C ROP P RODUCTION. Bedding Crops Perennials Production Aspects For Selected Crops.
LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CROPS SELECTION FOR ...
Transcript of LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CROPS SELECTION FOR ...
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-1-
LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF CROPS SELECTION FOR
PHYTOREMEDIATION PURPOSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF BIOFUEL
PROF. DR. BERNARD VANHEUSDEN (PROMOTER)
MS. MARIANNE HOPPENBROUWERS
MS. NELE WITTERS
In cooperation with:
PROF. DR. JACO VANGRONSVELD
PROF. DR. THEO THEWYS
PROF. DR. STEVEN VAN PASSEL
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-2-
CONTENT
CONTENT .......................................................................................................................................2
FOREWORD....................................................................................................................................5
A. LEGAL ASPECTS ......................................................................................................................7
I. SELECTING THE CROPS AND SOIL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................7
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................7
2. Plant characteristics ..................................................................................................................7
2.1 Invasive and exotic plants ..................................................................................................8
2.1.1 General ........................................................................................................................8
2.1.2 Local regulations .........................................................................................................9
2.2 Genetically Modified Plants (GM plant) ..........................................................................10
2.2.1 General ......................................................................................................................10
2.2.2 Local regulations .......................................................................................................12
3. Soil management ....................................................................................................................14
3.1 The importance of an international and national regulation.............................................14
3.1.1 An international challenge.........................................................................................14
3.1.2 Local regulations .......................................................................................................15
3.2 Phytoremediation: the difference between stabilization and extraction ...........................17
3.2.1 Stabilization ...............................................................................................................18
3.2.2 Extraction ..................................................................................................................20
3.2.3 Local regulations .......................................................................................................23
II. GROWING AND HARVESTING THE CROPS .....................................................................................25
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................25
2. Growing the crops ..................................................................................................................26
2.1 The crops are planted........................................................................................................26
2.2 Fertilizing .........................................................................................................................27
2.2.1 General ......................................................................................................................27
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-3-
2.2.2 The use of specific fertilizers ....................................................................................28
Local regulations ................................................................................................................31
2.3 Plant protection.................................................................................................................32
Local regulations ................................................................................................................33
3. Harvesting the crops ...............................................................................................................34
3.1 The plants are contaminated .............................................................................................34
3.2 Waste or not waste............................................................................................................36
Local rules ..........................................................................................................................38
3.3 Should biomass be registered under REACH?.................................................................39
III. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................40
1. Legislation ..............................................................................................................................40
2. Literature ................................................................................................................................42
B. ECONOMIC ASPECTS ............................................................................................................46
I. ECONOMIC MODEL BASED ON LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................46
1. Conceptual framework ...........................................................................................................46
1.1 What Rejuvenate 1 started… ............................................................................................46
1.2 … and Rejuvenate 2 continues .........................................................................................48
1.3 Decision tool specifics (work package 5).........................................................................50
1.3.1 General outline ..........................................................................................................50
1.3.2 Model specifics..........................................................................................................51
2. Literature review ....................................................................................................................52
2.1 Phytoremediation..............................................................................................................52
2.1.1 Remediation duration ................................................................................................53
2.1.2 Hyperaccumulators ....................................................................................................55
2.1.3 Biomass producing crops ..........................................................................................56
2.2 Biomass for energy ...........................................................................................................57
2.3 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) ...........................................................................................58
2.3.1 Theory........................................................................................................................58
2.3.2 Externalities ...............................................................................................................60
2.3.3 Non-economic valuation ...........................................................................................62
2.3.4 Sustainability .............................................................................................................62
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-4-
II. ECONOMY, ENERGY AND WASTE DISPOSAL .................................................................................64
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................64
1.1 Model outline....................................................................................................................64
1.2 Case study: Campine region (BE) ....................................................................................65
2. Private costs and benefits .......................................................................................................67
3. Biomass for energy .................................................................................................................72
3.1 Assumptions .....................................................................................................................73
3.2 Fossil energy input for biomass production .....................................................................74
3.3 From biomass to gross energy ..........................................................................................75
3.4 Effect of contaminants on energy production potential ...................................................78
3.4.1 General ......................................................................................................................78
3.4.2 Case study..................................................................................................................79
3.5 From gross energy content to net thermal, electric, and mechanical energy ...................80
3.6 Contamination in rest product-energetic impact ..............................................................81
3.6.1 General ......................................................................................................................81
3.6.2 Case study..................................................................................................................82
3.7 Overview ..........................................................................................................................82
3.7.1 General ......................................................................................................................82
3.7.2 Case study..................................................................................................................84
3.8 CO2 abatement (case study)..............................................................................................87
4. Contamination in rest product - economic impact .................................................................90
4.1 General .............................................................................................................................90
4.2 Case study.........................................................................................................................90
5. Integration...............................................................................................................................92
6. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................93
III. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................94
1. Legislation ..............................................................................................................................94
2. Literature ................................................................................................................................94
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-5-
FOREWORD
This report frames within the European project Rejuvenate 2, granted by the Snowman network.
Rejuvenate 2 has started in the beginning of 2010 and has a duration of three years. The goal of
the project is to work out concrete approaches to use contaminated soils for the production of
biomass. The project includes, besides desk top studies, field experiments. With regard to the
biomass, the project mainly focuses on biomass that can be used to produce biofuels. The project
researches whether the reuse of contaminated soils could become interesting again, and this from
an ecological as well as an economical perspective.
Rejuvenate 2 is based on Rejuvenate 1. In Rejuvenate 1 a model was established to steer the
decision making process to reuse marginal soils for non-food crops (decision support tool). The
aim of Rejuvenate 2 is to test on the basis of concrete case studies (field experiments) the
decision support tool and to come to a detailed tool that can be used later on for multiple types of
contaminated soils. The case studies take place in Sweden and in Romania. The economical
analysis is based on the results of an existing case study in Belgium, more specifically in the
Campine region.
On the basis of the tests, the aims of the project are i) to validate and optimise the decision
framework, ii) to provide detailed case studies for the reuse of contaminated soil for the
production of bio fuel crops, in particular secondary bio fuels, and iii) to expand the decision
support tool by applying and validating the tool in two new jurisdictions (Sweden and Romania).
The partners within the project are:
- Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI) (Sweden) (coordinator)
- Centre for Environmental Sciences (CMK), Hasselt University (Belgium)
- Bioclear (Netherlands)
- National Institute for Metals and Radioactive Resources (Romania)
The partners are each financed by governments/institutions within their own country.
This report discusses specifically the legal and economic aspects of crops selection for
phytoremediation purposes and the production of biofuel.
The report is based on four intermediary reports, which were discussed with the steering group
within the Flemish Public Waste Agency (OVAM) as well as with the other project partners.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-6-
The structure of this report is as follows. In the first place, the report starts with a part on the
legal aspects (part A). This part follows the chronology in practice and is therefore divided in
two chapters, one on the selection of the crops and the management of the soil, and one on the
growing and the harvesting of the crops. Secondly, the report discusses the economic aspects
(part B). This part starts with the establishment of an economic model based on a detailed
literature review. Next, the report researches whether phytoremediation results in economically
optimal remediation strategies. The two parts end each time with an extensive bibliography.
The status of the legislation was followed until 1 May 2011.
The research was executed by a multidisciplinary team of lawyers and economists of Hasselt
University. Within the university they are members of the Centre for Environmental Sciences
(CMK), a research institute in which they cooperate with biologists and chemists.
The research was supervised by Prof. dr. Bernard Vanheusden. Marianne Hoppenbrouwers (for
the legal part) and Nele Witters (for the economic part) worked as fulltime researchers on the
study. Prof. dr. Jaco Vangronsveld, Prof. dr. Theo Thewys and Prof. dr. Steven Van Passel also
cooperated in the research by reading texts and giving advice.
The research was financed by the OVAM. The project team would like to thank the OVAM very
much. We would also like to thank all the members of the steering group within the OVAM, and
in particular Ms. Ellen Luyten, for their valuable input and advice.
Prof. dr. Bernard Vanheusden
4 October 2011
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-7-
A. LEGAL ASPECTS
I. SELECTING THE CROPS AND SOIL MANAGEMENT
1. Introduction
For the analysis of the legal aspects we will be working on the basis of the Decision Support Tool
(DST) developed in the Rejuvenate 1 project. The decision making procedure identified in
Rejuvenate 1 starts with the explicit statement of the project objectives. Once the targets are
clear, the process is structured around four phases: the selection of the crop, the site suitability
and management, the economic, social and environmental value of the project, and the project
risks based on the status of the available technology, stakeholders views and the final business
plan.
This part on the legal aspects will try to follow the chronology of the decision making procedure.
However, the legal implications go across the different phases and are interlinked. Therefore,
where necessary, cross references between the different stages will be made.
This first chapter “Selecting the crops and soil management” focuses on international and
European legislation affecting crop selection and related aspects, namely plant selection, and on
soil management (including management of risks) in case of phytostabilization or
phytoextraction. In the following paragraph plant characteristics, namely the issues of invasive
and exotic plants and of genetically modified organisms, are discussed. The second paragraph
considers the implications of soil management both for stabilization and extraction, for example:
amendments to the soil, bioavailability of pollutants and plant protection.
2. Plant characteristics
The first question to be asked is whether there are any plant species that are not legally allowed to
be used in phytoremediation? Besides purely scientific and utilitarian reasons for selecting crops,
one should ensure that the selected species is legally allowed to be planted on the site. Several
international/European agreements and regulations have an impact on this. Following is an
overview of the topics relevant for the Rejuvenate 2 project. However, for each real, individual
project an assessment on the basis of site location and local circumstances remains necessary.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-8-
Table I: relevant regulation plants/crops
The Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993
The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), 1951 – revised in 1997
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention),
1979
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (Habitat Directive)
Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction
into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread
within the Community
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the
deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council
Directive 90/220/EEC
Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on
environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage
2.1 Invasive and exotic plants
2.1.1 General
Invasive and exotic plants are a danger to biodiversity. Recently, Florida experienced this with
Arundo donax, a large clumping grass that produces a lot of biomass usable as bioenergy
feedstock. The plant is also used in phytoremediation for its uptake of arsenic1, mercury and
cadmium2. Giant reed alters the hydrology and displaces native species.3 It is known to be
destructive to fish and amphibian habitats and to seriously harm habitats for rare species by its
potential to reproduce by fragmentation of rhizomes and production of new roots from stems.4 It
forms large clumps of grass in riparian habitats. Meanwhile, Arundo donax has been imported in
all regions across the globe, sometimes only for decoration purposes, but frequently for
phytoremediation or the production of biomass. Research on genetically modifying the grass for
phytoremediation purposes is ongoing.
Already in 1993 the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) committed
themselves to protect their ecosystems, habitats or species against the threats posed by alien
species.5 The European Habitat Directive6 translates the CDB into an obligation for the Member
1 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20363125.
2 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16110677.
3 www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=112.
4 FLORIDA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, Policy statement on Arundo donax, p. 1,
http://www.fnps.org/committees/policy/pdfs/policyarundo_policy_s tatement1.pdf, last visited on 6 June 2010. 5 Article 8, h of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-9-
States. The principle is that the Member States should “ensure that the deliberate introduction
into the wild of any species which is not native to their territory is regulated so as not to
prejudice natural habitats within their natural range or the wild native fauna and flora and, if
they consider it necessary, prohibit such introduction.”7
This principle and the other obligations in the directive should be translated into national
regulations. When selecting a crop it is advisable to check the national and local rules relating to
the Habitat Directive. Examples of non-native plants, commonly used for phytoremediation, that
would fall under article 22, b of the Habitat Directive are: Miscanthus, Switch grass and Arundo
donax. If on the site plants and animal life is present, it is also useful to check on the eventual
presence of protected species.
Another important Convention concerning plant selection is the “International Plant Protection
Convention”8 (IPPC). Following an obligation stipulated in this convention, the European and
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) was founded in 1951. EPPO is an
intergovernmental organization with at this moment 50 members, covering almost all countries of
Europe. One of the important activities of the organization is to compile lists with invasive plants
and pests. These lists are publicly available on their website.9
Consultation of the database showed that some plants proposed in the Rejuvenate 2 project for
phytoremediation are on these lists. For example: several species of Salix and two Helianthus
species are considered as invasive.
When selecting a crop for a phytoremediation project, it is advisable to consult the database
before the final decision. Additional and specific local information can be requested from the
National Plant Protection Organizations, of which the addresses can also be found on the website
of EPPO.
2.1.2 Local regulations10
Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Romania are also bound by the “Directive on Protective
Measures against Introduction of Organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their
Spread within the Community”.11 Specifically Annex III of the directive is relevant in relation to
6 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
(Habitat Directive), O.J. 22 July 1992, L 206, consolidated version 2007,
ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm. 7 Article 22 (b) of the Habitat Directive.
8 Article IX of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).
9 www.eppo.org, then go to DATABASES; the download instructions and links for both the lists of plants as a
manual are on that page, last visited on 5 June 2010. 10
“Local regulations” refers to the rules in the first line participants in Rejuvenate 2: Belgium, Netherlands, Romania
and Sweden. 11
Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community
of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, O.J. 10 July 2000, L
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-10-
phytoremediation. This annex contains a list of plants of which the introduction in the European
Community is not allowed in general or in protected zones.
2.2 Genetically Modified Plants (GM plant)
2.2.1 General
Like with everything, there are also two sides on genetic modification of organisms (GMO).
Increasing the resilience of plants to abiotic stress, like metal contaminants, makes it possible to
use these plants for phytoremediation. Improve the uptake of contaminants by the green and
harvestable parts of plants or promote the immobilization capacity of the roots are clearly
beneficial in the remediation process. Salix plants (on our list of candidates) were, for example,
inoculated with genetically modified Psuedomonas fluorescens enhancing the biodegradation of
PCBs.12
On the other hand there exists quite some uncertainty and lack of knowledge on different aspects
of genetic modification. Soils are some of the most complex habitats on earth, with one gram of
agricultural or forest soil from temperate regions containing thousands of species. Given this
complexity, the impact of genetically modified plants on soil systems is not well understood.13
By consequence the question is raised if we can take these risks?14 Moreover, genetically
modifying a plant to better cope with environmental stress could lead to this plant becoming
invasive, potentially resulting in a loss of biodiversity.
The implications of using genetically modified crops should be carefully considered before
selecting the plant for a project. Besides the impact of current GMO regulation in Europe, the
public opinion is not in favour of these plants and the costs to comply with the rules are also not
to be neglected.
Is the use of GMOs forbidden in Europe?
169, consolidated version 14 April 2006, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/2000/L/02000L0029-
20060414-en.pdf. 12
AGUIRRE DE CARCER D., MARTIN M. e.a. The introduction of genetically modified microorganisms designed
for rhizoremediation induces changes on native bacteria in the rizosphere but not in the surrounding soil, The ISME
Journal, 2007, 1, p 215, http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v1/n3/full/is mej200727a.html, last visited on 5 June
2010. 13
The potential environmental, cultural and socio-economic impacts of genetically modified trees, Conference on
Biological Diversity, March 2008, UNEP/CBD/COP/9/INF/27, p 20, www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-
09/information/cop-09-inf-27-en.pdf, last visited on 4 June 2010. 14
See also the paragraph on soil management.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-11-
In case plants grown for phytoremediation and feedstock for biofuel are genetically modified,
Directive 2001/1815 on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs is applicable. The
basic principle is that GMOs can only be put on the market if they are safe. Member States have
to take appropriate measures to guarantee this and thus to avoid adverse effects on human health
and the environment. Thereby the precautionary principle should be a decision criterion.16
The authorisation of a GM plant happens on an individual basis. The process requires testing of
the plant concerned to see if large scale cultivation could have an impact on the environment.
Of the plants on the project list (Sweden), genetically modified variations of maize, rapeseed and
sugar beet are at this moment authorized in Europe.17 But under European law Member States
can ban GMOs if they can justify the prohibition. This was not so long ago demonstrated in the
meeting of the European Environment Ministers.18 During the meeting of the European
Environment Ministers in Brussels, they voted against forcing Vienna and Budapest to allow US
biotech giant Monsanto’s MON810 GM maize grain to be grown in their countries. The ban is
thus upheld, notwithstanding the fact that this maize grain is fully authorized for food and feed,
plus for processing and import.19 Thus the debate on the accidental spread and adverse effects on
nature continues.20 The dissenting decisions of Member States are thereby based on the
obligation under article 4, 1 of the Directive on GMOs21 to ensure, in line with the precautionary
principle, that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and
the environment resulting from the deliberate release or placing on the market of GMOs.
Article 6 of the Directive 2001/18 obliges any person who intends to release a GMO to notify the
Competent Authority of the Member State where that release will happen. The notification
consists of a technical dossier and an environmental risk assessment, including control,
monitoring, postrelease and waste treatment plans. The notifier may refer to information that was
already submitted by former notifiers, except when this information is considered to be
confidential. On the other hand Member States may accept a single notification if the release of
the same GMO is on the same site or on different sites for the same purpose and that within a
defined time period.22 In case modifications to the dossier are needed on the basis of new
information, the notifier is obliged to immediately take the necessary measures, including
15
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, O.J. 17 April
2001, L 106. 16
Article 4, Directive 2001/18. 17
www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/db/, last visited on 4 June 2010. 18
Brussels, March 2009. 19
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/db. 20
Austria, Hungary Allowed to Keep Ban on Genetically Modified Crops, Deutsche Welle, www.dw-
world.de/dw/article/0,,4068097,00.html, last visited 6 June 2010. 21
Article 4, 1 of Directive 2001/18. 22
Article 6 (4) Directive 2001/18.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-12-
information to the Competent Authority, in order to protect human health and the environment.23
Member States shall inform the public on any deliberate release of GMOs in their territory.
The conclusion is that all implications of using genetically modified crops should be carefully
considered before selecting such a plant for a project. There is not only the impact of current
GMO regulation in Europe, the public opinion is not in favour of these plants and the costs to
comply with the rules are not to be neglected. Thereby one should not only look to the
international aspect, but also investigate national rules.
2.2.2 Local regulations
Despite the difference between the traditional anti-GMO countries (such as France and Italy) and
the pro-GMO states (such as Spain, Germany, UK and Poland) a common proposal was accepted
by the European Parliament's environment committee on 12 April 2011. The proposal gives
Member States the choice whether to allow or to ban GMO cultivation on their territory.24
On 16 July 2009 the European Court of Justice decided that a national ban on the authorisation of
GMO seeds is incompatible with the European rules. This judgement showed the difficulty for
Member States to base a ban on health and environmental arguments.25
The actual proposal for a Regulation aims at providing a legal base to authorize Member States to
restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, although these might be authorized at EU level.26 A
national ban of GMOs should be based on arguments of public order in the face of popular
opposition to the technology, public morality grounds, such as religious or philosophical
concerns.27 In the proposal to the Parliament concerning the national authority to ban GMOs
environmental impacts were added to the list.28 EU governments including France, Britain and
Germany had already signalled their opposition to the Commission’s proposals, citing fears that
23
Article 8, 1, Directive 2001/18. 24
EURACTIV, MEPs back national freedom to ban GM crops, 13 April 2011,
http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/meps-back-national-freedom-ban-gm-crops-news-503996 (accessed 13 April 2011). 25
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and the Council amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the M ember States to
restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory, O.J. 19 February 2011, p. 53. 26
Proposal for a Regulation amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to
restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory, Brussels, 13 July 2010, COM(2010) 380 final, 15 p.,
http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/legislation/2010/COM2010375text.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2011). 27
Point 5.1.3. 28
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Complementary considerations on legal issues on GMO cultivation
raised in the opinions of the legal services of the Council of European Union of 5 November 2010 and the Legal
service of the European Parliament of 17 November 2010, Brussels, 8 February 2011, document 16826/10 ADD1, p.
4.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-13-
they breach world trade rules and could lead to legal challenges by biotech companies, exporting
countries and EU farmers.29
Belgium
The European directive30 2001/18/EC was transposed in the Belgian Royal Decree of 21
February 2005. Besides the Royal Decree, several other laws regulate aspects of GMOs in a
wider context. For example the Flemish regulation concerning environmental permits refers to
GMOs in Title I (Vlarem I) and Title II (Vlarem II). Specifically, but not exclusively, the articles
51.1 of Vlarem I, 5.51.2.2 and 7.1.1.6 both of Vlarem II are relevant. The same goes for the
annexes 5.51.3 and 5.5.1.4 of Vlarem II.
A relevant court case concerns the request to permit a field trial to grow GM poplars. This
request was refused by the Ministries of Environment and Public Health, but then the Council of
State (Raad van State) suspended the decision on the basis of a breach of law.
The Netherlands
The Dutch rules on GMOs also find their basis in the international regulations, especially the
European rules. The decree ruling GMOs is the Decree of 25 January 1990 regulating
environmental noxious substances.31 Using GMOs requires a formal permit provided by the
Ministry of Social housing, Spatial planning and Environment.
