Defining and evaluating the sustainability of biofuels: leading criteria and indicators

Elisabeth GraffyU.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Indicators Take Many Forms

Textual (‘swimmable’) Numerical (temperature,

MCLs) Visual (air quality colors) Graphical (“Consumer

reports”)

Need for National Indicators “DRIP” widely viewed as increasingly

problematic Existing mechanisms and sources too

fragmented, inconsistent, sporadic, not broadly credible Improvements in production, reporting, and use at

the national level proposed Sustainability a consistent focus

Social, economic, environmental

Major National Indicator Efforts Heinz Center: State of the Nation’s Ecosystems NAS: Key National Indicator Initiative

State of the USA EPA: Report on the Environment Intergovernmental: Sustainable Water, Forest,

Rangeland, Minerals Roundtables National: NEST pilot Federal: IWG on sustainability criteria for biofuels

National Biomass R&D Board Co-chaired by DOE and USDA

NSF, EPA, DOI, DOT, OSTP, OFEE, DOC, DOD, Treasury

Created by E.O. > Biomass R&D Act of 2000 > Energy Policy Act of 2005

Responsibility: coordinate Federal activities to promote biobased industrial products. President’s 20-in-10 plan, biofuels aspects of the Energy

Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 National Biofuels Action Plan 2008

National Biofuels Action Plan 2008

“The Board aims to provide the interagency leadership to steer biofuels development on a sustainable path through the compilation and evaluation of biofuels

sustainability criteria, benchmarks and indicators.”

Interagency Leadership Charge Establish a Sustainability Interagency

Working Group led by DOE, USDA, EPA Define, by November 2008, a set of science-

based national biofuels criteria and indicators Coordinate with ongoing international

activities, interface with industry and environmental groups, and plan workshops with internal and external stakeholders.

S-IWG Criteria and Indicators Criteria

Directional: prescriptive, imply policy direction that may or may not currently exist; could show U.S. leadership.

Neutral: descriptive, aligned with other U.S. activities underway in international community (e.g. GBEP); provide policy flexibility and consistency with projected future policy development and legislation.

Indicators Intended to empirically capture the direct and indirect

consequences of moving to a biobased energy future. Aim is relevance, availability of science information,

economic feasibility.

S-IWG -- Draft Criteria

1. Greenhouse gases (GHG)

2. Soil quality and land productivity

3. Water use efficiency and quality

4. Air quality

5. Biological diversity

S-IWG -- Draft Criteria (cont.)6. Land use change impacts

7. Resource use and conversion efficiency and productivity

8. Cost competitiveness and returns

9. Economic well-being and rural development

10. Food, feed, and fiber supply

S-IWG -- Draft Criteria (cont.)11. Public health and safety12. Legal and institutional framework

compliance13. Workforce capacity 14. Imported oil displacement and energy supply

diversity15. Net energy balance16. Energy access

Evaluating Indicators Not just a question of whether they are right

or wrong… What are they for? Who are they for? Who should be involved in development? Is science-based sufficient? How will they be used in practice? Is coordination necessary across sectors, scales?

Helpful Analytic Frameworks Policy Cultures of

Information Use Beyond the Pyramid Strategic Coordination

with other Trends

Policy Cultures of Information Use Scientific – improve understanding Ecological – protect ecosystems, resources Managerial – promote efficient use, solve

problems, balance objectives Governance – enhance public access to

information, to policymaking Development -- improve human welfare,

eradicate poverty, disease

Policy Cultures as Diagnostic Tool OECD: “ultimate goal of

improving policy making, democracy and citizens’ wellbeing.”

NEST/US: credible, consistent, comprehensive to support federal and state level decisions

S-IWG on biofuels: “Expanding biofuels usage to 36 BGY over 15 years on a sustainable basis”

Who and What are they for?

Who is or should be involved?

Is science-based enough?

A “Post-Pyramid” View

Policy, Planning, and

Mgmt Indicators

Monitoring Data and Statistics

Legitimize common knowledge base for public

discourse, social learning

Measure Progress or

Accountability to goals

Uses: projected or desired

Public Frames

Key Indicators

Design: what for and for whom?

Synthesized knowledge, symbols, narratives, metaphors with technical,

cultural, economic, spiritual content

Advance scientific understanding

Strategic Coordination with Trends 1 Sustainability indicators for

biofuels under development Global Bioenergy Partnership

(G8) International Roundtable on

Sustainable Biofuels (NG) UK plans mandatory biofuels

sustainability standards by 2011 Crop-specific sustainability

criteria & indicators (palm oil, soy, sugar cane) drafted for use as management

benchmarks and market certification

Strategic Coordination with Trends 2 U.S. National

environmental indicators overlap in many areas Water Land use Soils Biodiversity Atmospheric ….

Strategic Coordination with Trends 3 General sustainability & societal indicators

OECD: “life satisfaction, freedom, trust, the level of education, income, employment, government effectiveness, the quality of democracy, corruption reduction, tolerance, commitment and innovation all are aspects of one phenomenon: societal progress”

How do or should state-level bioenergy indicators fit in?