-693)

sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/

(in Portuguese, Portuguese Decree related to the classification of danger-

EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L140/16–62 of 5.6.2009 (2009). 2. Groom M, Gray E and Townsend P, Biofuels and Biodiversity: Principles for creating better policies for biofuel production, Conserv Biol 22(3): 602–609 (2008). 3. Escobar JC, Lora ES, Venturini OJ, Yáñez EE, Castillo EF and Almazan O, Biofuels: Environment, technology and food security. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(6–7):1275–1287 (2009). 4. Johnson E, Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right. Environ Impact Assess 29(3):165–168 (2009). 5. Dominguez-Faus R, Powers SE, Burken JG and Alvarez PJ, The water footprint of biofuels: A drink or drive issue? Environ Sci Technol 43(9):3005–3010 (2009). 6. Mathews JA and Tan H. Biofuels and indirect land use change effects: the debate continues. Biofuel, Bioprod Bioref 3:305–317 (2009). 7. Venturi P and Venturi G, Analysis of energy comparison for crops in European agricultural systems, Biomass Bioenerg 25(3):235–255b (2003).

ous substances) (1996). 20. Schmidt W-P, Sullivan J, Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global context. Int J LCA 7 (1):5–10 (2002). 21. EC, Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice. 6th EU Environment Action programme, 2001–2010. European Commission, Luxembourg, 14 pp. (2001). 22. Knijff JM vd, Jones RJA and Montanarella L, Soil Erosion Risk: Assessment in Europe. European Soil Bureau – European Commission, 38 pp. (2000). 23. EEA, Water resources across Europe – confronting water scarcity and drought. EEA Report 2/2009. European Environment Agency, Denmark. 55 pp. (2009). 24. Bullard M and Metcalfe P, Estimating the energy requirements and CO2 emissions from production of the perennial grasses Micanthus, switchgrass and reed canary grass. ETSU Report Number B/U1/00645/REP. DTI/Pub URN 01/797, Contractor ADAS Consulting Ltd. 94 pp. (2001). 25. McLaughlin S, Bouton J, Bransby D, Conger B, Ocumpaugh W, Parrish D,

8. EEA, How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the

et al., Developing switchgrass as a bioenergy crop, in Perspectives

environment? Report No. 7/2006. European Environment Agency,

on New Crops and New Uses – Proceedings of the Fourth National

Copenhagen, 67 pp. (2006).

Symposium New Crops and New Uses: Biodiversity and Agricultural

9. Börjesson P, Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden—I: identification and quantification. Biomass Bioenerg 16(2):137–154 (1999). 10. Rowe RL, Street NR and Taylor G, Identifying potential environmental impacts of large-scale deployment of dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(1):271–290 (2009). 11. Tricker PJ, Pecchiari M, Bunn SM, Vaccari P, Peressotti A, Miglietta F et al., Water use of a bioenergy plantation increases in a future high CO2 world. Biomass Bioenerg 33(2):200–208 (2009).

Sustainability, pp. 282–299 (1999). 26. Jørgensen U and Schelde K, Energy crop water and nutrient use efficiency. Report for the International Energy Agency IEA bioenergy task 17, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark. 38 pp. (2001). 27. El Bassam N, Energy Crop Species: Their Use and Impact on the Environment and Development. James & James (Science Publishers) Ltd, London, United Kingdom (1998). 28. Carneiro M, Serrão V, Fabião A, Madeira M, Balsemão I and Hilário L, Does harvest residue management influence biomass and nutrient accumula-

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb

603

AL Fernando et al.

tion in understory vegetation of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantations in a Mediterranean environment? For Ecol Manag 257(2):527–535 (2009). 29. Sasikumar K, Vijayalakshmi C and Parthiban KT, Allelopathic effects of

On the Map: EIA of energy crops in Europe

48. Jones GA and Sieving KE, Intercropping sunflower in organic vegetables to augment bird predators of arthropods. Agr Ecosyst Environ 117(2–3): 171–177 (2006).

four Eucalyptus species on redgram (Cajanus cajan L.). J Trop Agr 39: 134–138 (2001). 30. Cannell MGR, Environmental impacts of forest monocultures: water use, acidification, wildlife conservation, and carbon storage. New Forest 17: 239–262 (1999). 31. Fernando ALAC, Fitorremediação por Miscanthus x giganteus de solos contaminados com metais pesados, dissertação de Doutoramento, FCT/ UNL, Lisboa, 502 p. (2005). 32. Gerbens-Leenesa W, Hoekstraa AY and Meerb T, The water footprint of bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(25):10219–10223 (2009).