Commercial GMO production has not yet taken place in the Netherlands.32
Romania
No English version of local Romanian rules on GMOs was found. Romania already in 1998
introduced 14 varieties of genetically modified soy.33 When Romania became an EU Member
State they officially declared the whole country as a GMO Free Zone. In practice one can be
fairly sure that GMOs never disappeared in the region. Nowadays the agriculture minister of the
country firmly supports the use of GMOs, mainly to counter increasing food prices.34
Sweden
29
DUNMORE C., “EU Lawmakers vote to widen proposed GM crop bans ”, Reuters, 12 April 2011,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/us-eu-gmo-cult ivation-idUKTRE73B4DL20110412 (accessed on 13 April
2011). 30
Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified
organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, O.J. 17 April 2001, L 106/1. 31
Besluit van 15 januari 1990 tot vaststelling van een algemene maatregel van bestuur krachtens artikel 24 van de
wet Milieugevaarlijke stoffen, www.cogem.net/page.ocl?pageid=24&version=&mode= (accessed on 24 April 2011). 32
GMO Compass, Field trials and commercial cultivation in the Netherlands, www.gmo-
compass.org/eng/news/country_reports/ (accessed on 24 April 2011). 33
INFOMG, GMOs in Romania, www.infomg.ro/web/en/GMOs_in_Romania (accessed 24 April 2011). 34
www.euranet.eu/eng/programme/English-Programmes/Romania -GM-food-for-thought.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-14-
The use of GMOs in Sweden is regulated in the Environmental Code. Chapter 134 states that a
permit or notification is necessary before undertaking any activities involving GMOs. A risk
assessment of the activity considered is obligatory and appropriate protective measures need to be
taken. Thereby the activity should be ethically justifiable.35
The rules in the Environmental Code are supplemented by some ordinances and regulations. For
example: The Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Ordinance (SFS 2002:1086)
and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Ordinance (SFS 2000:271) set out
more detailed rules on when consents or notifications are required for genetic engineering
activities.36
3. Soil management
3.1 The importance of an international and national regulation
3.1.1 An international challenge
Although no political agreement on the legislative proposal was reached up to now, it is
worthwhile to mention the initiative on proposing a Soil Framework Directive.37
The framework directive on soil would include measures for the restoration and remediation of
degraded soils to a level of functionality consistent at least with the current and approved future
use.38 The idea is to approach the protection of soil on a holistic basis. Member States would have
to identify, describe and assess the impacts of their policies in particular on spatial planning,
transport, energy, agriculture, rural development, forestry, raw material extraction, trade and
industry, product policy, tourism, climate change, environment, nature and landscape.39 Such a
Soil Framework Directive would be an improvement over the actual situation. In 2006 only nine
Member States had specific legislation on soil protection, the others relied on elements found in
other policies.40 Karl Falkenberg, Director-general of Environment, claims that the demand for a
soil regulation is growing and soil regulation will be one of the strategic points to focus on during
35
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, The Swedish Environmental Code, A résumé of the text of the Code and
related Ordinances, Genetic Engineering , Danagrards Grafiska, Stockholm, Sweden, p 30. 36
www.gmo.nu/gmoenglish/topmenu/rulesandresponsibilities.4.778a5d1001f29869a7fff1249.html (accessed 24
April 2011). 37
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/process_en.htm. 38
Ibid., Article 1 and 13. 39
Ibid., Article 3. 40
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC , Brussels, 22 September
2006, Com(2006) 232 final, p. 7, ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/com_2006_0232_en.pdf, last visited 6 June
2010.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-15-
the next year.41 Until such a soil regulation will be implemented, we have to refer to several
separate regulations linked to soil management. An overview of the most important international
rules is listed in the table below.
Table II: relevant regulation regarding soil
Convention for the Protection of the Alps (Alpine Convention), 1991
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December
2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
(REACH)
Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in
particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework
Directive – WFD),
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework
for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC
Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on
the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration
Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009
establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides
Another element to consider is the legal regulation of spatial planning. Nearly all of these rules
are national. Once permission is received from the owner of the site, aspects linked to
infrastructure, destination of the area should be taken up locally, eventually together with
requesting an exploitation permit.
The necessary approvals will differ between phytoextraction and phytostabilization. In the
following paragraph the aspects of both techniques are further elaborated.
3.1.2 Local regulations
Soil as such is mainly regulated by local rules of the Member States. However, soil becomes
more and more a point of attention on the European level. A lot is related to the important and
multiple functions soil has in biodiversity, environmental health and human well being. Several
European policies (like water, chemicals, waste, agriculture) have a direct or indirect impact on
soil management and protection. But these are not sufficient for an adequate sustainable
management of the soil. For these reasons the European Commission adopted a “Soil strategy”
41
Speech of Karl Falkenberg, Pricing the Earth, the European Green Week in Brussels, June 2010.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-16-
and a proposal for a framework directive on soil in 2006. Despite these efforts no approval could
be obtained up to now.42
Other aspects in this chapter on soil management are regulated on the European level with impact
on local rules in the Member States: sludge, manure, (ground)water, herbicides. Thereby one
should bear in mind that the European legislation on nitrates (fertilizers) is under review. Since
the actual European directive is at the basis of most regulations in Member States, this will have
an impact on local rules. Relevant regulations in Member States are further elaborated in the
paragraph relevant to the topic.
Belgium
In Belgium soil management falls under the authority of the regions. The Flemish region has an
extensive legislation on soil remediation. Both obligatory and voluntary remediation of polluted
soils is possible.43
The Netherlands
The Dutch Soil Protection Act of 1987 is the basis for legal soil protection in the Netherlands. It
includes the concept of historical pollution (before 1 January 1987), before which no general
obligation for sanitation exists. Furthermore background and intervention levels concerning soil
contamination have been set. And the focus is on sustainable soil management whereby soil and
water are in practice closely linked.
New initiatives are taken with the aim at speeding up remediation of contaminated soils by, for
example, reducing and simplifying rules. The decision “uniform remediation” is a rule applicable
to all similar remediations that need execution on short notice.44 The estimation is that 60 % of all
contaminated sites in the Netherlands will fall under this regulation. An optimization of the
decision “uniform remediation” is expected during 2011.
Romania
In Romania the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development is responsible for the
safety and protection of soil and forests.45
Under rule “GEO No. 195/2005”, pollution of the soil, atmosphere or water by evacuation of
waste or dangerous substances is considered a criminal offence whenever such pollution poses a
threat on human, vegetal or animal life.
As regards the historic contamination of soil and groundwater, GEO No. 195/2005 does not
expressly provide for the extent of the parties’ liability. If pollution occurs the actual owner shall
42
ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/process_en.htm. 43
Decree of 27 October 2006 on soil remediation and soil protection, Belgian State Gazette 22 January 2007. 44
wetten.overheid.nl. 45
http://www.iclg.co.uk/khadmin/Publicat ions/pdf/751.pdf.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-17-
be held liable for damages. This is in line with the principle of “the polluter pays”. The actual
owner may then turn against the seller for the purpose of recovering the compensation amount.
Sweden
In Sweden soil falls under the same regulation as groundwater, a water area, etc. does. The main
criterion for the applicability of the Environmental Code is the presence of potential harm to
human health or the environment.46 In that case a supervisory authority may require the person or
persons responsible to remediate the damage. The date when the pollution took place is irrelevant
to the application of the provisions, although only contamination caused by environmentally
hazardous activities after June 30 1969 will incur liability under the Environmental Code.47
However one should bear in mind that the Swedish Environmental Code is further elaborated in
several ordinances made by the Government.48
3.2 Phytoremediation: the difference between stabilization and extraction
Since there is a difference in impact on the soil between stabilization and extraction, applicable
(elements of) regulations differ also. For a better understanding the relevant distinctions between
both techniques will be explained, followed by an overview of relevant regulations. The most
commonly used techniques for phytoremediation of contaminated soil are stabilization and
extraction. Both techniques use plants to achieve their objectives and differ mainly in the process
to achieve these objectives.
Stabilization focuses on immobilizing the contaminants in a way that they are unavailable for
uptake in the (harvestable parts of the) plants and leaching into the environment is prevented.
However, the contaminants remain in the soil.
Extraction aims at the uptake of the contaminants by harvestable parts of the crops. Subsequently
the contaminated biomass is harvested and removed from the site. The result is that the
contamination in the soil is reduced.
This difference between the two techniques has an impact on the applicability of regulations for
all subsequent phases of a phytoremediation project.
46
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, The Swedish Environmental Code, A résumé of the text of the Code and
related Ordinances, Genetic Engineering , Danagrards Grafiska, Stockholm, Sweden, p. 27. 47
Ibid., p. 27-28. 48
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2023/a/22847 (accessed on 15 April 2011).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-18-
3.2.1 Stabilization
Phytostabilization is an approach aiming at decreasing bioavailability. It can be used on sites that
are heavily contaminated with metals using a combination of plants and soil amendments.49 It is
through these amendments that the availability of the contaminants for uptake by plants is
reduced. Simultaneously the mobility in and leaching from the soil is stopped or at least
diminished.
A few remarks should be made. Amending substances to soil is de facto changing the
composition of that soil. Next to the positive effect of stabilizing contaminants, other side effects
are also possible and probable. However, an element to consider is that adding substances to the
soil can immobilize some substances and at the same time mobilize others.50 Contamination of
the groundwater by these mobilized contaminants is possible. Especially leaking into the
groundwater is a risk. Consequently one should consider and respect the legislation on
groundwater.
Other undesirable effects of amendments can be the change of the soil structure (for example
zeolites with high sodium content destroy the soil structure) or immobilization of essential
elements.51 This can result in the loss of biodiversity and/or habitats, triggering related
legislation.
Last but not least, when soil is chemically treated or changed, it becomes subject to the REACH
regulation. In case of phytostabilization this is clearly so. But since it is not the goal to excavate
the soil and put it on the market or use it in articles, the obligation remains rather theoretical.
Can we be sure that the amendments used are safe? Two commonly used amendments are
analysed in the following paragraphs.
Amendments
The amendments used for stabilizing contaminants are (for example) liming agents, phosphates
(H3PO4, triple calcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite, phosphate rock), trace element (Fe/Mn)
oxyhydroxides, organic materials (e.g., biosolids, sludge, or composts), natural and synthetic
zeolites, cyclonic and fly ashes, and steel shots.52
Orthophosphoric acid (H3PO4)
49
VANGRONSVELD J., HERZIG R., THEWYS T. e.a., Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater:
lessons from the field, Environ Sci Pollut Res 2009, Springer-Verlag, 16, p. 766. 50
VANGRONSVELD J., HERZIG R., THEWYS T. e.a., Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater:
lessons from the field, Environ Sci Pollut Res 2009, Springer-Verlag, 16, p. 767 and 770. 51
Ibid. p. 767. 52
Ibid. p. 766.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-19-
Orthophosphoric acid (H3PO4) is a substance that is included in the REACH lists as toxic for
reproduction.53 By consequence this substances is subject to authorization and should be phased
out. Should this substance then be used as a soil amendment in the framework of
phytoremediation? Strictly speaking it is still possible, since the first step towards authorization is
putting a substance on the candidate list. Orthophosphoric acid is not yet amongst these 16
substances on the official candidate list.
Sewage sludge
Sludge is a soupy material containing significant quantities of water and solid particles.
Commonly sludge originates from the process of treatment of waste water. Due to this treatment,
sludge tends to concentrate heavy metals and poorly biodegradable trace organic compounds as
well as some potentially pathogenic organisms (like viruses, bacteria).54 But sludge also has
positive aspects. It contains substances usable for fertilizing soils and combating erosion.
In 1986 a directive55 was approved with the objective to eliminate or at least control the harmful
effects of sludge on agriculture soil, environment and humans and still encourages the use of
sewage sludge because it conserves organic matter and completes nutrient cycles. From that
moment on the use of untreated sludge in agriculture is forbidden, except when the sludge is
injected or incorporated in the soil. The limit values mentioned in the directive should always be
respected. On the basis of article 12 of the same directive Member States can set more stringent
limits. And they did so, as shown in the table below.
Limits for organic compounds in sludge (expressed per unit of dry sludge). From EU (2001)56
AOX
Mg/kg
DEHP
Mg/kg
LAS
Mg/kg
NP/NPE
Mg/kg
PAH
Mg/kg
PCB
Mg/kg
PCCDD/F
Mg Teq/kg
EU 500 100 2600 50 6 0.8 100
DENMARK 50 1300 10 3
SWEDEN 50 3 0.4
GERMANY 500 0.2 100
However, growing plants for phytoremediation and as feedstock for biofuel is not an agricultural
activity according to the definition of agriculture in the directive.57 Thus, one could conclude that
53
Appendix 5 substances toxic for reproduction: category 1, REACH. 54
ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/index.htm, last visited on 6 June 2010. 55
Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil,
when sewage sludge is used in agriculture, O.J. 4 July 1986, L 181, eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31986L0278:EN:HTML, last visited on 6 June 2010. 56
BIOPROS, Solutions for the safe application of wastewater and sludge for high efficient biomass production in
Short-Rotation-Plantations, D5 – Guidelines on safety issues for SRP wastewater application , 14 February 2005,
Sweden, February 2006, p 11,
http://www.biopros.info/uploads/media/BIOPROS-D05.pdf, last visited on 9 June 2010. 57
Agriculture means the growing of all types of commercial food crops, including for stock rearing purposes.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-20-
untreated sewage sludge can be used as an amendment on site for phytoremediation. But, it is
advisable to follow the more strict rules and limits in an environmentally friendly remediation
project.
In 1991 the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive58 added a few aspects to the use of sludge
from urban waste water treatment. In the directive sludge is defined slightly different as residual
sludge, whether treated or untreated, from urban waste water treatment plants (article 2, 10). The
directive explicitly encourages the re-use of sludge whenever appropriate. In practice sewage
sludge has been employed on agricultural land, for forestry and in land reclamation operations,
such as for disused mines or closed landfills.59
3.2.2 Extraction
Extraction is the use of plant mechanisms to remove contaminants from the soil into harvestable
parts of the crops. These plants are regularly removed from the site resulting in a decrease of soil
contamination.
Bioavailability
For phytoextraction to succeed, contaminants must be bioavailable. The degree of availability for
uptake by plants varies according to the contaminant concerned and the capability of the used
crop.
Many metal contaminants are essential micronutrients for the plant. In common nonaccumulator
plants, accumulation of these micronutrients does not exceed their metabolic needs.60 However
some plants can accumulate more than what they need. Hypoaccumulators do not only
accumulate substances they need, but also absorb high amounts of contaminants. These
contaminants accumulate in the foliage, resulting in a contaminated feedstock. This is important
for the further processing of the harvest and the eventual waste part of the crop.
Amendments and fertilization
Contrary to stabilization, for extraction amendments are used to increase the bioavailability of
contaminants. This increased mobility of contaminants can lead to leaching of hazardous
elements into the groundwater.
58
Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, O.J. 30 May 1991, L 135. 59
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/part_i_report.pdf 60
LASAT M., Phytoextraction of metals from contaminated soil: a review of plant/soil/metal interaction and
assessment of pertinent agronomic issues, Journal of Hazardous Substance Research, Volume 2, 2000, p 5-1,
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.7236&rep=rep1&type=pdf, last visited on 6 June 2010.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-21-
The new Groundwater directive61 includes legal requirements to prevent or limit input of
pollutants into the groundwater. The limit values are in line with those in the Water Framework
Directive (WFD).62 However, before 2012, year that the WFD will be fully operational63, the old
Groundwater directive 64 remains also in place. But, in the period between 16 January 2009 and
22 December 201365, any new authorisation procedure pursuant to substances prohibited66 or
limited67 shall take into account the requirements set out in the new Groundwater directive68.
Increasing the uptake of lead (Pb) by crops, ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic acid (EDTA) is
commonly added to the soil in phytoremediation projects. The substance is however regarded as
persistent organic pollutant and its poor biodegradability leads to accumulation in the
environment69. It has been found to be both cytotoxic and weakly genotoxic in laboratory
animals. Oral exposures have been noted to cause reproductive and developmental effects in
animals.70 At this moment I could not find any reference to this substance in REACH and it
seems that the substance is free to use. But in line with the European water regulations, EDTA
could be claimed to fall under Annex VIII point 5 of the WFD and therefore the input into
groundwater should be prevented or at least limited.71
Growing crops for biofuel in an economically viable way supposes to harvest as much as possible
or at least enough biomass. The intensive cultivation character requires a frequent nutrient input
for highest production. Heavy fertilization of the soil is necessary and by using waste
water/sludge the cost for nitrates and phosphates decreases substantially.72
61
Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of
groundwater against pollution and deterioration, O.J. 27 December 2006, L 372. 62
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Groundwater protection in Europe, European Communities 2008, p. 27,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/groundwater/brochure/en.pdf, last visited 7 June 2010. 63
Article 11, 7 of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (WFD), O.J. 22 December 2000, L 327. 64
Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by
certain dangerous substances, O.J. 26 January 1980, L 20, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31980L0068:EN:HTML. 65
Article 7 of the Groundwater Directive. 66
Article 4 of Directive 80/68/EEC. 67
Article 5 of Directive 80/68/EEC. 68
Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Ground Water Directive. 69
YUAN Z. and VANBRIESEN J., Environmental Engineering Science. May/June 2006, 23(3): p 533,
www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ees.2006.23.533, last visited on 8 June 2010. 70
FINAL REPORT on the Safety Assessment of EDTA, Calcium Disodium EDTA, Diammonium EDTA,
Dipotassium EDTA, Disodium EDTA, TEA-EDTA, Tetrasodium EDTA, Tripotassium EDTA, Trisodium EDTA,
HEDTA, and Trisodium HEDTA, International Journal of Toxicology, 2002, Vol. 21, No. 2 Suppl, 95-142,
ijt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/2_suppl/95, last visited on 6 June 2010. 71
Article 6, 1 of Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the
protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (Groundwater Directive), O.J. 27 December 2006, L
372. 72
BIOPROS, Solutions for the safe application of wastewater and sludge for high efficient biomass production in
Short-Rotation-Plantations, D4 – Report on ongoing research and gaps in SRP knowledge , 14 February 2005,
Sweden, February 2006, p 7, http://www.biopros.info/uploads/media/BIOPROS-D05.pdf, last visited 8 June 2010.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-22-
The need for fertilizers in these projects is frequently seen as one of the solutions to the surplus of
manure that exists in most European countries. But, what to do with the regulations on nitrates?
Despite the ambiguity surrounding the question if phytoremediation is an agricultural activity
(the crops are not grown for food or feed) and the actors in such projects being farmers, we would
advise to follow the regulations on the use of nitrates as written in the Nitrates Directive73,
especially those stipulated in Annex II and III of the Directive. Both Annexes contain, for
example, measures limiting the time when fertilizers can be applied on land and criteria
describing soil conditions limiting the application of fertilizer. A maximum limit to the fertilizers
is foreseen in the Directive. However, Member States can deviate from this limit on condition
they do not jeopardize the objectives of the Directive.
Note that application of fertilization is defined as “the addition of materials to land whether by
spreading on the surface of the land, injection into the land, placing below the surface of the land
or mixing with the surface layers of the land”.74
Plant protection
Another major crop maintenance practice is weed control. It seems that most (short-rotation)
plantations for biomass face problems due to the presence of weeds that hinder the growth of the
planted material, especially during the first year. As a consequence, the biomass production is
heavily reduced during the next years.75
A situation absolutely needing weed control, is the problem with Broomrape (Orobanche ramosa
linnaeus). Broomrape is a very invasive, parasite plant that grows on a wide range of crops,
oilseeds and vegetables.76 Problems with this plant destroying up to 70 % of the sunflowers
occurred in Europe.77
Herbicides come under the general category of pesticides. Pesticides sold within EU must be
approved by the regulatory bodies and in general are regulated under the Plant Protection
Directive. Pesticides are substances and products intended to influence fundamental processes in
73
Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
from agricultural sources (Nitrates Directive), O.J. 31 December 1991, L 375, consolidated version of 20 November
2003 available on eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1991L0676:20031120:EN:PDF,
last visited on 8 June 2010. 74
Article 2, h of the Nitrates Directive. 75
BIOPROS, Solutions for the safe application of wastewater and sludge for high efficient biomass production in
Short-Rotation-Plantations, D5 – Guidelines on safety issues for SRP wastewater application , 14 February 2005,
Sweden, February 2006, p 17, http://www.biopros.info/uploads/media/BIOPROS-D05.pdf, last visited 9 June 2010. 76
Refer to
www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/LinkView/D3E4DB57D46E18D6CA256BCF000AD575663C5274163D2336C
A256E8D001EFC6C, last visited on 8 June 2010. 77
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119212373/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0, last visited 8 June
2010.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-23-
living organisms. They are used to kill or control harmful organisms such as weeds or insects.78
At the same time pesticides can have negative effects on human health and the environment,
which represent high costs for society. Therefore the directive on plant protection lays down strict
rules for the authorisation of products. The other aspect that is regulated are residue limits, but
these are only available on food- and feedstuffs.
Legislation on the use of pesticides is however lacking. In 2006 the Commission developed a
Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides to make up for this gap on rules for use.
Proposals for a Framework Directive on the use and one for a Regulation on the placing of plant
protection products on the market were included. In October 2009 the Framework Directive79 on
the use of pesticides was approved. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 14 December 2011.
Evapotranspiration via the leaves
Volatile organic contaminants are by some plants preferentially released through
evapotranspiration via the leaves.80 Thereby they contaminate the ambient air. Since the projects
in Rejuvenate 2 do not deal with phytoremediation as a technique to clean such contaminated
sites, this topic is not further analyzed.
3.2.3 Local regulations
The Directive on sludge81 provides flexibility in national implementation resulting in a great
variety in approaches and limit values.82 For example the applicable rules will differ in relation to
the use of the sludge, and more specifically on the classification of the cultivation of crops for
phytoremediation and the production of bio-energy as an agricultural activity or not. This
classification differs per Member State. Whilst most national rules regulate sludge use in
agriculture in a separate framework, use outside of agriculture falls in general under waste law. In
view of the objective of the phytoremediation projects, it is advisable to respect at least the more
stringent rules when using sewage sludge.
78
In Community legislation, pesticides have usually been divided into two major groups (plant protection products
and biocides). Plant protection products (PPPs) contribute to high agricu ltural yields and help to ensure that good
quality food is available at reasonable prices. Biocides are e.g. important for public health protection and for
preservation of materials. 79
Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a
framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides, O.J. 24 November 2009, L 309,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:SOM:EN:HTML, last visited on 9 June 2010. 80
VANGRONSVELD J., HERZIG R., THEWYS T. e.a., Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater:
lessons from the field, Environ Sci Pollut Res 2009, Springer-Verlag, 16: p. 784. 81
Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when
sewage sludge is used in agriculture, O.J. 4 July 1986, L 181. 82
ECOLOGIC, Report on the Implementation of the Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC , IEEP, May 2009, p. 39,
ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Sewage%20sludge_Direct ive.pdf (accessed 25 April 2011).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-24-
Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden have introduced limits for heavy metals in sewage sludge
that are more lower than those in Directive 86/278/EEC83 setting provisions beyond the
obligations of the Directive.84 Romania has set its limit values to those allowed by the
Directive.85
Fertilization of the soil might be necessary to succeed in growing enough biomass and achieve
good results in phytoremediation. The European rules on nitrates have been implemented
throughout Europe. High nutrient pressure exists in the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders),
whilst the pressure is low in Eastern Europe, mainly because of the low input of fertilizers and
livestock density.86 All Member States are obliged to establish one or more action programmes
with measures concerning the period fertilization is prohibited, the limitation of land application
of fertilizers and land application near waters or on slopes.87
On the basis of the Framework Directive on the use of pesticides, Member States will have to
adopt National Action Plans that, amongst other tasks, encourage integrated pest management.
This means “careful consideration of all available plant protection methods and subsequent
integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of populations of harmful
organisms and keep the use of plant protection products and other forms of intervention to levels
that are economically and ecologically justified and reduce or minimise risks to human health
and the environment”.88 Principles of integrated pest management are for example the use of
resistant/tolerant cultivars, the use of balanced fertilisation, liming and irrigation/drainage
practices.89 In concreto, Member States should take all necessary actions to promote low
pesticide-input pest management, giving wherever possible priority to non-chemical methods and
attending carefully to the quality of the aquatic environment. Thereby measures taken under other
regulation to protect sensitive groups and biodiversity should be respected. By 14 December
2011 all Member States should comply with this Directive through local laws, regulations and
administrative provisions.90
83
Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when
sewage sludge is used in agriculture, p. 6. 84
ECOLOGIC, p. 4. 85
ECOLOGIC, Executive summary, Report on the Implementation of the Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC ,
IEEP, May 2009, ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/reporting/pdf/Sewage%20sludge_Directive.pdf (accessed 25 April
2011). 86
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member States reports for the period 2004 -2007, Brussels, 9 February
2010, COM (2010)47 final, p. 4, eur-lex.europa.eu/lexUniServ/LexUniServ. 87
Ibid., p 8. 88
Article 3, 6 of Directive 2009/128/EC. 89
DIRECTIVE 2009/128/EC, Annex III – General principles of integrated pest management. 90
Article 23 of Directive 2009/128/EC.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-25-
II. GROWING AND HARVESTING THE CROPS
1. Introduction
Part II describes the international legal aspects of growing crops on contaminated soil and
harvesting these crops. Similar to the previous chapter, the focus is on the European legislation as
the basis for national rules (Directives) or as directly enforceable (Regulations). Strategic
communications of the Commission and proposals for new legislation are considered only when
it is probable that these will become formal obligations in the near future.
In Rejuvenate 1 a preliminary analysis of legal aspects was performed. Five regulatory domains
were studied: contaminated land, waste management, water resources, agriculture, and biomass
conversion, mainly in national legislation. However, this second chapter, like the first one,
follows the structure of the DST and thereby covers several legal domains as relevant. This
methodology is based on our previous experiences that following the process of the project gives
the most practical and complete overview of the legal elements. The latter is at risk when
focusing on a limited selection of legal domains.
For reasons of transparency and efficiency the hierarchy of legislation is respected in the study.
First the European legislation is analysed, followed by legislation of the Member States and then,
if relevant, regional91 legislation.
Inserted table I gives an overview of the European rules that are retained and discussed as
relevant for growing and harvesting:
Table I: relevant regulation for growing and harvesting
Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
substances
Regulation 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and
indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuff
Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against
pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals
Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93
91
Regional is for this report defined as parts of Member States with considerable authority.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-26-
and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and
Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC
Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging
of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC,
and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection
products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC
Directive 2009/128/EC of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to
achieve the sustainable use of pesticides
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel
2. Growing the crops
The legal analysis of the use of biomass grown on contaminated soil takes into account the
principles of sustainability, minimal (negative) environmental impact and an optimal closed
lifecycle concerning the use of the biomass. This is an important choice in case alternatives are
available and/or interpretation of rules is necessary. Because of the lack of specific reference to
contaminated biomass, there are situations where a legislation could be applicable per analogy,
meaning based on the intention and goal of that legislation. An example is the question if
legislation on agriculture is applicable on contaminated biomass or not. This element is further
explored in paragraph 2.1.
When growing the crops, one of the important objectives in this phytoremediation project is to
produce enough biomass for conversion into biofuel. Thereby it is likely that some fertilizing of
the soil and some plant protection actions will be necessary. In the paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 we
respectively discuss the legal implications of fertilizing and look at the rules concerning plant
protection.
2.1 The crops are planted
Is planting crops for phytoremediation an agricultural activity? Previously agriculture was
officially the activity aiming at producing food or feedstock for animals for food. Nowadays
Europe’s agricultural policy encourages farmers to not only produce high quality food products,
but to seek also new development opportunities, such as “renewable environmentally friendly
energy sources”.92
92
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DG Agriculture and rural development, The Common Agricultural Policy
explained, May 2009, 11 p., http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capexplained/index_en.htm.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-27-
One can conclude on the basis of the European policy that it is logical to apply the principles of
good agricultural practice and the agricultural legislation on contaminated biomass. We will thus
approach the other aspects of growing crops taking into account that phytoremediation is an
agricultural activity.
Member States have their own interpretation on what is regarded as agriculture and what not,
definitions differ a lot.93 To understand the domain of agriculture one will need to analyze local
regulation and its relevance for growing crops on contaminated land that is not or was not used
for agriculture.
Often definitions of agriculture are broad. For example Sweden defines it as “including forestry,
hunting and fishing”, as well as “cultivation of crops and livestock production”.94 It then remains
to be investigated if specific legislation is applicable on the cultivation as discussed in this
project. On the other hand, one could consider to chose the most environmental options,
regardless of the fact that the activity is considered agriculture or not. After all, the objective is to
improve the quality of the environment and by consequence not reduce it by inappropriate
remediation of soils.
2.2 Fertilizing
2.2.1 General
Fertilizers are substances that are used on land to enhance growth of vegetation. Examples of
fertilizers are livestock manure, sewage sludge, chemical fertilizers, composts and residues from
fish farms. Fertilizers contain a nitrogen compound and thus excessive use of fertilizers
constitutes an environmental risk. Especially the eutrophication of water is a problem. It causes
excessive growth of algae and plants thereby disturbing the quality of the water and the balance
of organisms in that water.
The Nitrate Directive95 aims at reducing and preventing the pollution of water by nitrates.
Member States are obliged to establish code(s) of good agricultural practice.96 These codes
should cover, e.g., the periods when fertilizing is inappropriate; the rules for applying fertilizer
93
KARLSSON J., PFUNDERER S., SALVIONI C., Agricultural and Rural Household Income Statistics, Paper
prepared for presentation at the 94th
E.A.A.E Seminar, Ashford, United Kingdom, 9-10 April 2005,
ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/24427/1/sp05ka01.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2011). 94
Indexmundi, Sweden, definition of agriculture, www.indexmundi.com/facts/Sweden/agriculture (accessed on 26
April 2011). 95
Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources, O.J. 31 December 1991, L 375 (consolidated version: O.J. 20 November 2003, L
676). 96
Directive 91/676/EEC, article 4.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-28-
near water courses or on steeply sloping, water-saturated, flooded, frozen or snow-covered
grounds. Member States may also include guidelines on crop rotation and on minimum quantity
of vegetation cover during certain (winter, rainy) periods.97 In concreto fertilization should be
limited to certain periods in the year, taking into account the situation, the condition and the
structure of the ground. The nutrient losses to water should in any case be limited to an
acceptable level. Therefore it is important to remember that when working with non-perennial
plants a minimum vegetation cover should be maintained during the non-grow season. In any
case it should be checked if the phytoremediation site is situated in a vulnerable zone, since for
these zones designated by the Member States on its territory, the rules are more stringent.98
All of above mentioned information should be available on national level on the basis of the
obligations set by the Nitrate Directive. Indeed, Member States should have implemented laws,
regulations and administrative provisions to comply with this directive before 19 December
1993.99
2.2.2 The use of specific fertilizers
Two specific fertilizers need more explanation because of their special characteristics: sewage
sludge (used an sich, not as input for composting) and compost.
Sewage Sludge
Sludge originates from the process of cleaning, mainly urban, waste water. The use of sewage
sludge was described in part I of the report “Legal aspects of crops selection for
phytoremediation purposes and the production of biofuel”.100
Compost
Compost is best defined as “the solid particulate material that is the result of composting, which
has been sanitized and stabilized”. The process of compositing is described as the “controlled
decomposition of biodegradable materials under managed conditions, which are predominantly
aerobic and which allow the development of temperatures suitable for thermophilic bacteria as a
result of biologically produced heat.101
There are positive aspects to using compost as a fertilizer. It generally improves the structure of
the soil and its biological and chemical properties. The impact of compost on the soil depends on
its composition. On turn the composition depends on the input material in the composting
process. Several types of waste may be composted, for example biodegradable waste, commercial
97
Ibid., Annex II. 98
Ibid., Annex III. 99
Ibid., Article 12. 100
See Chapter Soil management, paragraph Amendments, p 10. 101
INSTITUTE FOR PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIES, End of waste criteria, final report, European
Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2008, p. 48, available on
susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/documents/Endofwastecriteriafinal.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2010).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-29-
food wastes, forestry residues, waste from agriculture (including manure), waste from food and
beverage industries and sewage sludge.
In general compost is low in nitrogen available to plants. The nitrogen present in the organic
matter is only slowly released. On the other hand the amount of phosphate and potassium can
generally cover the need for these substances. Compost also supplies calcium, magnesium and
sulphur and other micronutrients.102 Consequently it can be used as a (partial) replacement for
other fertilizers. An advantage over chemical fertilizers is that compost brings organic matter to
the soil improving the soil’s structure.
Unfortunately, compost also has some negative aspects. The two elements that particularly
interest us, because of our objective to remediate contaminated soil, are the presence of heavy
metals and persistent organic pollutants. These contaminants are negative for soils and land in
normal condition, but especially so in conditions where the presence of heavy metals and
persistent organic pollutants is already elevated. On top, at this moment no specific European
legalisation exists regulating the quality and use of compost. However some guidelines can be
found in other regulations. For example, the End-of-Waste criteria of the new Framework
Directive on Waste, the Ecolabel Regulation and – to a minor extend – the Regulation on Organic
Agriculture.
End-of-Waste criteria (EoW)
In the strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, the European Commission aims to
encourage recycling by clearly defining end-of-waste (EoW) criteria. Fulfilling the EoW criteria
would determine the moment when waste ceases to be waste and becomes a product. To
elaborate the methodology on EoW criteria and to set some examples, the Joint Research Centre
and the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies performed a study. One of the topics was
compost.103 The (potential) presence of contamination in compost was researched, especially the
presence of heavy metals. The findings showed that exceeding the actual contamination limits for
zinc, lead, cadmium and phosphate would not lead to critical effects.104 To have a negative
impact extremely high amounts or repeated inputs of these heavy metals to the soil should
continue over several years. The study concludes that it is best is to control contamination of
compost by quality checks on the nature and origin of the input material. The limits that are
proposed105 are in some cases lower than the actual country limits, but overall higher than the
limits one should respect to obtain an Ecolabel.
102
Ibid., 54. 103
Ibid., 47-154. 104
Ibid., 139. 105
In values g/kg (dry weight): cadmium = 1,5 – lead = 120 – zinc = 400.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-30-
The resulting EoW criteria would support the production of quality compost, since they are to be
respected if one wants to market the compost as non-waste. At this moment most European
countries have some regulations governing directly or indirectly the production and/or use of
compost. In general these local regulations will need adaptation to the EoW criteria concerning
limit values and quality assurance, including harmonized technical standards on product
parameters, sampling and analysis.106
The Ecolabel
Secondly, there is influence of the Ecolabel107 for soil improvers and growing media. The
Ecolabel is the official environmental label of Europe. The explicit aim of the label is to promote
“the use of renewable materials and/or recycling of organic matter derived from the collection
and/or processing of waste material and therefore contributing to a minimization of solid waste
at the final disposal.”108 Companies whose products comply with the relevant product definition
and the related criteria can voluntarily apply for the European Ecolabel.
The criteria for the Ecolabel concerning soil include amongst other things limits for heavy metal
contaminants and organic pollutants in compost.109 The limits relate to the end product and not to
the input material. It appears that the limits imposed are more severe than necessary for the
environment and, on top, nearly impossible to achieve by producers.110 The findings reported in
the End-of-Waste report show that exceeding the contaminants limits (mentioned in the Ecolabel
criteria) for Zn, Pb and Cd and phosphate would not create critical impacts unless extremely high
amounts or repeated input over several years would happen. Therefore, the End-of-Waste report
proposes higher limits than the Ecolabel, but lower than those judged safe in the relatively high
French standard.111 Since most Member States have national limits lower than those used in
France, increasing the limits up to that level would reduce the actual quality targets for compost
and is therefore not appropriate. On the other hand, higher limits than in the Ecolabel regulation
(see figure 1) would stimulate the production, marketability and use of compost, with possibly an
increased use of the Ecolabel. By choosing a balanced solution the environment can maximally
benefit from the re-use of organic waste.
Figure 1: Limitation of hazardous substances as imposed by the Eco-label 112
106
Ibid., 100. 107
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel, O.J. 30 January 2010, L27. 108
INSTITUTE FOR PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIES, o.c., p 138. 109
SMK, The European Eco-label user manual for Soil Improvers, The Netherlands, May 2006, 29 p.,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ecolabelled_products/categories/pdf/si_criteria2.pdf. 110
INSTITUTE FOR PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIES, o.c., p. 140. 111
The ORBIT/ECN study111
stipulates that even with the French standard111
a continued use of compost would not
lead to critical soil values exceeding the stricter German standard period in less than 50 years., INSTITUTE FOR
PROSPECTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL STUDIES, o.c., p 140. 112
SMK, The European Eco-label user manual for Soil Improvers, The Netherlands, May 2006, p. 18,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ecolabelled_products/categories/p df/si_criteria2.pdf. (accessed on 21
August 2010).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-31-
Organic agriculture
Another rule that could influence the use of compost is the concept of organic agriculture as laid
down in Regulation 2092/91.113 This Regulation contains limits on contaminants that should be
respected by farmers adhering to organic agriculture. However, these limits cannot be used but as
an indication of contamination limits for environmentally safe agriculture. The system of organic
agriculture cannot be recognized as such when applied to a contaminated site.114 The Regulation
is thus not discussed any further in view of its limited relevance for the phytoremediation project.
Local regulations
High nutrient pressure exists in the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders), whilst the pressure is
low in Eastern Europe, mainly because of the low input of fertilizers and livestock density.115 All
Member States are obliged to establish one or more action programmes with measures
concerning the period fertilization is prohibited, the limitation of land application of fertilizers
and land application near waters or on slopes.116
In order to safeguard the free circulation of compost in the European internal market, standards
should be harmonized across the Member States. At this moment most Member States have
statutory standards for compost. Belgium has a quality system for compost managed by an
organisation VLACO vzw. This organisation performs regular audits and controls input material,
processes and product quality.117 The Netherlands also has a quality assurance system, but
participation is voluntary. Compost meeting the set of legal requirements obtains a certificate,
based on a positive assessment by an independent institute.118
The project was financed by the Swedish Association of Waste Management RVF and the
Swedish EPA. This system demands that input material should be of clean organic origin and
113
Regulation 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring
thereto on agricultural products and foodstuff, O.J. 22 July 1991, L 198, consolidated version O.J. 1 January 2007, L
027.002. 114
See the rules of production in article 6 of the Regulation 2092/91. 115
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member States reports for the period 2004 -2007, Brussels, 9 February
2010, COM (2010)47 final, p. 4, eur-lex.europa.eu/lexUniServ/LexUniServ.
116
Ibid., p 8. 117
www.vlaco.be (accessed on 25 April 2011). 118
www.keurcompost.nl (accessed on 25 April 2011).
In the organic growing media constituents, the content of the following elements shall be lower than
the values shown below, measured in terms of milligrams per kilogram of dry weight (mg/kg-1 d.w.):
Zn 300 mg.kg-1
Cu 100 mg.kg-1
Ni 50 mg.kg-1
Cd 1 mg.kg-1
Pb 100 mg.kg-1
Hg 1 mg.kg-1
Cr 100 mg.kg-1
Limit values are applicable to organic constituents only. Maximum allowable concentrations specified
below (in mg kg-1 d.w.) are applied only to products containing material from industrial processes,
such as rice hulls, peanut hulls or sludges from the agro-food industry:
Mo 2 mg.kg-1
Se 1.5 mg.kg-1
As 10 mg.kg-1
F 200 mg.kg-1
Limit values are valid unless national legislation is more strict.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-32-
source separated. The system is quite similar to the German version. The project goes on and at
the moment there are several anaerobic digestion plants and compost plants that have managed to
receive a certificate.
2.3 Plant protection
Previously plant protection119 regulation was mainly focussed on the marketing of these products.
Maximum residue limits existed for pesticides on food- and feedstuffs. In March 2009 a review
programme of existing pesticides was finalised. Both the marketing and the use of plant
protection products are regulated, respectively in a Regulation120 and a Directive121. The review
ensures that substances on the market are acceptable for the environment and human health. The
focus is no longer solely on food safety. A direct consequence is that the level of protection is
similar in all Member States. In the past protection varied widely and national rules could
continue to be applicable. This is no longer possible. Inherent to a regulation is the direct
applicability. Transposition into national legislation is not necessary.
Plant protection in the sense of the new Regulation includes protection against harmful
organisms, including weeds and improvement of plant production products. Commercial plant
protection products have to be authorised following the procedures in the regulation before they
can be put on the market or used.122 The authorisation shall define for what purposes which plant
product can be used.123 In case a certain use is not authorised, the authorisation holder, official or
scientific bodies involved in agricultural activities, professional agricultural organisations or
professional users may ask for an extension of the use. This extension can only be authorised if
the conditions mentioned in article 51 of the Regulation are respected.
Plant protection products need to be labelled in line with the requirements of Directive 1999/45
on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations.124 An additional
regulation based on article 65 of the Regulation 1107/2009 will be adopted describing the
additional information and safety precautions that have to be taken. These phrases supplement the
119
The difference between Plant Protection products and biocides is that Plant Protection Products (PPPs) contribute
to high agricultural yields and help to ensure that good quality food is available at reasonable prices, whilst biocides
are important for public health protection and for preservation of materials. The latter products are not used in plant
protection and consequently the related regulation is not discussed in this article. 120
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the
market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, O.J. 24 November 2009, L 309. 121
Directive 2009/128/EC of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the
sustainable use of pesticides, O.J. 24 November 2009, L 309/71. 122
Regulation 1107/2009, article 1 and 28. 123
Ibid., article 31. 124
This Directive will be fully replaced as of 1 June 2015 by Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of 16 December 2008
on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives
67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, O.J. 31 December 2008, L 353.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-33-
obligation of Directive 1999/45/EC. Without any doubt these are important data containing
valuable information for the users of these products.
For rules on the proper use of plant protection products the Regulation125 refers to the new
Directive 2009/128/EC on the use of pesticides.126 This Directive on the use of plant protection
products is an important step forward in the protection of human health and the environment from
pesticides. Indeed pesticides can have very negative effects that should be prevented or
controlled.