Ana Luísa Fernando Ana Luísa Fernando holds a PhD in Environmental Sciences. She is an Assistant Professor at the Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Her main scientific areas of research are energy crops, remediation of contaminated soils, and valorization of agro residues.

33. Stephens W, Hess T and Knox J, Review of the Effects of Energy Crops on Hydrology. Cranfield University, Silsoe, UK, 71 pp. (2001). 34. Giachetti G and Sebastiani L, Metal accumulation in poplar plant grown with industrial wastes. Chemosphere 64(3):446–454 (2006). 35. Linger P, Müssig J, Fischer H and Kobert J, Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) growing on heavy metal contaminated soil: fibre quality and phytoremediation potential. Ind Crop Prod 16(1):33–42 (2002). 36. Epelde L, Mijangos I, Becerril JM and Garbisu C, Soil microbial community as bioindicator of the recovery of soil functioning derived from metal

Maria Paula Duarte Maria Paula Duarte holds a PhD in Environmental Sciences from Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, where she works as an Assistant Professor. Her main research area is environmental and genetic toxicology.

phytoextraction with sorghum. Soil Biol Biochem 41(9):1788–1794 (2009). 37. Niu Z, Sun L, Sun T, Li Y and Wang H, Evaluation of phytoextracting cadmium and lead by sunflower, ricinus, alfalfa and mustard in hydroponic culture. J Environ Sci 19(8):961–967 (2007). 38. Duggan J, The potential for landfill leachate treatment using willows in the UK—A critical review. Resour Conserv Recy 45:97–113 (2005). 39. Papazoglou EG, Arundo donax L. stress tolerance under irrigation with heavy metal aqueous solutions. Desalination 211(1–3):304–313 (2007). 40. Mavrogianopoulos G, Vogli V and Kyritsis S, Use of wastewater as a nutrient solution in a closed gravel hydroponic culture of giant reed (Arundo

Joana Almeida Joana Almeida holds an MSc in Energy and Bioenergy from Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia of Universidade Nova de Lisboa and is now a researcher at that institution. Her main interests relate to bioenergy sustainability assessment and indicator development.

donax). Bioresour Technol 82(2):103–107 (2002). 41. Batchelor SE, Booth EJ and Walker KC, Energy analysis of rape methyl ester (RME) production from winter oilseed rape. Ind Crop Prod.

Sara Boléo

4(3):193–202 (1995). 42. Hansson PA, Svensson SE, Hallefält F and Diedrichs H, Nutrient and cost optimization of fertilizing strategies for Salix including use of organic waste products. Biomass Bioenerg 17(5):377–387 (1999). 43. Heller MC, Keoleian GA and Volk TA, Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass Bioenerg 25(2):147–165 (2003). 44. Boehmel C, Lewandowski I and Claupein W, Comparing annual and per-

Sara Boléo is an Energy and Bioenergy MSc student at Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia of Universidade Nova de Lisboa, where she currently conducts research on energy crops. Her main interests relate to bioenergy impact assessment and waste valorization.

ennial energy cropping systems with different management intensities. Agr Syst 96:224–236 (2008). 45. Berg Å, Breeding birds in short-rotation coppices on farmland in central

Prof. Benilde Mendes

Sweden – the importance of Salix height and adjacent habitats. Agr Ecosyst Environ 90(3):265–276 (2002). 46. Paine LK, Peterson TL, Undersander DJ, Rineer K, Bartelt G, Temple S and Klemme DWS, Some ecological and socio-economic considerations for biomass energy crop production. Biomass Bioenerg 10(4):231–242 (1996). 47. Mineau P and McLaughlin A, Conservation of biodiversity within Canadian agricultural landscapes: integrating habitat for wildlife. J Agr Environ Ethic 9(2):93–113 (1996).

604

Prof. Benilde Mendes is an Associate Professor at, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Her main scientific areas of research are the biologic depuration and the valorization of subproducts. Other research topics include water quality, environmental impact studies, and environmental economy.

© 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 4:594–604 (2010); DOI: 10.1002/bbb