Member States have to adopt National Action Plans to reduce risk and impacts of pesticides,
promote integrated pest management and alternative approaches to reduce the use of pesticides.
The encouragement of integrated pest management is interesting. It means that, whenever
possible, priority should be given to non-chemical methods. However, the mistake made in the
past by importing foreign predators (Harmonia axyridis) for pest control should not be made
again. The impact on the local biodiversity is still very negative.
Furthermore, the Directive obliges Member States to provide training on the use of pesticides and
to inspect pesticide application equipment.
Last but not least, the Directive shall not prevent Member States from applying the precautionary
principle in restricting or prohibiting the use of pesticides in specific circumstances or areas.127 In
practice this means that one should still check the local legislation when planning to use plant
protection products. It could be forbidden in that particular country or for that particular use in
that country.
The Directive should be transposed in national legislation by 14 December 2011.128
Local regulations
As already mentioned, high nutrient pressure exists in the Netherlands and Belgium (Flanders),
whilst the pressure is low in Eastern Europe, mainly because of the low input of fertilizers and
livestock density.129 All Member States are obliged to establish one or more action programmes
125
Regulation 1107/2009, article 55. 126
Directive 2009/128/EC. 127
Ibid., article 2, 3. 128
Ibid., article 23. 129
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources based on Member States reports for the period 2004 -2007, Brussels, 9 February
2010, COM (2010)47 final, p. 4, eur-lex.europa.eu/lexUniServ/LexUniServ.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-34-
with measures concerning the period fertilization is prohibited, the limitation of land application
of fertilizers and land application near waters or on slopes.130
3. Harvesting the crops
When harvesting the crops on the site, it is important to know how contaminated the crops are
and with what kind of chemical substances. This will have an impact on the classification of the
biomass as (potentially) hazardous or not. For further classification we also need to know if the
resulting biomass falls under waste rules or not. Indeed, obligations to store, transport and
manipulate are different for waste and non-waste.
At this moment no explicit rules on contaminated biomass exist. We need to look at several
regulations touching the characteristics and properties of the biomass to get a good view on the
legal aspects. Conclusions will be drawn by extrapolation of these rules.
The objective of Rejuvenate 2, as written down in the call for tenders and the approved Research
Project sets the framework for the study of both the status of the biomass and the classification as
hazardous. The “Use of contaminated land for biofuel crop production” is topic 3 of the
Rejuvenate 2 call.131 Biofuel crop production means the growing of plants to use these as
feedstock for an energy source. The approved Research Project Proposal132 refines the topic by
stipulating that usage of the crop production focuses in particular on secondary biofuels. Biofuel
is thereby to be understood as the fuel produced directly or indirectly from biomass, such as
fuelwood, charcoal, bioethanol, biodiesel, biogas and biohydrogen.133
Within this framework, the impact of the contamination of the plants and the classification of the
biomass as waste or non-waste is further analysed in following paragraphs.
3.1 The plants are contaminated
The whole idea behind phytoextraction is that plants grown on a contaminated site take up (part
of) the contaminants and consequently clean the soil of toxic substances. When the plants are
130
Ibid., p 8. 131
SNOWMAN, The Second Snowman Coordinated Research Call, Sustainable Soil Management, Applicants
Guide, SnowmanERAnet, 10 December 2008, p 18. 132
SNOWMAN, Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for Economically Marginal
Degraded Areas, Phase II: Demonstration projects and evaluation decision support tool , Research Project Proposal,
Rejuvenate 2, p 9. 133
REJUVENATE, Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for Economically Marginal
Degraded Areas, p. 19, available on www.snowman-era.net/content.php?horiz_link=12&vert_link=0, (last accessed
24 August, 2010).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-35-
harvested part of the soil contamination is removed together with the biomass. This raises some
questions on the nature of the resulting harvested biomass. Referring to contamination with heavy
metals, these elements occur naturally in plants, but in lower quantities than when the crops grow
on contaminated soil. In phytoextraction plants are even selected on their potential uptake of
contaminants whilst able to survive and grow. Exact guidelines to decide which quantity of
contaminants in the harvested crops is such that the biomass should be considered toxic or
hazardous134, do not exist on European level. In principle the concentration of toxic substances in
the plants is higher than what it, in normal growing circumstances, would be, although lower than
in the soil. Differing considerably from their normal, natural composition, the plants/biomass
could be classified as ecotoxic. This conclusion is based on arguments found in the new Waste
Framework Directive and in the texts of REACH on hazardous substances. The Waste
Framework Directive would classify waste as ecotoxic when it “presents or may present
immediate or delayed risks for one or more sectors of the environment”.135 The contaminants in
the soil are considered to have a toxic, negative impact since this is exactly the reason for the
phytoremediation of the site. The same contaminants are now in the plants and thus these could
be seen as hazardous too. However, the concentration in the biomass could be significantly
different from the concentration in the soil. This could influence the classification of the biomass.
To assess the toxicological effect we need to consider two parameters: the amount of
contaminants in the biomass and the nature of the substances present in that biomass. The latter
should then be compared with the rules in the REACH-regulation. This is the case for non-waste
(see infra) as well as for waste, since the Waste Framework Directive states that the classification
as hazardous should be based on the European legislation on chemicals.136 Many of the
contaminants found in soils that need sanitation are in REACH listed as hazardous substances.
Hazardous substances are subject to authorization or restrictions.137 Cadmium is for example
classified as carcinogenic138 and some forms of lead are on the authorisation list, as is toluene. In
fact this confirms the conclusion above that contaminated biomass could be seen as dangerous
and ecotoxic.
134
It is important to note that the meaning of the term “contaminant” in the Rejuvenate I report is not similar to the
meaning of “hazardous substance” used in regulation and in particular chemical legislation. A contaminant is defined
in the report as a substance which is in, on or under the land and has the potential to cause harm (or to cause
pollution of controlled waters). (Rejuvenate I final report, p 35). A hazardous substance is classified as such on the
basis of certain characteristics, i.e. carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic for reproduction, PBT or vPvBvT ((very)
persistent, (very) bioaccumulative and (very) toxic) (REACH, article 57, 67 and Annex XVII). 135
Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, O.J. 22 November 2008,
L 312/3, Annex VI, H14. 136
Ibid., Pre-ambule 14. 137
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Auth orisation and
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC
and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as
Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC,
O.J. 25 May 2007, L 136/3, Title VII and Title VIII of REACH. 138
Ibid., Annex VII.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-36-
Abstraction made of the conclusion if this contaminated biomass is waste or not, one could say
that it is reasonable and within the intention of European rules to classify the biomass as toxic for
the environment.139
3.2 Waste or not waste
Is harvested contaminated biomass waste? The new Waste Framework Directive defines waste as
“any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”.140 But
article 2 of the Waste Framework Directive excludes “… straw and other natural non-hazardous
agricultural or forestry material used in farming, forestry or for the production of energy from
such biomass through processes or methods which do not harm the environment or endanger
human health”.
A direct consequence of this formulation is that biomass needs to be natural and non-hazardous,
which is not the case for the contaminated biomass (See previous paragraph). The conclusion is
that this biomass is not excluded from the Waste Framework Directive and we will have to look
at the definition of waste for the classification.
The main purpose of growing crops on a contaminated site is to remediate that site. But the
intention is to use biomass for producing biofuel as a commercial valuable product that gives the
location some economic future. For the farmers it would add to their income and investors could
be interested in the use of the biomass. Indeed turning contaminated biomass into a financial
viable product would be an important motivator for private parties to invest in phytoremediation,
what on its turn would benefit the local population and the environment.
Could one argue that the harvested biomass is waste? An important number of cases brought for
the European Court of Justice (ECJ) show that there is no straightforward rule to decide if or
when something is waste. Several interpretations were put forward and in many cases the ECJ
had to make the final cut. The elements in the definition of waste141, are further elaborated with
other elements like re-use without further processing, economic value, market need, etc.
The new Framework Directive on Waste kept the definition of Directive 2006/12/EC, but without
the reference to the former Annex I. This Annex I contained a list of waste, but also included a
category covering all substances, materials, products not included in any other category of the
list. This last statement made Annex I de facto useless. Consequently, the definition in the new
directive is in practice similar to the former one, thus the lessons learned out of the court cases
are still valid.142
139
Directive 2008/98/EC, Annex III – H14. 140
Ibid., Article 3, 1. 141
Directive 2008/98/EC, article 3, 1. 142
Failing, up to now, any court decisions on the basis of the new Waste Directive 2008/98/EC.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-37-
Comparing the harvesting of contaminated crops for the production of biofuel with the definition
of waste and the arguments used in court decisions, we can conclude that the biomass of a
phytoremediation site is not waste. Following arguments lead to this conclusion:
1. The economic feasibility of using the contaminated biomass for the production of biofuel
is an important criterion for the viability and success of the projects. Furthermore, the
Decision Support Tool considers in phase 3 financial aspects as an element for the
evaluation of proposed projects.
2. The suitability of the crops for the production of biofuel is taken into account in the
selection of the plants.
3. The crops are grown and treated (fertilizing, plant protection) with the clear aim to
produce biomass as feedstock for biofuel, whilst remediating the contamination.
4. Biofuel clearly is a commercial product. It has to be manufactured and this production is
not just a deactivation of harmful biomass, but real processing.
Above motivation is valid for the Rejuvenate 2 project and for possible future phytoremediation
projects. Rejuvenate 2 will analyse and assess the economic viability of phytoremediation by
really growing biomass on contaminated ground and producing biofuel. The aim is to prove that
phytoremediation is an economically valuable option for cleaning or upgrading contaminated
soil. The possibility to produce biofuel from the contaminated biomass would be an important
motivator for private projects and investments. It also would reduce the burden of the very long
time frame needed to clean land by phytoremediation.
Future private phytoremediation projects for the production of biofuel will be decided upon based
on their financial and economic viability. The biomass is grown with the goal to produce biofuel,
it is not re-used, not recycled, it is a first processing. Consequently, it is hard to defend that the
resulting biomass is to be classified as waste. Overall the grower and/or holder of the
contaminated biomass did not discard it, nor did he have the intention to discard. The goal is
rather to use it as an economic valuable and commercial product, namely feedstock for biofuel.
One reservation though: failing any specific regulation for phytoremediation projects on
contaminated soil, it could be that the European Commission is of the opinion that such
contaminated biomass should be regarded as waste. This way a legal structure with rules
protecting human health and environment becomes applicable. The question is if the European
Court of Justice would follow such classification.
Last but not least, the above does not exclude that after processing parts of the biomass could
become waste in the sense of the definition of waste in the Waste Framework Directive. This
aspect will be discussed in a next (to come) part on the processing of the biomass.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-38-
Local rules
Belgium
In Belgium the waste legislation falls under the authority of the regions. In Flanders the actual
legislation is under review for adaption to the new European Framework Directive on waste.
Publication and implementation of the new decree is expected on the short term.
Netherlands
The Dutch Council of Ministries, upon recommendation of the Ministry of Social Housing,
Spatial Planning and Environmental management, accepted a change in the law of Environmental
Management.143 This change was necessary in order to implement on time the European
Framework Directive on waste in local rules. The goal of the directive and the local rules is
mainly to prevent waste as much as possible, to manage scarce materials and support sustainable
use. The new local rules have an option to no longer qualify certain processes as waste, i.e. on
condition that the materials concerned meet the end-of-waste criteria.
Romania
The Romanian policy governing waste management includes two main components: the National
Waste Management Strategy and the National Waste Management Plan.
Basic principles of environmental policy in Romania are set in accordance with European and
international provisions, ensuring protection and nature conservation, biological diversity and
sustainable use of its components.144
In order to comply with legislative requirements for waste management in Romania, integrated
waste management projects are developed under the National Waste Management Plan and the
Regional Waste Management Plans.145
Sweden
In Sweden waste is dealt with through the Environmental Code. The handling of waste, including
treatment facilities, landfills etc., is subject to the licensing regulations contained in that
Environmental Code that was approved in June 1998 and came into force on 1 January 1999.146
The definition of waste is based on the European definition of waste as stipulated in the new
Waste Framework Directive. Waste is every object, material or substance which the holder
disposes of, intends to dispose of or is obliged to dispose of. An annex to an ordinance of the
143
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/programmas-regelingen/websites-over-afval (accessed 27 April 2011). 144
UNITED NATIONS, National Reports, Romania, Waste Management, May 2010, p 1-10,
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_ni/ni_pdfs/NationalReports/romania/waste.pdf (accessed 27 April 2011). 145
Ibid., p 5. 146
www.swegene.com/blog/legislation-of-waste-management-in-sweden.html.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-39-
Environmental Code lists the categories of waste as also mentioned in the annex of the former
Waste Framework Directive.
Regulations about extended producer responsibility may be issued under the Environmental
Code. Extended producer responsibility means that the producer must ensure that the waste is
collected, transported away, recycled, reused or disposed of in such a manner as may be
necessary from the viewpoint of health and environmentally acceptable waste handling.
3.3 Should biomass be registered under REACH?
Annex V of the REACH Regulation contains exemptions from the obligation to register. For
example, substances occurring in nature are exempted, unless they meet the criteria for
classification as dangerous.147 Thus, one could argue that if biomass is sold to a processor, who
transfers the material into biofuel, that biomass is put on the market and the biomass should be
registered, because it contains hazardous substances. This situation has some similarities with the
“compost issue” that originally also had to be registered under the REACH Regulation, because
after composting it became a marketable product. For practical reasons and in line with the
intention of REACH, an exemption from registration for compost was included in Annex V of
the REACH Regulation.148 A similar exemption is defendable for contaminated biomass.
However up to now, such an exemption for contaminated biomass does not exist.
147
REACH, Annex V, entry 8 - Substances which occur in nature other than those listed under paragraph 7, if they
are not chemically modified, unless they meet the criteria for classification as dangerous according to Directive
67/548/EEC or unless they are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic or very persistent and very bioaccumulative in
accordance with the criteria set out in Annex XIII or unless they were identified in accordance with Article 59(1) at
least two years previously as substances giving rise to an equivalent level of concern as set out in Art icle 57(f). 148
ECHA, Guidance for Annex V, Exemption from the obligation to register, March 2010, version 1,
http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/annex_v_en.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2010), p 39. This
exemption covers compost when it is potentially subject to registration, i.e. when it is no longer waste according to
Directive 2008/98/CE, and is understood as being applicable to substances consisting of solid particulate material
that has been sanitised and stabilised through the action of micro-organisms and that result from the composting
treatment.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-40-
III. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Legislation
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern
Convention), 1982, O.J. 10 February 1982, L 038.
Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), 1992, www.cbd.int, last visited 31 May 2010.
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), 1995, New Revised Text approved by the
FAO Conference, November 1997,
https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded//publications/13742.New_Revised_Text_of_the_Internati
onal_Plant_Protectio.pdf, last visited 31 May 2010.
Convention for the Protection of the Alps (Alpine Convention), 1991, O.J. 12 March 1996, L
061.
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, O.J. 18 October 2003, L 268,
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1981/2006 of 22 December 2006, O.J. 23 December 2006,
L 368.
Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January
2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and
amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC, O.J. 4 February 2006, L 33.
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18
December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of
Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive
1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives
91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, O.J. 30 December 2006, L 396.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 published in O.J. 29 May 2007, L 136.
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October
2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council
Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC, O.J. 24 November 2009, L 309.
Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, O.J. 26 January 1980, L 20.
Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in
particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture, O.J. 4 July 1986, L 181.
Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection
products on the market, O.J. 19 August 1991, L 230.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-41-
Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, O.J. 31 December 1991, L 375.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora (Habitat Directive), O.J. 22 July 1992, L 206.
Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
management; O.J., 21 November 1996, L 296.
Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 16 February 1998
concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, O.J. 24 April 1998, L 123.
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, O.J. 16 July 1999, L
182.
Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the
introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against
their spread within the Community, O.J. 10 July 2000, L 169.
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water
Framework Directive – WFD), O.J. 22 December 2000, L 327.
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on
the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing
Council Directive 90/220/EEC, O.J. 17 April 2001, L 106.
Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on
environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental
damage, O. J. 30 April 2004, L 143.
Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006
on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, O.J. 27 December 2006,
L 372.
Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently
repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, O.J. 5 June 2009, L 140.
Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009
establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides,
O.J. 24 November 2009, L 309.
Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a
list of wastes pursuant to Article 1 (a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council
Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1 (4) of Council
Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, O.J. 6 September 2000, L 226/3.
Council Decision 2006/144/EC of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for
rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013), O.J. 25 February 2006, L 55/20.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-42-
2. Literature
Aguirre de Carcer D., Martin M. e.a. The introduction of genetically modified
microorganisms designed for rhizoremediation induces changes on native bacteria in the
rizosphere but not in the surrounding soil, The ISME Journal, 2007, 1, 215-23,
http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/v1/n3/full/ismej200727a.html, last visited 10 May 2010.
BIOPROS, Solutions for the safe application of wastewater and sludge for high efficient
biomass production in Short-Rotation-Plantations, D4 – Report on ongoing research and
gaps in SRP knowledge, 14 February 2005, Sweden, February 2006, 44 p,
http://www.biopros.info/uploads/media/BIOPROS-D05.pdf, last visited 8 June 2010.
BIOPROS, Solutions for the safe application of wastewater and sludge for high efficient
biomass production in Short-Rotation-Plantations, D5 – Guidelines on safety issues for SRP
wastewater application, 14 February 2005, Sweden, February 2006, 22 p,
http://www.biopros.info/uploads/media/BIOPROS-D05.pdf, last visited 7 June 2010.
Bringezy S., Schutz H. e.a., Towards sustainable production and use of resources: Assessing
Biofuels, United Nations Environment Program, 2009,
www.unep.fr/scp/rpanel/pdf/Assessing_Biofuels_Full_Report.pdf, last visited 10 May 2010.
Dufey A., Biofuels production, trade and sustainable development: emerging issues,
International Institute for Environment and Development, London, 2006, 62 p.,
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/15504IIED.pdf, last visited 9 May 2010.
Duruibe J. O. e.a., Heavy metal pollution and human biotoxic effects, International Journal
of Physical Sciences, May 2007, Vol. 2 (5), pp. 112-118,
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/PDF/pdf2007/May/Duruibe%20et%20al.pdf (accessed
on 3 August 2010).
ECHA, Guidance for Annex V, Exemption from the obligation to register, March 2010,
version 1, http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/annex_v_en.pdf (accessed
on 25 August 2010).
European Court of Justice 18 April 2002, case C-9/00, Palin Granit Oy.
European Court of Justice 25 June 1997, joined cases C-304/94, C-330/94, C-342/94 and C-
224/95, Euro Tombesi e.a.
European Center for Nature Conservation, The Pan-European Biological and Landscape
Diversity Strategy, Netherlands, Nature and Environment, 1996, 66 p,
www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/biodiversity/SN74_en.pdf, last visited 8 May 2010.
European Commission, Compost production and use in the EU, ORBIT e.V. / European
Compost Network ECN, 182 p.,
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/documents/080229_EoW_final-
report_v1.0.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2010).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-43-
European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, The Common Agricultural
Policy explained, May 2009, 11 p.,
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capexplained/index_en.htm.
European Commission, Groundwater protection in Europe, European Communities 2008,
http//bookshop.europa.eu, 36 p., ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
framework/groundwater/brochure/en.pdf, last visited on 30 May 2010.
European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of
pesticides, Brussels, 12 July 2006, COM(2006) 373 final,
ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/home.htm, last visited 8 June 2010.
European Commission, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC, Brussels, 22 September 2006, COM(2006) 232 final, eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0232:FIN:EN:PDF, last visited 30 May 2010.
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament on sustainability requirements for the use of solid and gaseous biomass sources in
electricity, heating and cooling, Brussels, SEC(2010) 65, 19 p.,
ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/doc/2010_report/com_2010_0011_3_
report.pdf, last visited 4 October 2011.
Florida Native Plant Society, Policy statement on Arundo donax , 9 p.,
www.fnps.org/committees/policy/pdfs/policyarundo_policy_statement1.pdf, last visited 8
June 2010.
Genovesi P., Shine C., European Strategy on Invasive Alien Species, Standing Committee of
the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Strasbourg,
5 December 2003, 50 p, www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/BRAG_NNS_Genovesi&Shine-
EuropeanStrategyonInvasiveAlienSpecies.pdf, last visited on 9 June 2010.
Hoppenbrouwers M. and Vanheusden B., De relatie tussen de REACH-Verordening en de
(Europese) regelgeving inzake afvalstoffen, Milieu- en Energierecht, 2009, Vol. 4, p 243-254.
Institute for prospective technological studies, End of waste criteria, final report, European
Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2008, p. 48,
susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/documents/Endofwastecriteriafinal.pdf (accessed on
22 August 2010).
Invasive Species Specialist Group, IUCN, Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity loss
caused by Alien Invasive Species, Approved by the 51st Meeting of the IUCN Council, Gland
Switzerland, February 2000, 24 p.,
intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/Policy_statements/IUCN_Guidelines_for_the
_Prevention_of_Biodiversity_Loss_caused_by_Alien_Invasive_Species.pdf, last visited on
20 May 2010.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-44-
Jinga, V., Iliescu, H., Stefan, S., Manole, Response of some sunflower cultivars to broomrape
attack in Romania, HELIA 32, 10 November 2009, Nr. 51, p.p. 127-134.
Lasat M., Phytoextractio of metals from contaminated soil: a review of plant/soil/metal
interaction and assessment of pertinent agronomic issues, Journal of Hazardous Substance
Research, Volume 2, 2000, p 5-1,
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.7236&rep=rep1&type=pdf, last
visited 24 May 2010.
Martin Junger Copernicus Institute, Lessons from (European) Bioenergy Policies - Results of
a literature review for IEA Bioenergy Task 40, Netherlands, September 2007, igitur-
archive.library.uu.nl/chem/2008-0423.../NWS-E-2007-122.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2010).
Meers E., Tack F., Van Slycken S., Ruttens A., Du Laing, J. Vangronsveld J., Verloo M.,
Chemically Assisted Phytoextraction, A Review of Potential Soil Amendments for Increasing
Uptake of Heavy Metals, International Journal of Phytoremediation, 10:390–414, 2008.
Möller R., Toonen M. e.a., Crop platforms for cell wall biorefening: lignocellulose
feedstocks, EPOBIO project, April 2007, University of York, 176 p.
Parris K. e.a., Biomass and Agriculture, Sustainability, Markets and Policies, OECD
Publications, 2003, 565 p,
www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?K=5LMQCR2JJ1S0&DS=Biomass-and-
Agriculture, last visited on 27 May 2010.
Rejuvenate, Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for
Economically Marginal Degraded Areas, p. 19, www.snowman-
era.net/content.php?horiz_link=12&vert_link=0, (accessed on 24 August, 2010).
Science, Austria, Hungary Allowed to Keep Ban on Genetically Modified Crops, Deutsche
Welle, 2 March 2009, www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4068097,00.html.
SMK, The European Eco-label user manual for Soil Improvers, The Netherlands, May 2006,
29 p.,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/ecolabelled_products/categories/pdf/si_criteria2.pdf
.
SNOWMAN, The Second Snowman Coordinated Research Call, Sustainable Soil
Management, Applicants Guide, SnowmanERAnet, 10 December 2008, p 18.
SNOWMAN, Crop Based Systems for Sustainable Risk Based Land Management for
Economically Marginal Degraded Areas, Phase II: Demonstration projects and evaluation
decision support tool, Research Project Proposal, Rejuvenate 2, p 9.
Stein A. and Rodriguez-Cereso E., The Global Pipeline of new GM crops, implications for
asynchronous approval for international trade, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, 2009,
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 113 p.
SUMATECS, Sustainable management of trace element contaminated soils –Development of
a decision tool system and its evaluation for practical application, Final Research Report,
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-45-
Vienna, December 23, 2008, 318 p, http://www.rhizo.at/default.asp?id=326 (accessed on 25
August 2010).
Vangronsveld J., Herzig R., Thewys T. e.a., Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and
groundwater: lessons from the field, Environ Sci Pollut Res 2009, Springer-Verlag, 16:765–
794.
Yuan Z. and VanBriesen J., Environmental Engineering Science. May/June 2006, 23(3): 533-
544, http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ees.2006.23.533, last visited 29 May
2010.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-46-
B. ECONOMIC ASPECTS
I. ECONOMIC MODEL BASED ON LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Conceptual framework
1.1 What Rejuvenate 1 started…
All across Europe there are areas of land which have been degraded by past use. In the EU there
may be up to three million potentially contaminated sites, over 80,000 sites have been cleaned up
over the past 30 years, while 250,000 polluted sites require urgent attention (EEA, 2007). The
Rejuvenate 1 project was a desk study carried out by r³ environmental technology ltd (UK), the
Swedish Geotechnical Institute (Sweden), Dechema e.V. (Germany), and Bioclear (The
Netherlands). It outlined the opportunity for growing renewable energy crops on marginal land
across Europe (in particular brownfields, and contaminated land), and provided a framework for
decision-making about (i) the use of marginal land for growing non-food crops for renewable
energy, and (ii) the simultaneous use of recycled organic matter for soil improvement.
The fundaments of this study were built on the fact that the combination of biomass cultivation
and soil remediation could be an important part of sustainable risk based land management where
the management strategy could become self-funding and could even result in other environmental
benefits such as carbon sequestration. Risk based land management refers to the fact that it is
necessary to consider to what extent toxic substances may harm human health or the wider
environment not only while in soil, but also after remediation. Risk management has as its main
aim to identify the different elements of the contaminant-pathway-receptor chain and to break
this chain. The pathway can be very diverse, but a common example is that the contaminants in
soil are taken up by vegetables which are directly consumed by humans. Or, after remediation,
contaminants might eventually end up at a disposal site. A remediation strategy is effective if it
minimizes or controls the health or environmental risks associated with a particular pollutant
linkage. By removing contaminant sources, breaking exposure pathways between source and
receptor, or changing the receptors, pollutant linkages are minimized (Mench et al., 2010). This
might therefore result in a management strategy that does not necessarily lead to a removal of
toxic substances.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-47-
The decision support tool (DST) developed within Rejuvenate 1 takes into account the necessary
issues to break this chain of contaminant-pathway-receptor in a risk minimizing way. Therefore,
within Rejuvenate, the appropriate selection of crop types is based on climate conditions, site
contamination, site topography, available market for the crops, etc. Following the DST, this
should lead to a financially feasible soil management strategy. Moreover, the DST attempts to
achieve this within a sustainable way. This includes not only an analysis of the impact of the
strategy on biodiversity, water use, and energy use, but also an analysis of the effect of the
strategy on new pollutant linkages. E.g. remediation with crops results in enriched harvested
biomass which has to be used or disposed properly, a topic that was already considered, but not
yet completed within Rejuvenate 1. The model developed within Rejuvenate 1 resulted in Figure
0-1.
StartStart
Project Risk
Crop
Acceptable Value
Site
Crop Types
Climate/ Topography
Business use Options
Soil Characteristics
Risk Assessment
Project Impact
Economic
Environmental
Social
Technology Status
Detailed Dilligence
Stakeholder Views
Output: option for suitable crops and uses
Output: site management strategy
Output: best value approach
Output: project risk
assessed/ minimised
Figure 0-1 Decision support tool for sustainable contaminated land management
In Rejuvenate, partners with an expertise in different disciplines are working closely together to
come to an integrated, multidisciplinary framework. Multidisciplinary research teams and
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-48-
involvement of stakeholders are primordial for long-term ecological, ecotoxicological, social and
financial sustainability of phytotechnologies. However, what Rejuvenate 1 lacked was a practical
test of the decision tool. And this is where Rejuvenate 2 takes off.
1.2 … and Rejuvenate 2 continues
While the third work package will use the DST to select sites for establishing full scale case
studies in some of the participating countries, and the fourth work package will perform a SWOT
analysis of the DST, the fifth work package will assess the legal and economic feasibility of the
DST. The outcome of this work package will then be used as input for the former work packages.
More specifically, this first report will introduce some concepts that are primordial for a thorough
economic analysis. In this report, we specify the general economic outline of the DST that will be
followed in work package 5, and define a central question. To answer this question, we define
some concepts in more detail, based on a literature review. This literature review focuses on the
phytoremediation potential of specific crops, and the trade-off between biomass production and
phytoremediation. Moreover, we justify the use of these crops for energy purposes. We end our
literature review with the concept of Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA): its use, its advantages and
drawbacks, externalities, and its relation with sustainability. The findings of this first report will
then be used in the following report where we will assess the economic feasibility of
phytoremediation on contaminated sites, using the DST.
The problem of soil contamination is complex, often involving multiple stakeholders, but also
involving multiple layers. First, it concerns soil where conventional remediation techniques are
inapplicable due to different reasons. Therefore, phytoremediation is suggested as an alternative
remediation technology. Second, the damage has been done. The cases under consideration do
not handle avoiding (soil) pollution as an external cost of industrial activities, but rather deal with
this (soil) pollution as a resulting external cost of industrial activities, and mining. The analysis
focuses on the effects of soil pollution, and searches for an alternative valorisation for this land.
The consequential costs are not only borne by the liable agent (in most cases industry), but also
by the land owner and society. Third, the owner or tenant of the soil will bear the costs.
Consequences of remediation might not be as positive and clear-cut. It is very crucial to
understand and define what exactly the benefits might become for the owner or tenant since it is
these benefits that will motivate him. This is related to the fourth layer (legislation) as (European)
legislation on soil contamination and biomass faces multiple challenges. This is handled more in
detail in a separate part of work package 5. And fifth, there are additional effects resulting from
the clean-up of soil and this has consequences for social welfare. Today, it is widely recognized
that cleanup activities of hazardous waste sites may be the cause of external effects e.g.
greenhouse gases. In August 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency therefore
published its proposal called Superfund Green Remediation Strategy which outlines strategic
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-49-
recommendations for cleaner site redevelopment (EPA, 2009). The Rejuvenate approach intends
to grasp this multi layer attribute.
The Clarinet platform correctly pointed out that not all remediation projects are in itself
sustainable and might actually cause an economic, environmental, and social burden. In
December 2009, the European Common Forum and Nicole (Network for Industrially
Contaminated Land in Europe) published a position paper on innovative technologies. In their
paper it is argued that cost-effective and sustainable land management technologies are necessary
to deal with ever increasing soil management costs. Although the necessary in-situ techniques are
already available, their commercial implementation in Europe is low due to a lack of an action
plan. Many phytotechnologies for trace elements and other contaminants are at the demonstration
level, but relatively few have been applied in practice on large sites. More data are needed to
quantify the underlying economics as a support for public acceptance and to convince policy
makers and stakeholders (Ruttens and Vangronsveld, 2006; Adriaensen et al., 2008;
Vangronsveld et al., 2009).
Indeed, there still is a gap between research and development for the use of phytoremediation at
field level, which is partly due to:
- a lack of awareness by regulators and stakeholders (e.g. land owners, tenants);
- a lack of expertise and knowledge by service providers and contractors;
- uncertainties in long-term effectiveness (what is still available?, monitoring); and
- difficulties in the transfer of particular metabolic pathways to productive and widely available
plants (Adriaensen et al., 2008).
Therefore, a clear road map for utilisation of phytotechnologies needed to be developed to allow
the user to make an informed decision on the most suitable technology for the site requiring
remediation or management (Adriaensen et al., 2008). The sustainable management of trace
element contaminated soils (SUMATECS) program showed a clear desire amongst stakeholders
for a reliable decision system tool and improved decision support for gentle remediation
operations (GRO) and recommended the incorporation of GRO-focused decision support into
national guidelines/tools. This decision tool should consider overall life cycle costs, benefits, and
risks, specific to the site conditions. Rejuvenate 1 already made a first step in developing a
decision tool.
Phytoremediation undoubtedly has a high potential to enhance the degradation and/or removal of
organic contaminants from soils (Vangronsveld et al., 2009; Weyens et al., 2009, 2010).
However, based on extrapolations of data obtained from pot experiments, enthusiastic
interpretations and promises have been made concerning the possibilities of phytoextraction (Salt
et al., 1995; Rulkens et al., 1998; Susarla et al., 2002; Mench et al., 2010). Therefore, more
demonstration projects on phytoextraction are required to provide recommendations and
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-50-
convince regulators, decision makers, and the public of the applicability of phytoremediation for
the treatment of soils, brownfields, groundwater, and wastewater contaminated with diverse
pollutants (Vangronsveld et al., 2009). Therefore, the decision tool which has been developed by
Rejuvenate 1 is tested and specified more in detail in Rejuvenate 2.
1.3 Decision tool specifics (work package 5)
1.3.1 General outline
Within the project proposal of Rejuvenate 2, the economic assessment includes the potential
economic value of a biomass on marginal land approach, with an estimation of the relevant
internal and external costs for different stakeholders, and taking into account transport costs.
Based on this, work package 5 of Rejuvenate 2 will focus on the following question:
Does phytoremediation, as a multifunctional and sustainable alternative for conventional
remediation technologies for functional restoration of contaminated soil, result in
economically optimal remediation strategies?
- does phytoremediation offer an economically viable alternative for conventional remediation
technologies and which crops should be used and under what circumstances? The analyses in this
study are based on a cost-benefit analysis with net present value (NPV) as the decision tool.
- does phytoremediation result in other than private costs and benefits and if so, are these
externalities positive or negative? The resulting biomass could be used for renewable energy
purposes, but also results in heavy metal waste disposal. Both are considered externalities of
phytoremediation and should be internalized in the decision model through the correct policy.
In a first phase, the quantification of the different benefits of the multifunctional land use requires
the identification of physical terms. Crop choice will be based on the DST of Rejuvenate 1. This
involves the determination of (i) current characteristics of the soil. In a next step (ii) different
remediation options as to crop choice are defined. Each of these crops will result in different
accumulation of heavy metals, different revenues, different energy production, different CO2
abatement potential, and different by-products after conversion. In a last step, finally aimed levels
of contamination (iii) are determined based on all kinds of legislation. In a second phase, physical
data are combined in a (business) model by giving them an economic value in a CBA. Based on
the start- and end level of contamination, remediation has different time ranges, depending on the
used crop. Total economic value is then calculated as the sum of revenues resulting from the
remediating crops, and revenues from activities after remediation, over an infinite time range,
based on market prices.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-51-
However, market prices do not always correctly reflect consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP). An
activity may generate impacts that spill over to other economic agents. These spill-overs or
externalities can either be negative (heavy metal in rest product) or positive (CO2 abatement from
green energy production). Other external effects (e.g. biodiversity) could also be considered in
Rejuvenate 2.
Once the stream of economic costs and benefits is estimated, the standard NPV methodology is
applied, using a social discount rate of 4%.
1.3.2 Model specifics
In Figure 0-2, AGIrem represents yearly adapted gross income during remediation from time 0
until time x. AGIHI represents yearly adapted gross income from high income (HI) activities after
remediation from time x until ∞. NPV of AGIrem from time x to time 0 is equal to A. NPV of
AGIHI from ∞ to time x is equal to B. To sum A and B, the latter is first discounted to time 0.
Figure 0-2 Model scheme, with the income during (A) and after (B) remediation, starting
from C0
Two trade-offs exist (Figure 0-3). There is (i) the trade-off between higher income during
remediation and faster remediation, as these do not necessarily go hand in hand. Given a HI
activity that is allowed from Cx, faster remediation has the advantage of faster allowing for this
HI activity (at time t1 instead of time t2). The income of this HI activity at an earlier stage might
then compensate for the lower income during remediation. There is also (ii) the trade-off between
different HI activities: they are allowed at different maximum allowed contaminant
concentrations in soil (C1 versus C2), and therefore the choice for one or the other HI activity has
€
A G I H I
0
A
B
x t i m e
A G I r e m
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-52-
an influence on remediation duration. Again, the income of a HI activity starting at a later time
(starting from time t2 at concentration C2) has to make up for the lower income during
remediation and there is no necessary positive relation between lower Cx and higher income of
the HI activity.
Figure 0-3 Trade-offs in phytoremediation model, with (i) trade-off between fast and high
income remediation, and with (ii) trade-off between high Cx and high income for HI activity
(i) (ii)
C
C0
Cx
0 t1
a b
t
C
C0
C2
0 t1 t2
a1
a2
C1
tt2
2. Literature review
From the model described above, it is clear that the economic analysis needs a lot of technical
input. This report builds the fundaments for the analysis which will be actually performed in the
next report of work package 5. First, we give an overview of different types of phytoremediation
crops and the impact of choice on remediation duration and thus economics (since a high income
activity can only be performed after remediation). Next, we convince the reader that for the
moment the use of these crops for energy purposes is most suitable. We end our literature review
by explaining the economics behind the analysis and why an economic assessment is necessary to
assure sustainability.
2.1 Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is defined as “bioremediation by using plants, applicable for the removal or
degradation of organic and inorganic pollution in soil, water and air”. It uses plants to remove
pollutants from the environment or to render the pollutants harmless. Within this domain,
phytoextraction is defined as the use of plants for the effective removal of pollutants (metals and
organics) from soil. Figure 0-4 below summarizes advantages and disadvantages of conventional
and phytoremediation techniques.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-53-
Figure 0-4 Comparison of conventional and phytoremediation techniques for heavy metal
soil remediation
Source: Witters et al. (2009)
2.1.1 Remediation duration
Total contaminant removal rate and resulting remediation duration depend on soil characteristics,
level of contamination, available contamination, crop extraction, and crop biomass production
(Koopmans et al., 2008). When contaminants are removed, the total amount of contamination
reduces, as well as the amount of available contaminants. This relation can be linear but is in
most cases logarithmic, meaning that the amount of available contaminants reduces faster than
the amount of contamination, reaching a limit amount of available contaminants. Over time,
contaminant concentration in the plant (Ei) is then affected by the amount of available
contaminants in soil over time. However, some authors describe a replenishment of the available
contaminant pool (Van Nevel et al., 2007). This is e.g. the case for sandy soils. Also, biomass
production of the plant (BPi) might change over time. E.g. the biomass potential of short rotation
coppice (SRC) of willow, BPW, might increase after several years within a rotation cycle,
whereas the biomass production of energy maize or rapeseed (BPEM or BPRS respectively) might
decrease in time (due to nutrient depletion). Moreover, the depth of the rooting zone might be a
factor that influences contaminant concentration in plants, as concentration found in plants might
differ according to root depth. Finally, there could also be leaching losses to the groundwater
(van der Grift and Griffioen, 2008).
Conventional remediation
Excavation
Ex situ treatment
Treatment or disposal
+Serious contamination
+Quick remediation
-For concentrated contamination
-Suitable for small surfaces
-Loss of soil structure
-High cost
Phytoremediation
Use of plants
In situ treatment
Use for energy, material
-Moderate contamination
-Slow remediation
+For diffuse contamination
+Suitable for large surfaces
+Keeps soil structure
+Cost similar to farming cost
Contaminated soil
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-54-
A key question which has been in debate since the very beginning of the introduction of the trace
element phytoextraction concept is: “Should one use trace element hyperaccumulator plants or
high biomass producing plants?” Opposite opinions exist. Chaney et al. (1997) favored the
former choice after they hypothetically calculated Zn removal by hyperaccumulator and high
biomass plants and concluded that in any case the use of hyperaccumulators resulted in higher
trace element removal. In support of the second option, Kayser et al. (2000) reported that the
trace element removal capacity of T. caerulescens was not very different from that of biomass
producing crop species used. Ebbs et al. (1997) supported the latter authors after observing ten
times higher Cd concentrations in T. caerulescens, but also ten times less biomass production as
compared to biomass producing crops. Obviously, the choice for the first or second option
depends on site characteristics. If crops would suffer from toxicity problems, hyperaccumulators,
which in general possess a higher trace element tolerance, should have an obvious advantage. If
high biomass crops are chosen, the most suitable one again depends on general site characteristics
(Vangronsveld et al., 2009).
REMi= A . d . ρ . (Cq – C0) = Qq – Q0 (Eq. 1)
REMi = A . ti . BPi
. Ei (Eq. 2)
ti = (Qq – Q0)/(BPi . Ei) (Eq. 3)
The total amount of trace elements to be removed per hectare by crop i (REMi) is the difference
between the amount initially present in the soil of the polluted site (Q0) and the amount in soil for
which it is allowed to perform a HI activity (Qq), or in general, the final amount of trace elements
in soil that is economically most viable (Qx). The total initial amount (Q0) is calculated as the
product of soil depth (d), soil density (ρ), the area surface (A), and initial concentration of trace
elements in soil (C0). Likewise, the final amount in soil (Qq) is based on Cq (Eq. 1).
REMi is also equal to the plant biomass production per hectare per year (BP i) multiplied with the
contaminant content in the harvested plant biomass (Ei), the number of years of plant growth (ti),
and the area surface (A) (Eq. 2). Substituting REMi from (Eq. 1) in (Eq. 2), the time (ti) needed to
remediate one hectare of soil up to a level Cq can be calculated (Eq. 3) (Japenga et al., 2007).
The remediation duration (ti) of crop i in years is presented in (Eq. 3) as the amount of obliged
contaminant (g ha-1) removal (Qq –Q0) divided by the product of yearly biomass potential of crop
i (ton ha-1 y-1) (BPi) and concentration of contaminant in crop i (mg kg-1) (Ei). BPi and Ei are here
considered as constant. However, both depend on soil characteristics and available contaminant
concentrations in soil and might change as contaminant concentration in soil decreases.
Therefore, in practice, this basic linear calculation of ti which assumes that BPi and Ei remain
constant over time might be an underestimation of reality, i.e. actual remediation might take
longer.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-55-
2.1.2 Hyperaccumulators
Research on the phytoextraction potential of plants started with hyperaccumulating plants (Salt et
al., 1995; Chaney et al., 1997). Species such as alpine penny cress (Thlaspi caerulescens) with
natural metal accumulating characteristics were used for phytoremediation (Garbisu and Alkorta,
2001; Vassilev et al., 2002).
The first field experiment using natural hyperaccumulator plants was performed in 1991-1992 in
sewage sludge treated plots at Woburn, UK (McGrath et al., 1993). The highest Zn uptake was
observed in T. caerulescens accumulating 2,000 to 8,000 mg Zn kg-1 dm in shoots when growing
on soil containing total Zn concentrations of 150-450 mg kg-1. The total Zn uptake was calculated
to be 40 kg ha-1 in a single growing season. With this extraction rate it was concluded that it
would take nine crops of T. caerulescens to reduce total Zn from 440 to 300 mg kg-1 – the
threshold value established by the European Commission at that time. In a field trial supervised
by Chaney et al. (1995, 1997, 1999) at Pig’s Eye landfill site in St-Paul (Minnesota, USA) it was
found that under optimum growth conditions T. caerulescens could take in Zn at a rate of 125 kg
ha-1 y-1 and Cd at 2 kg ha-1 y-1 (Saxena et al., 1999). Robinson et al. (1998), on the basis of both
field observations and pot-soil experiments, concluded that the potential of T. caerulescens for Zn
and Cd extraction is rather different. They reported Zn removal values very close to that observed
by McGrath et al. (1993) and suggested that it will be not feasible to remediate the Zn
contaminated mine wastes, because of both their high Zn content and low Zn bioaccumulation
factor. They considered the case of Cd as different due to very high Cd accumulation in leaves of
T. caerulescens (0.16%) originating from Ganges (France) and comparatively lower Cd
contamination, especially in some agricultural soils, where phosphate fertilizers have been
applied for long period.
If the high trace element concentration (Zn, Cd) of T. caerulescens is an advantage, its slow
growth rate, low dry matter yield and rosette characteristics are main limitations (Ernst, 1998;
Assunçao et al., 2003). Field observations and measurements on natural populations of T.
caerulescens have shown that these plants have an annual biomass production of 2.6 ton ha-1
(Robinson et al., 1998). Kayser et al. (2000) reported a maximum yield from T. caerulescens of
about 1 ton ha-1 under field trails due to poor growth and weak resistance to hot environment. On
the other hand, Bennett et al. (1998) showed that the yield of fertilized crop of T. caerulescens
could be easily increased by a factor of 2 - 3 without significant reduction in Zn and Cd tissue
concentrations. More recently, Schwartz et al. (2003) showed evidence for this statement
observing that Zn and Cd extraction by T. caerulescens has been improved significantly by
nitrogen fertilization (80 - 200 mg N kg soil-1). Zhao et al. (2003) suggested that an average T.
caerulescens biomass of 5 ton ha-1 should be achieved with optimized agronomic inputs.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-56-
It is clear that the biomass potential of most hyperaccumulating species is limited, and moreover,
metal accumulation is species- and even ecotype specific, and there still is a lack of knowledge
concerning agricultural practices and management (Salt et al., 1995; Garbisu et al. 2001; Lombi
et al., 2001; Vassilev et al., 2002, 2004; Van Nevel et al., 2007; Vangronsveld et al., 2009;
Zhang et al., 2009).
Therefore it was suggested that, besides accumulating reasonable amounts of metals into their
above ground biomass, plants used for phytoextraction should tolerate relatively high levels of
metals in the soil, while maintaining rapid growth rates and reaching a reasonably high biomass
in the field (Alkorta et al., 2004; Hernández-Allica et al., 2008).
2.1.3 Biomass producing crops
More recently, fast-growing crops with greater biomass potential such as willow (Salix spp.),
poplar (Populus spp.), maize (Zea mays), and rapeseed (Brassica spp.) have been tested for
phytoremediation, resulting in a final extraction that can be equal to hyper-accumulating plants,
despite the lower trace element concentrations in their tissues (Vassilev et al., 2002; Chaney et
al., 2004; Hernandez-Allica et al., 2008; Ruttens et al., 2010).
In Europe, the production of energy maize is increasing rapidly. The biomass resulting from this
crop can be applied for conversion into biogas through anaerobic digestion. As such, energy
maize and biogas production represent a new branch of agriculture, which has been emerging at
large-scale over the past five to ten years (Meers et al., 2010). Although some authors report that
in comparison to other plant species, maize is a rather good accumulator of Pb (Garbisu and
Alkorta, 2001; Chrysafopoulou et al., 2005), other authors find that it does not actively take up
trace metals (Zhang and Banks, 2006). Meers et al. (2005) found that, out of four high biomass
producing crops, i.e. Brassica rapa (rapeseed), Cannabis sativa (hemp), Helianthus annuus
(sunflower) and maize, the latter exhibited the highest biomass potential on moderately metal
contaminated land, with the lowest metal accumulation (Cd, Pb, Zn) in the harvestable plant
parts. Although metal accumulation by maize can be chemically enhanced, phytoextraction as a
remediation tool will still take an extensive period of time (years to decades, depending on the
amount of metals that need to be extracted). Therefore, a new “term” for phytoremediation is
proposed: phytoattenuation (Meers et al., 2010). The main focus lies on risk reduction in
utilization of metal-enriched land. This can be achieved by using crops with high biomass
production potential, low metal concentration in plant parts (by using an excluder species) while
allowing a maximum economic valorization of land. This is why alternative use and valorisation
of the produced biomass may become a prerequisite for field-scale application of phytoextraction
as a remediation technique (Meers et al. 2006).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-57-
Previous research indicated that willow can survive on metal-enriched soils (Pulford and Watson,
2003; Meers et al., 2007). Its Cd accumulation potential has already been investigated widely
(Berndes et al., 2004; Mirck et al., 2005; Lewandowski et al., 2006) as well as its contribution to
integrated brownfield redevelopment (French et al., 2006). Because of the multiple
environmental benefits (Borjesson, 1999a, 1999b) associated with woody crops grown on short
rotations, increasing interest over the world can be noticed. Willow has several characteristics
that make it ideal for short rotation cycles including high yields obtained in a few years, ease of
vegetative propagation, a broad genetic base, a short breeding cycle, and the ability to resprout
after multiple harvests (Kopp et al., 2001; Volk et al., 2004). Its full environmental potential
(Kuzovkina and Quigley, 2005) and economics have already been studied in Sweden (Rosenqvist
et al., 2000), Ireland (Rosenqvist and Dawson, 2005), Finland (Tahvanainen and Rytkonen,
1999), Poland (Ericsson et al., 2006), Germany (Scholz and Ellerbrock, 2002), United States
(Adegbidi et al., 2001; Keoleian and Volk, 2005) and the UK (Mitchell et al., 1999).
Experimental plantings of SRC of willow have occurred recently (Van Ginneken et al., 2007;
Ruttens et al., 2008; Meiresonne et al., 2009). SRC of poplar has been indicated by the Institute
for Nature and Forest as having the right characteristics to serve as a remediating crop
(Meiresonne, 2006).
Recently, fast-growing high biomass crop plants that accumulate moderate levels of metals in
their shoots are being tested for their metal phytoextraction potential. Rapeseed (Brassica napus)
has been type casted as an above average accumulator of heavy metals (Bernhard et al., 2005;
Selvam and Wong, 2009; Shi and Cai, 2009). Therefore, crops from the Brassica family have
already been suggested for phytoremediation (Marchiol et al., 2004). Field experiments confirm
that certain rapeseed crops are suitable for phytoextraction of moderately heavy metal
contaminated soils. Moreover, crops from the Brassica family display a significant heavy metal
tolerance (Bernhard et al., 2005; Hernandez-Allica, 2008; Shi and Cai, 2009). Grispen et al.
(2007) conducted a screening for natural variation in Cd accumulated by 77 Brassica napus. This
yielded potential candidates for phytoextraction in agricultural practice. After harvest, rapeseed
results in rich oil containing seeds, and straw. The seeds could be sold for biodiesel production.
2.2 Biomass for energy
If produced phytoremediation biomass can be valorised into an alternative income, then the main
drawback of phytoextraction, namely the extended remediation period required, may become
invalid and slower working phytoremediation schemes based on gradual attenuation of the
contaminants rather than short-term forced extraction may be envisaged (Robinson et al., 2003).
Conventional remediation techniques will take less time, but during remediation it will not be
possible to validate the soil. When phytoremediation is implemented, the repeated cropping of
plants produces high amounts of biomass which need to be disposed of or better, treated
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-58-
appropriately to prevent any risks to the environment (Ghosh and Singh, 2005). The utilization of
the obtained biomass of a phytoextraction cycle as an energy resource is therefore attractive
(Chaney et al., 1997) and can even turn phytoextraction into a profit making operation (Meers et
al., 2005). Moreover, using the resulting biomass for energy may contribute to the reduction of
global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Biomass can replace fossil fuels for the supply of heat,
electricity and transport fuel, and can also serve as a feedstock for material production (Dornburg
and Faaij, 2005). As mentioned by Firbank (2008), one factor that drives the growth of
alternative crops for energy is the fact that they deliver an environmental benefit by reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Within Rejuvenate 1 we chose for energy conversion as a sustainable alternative for several
reasons. First, energy production will more likely get public approval, opposed to other
destinations (e.g. paper mills). In Europe, farmers are variously rewarded for direct positive
contributions to biological diversity (particularly wildlife habitat), improvements (or avoided
negative impacts) to water quality and increased soil health through the concept of cross
compliance in the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Many countries also support
bioenergy programs, with the intent to promote the production and use of cleaner fuels instead of
fossil fuel. Moreover, on a global scale, the increasing interest in carbon sequestering effects of
many types of agriculture points to a growing number of programs in the near future that will
support certain farming practices as a way of improving overall air quality (DeVries, 2000).
Second, energy conversion installations are able to trace heavy metals within their system. At
least, as far as we know there is research on this matter in the energy sector, but there has been no
research yet on tracing heavy metals in other biomass using technologies (e.g. paper mills).
2.3 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
A lot of tools are available to perform an economic analysis. Decision science has not yet
developed a universally accepted methodology free from criticism for analyzing social decisions
involving risk. Explaining why we choose for CBA would lead us too far. Suffice it to say that
CBA is a useful and popular tool, aside from cost-effectiveness analysis, multi-criteria (decision)
analysis, risk assessment and environmental impact assessment (Kotchen, 2010). In the following
section, we will explain the logic behind CBA and its decision tool (NPV), its relation with
externalities (an important aspect within this study), and its alternatives. We end by explaining
the economic rationale behind sustainability and its relation with policy development.
2.3.1 Theory
The central premise of Cost Benefit Theory (CBT) is that alternatives are ranked according to a
systematic comparison of advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (costs) that result from the
estimated consequences of the alternative. Thus, the theory does not involve the concept of a
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-59-
social decision maker with special responsibility for the decision. On the contrary, individuals are
assumed to be the appropriate judges for valuing consequences. A best alternative is then defined
in terms of efficiency, i.e. it maximizes total surplus to society (Merkhofer, 1987; Hanley, 2000).
CBA approaches strive to implement the efficiency criterion of CBT by investigating whether the
consequences of an alternative are likely to increase efficiency. NPV functions as a decision
criterion for maximizing efficiency, under the assumption of a perfect market. Other decision
criteria are the Internal Rate of Return, or the Benefit Cost Ratio.
NPV is found by multiplying benefits and costs at (the end of) each year t by a time dependent
weight. As all effects will not occur in one year, but over several years (t: 0,…n) and as people
prefer one unit today rather than tomorrow, time preferences are taken into account, and yearly
benefits and costs are discounted using a discount rate (r). A capital sum in the initial year of
investment will not have to be discounted, except when it is converted into an annual capital cost.
To account for inflation, real or nominal values can be used, as long as they are used consistently.
Option 1 is then preferred over option 2 if (Eq. 5) holds149.
NPV= (Eq. 4)
NPV1>NPV2 (>0) (Eq. 5)
In a perfectly competitive market, prices have three functions that guide consumers and
producers up to the point that maximizes social welfare. First, they allocate goods to agents that
value them most highly. Second, they inform on the relative scarcity of goods. Third, they
provide incentives to use more or less of a good and to move towards the point of maximum
efficiency (Graves, 2007). In a perfect market, a producer will supply goods as long as marginal
production costs for an extra good lie below the price paid for the good. A consumer will
continue to buy a good as long as its marginal benefit exceeds the price. The self-interest of both
consumer and producer leads, guided by the invisible hand, to an equilibrium market price and an
equilibrium quantity of goods exchanged. In a system with well defined property rights and
competitive markets, producers and consumers maximize their private surpluses. The price
system then induces the self interested parties to make choices that are socially efficient.
Therefore, in a perfect market150, government intervention would not improve social welfare. The
decision analysis as described above will only lead to a completely efficient allocation of
149
An alternative indicator commonly used is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). IRR can be calculated as the r for
which NPV=0. An investment is then accepted when IRR≥I, I being the required return rate. Option 1 is then
preferred over option 2 if IRR1>IRR2 (≥i). The benefit cost ratio is the ratio of discounted benefits to discounted
costs and the decision rule is to proceed when this ratio ≥ 1 (Hanley, 2000). 150
In a perfect market there are no public goods, no externalities, no monopoly buyers and sellers, no increasing
returns to scale, no information problems, no transaction costs, no taxes, no common property and no other
distortions between costs paid by buyers and benefits received by sellers (Fullerton and Stavins, 1998).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-60-
resources within a perfect market. However, if the market for a commodity is distorted in any
way, prices might not reflect an individual’s WTP (Tietenberg, 2003).
Inefficient outcomes occur when the market structure is imperfect and when property rights151 are
not properly defined, resulting in externalities (and public goods). By some, these are called
market failures, others prefer the term missing markets, and missing markets always lead to
resource misallocation. Externalities occur when the condition of exclusivity is violated, leading
to an output of a given commodity that is too large. Public goods occur when in the absence of
exclusivity each person is able to become a free rider on another person’s contributions
(Tietenberg, 2003; Graves, 2007).
2.3.2 Externalities
According to economic theory, an individual whose initial desire for a commodity exceeds its
price will continue to purchase the commodity until the benefit derived from the last amount
purchased equals the price paid for that amount. When externalities are present this will lead to
an over- or underconsumption and over– or underproduction of the good, leading to a total social
surplus that is diminished with a dead weight loss. As a result, the free market does not produce
an efficient level of welfare (Merkhofer, 1987; Graves, 2007). An example of an externality can
be found in the potential CO2 abatement of biomass based energy. The external effect might not
be correctly reflected in the price of biomass if there is no (appropriate) policy. So, when
externalities exist, government may be justified in intervening to force a level of welfare that is
more socially desirable than the inappropriate one reached through the market. One way for
government to change human behavior is through the implementation of mandatory standards
and regulations or market oriented incentives designated to force individuals to take actions that
lessen risk (Merkhofer, 1987).
Lofgren (2000) distinguishes between private and public externalities. Many externalities have
the character of a public good, they have an effect on all of us and the consumption of the
externality by one of us does not lead to less consumption by others. Again, we can take the
example of CO2 emission by burning fossil fuel. The emission affects all of us and by burning
biomass based fuel, we avoid these emissions. Therefore we can say that the CO2 abatement by
producing energy from biomass is an externality with a public character. Heavy metals in by-
products from biomass based energy production could be defined as examples of private
externalities. If the by-products after energy production are not managed properly, metals might
151
A property right is a bundle of entitlements defining the owner’s rights, privileges and limitations for use of the
resource. An efficient structure of property rights has three characteristics. Exclusivity points to the fact that all
benefits and costs that result from using or owning a resource should accrue to the owners alone. Transferability of
the rights should exist between owners on a voluntary basis. Enforceability means that there is no intrusion by others.
When these conditions are fulfilled, an agent that holds a property right on a resource will use this resource the most
efficient as possible because a loss in value of the resource is a personal loss (Tietenberg, 2003).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-61-
end up on the land again and be recycled in the food chain, affecting local people. This
distinction between private and public externalities is important up to the point that it might give
an indication of the extent to which policies are easier to implement. Intuitively, it seems easier to
develop and integrate a policy that handles local, private externalities. However, the general
underlying assumption of social welfare maximization is indifferent between private and public
external effects and we will not distinguish between them.
Policy instruments to internalize externalities require measuring the damage done or benefits
caused by the production and consumption of environmental goods and services. Since
environmental problems are very often caused by the fact that they are not valued appropriately,
the valuation of environmental goods should take a prominent place in the discussion of these
policies.
Q1Q*
Marginal revenue
FF
G
Q
Marginal private cost
Marginal social cost
E
H
P*
P1
P3
P
P2
Figure 0-5 Illustration of an externality
Source: based on EPA (2000)
Vatn and Bromley (1997) state that the term market failure is an unfortunate choice as
externalities are a rational result of the market as such, i.e. the absence of properly defined
property rights are common to most markets. An external effect occurs when the utility of one
consumer is affected by the consumption or production of another consumer or producer
(Johansson, 1987). Or, an externality exists if the production or consumption of a product
generates costs or benefits to others which are not reflected in prices. The prices that consumers
face do not reflect true social values.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-62-
The situation before policy implementation results in marginal revenue and private marginal
costs intersecting at price P1, leading to consumption of private good Q1 (Figure 0-5). The
producer surplus at this point is P1GP2, consumer surplus is P1GP3. Because of the externality,
there is a social damage of P2FG (including a dead weight loss of EFG). The net social welfare is
then P2EP3 – EFG. Through introduction of the correct policy, the optimal Q* is now determined
by the intersection of the marginal revenue curve with the marginal social cost curve. The
producer surplus is now P2EP*, whereas consumer surplus is P*EP3. The net social welfare is
now P2EP3. Although there is a decrease in producer- and consumer surplus, the overall social
welfare has increased because of the reduction in external costs. There is no longer a dead weight
loss due to inefficient consumption and production of a good.
2.3.3 Non-economic valuation
Most economists would argue that economic efficiency ought to be one of the fundamental
criteria for evaluating regulations on environment. Society has a limited amount of resources, and
CBA is able to explicitly define the trade-offs to make the decision or regulation that will lead to
the highest social surplus. Arrow et al. (1996) suggest that although CBA should play an
important role in environmental decision making, it should not be the sole base. Suggestions are
made that CBA could and should be supplemented with a technique to measure environmental
costs in other than monetary terms (Joubert et al., 1997; Mirasgedis and Diakoulaki, 1997).
Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is the term used to include all the methods that
incorporate multiple criteria when helping decision makers in their problem solving. Criteria are
defined as measures of performance by which alternatives are judged. A final score for each
option is calculated based on aggregation of performances on all criteria and weights for each of
the criteria. This phase depends heavily on the technique by which the weights are derived, and
the aggregation method. However, to the best of our knowledge, it has not yet been used to assess
crop choice for contaminated land remediation. Advantages of MCDA methods are the ability to
include monetary and non-monetary measures of objectives, and to include a wide range of
objectives. However, MCDA techniques are not supported by a coherent theory of social welfare,
weights do not represent consumer preferences and depend on the decision maker, and often are
black boxes as they generate one number and seem complicated to the outside world (Hanley,
2000).
2.3.4 Sustainability
We end this report by putting the economic analysis within the framework of sustainability and
we provide a short link with policy development. Sustainability can be defined as an obligation to
conduct ourselves so that we leave to the future the option or capacity to be as well off as we are,
so that we can afford to please ourselves as long as this is not at the expense of future well-being
(Solow, 1991). Sustainability is a basic principle in the proposal for a Soil Framework Directive.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-63-
Its preparatory document (Van Camp et al., 2004) states that soil is essentially considered a non-
renewable resource because the degradation rates can be rapid while the formation and
regeneration processes are extremely slow. The main question then is how to allocate between the
different generations.
The concept of sustainability can be broken down in 2 components: intergenerational equity and
dynamic efficiency. Intergenerational equity on the one hand emphasizes the ability of the
economy to maintain living standards, i.e. intertemporal152 social welfare (Vt) should not
decrease over time. This is the concept as embraced in the Brundtland Report. Resources are
substitutable, suggesting that we do not owe the future any particular good or any particular
natural resource. What we are obliged to leave behind is a generalized capacity to create well-
being. If this principle is accepted, we end up in the world of substitution and trade-offs.
However, it stays rational and logical to want to preserve a particular environmental good or
service, but not under the heading of sustainability. Dynamic efficiency on the other hand focuses
on maximizing Vt (at every time period t), i.e. the integral of discounted values of current and
future utility from society’s aggregate consumption from time t to infinity. In maximizing this Vt,
there is an optimal consumption path to be followed. Current consumption is excessive when it
lies above the level of current consumption prescribed by this path. An economy is sustainable if
and only if it is dynamically efficient and if the stream of maximized welfare is not decreasing
over time. This is a rather demanding definition and is hard to be achieved by public policy.
Economic maximization does not necessarily lead to sustainability.
Current environmental protection tries to withhold us from burdening the environment, from free-
riding on the future. It is basically a problem of savings and investment. In this respect, it can be
argued whether the goal of sustainability could be left entirely to the market. Correct
environmental policy setting is important. Standard policy remedies for improving only economic
efficiency do not guarantee sustainability. At the same time, such policies do not necessarily have
to conflict with the sustainability concept. Of course, we will make mistakes designing policies.
We will attribute to the future wrong tastes and excessive or undervalued technological
capacities. Ecologists often argue that certain natural resources are undervalued, because
economists are too optimistic about substitutes for these resources. When natural resource inputs
are priced below social cost, the overall level and composition of consumption can lead to
excessive natural resource use. On the other side, it is still possible to perform the social CBA to
see whether a policy at least increases intertemporal social welfare. However, all these
considerations should not abstain us from making policies, the guesswork has to be done, as we
will chose policies to avoid potentially catastrophic errors (Solow, 1991, 1992; Arrow et al.,
2003).
152
Intertemporal welfare deals with the distribution of welfare between the current time and the future , whereas
intratemporal welfare deals with the distribution within one time period, the equity issue (Arrow et al., 2003).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-64-
II. ECONOMY, ENERGY AND WASTE DISPOSAL
1. Introduction
1.1 Model outline
The combination of biomass cultivation and soil remediation could be an important part of
sustainable risk based land management where the management strategy could become self-
funding and could even result in other environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration. Risk
based land management refers to the fact that it is necessary to consider to what extent toxic
substances may harm human health or the wider environment not only while in soil, but also after
remediation.
A remediation strategy is effective if it minimizes or controls the health or environmental risks
associated with a particular pollutant linkage. By removing contaminant sources, breaking
exposure pathways between source and receptor, or changing the receptors, pollutant linkages are
minimized (Mench et al., 2010). This might therefore result in a management strategy that does
not necessarily lead to a removal of toxic substances. A remediation strategy is efficient if the net
benefit of risk attainment is maximized. To calculate the optimal point of risk control, we should
place an economic value on the risk, and we should value the benefit. We use this approach by:
- comparing the value of land (measured by the agricultural income earned on the land) before
and after remediation (based on private costs and benefits);
- including the external benefit of CO2 abatement (by renewable energy production); and
- including the external cost of contaminants in the biomass.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, it is very crucial to understand and define what exactly the
private and social benefits might become since it is these numbers on which the owner or tenant
will base its decisions whether to remediate the land or not, and with what technology. Primordial
in this matter is current and future legislation on soil contamination, remediation, energy, and
biomass and waste. We focus on the following question:
Does phytoremediation, as a multifunctional and sustainable alternative for conventional
remediation technologies for functional restoration of contaminated soil, result in
economically optimal remediation strategies?
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-65-
- does phytoremediation offer an economically viable alternative for conventional remediation
technologies and which crops should be used and under what circumstances? The analyses in this
study are based on a cost-benefit analysis with net present value (NPV) as the decision tool.
- does phytoremediation result in other than private costs and benefits and if so, are these
externalities positive or negative? The resulting biomass could be used for renewable energy
purposes, but also results in metal waste disposal. Both are considered externalities of
phytoremediation and should be internalized in the decision model through the correct policy.
In a first phase, the quantification of the different benefits of the multifunctional land use requires
the identification of physical terms. Crop choice will be based on the DST of Rejuvenate 1.
Based on current characteristics of the soil different remediation options concerning crop choice
are defined. Each of these crops will result in different accumulation of metals, different
revenues, different energy production, different CO2 abatement potential, and different rest
products after conversion. Physical data are combined in a (business) model by giving them an
economic value in a CBA. CBA approaches strive to implement the efficiency criterion of CBT
by investigating whether the consequences of an alternative are likely to increase efficiency. NPV
functions as a decision criterion for maximizing efficiency (Eq. 4), under the assumption of a
perfect market. Option 1 is then preferred over option 2 if (Eq. 5) holds.
NPV= (Eq. 6)
NPV1>NPV2 (>0) (Eq. 7)
Based on the start- and end level of contamination, remediation has different time ranges,
depending on the used crop. Total economic value is then calculated as the sum of revenues
resulting from the remediating crops, and revenues from activities after remediation, over an
infinite time range, based on market prices. However, market prices do not always correctly
reflect consumer’s willingness to pay (WTP). An activity may generate impacts that spill over to
other economic agents. These spill-overs or externalities can either be negative (metal in rest
product) or positive (CO2 abatement from green energy production). Once the stream of
economic costs and benefits is estimated, the standard NPV methodology is applied, using a
social discount rate of 4%.
1.2 Case study: Campine region (BE)
Since the economic assessment comes early in the project, we base our calculations on data from
a case study in Belgium. Cd concentrations in the region range between 0.2 and >30 mg kg-1 Cd
(Ruttens et al., 2008). pH-KCl values range between 5 and 5.5. Other trace metals (e.g. Copper
(Cu), Lead (Pb) and Zn) together with the pH and soil conductivity were more homogeneously
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-66-
distributed throughout the field. The experimental site is located in Flanders, Belgium
(51°12'41"N; 5°14'32"E) and is part of a larger complex of field experiments for
phytoremediation research (~ 20 ha) (Ruttens et al., 2008). The first SRC plantation of willow
and poplar in Lommel was planted in April 2004 by Hasselt University on a former maize field.
Total soil metal concentrations were in the range of 210-418 mg kg-1 Zn, 4.1-7.4 mg kg-1 Cd and
160-222 mg kg-1 Pb. Soil pH-KCl ranged between 4.7 and 6.0. On this field, also maize,
rapeseed, and tobacco were grown on small plots. Based on the results and experiences gained at
the first experimental field, a second SRC field was set up next to the original one by Hasselt
University, Ghent University, and the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) where, in
addition to some new commercial clones of poplar and willow, several clones of the SRC
breeding program of INBO were included. Furthermore, also energy maize and rapeseed were
sown on a 1 ha area of the second field to gain experience with the use of these energy crops for
phytoremediation purposes. All cultivars and clones were investigated for metal balances, metal
extraction, and biomass production. Table 0-1 presents an overview of biomass yields on the
experimental field (contaminated with Cd, Pb, and Zn) in the Campine region. Table 0-2 presents
an overview of Cd extraction by the studied energy crops and the resulting remediation duration.
Table 0-1 Biomass yield of energy maize, rapeseed and SRC of willow on the experimental
field in the Campine region (Ruttens, 2008; Ruttens et al., 2008; Van Slycken et al., 2011)
Rapeseed Energy maize Willow
Organs Biomass yield
(ton dm ha-1y-
1) †
Organs Biomass yield
(ton dm ha-1y-
1)†
Organs Biomass yield
(ton dm ha-1y-
1)
Seed 3 Rachis 1.8 Stem 4.8
Green Parts 2.2 Grain 8 Leaves 1.2
Bract 1.3
Stem 5.2
Leaves 3.7
Total 5.2 Total 20 Total 6 †rapeseed: 3.3 ton fresh matter (fm) seeds ha-1 y-1; energy maize: 60 ton fm ha-1 y-1
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-67-
Table 0-2 Extraction of Cd to reduce concentration in soil from 5 to 2 mg kg-1 for energy
maize, rapeseed, and willow, based on Vangronsveld et al. (2009)
Biomass
(ton dm ha-1)
Cd
(mg kg-1 dm)
Cd removal
(kg ha-1 y-1)
Clean up time
(y)
Maize 20 3 0.06 188
Rapeseed 5.2 6 0.03 361
Willow-twigs 4.8 24 0.12 195
Willow-leaves 1.2 60 0.07
Willow-total 6 0.19 120
Source: Vangronsveld et al. (2009)
2. Private costs and benefits
The value of land before remediation is equal to the income generated on that land before
remediation. During remediation, there will be costs (or revenues). The value of the land after
remediation is equal to the income that can be generated on the land after remediation. In the
CBA, we compare the rise in income (after – before remediation) with the cost of remediation.
Since we have no data from the project yet, we will take data from the Campine case study.
Before remediation, not all agricultural activities are allowed, on average farmers generate an
income of € 960 ha-1 y-1 on the land. After remediation, more activities are allowed, and more in
particular, activities that generate a higher income, twice as much (€ 1,747 ha-1 y-1). However,
during remediation there might be costs (i.e. remediation crops might generate private revenues
that are lower than the current “reference” revenue). The costs and revenues of these remediation
crops are summed up in the next tables.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-68-
Table 0-3 PRIVATE variable costs and revenues for energy maize per hectare per year
Variable costs (€ ha-1y-1) Variable costs (cont.)
Preparation Harvest
Ploughing 60 Silage 300
Harrowing 40 Transport 0
Planting Revenues (€ ha-1)
Plant material 170 Total plant or grain 1,800
Planting 70 Single payment 450
Maintenance
Fertilizer 150
Herbicides 100
Fert. and herb. application 100
Source: personal communication with farmers in the region, Aegten, and external firms (2009)
Table 0-3 represents all costs and revenues of energy maize per ha per year. The biomass
production of energy maize is estimated at 60 ton fm ha-1. According to local farmers, this could
be a maximum because of restricted fertilizer standards (Aegten153, personal communication,
March 2009). When energy maize is sold on the field, the buyer pays harvest and transport (> 20
km). The price of (energy) maize depends on fuel and chemical fertilizer prices. When these
prices rise, the price of maize rises too. The price of silage maize depends on the price of maize
sold for the grain. We used a price of € 30 ton-1 fm. The distance from the Campine region to the
closest digestion installation is 20 km, resulting in no extra transport costs, based on (Eq. 8), with
T = transport cost per ton fm, and Dis = distance (km).
T= (Dis/5) – 4 (Eq. 8)
153
Local fodder production and merchandising.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-69-
Table 0-4 PRIVATE variable costs and revenues for rapeseed per ha
Variable costs (€ ha-1y-1) Variable costs (cont.)
Preparation Stalk control 50
Ploughing 0 Harvest
Harrowing 0 Seeds 150
Planting Transport 70
Plant material 60 Revenues (€ ha-1)
Planting 65 Seeds 692
Maintenance Straw 111
Fertilizer 180 Single payment 450
Herbicides 80 Cake for fodder 338
Fert. and herb. application 50
Source: Suenens (2007), Aegten (personal communication, March 2009).
Table 0-4 gives an overview of agricultural costs and revenues for rapeseed. Rapeseed is only
grown once every three years. In the two intermediate years energy maize will be grown. The
average fresh rapeseed yield (20 farmers) in the Campine region is 3,330 kg ha-1. Also, 2.22 ton
straw is produced. The average of market- and contract prices for rapeseed in 2006 was € 208
ton-1. Soy and rapeseed are important sources for the production of oil for food and biodiesel.
Prices are therefore world market prices. Straw is sold for € 50 per ton. The distance from the
Campine region to the closest biodiesel producer is about 120 km, leading to a transport cost of €
70 per ha (Eq. 8).
In theory, farmers have several options for the seeds. They can sell rapeseeds as such (to a
biodiesel producer), or they can press the seeds and use the oil for personal car use or tractor use.
When rapeseed is pressed on the farm, the rest product, cake (2.16 ton) is sold as fodder at €
156.25 ton-1. Additional costs for rapeseed pressing (and use on the farm for tractor or personal
vehicles) are represented in Table 0-5. When rapeseed is sold to a conversion installation, there is
no private income from the cake for the farmer.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-70-
Table 0-5 Additional cost on farm (€ ha-1 y-1) when rapeseed is pressed to PPO on the farm
Pressing costs Rebuilding tractor Rebuilding vehicle
Cap. cost press (5 y) 8,000 Cost rebuild engine 2,500 Cost rebuild
engine
2,500
Cap. cost storage tank 500 Deprec. period 10 Deprec. period 10
Cap. cost filter 4,700 Hours tractor y-1 750 Km total period 200,000
Cap. cost press (50 ton
y-1, 389 l PPO ton-1)
2,800 Oil use (l h-1) 5 Oil use (l km-1) 0.08
Total oil use 37,500 Total oil use 16,000
Cost l-1 PPO y-1 0.082 Cost l-1 PPO y-1 0.067 Cost l-1 PPO y-1 0.15625
l PPO ha-1 1,295 l PPO ha-1 1,295 l PPO ha-1 1,295
Pressing cost
(€ ha-1)
106.56 Rebuilding cost
(€ ha-1)
86.33 Rebuilding cost (€
ha-1)
202.34
Source: Flemish Government, policy domain Agriculture and Fisheries (2005)
Table 0-6 gives an overview of variable costs and revenues for SRC of willow. Most work will
be done by an external firm. At the experimental field, the average yearly harvest of stems and
leaves is respectively 4.8 and 1.2 ton dry matter per hectare. On the one hand, wood prices
depend on wood quality (N. Vanaken154, personal communication, February 2009). SRC of
willow has characteristics that make it very attractive for (co-)combustion installations: low ash
content, low nitrogen content, clean (no iron, sand, stones). This will most likely lead to an
interesting price. On the other hand, wood prices depend on the legal status of the wood (N.
Vanaken, personal communication, February 2009). Finally, prices also depend on the market.
We determine the price for wood at € 50 ton-1 dm. The distance from the Campine region to the
closest combustion installation is 20 km, leading to no extra transport cost.
154
Public Waste Agency Flanders (OVAM).
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-71-
Table 0-6 PRIVATE variable costs and revenues for SRC of willow per hectare (years
indicated between brackets)
Variable costs (€ ha-1) Variable costs (cont.)
Preparation (€ ha-1 y-1) End of life cycle (€ ha-1)
Ploughing 67 Stool removal 1,500
Harrowing 75 Harvest and chip 800
Herbicides (3x) + application 240
Fertilizer + application 90 Revenues (€ ha-1)
Plant material 1,800 Stem (per year, every 3 years) 240
Planting 450 Single payment 450
Harvest (€ ha-1 every 3 years)
Harvest and chip 800
Herbicides 240
Transport 0
Source: external firm (personal communication, 2009), and Meiresonne (2006)
These tables are the basis of the income calculation. For calculations on the income of alternative
energy crops, we used the adapted gross income (AGI) as a measure.
ADAPTED GROSS INCOME (AGI)
= REVENUE (MARKETABLE PRODUCTS (MAIN AND REST) + ANIMALS + OTHER + SUBSIDIES) – COST
(THIRD PARTY LABOR + EQUIPMENT + HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES + FERTILIZER + SEED AND
PLANTING MATERIAL + ANIMAL RELATED + CROP RELATED + FUEL)
Rapeseed (AGI = € 549 ha-1 y-1) is grown in rotation with energy maize (AGI = € 1,260 ha-1 y-1),
resulting in an AGI between € 1,023 and € 1,354 ha-1 y-1. An average AGI for SRC of willow (€
111 ha-1 y-1) is obtained by recalculating the NPV over 22 years to an annuity, i.e. a yearly
constant cash flow (CF) which, after discounting, would again lead to the same NPV. The prices
that farmers get for their crops is independent of the use of the crops. This results in final AGI’s
(€ per hectare) and prices per ton fresh matter for the remediating crops as presented in Table 0-7.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-72-
Table 0-7 Yearly AGI (€ ha-1) and price (€ ton-1 fresh matter) of remediation crops for
different conversion options
Energy
maize
Rapeseed-
PPO-pers
use
Rapeseed -
PPO-
tractor
Rapeseed -
Biodiesel
SRC-
electr.
SRC-
heat
SRC-
CHP
AGI 1,260 1,354 1,195 1,023 111 111 111
price 30 477† 298† 208 28.5 28.5 28.5
AGI=adapted gross income; †3.33 ton seeds are converted into 1,295 liter oil. Value of PPO for
personal use is € 1.226 l-1. Value of PPO for tractor is € 0.767 l-1
On the one hand, based on a private economic analysis (Table 0-7), one would argue for energy
maize or rapeseed as an alternative energy crop on contaminated land. Both crops result in the
lowest impact on farmer income. Thewys et al. (2010a) provide an extended economic analysis
on the replacement of conventional fodder maize by energy maize on metal enriched land. As can
be seen in Table 0-2, the choice for energy maize or rapeseed would result in long remediation
durations. One can therefore no longer speak of soil remediation, but instead of sustainable land
management with risk containment as the main purpose. On the other hand, growing SRC of
willow results in a considerable reduction in remediation duration, but the crop does not have the
economic advantage of energy maize and rapeseed, mainly due to the high harvest costs of this
unfamiliar crop. However, as was already indicated in Witters et al. (2009), to make
economically efficient decisions on crop choice, these private costs and benefits should be
complemented with other costs and benefits, one of which is the renewable energy production
potential, which will be studied in further detail in the next paragraph.
3. Biomass for energy
Using the resulting biomass for energy may contribute to the reduction of global carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions. Biomass can replace fossil fuels for the supply of heat, electricity and transport
fuel, and can also serve as a feedstock for material production (Dornburg and Faaij, 2005). As
mentioned by Firbank (2008), one factor that drives the growth of alternative crops for energy is
the fact that they deliver an environmental benefit by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
To find out whether CO2 abatement by converting these crops to energy is positive, we
performed a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). LCA attempts to cover all physical exchanges of a
product with its surroundings, ranging from inputs of auxiliary materials and energy consumption
through outputs of emissions, waste and usable energy (Hanegraaf et al., 1998; Skovgaard,
2008). Figure 0-1 gives an overview of the different steps in determining the potential benefit of
CO2 abatement when using the harvested biomass after remediation for energy purposes.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-73-
1 EI = direct + indirect energy input for crop establishment, incl. transport to conversion installation
2 EO = total energy output (corrected for conversion efficiencies and process use)
3 E’post in UC = energy input for the economically most viable end-use of biomass and rest product
4 E’post out UC = energy output for the economically most viable end-use of biomass and rest product
Figure 0-1 Biomass conversion routes for remediation crops with indication of CO2
abatement locations
In order to keep the LCA task manageable, a general rule is to focus on obtaining good data on
those activities considered most important for the final LCA results (Hanegraaf et al., 1998;
Skovgaard, 2008). Within the scope of this study it is not a priority to study an entire life cycle, it
is therefore more effective to set clear, narrow borders than to set vague borders and include
some energy aspects and some not.
3.1 Assumptions
It is often difficult to describe the reference case for land use (Schlamadinger et al., 1997). The
reference situation in our case study (Campine region) is the “no activity allowed on the
contaminated land” situation. The studied impact category in our analysis will be limited to the
Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. This paper does not include a life cycle analysis of the
manufacture of the conversion installations, nor the effects of decentralized electricity production
on general electricity distribution, for several reasons. First, the main focus of this paper is the
1 E n e r g y m a i z e R a p e s e e d W i l l o w
H e a t +
E l e c t r i c i t y
D i g e s t a t e
A n a e r o b i c d i g e s t i o n
C o l d p r e s s i n g
P r e s s i n g + e s t e r i f i c a t i o n
( C o - ) c o m b u s t i o n
+
P P O B i o d i e s e l
C a k e
+
C a k e +
G l y c e r i n e
+
A s h e s
E l e c t r i c i t y H e a t H + E 2
+
4
3
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-74-
evaluation of energy crops (after phytoremediation) and not the technical specifications of the
installations. Second, we start from an existing installation, we are not considering a new
installation for the conversion of contaminated biomass to energy. And third, we are convinced
that specifically designed tools are much better suited for this, see for example the tools
developed within the framework of Task 38 of the International Energy Agency on Greenhouse
Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy systems (http://www.ieabioenergy-task38.org). We are
also aware that the combustion technology needs to be developed and adapted properly to deal
with other biomass such as dried digestate as it may lead to excessive corrosion in boiler tubes,
excessive slagging and fouling, and higher emissions of NOx and particulate matter
(www.ieabcc.nl). While this study takes into account all transportation steps (emissions from fuel
consumption) of biomass and rest products, it does not take into account the manufacture of the
vehicles used for transportation or the manufacture of the vehicles that will use the biofuel. We
also do not take into account the energy used for maintenance of idle land (i.e. the reference
situation), as opposed to Kaltschmitt et al. (1997). The approach used in this study and suggested
by Schlamadinger et al. (1997) compares greenhouse gas emissions that arise over the life cycle
of each potential technology with those that would have arisen in the base case (fossil fuel),
allowing for the reduction in emissions to be calculated.
3.2 Fossil energy input for biomass production
Direct energy use of phytoremediation refers to the fossil fuel consumed within the borders of the
farm. Indirect energy use of phytoremediation refers to fuel burned in other sectors that
manufacture the materials needed at the farm. Following the example of Refsgaard et al. (2002),
we set the boundaries one step back from the farming process (Table 0-8). Summing up direct
and indirect energy input results in total fossil energy inputs.
Table 0-8 Direct and indirect energy input for biomass production
Direct Indirect
-Diesel fuel use machines (plowing, disking,
planting, cultivation, application of
fertilizers, herbicides, lime and manure, and
harvest), corrected for extraction and
distribution
-Production and transport fertilizer, lime, and
pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and
fungicides)
-Production of seeds
-Manufacturing, transport and reparation machines
-Use of lubricants for machines
-Irrigation
-Ensiling
-Drying
-Transport crops to conversion installation
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-75-
We always consider a one-way transport distance of 30 km, except for the distance between a
digester and a farm (20 km), and the distance between a biodiesel installation and a farm (120
km). When rapeseed is mechanically pressed to PPO, this will be used on the farm or in personal
vehicles (0 km). When rapeseed is converted into biodiesel, the whole processing takes place at
the biodiesel production installation. There is thus never a transport of PPO, only of rapeseed
(and straw).
3.3 From biomass to gross energy
Since we have no data yet on which crops could potentially be grown, we restricted our analysis
to 6 biomass-conversion options, based on data from a Belgian case study. However, the
methodological approach could easily be extended to other case studies. Table 0-9 provides an
overview of all crop conversion options analysed in the Campine case study. The symbols used
in the formulae can be found in Table 0-10, values can be found in Table 0-11.
Table 0-9 Different energy conversion options for biomass after remediation with indication
of the fossil substitute
Option Net energy Fossil substitute
Willow co-combustion Electricity combination of coal†
Willow co-combustion Heat cokes‡
Willow combustion CHP-steam turbine
(elec.+heat)
separate heat and elec.
production
Energy maize digestion CHP- gas engine
(elec.+heat)
separate heat and elec.
production
Rapeseed-pressing PPO fossil diesel
Rapeseed-
pressing+transesterif.
Biodiesel fossil diesel
†at a large power plant in Belgium. The installation considered in this study is close to the
Campine region; ‡at a Zinc smelter in the Campine region
Energy maize is digested anaerobically, a conversion process where organic matter of biomass is
converted into methane in four phases by bacteria in the absence of oxygen. The end products of
the digestion process are biogas and digestate. Due to its high energy content, biogas can be used
in engines and machines to replace natural gas, be used as a transport fuel or even be injected in
the natural gas distribution network (Verstraete, 1981; Ramage and Scurlock, 1996). We opted
for the first choice, burning the gas in a gas engine for the production of electricity with heat
recovery in a combined heat and power (CHP) system. Electric and thermal efficiency of a CHP
are lower than for the separate production of electricity and heat but the simultaneous production
of electricity and heat from one input renders a higher overall energetic efficiency.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-76-
Table 0-10 Symbols used in (Eq. 9)-(Eq. 17)
Symbol Explanation Unit
BPW potential biomass production of willow Ton dm ha-1 y-1
CALW calorific value of willow GJ ton-1 dm
α loss of biomass/energy due to drying in open air/conditioned
drying
%
BPEM potential biomass production of energy maize Ton fm ha-1 y-1
GEM biogas yield of energy maize m³ gas ton-1 fm
EVBG energy value of biogas MJ m-³
BPRS potential biomass production of rapeseed Ton fm ha-1 y-1
GPPO efficiency of mechanical rapeseed pressing to PPO Ton oil ton-1
fm
DPPO density of PPO Ton l-1
EVPPO energy value of PPO MJ l-1
GBD efficiency of rapeseed conversion to biodiesel Ton fuel ton-1
fm
DBD density of biodiesel Ton l-1
EVBD energy value of biodiesel MJ l-1
EI total primary energy input MJ ha-1
EO total energy output MJ ha-1
EIpred direct energy input crop establishment, incl. transport crop to
installation
MJ ha-1
EIprei indirect energy input during establishment of the crop MJ ha-1
GEC gross energy content MJ ha-1
η(th),η(el),η(m) conversion efficiency (resp. thermal, electric, and mechanical) %
β(th),β(el),β(f) fossil energy use during conversion (resp. thermal, electric and
diesel fuel)
%
Epost output (Epost out) - input (Epost in) of energy for secondary use rest
product
MJ ha-1
The gross energy content of energy maize (per ha) after digestion (GECEM) is calculated in (Eq.
9):
GECEM = BPEM . GEM . EVBG (Eq. 9)
Mechanical pressing of rapeseed can be warm or cold. The resulting products are pure plant oil
(PPO), and rapeseed cake (cold) or scrap (warm). This cake is a marketable co-product, used
mainly as cattle feed. Warm pressing renders a higher percentage of available oil (32-42 m%)
than cold pressing (28-35 m%). On a large scale (e.g. prior to biodiesel production), chemical
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-77-
pressing renders 42 m% of PPO. Further transesterification of the PPO results in biodiesel.
Biodiesel can be burned in a regular diesel engine as such to replace fossil diesel, whereas for
the combustion of PPO, some adjustments to the engine are necessary. After transesterification
of PPO, crude glycerine is obtained (Eq. 10) (Van de Plas, 2007).
1 ton PPO + 0.1 ton methanol 1 ton biodiesel + 0.1 ton glycerine (Eq. 10)
The gross energy content of PPO and biodiesel per hectare (GECPPO and GECBD) are calculated
in (Eq. 11) and (Eq. 12) respectively.
GECPPO = BPRS . GPPO . DPPO . EVPPO (Eq. 11)
GECBD = BPRS . GBD . DBD . EVBD (Eq. 12)
For SRC of willow, we consider three options. First, co-combustion of biomass with coal has
already been widely applied (Goovaerts et al., 2009) and its economic potential has been
indicated (Hughes, 2000). Willow from phytoremediation could be co-combusted in a power
plant replacing coal (Electrabel). Currently, the installation of Electrabel in Ruien (540 MWe)
indirectly co-combusts pulverised coal with woodchips from recycled fresh wood and hard and
soft board (www.ieabcc.nl). We consider another installation of Electrabel (Langerlo) as this one
has a deNOx and deSOx installation. The maximum yearly potential for co-combustion would be
200,000 ton (5%). Nussbaumer and Oser (2004) conclude that it can be assumed that the energy
needed for the pre-treatment of wood chips is included in the efficiency of power production.
Theunis et al. (2003) also mention that coal cannot be used as such in a coal power plant but has
to undergo some pre-treatment which results in coal powder. The same pre-treatment is needed
for the wood chips replacing coal. Second, willow could be used for heating purposes to replace
cokes in the zinc smelter of Nyrstar (former Umicore). Since the startup of the copper smelter in
1997, first as part of Umicore and from 2007 on as an independent company, secondary sources
are co-combusted, according to the license. To result in the same heat output, relatively more
biomass has to be burned than coal due to the lower heating value of the former. Since this
requires additional storage, handling, and transport, there is a maximum amount of biomass that
can be co-fired for the installation to be still economically viable (Sami et al., 2001; Baxter,
2005; Eriksson, 2007). Third, we consider the (co-) combustion of willow in a biomass based
combustion installation with electricity and heat production in a CHP system. This replaces the
separate production of heat (natural gas) and electricity (average fossil mix).
The gross energy content of SRC is based on its calorific value, which is the amount of energy
present in the wood and liberated when burned (thus after drying). The gross energy content of
willow (after drying) per hectare (GECW) is calculated in (Eq. 13).
GECW = BPW . CALW . (1-α) (Eq. 13)
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-78-
Table 0-11 Base case values used in (Eq. 9)-(Eq. 17)
Symbol Base case
value
Unit
(Eq. 9)-(Eq. 13)
BPW 6 ton dm ha-1 y-1
CALW 19.92‡ GJ ton-1 dm
α 0 %
BPEM 60† ton fm ha-1 y-1
GEM 190§ m³ gas ton-1 fm
EVBG 19.11¶ MJ m-³ gas
BPRS 3.3† ton fm ha-1 y-1
GPPO 35%# ton oil ton-1 fm
DPPO 0.90†† ton l-1
EVPPO 34.11††‡‡ MJ l-1
GBD 42%# ton biodiesel ton-1 fm
DBD 0.88‡‡ ton l-1
EVBD 33.18‡‡ MJ l-1
(Eq. 14)-(Eq. 17)§§
Energy value diesel 35.9 MJ l-1 diesel
Extraction and distribution diesel 5 MJ l-1 diesel
Lubricants 3.6 MJ l-1 diesel
Energy use transport 1.3 MJ ton-1 fm km-1
Electr. use for separating digestate (11 dm% to 30
dm%)
27-36 MJ m-³ input
Heat use for drying digestate (30 dm% to 85
dm%)
2.37 GJ ton-1 separated
digestate
Energy value coal/cokes 29 GJ ton-1 cokes †Table 0-1; ‡Vande Walle (2007); §Thewys et al. (2010a, b); ¶53.25% CH4, Lower Heating Value
LHV(CH4) = 35.9 MJ m-³; #GAVE (2005); ††www.hanze.nl and www.wervel.be; ‡‡www.emis.vito.be, RE Directive (2009/28/EG); §§Borjesson (1996), Dalgaard et al. (2001),
Lemmens et al. (2007), and www.emis.vito.be
3.4 Effect of contaminants on energy production potential
3.4.1 General
For PPO there are no indications that the ash content after burning could pose any problems. Ash
content of renewable fuels commonly lies below 1 m% and most commonly below 0.1 m%.
When biomass with a high (>2%) fatty acid content is combusted, this causes corrosion.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-79-
However, fatty acid content in PPO is smaller than 1%. The viscosity of PPO lies above that of
diesel. Therefore, for PPO to be used in a diesel engine, the oil should be preheated prior to use,
or mixed with diesel, or converted into biodiesel through esterification (Goovaerts et al., 2009).
Mench et al. (2010) point out correctly that in order to minimise trace element emissions of
vehicles running on biodiesel or PPO from phytoremediation crops, plants could be selected
based on low trace element contents in their seeds.
Obernberger has done extensive research on the combustion of biomass (e.g. Obernberger et al.,
1997; Obernberger, 1998). This resulted in maximum values of certain elements in biomass and
renewable energy resources above which emission threshold values might be exceeded and
technical problems might occur.
Information, data and studies relating to the potential influence of metal concentrations in
biomass on the digestion process are also scarce. Metals have a proven effect on the enzymes
responsible for the break-down of biomass particles. Whether they stimulate or inhibit biogas
production depends on total metal concentration, the chemical form of the metals, and process
related aspects (Chen, Cheng and Creamer, 2008). Pahl et al. (2008) found in their experiment
with co-digestion of mechanically biologically treated municipal waste containing metals and
sewage sludge evidence of the accumulation of metals in the digester. According to Marchaim
(1992), certain metals (not specified) can be toxic to anaerobic organisms, even at low
concentrations. The metal ions kill organisms by inactivating functional groups of their enzymes
and thus inhibit digestion. Wong and Cheung (1995) conducted experiments on digestion of
metal contaminated sewage sludge and concluded that presence of certain metals always tends to
reduce biogas yield (toxicity Cr > Ni > Cu > Zn). In contrast, studies on water hyacinth
(Eichhornia crassipes), channel grass (Vallisneria spiralis) and water chestnut (Trapa
bispinnosa) used as phytoremediating plants in industrial effluents, demonstrated that the slurry
of these plants produces significantly more biogas than the slurry of control plants grown in
unpolluted water (Singhal and Rai, 2003; Verma et al., 2007). These experiments indicate an
effect of metals on the digestion process, but they do not allow to come to an unambiguous
conclusion concerning biogas production from polluted energy maize.
3.4.2 Case study
We find no data on the effect of metals in biomass on the biodiesel production process, although
the idea of using the remediating crops for energy purposes is gaining ground (Shi and Cai,
2009). Therefore, no modifications are necessary to the installation. Since we assume that all
metals end up in the cake, no marginal modifications are necessary to the engine for burning PPO
or biodiesel.
Concerning the effect of metals on the combustion process, we made the comparison with the
commonly combusted coal, which also contains metals and decided that metals in biomass will
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-80-
have no marginal effect on the combustion process and on the technical efficiency of the
installation.
A subset of each sample energy maize plant from the trial field (total plant, stem, leaves, bract,
rachis, and grain) was transported to Organic Waste Systems (OWS, Ghent, Belgium) to
determine its biogas production potential in a batch test. In order to investigate the difference in
biogas production potential of maize grown on contaminated soil versus maize grown on
uncontaminated soil, samples were compared with maize originating from an uncontaminated
reference site of OWS. The small scale batch test (14 days) showed no significant difference in
biogas production potential between maize grown on contaminated (215 ± 23 Nm3 ton-1) and
uncontaminated (194 ± 4 Nm3 ton-1) soils. Nevertheless, further confirmation of these findings in
a continuum test over a longer period of time was necessary and can be found in Van Slycken et
al. (2011). Therefore, Thewys et al. (2010a) decided that no modifications to the biogas
installation are necessary. Moreover, because all metals end up in the digestate, no modifications
are needed to the CHP engine.
Based on the above, we assume for all crops that metals have no marginal effect on the energy
conversion (technical) efficiency. Moreover, no metals end up in the energy carrier, but will be
concentrated in the rest product: in the ashes, in the digestate, and in the cake. The marginal
impact (as compared to uncontaminated rest products) of the contamination in these rest products
on energy consumption to prepare the rest products for secondary use or disposal will be handled
later since a different end use might have to be found for the rest product.
3.5 From gross energy content to net thermal, electric, and mechanical energy
The electric efficiency of the combustion of woody biomass in a coal power plant (37%) is
consistent with Theunis et al. (2003), and adjusted as in Baxter (2005). Co-firing power plants
have better electric efficiency compared to 100% biomass based power plants, but compared to
coal there is a 0-10% efficiency loss in biomass conversion, due to use of non-preheated air
(which could be avoided in a permanent installation), energy use for preparation and handling of
the biomass, and a higher moisture content of the biomass (Baxter, 2005). The second option is
combusting willow for heating purposes to replace cokes. When 7-10% of biomass is co-fired,
there is a drop in overall boiler efficiency compared to coal-fired boilers. This reduction is
however minimal, 0.3-1.0 points of the 85-90% thermal efficiency (Hughes, 2000). As thermal
efficiency for combusting woody biomass we use 78% (CHP reference Decision, 2006). Finally,
wood could also be combusted with other biomass in a biomass (waste) incineration plant for the
generation of heat and electricity using a steam turbine based CHP. Examples have been studied
by the International Energy Agency for Biomass Combustion and Co-firing (IEABCC, 2004) in
Denmark and Austria. Steam turbines have a low electric efficiency (Cogen Vlaanderen vzw,
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-81-
2006). Thermal and electric efficiency (69% and 16%) of this system are based on Vande Walle
et al. (2007).
The produced gas resulting from digesting energy maize is burned in a gas engine based CHP.
This replaces the separate production of heat and electricity with fossil fuels. The thermal and
electric efficiency of a gas engine are 45% and 40% respectively (Table 0-12).
Table 0-12 Relevant conversion efficiencies to be applied on the GEC of the different
options (η=efficiency, β=use, el=electricity, th=thermal, f=fuel)
Conversion technology Net energy η(th) η(el) β(th) † β(el) † β(f)
Co-combustion Electricity 37%¶ # 4%#
Co-combustion Heat 78-80%¶ #
Combustion CHP (steam
turbine)
55-69%# †† 16%# †† 4%‡ 3%‡
Digestion CHP (gas engine) 45%‡‡ 40%‡‡ 30%§§ 7.5%§
PPO (mech pressing) PPO 2%¶¶
Biodiesel
(chem+transesterif)
Biodiesel 2%¶¶ 8%¶¶
†% of CALW, % of GECEM, and % of GECRS; ‡Cidad et al. (2003); §Goossens (2007); ¶CHP Ref
Decision (2006); #Theunis et al. (2003); ††Vande Walle et al. (2007); Cogen Vlaanderen vzw
(2006); IEABCC (2004) ‡‡A. Stroobandt155, personal communication (January 2009); §§E. Meers,
personal communication (March 2007); ¶¶Gustavsson et al. (1995), Janulis (2004), and 8% is
assumed for the production of chemicals
3.6 Contamination in rest product-energetic impact
3.6.1 General
After conversion, a contaminant enriched rest product remains. The presence of contaminants has
an effect on secondary use options (Table 0-13), and this effect could be monetarily valued
through (i) the marginal impact on the secondary use of the rest product (due to restricted options
compared to the uncontaminated ″reference″ option), but also through (ii) the marginal impact on
final CO2 abatement. In §0 we calculate (i) by comparing the allowed use of the contaminated
rest product with the allowed use of the uncontaminated ″reference" option. In this part (§0) we
include (ii): CO2 abatement of the different energy crops is immediately corrected for the
marginal impact of contaminants in the rest product, i.e. we started with calculations for
″reference″ uncontaminated biomass, and made changes necessary due to the contamination in
the rest product.
155
Cogen Flanders for the promotion of CHP installations in Flanders.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-82-
3.6.2 Case study
Uncontaminated digestate is a good alternative for chemical fertilizer or could be used as soil
improving material. Due to N, P, and K threshold values, not all digestate (47 ton) resulting from
one hectare of energy maize can be applied on that same hectare. Approximately 33 ton
uncontaminated digestate could be applied per hectare. Only 13.77 ton uncontaminated (11 dm%)
digestate is separated and dried resulting in 1.78 ton (85 dm%) for combustion. In the
contaminated best option, 44.4 ton digestate (11 dm%) should be separated and dried resulting in
5.76 ton (85 dm%) for combustion. This is because besides the restrictions on N, P, and K, there
are also restrictions regarding the maximum allowed trace element concentrations in the digestate
if it is to be used as fertilizer or soil improving material. Combustion of digestate results in 0.076
ton ashes that will be landfilled.
1 ha rapeseed (3.3 ton) generates resp. 1.17 and 1.40 ton oil (in PPO and biodiesel scenario), and
resp. 2.16 and 1.93 ton cake. The oil could subsequently be converted to biodiesel through
transesterification (100%): 1.40 ton rapeseed oil + 0.14 ton methanol 1.40 ton biodiesel + 0.14
ton glycerine. After comparing legislation and concentrations of metals found in rapeseed cake,
we decided that this product can still be used as fodder. Rapeseed cake does not need to undergo
any energy consuming pre-treatment before use as fodder. Ashes can be used as granulates
according to current legislation. When using uncontaminated woody biomass, no pre-treatment is
necessary. When the woody biomass is contaminated, the ashes need to be landfilled.
Table 0-13 End use of the rest product (ton ha-1)†
Rest product (ton) Eco most viable option-
uncontaminated (ton)
Eco most viable option-
contaminated (ton)
Digestate (47.2) Fertilizer (33.43)+Combustion (13.77) Fertilizer (2.80)+ Combustion
(44.40)
Cake PPO (2.16) Fodder (2.16) Fodder (2.16)
Cake Biodiesel
(1.93)
Fodder (1.93) Fodder (1.93)
Glycerine Digestion (0.14) Digestion (0.14)
Ashes (0.0768) Granulates (0.0768) Landfill (0.0768)
3.7 Overview
3.7.1 General
Besides generating energy output (Epostout), the rest product also needs energy input prior to
secondary use (Epostin). This energy input and –output are different from uncontaminated biomass.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-83-
For all rest products, Epostin also includes transport (Table 0-14). We have not included the energy
cost of applying digestate (0.6 l diesel ton-1) since we assume that this is compensated by
applying less chemical fertilizer (2 l ha-1) (Cidad et al., 2003). Moreover, we did not take into
account the energy cost of upgrading the ashes to granulates and will also not take into account
the energy cost of the replaced building materials by these granulates (Table 0-14).
Table 0-14 Overview of marginal energy in- and output for secondary use of rest products
from uncontaminated biomass (T=transport)
Rest
product
Reference
option
Epost in Epost out
Digestate
(11 dm%)
Fertilizer +
Combustion
(heat)
Separation (30 dm%) and
drying (85 dm%): elec. and
heat
T(digestate to field)
T(digestate to combustion
install)
T(ashes to landfill)
Energy cost chemical fertilizer
(incl. T)
Combustion value digestate
(heat)
Cake Fodder T(fodder to farm) Energy cost roughage production
(incl. T to farm)
Glycerine Digestion T(glycerine to digester) Digestion
Ashes Granulates T(ashes to landfill) /
EI = EIpred + EIprei (Eq. 14)
EO = GEC . η(th) . (1-β(th)) + GEC . η(el) . (1-β(el)) (Eq. 15)
EO = GEC . (1-β(f) - β(el)) (Eq. 16)
Epost= Epostout- Epostin (Eq. 17)
(Eq. 14) calculates the total energy input for willow, energy maize and rapeseed. (Eq. 15)
represents the energy output used for energy maize and willow, while (Eq. 16) is used for
rapeseed. (Eq. 17) calculates the net energy due to secondary use of the rest product. The total
primary energy input only contains processes where actual fossil energy is used. Renewable
energy uses or losses, such as during natural drying for willow (α) or during conversion to heat
and electricity (η and β), will not be considered as energy inputs. They are considered losses of
energy output and as such will be distracted from the output. This is different from the approach
used by Vande Walle et al. (2007) where the use of electricity and heat during conversion were
considered as energy input.
We calculated the net energy production (NE) per hectare per year. Based on NE (EO + Epost –
EI), we calculated the net avoided CO2 emission compared to the case where the same amount of
energy (heat, electricity or movement) would have been based on fossil fuels, with energy uses
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-84-
and combustion values, and fossil fuel emission coefficients in Table 0-11 and Table 0-15
respectively.
Table 0-15 Reference fossil fuel efficiencies and emissions
Natural gas Cokes Coal Average Lubricants Diesel
g CO2 kWh-1
100% 201.96† 385.2† 263.88† 266.76†
Engine
(η(m))
659.7
(40%)‡
666.9
(40%)‡
Heat 224.4
(90%)§
481.5 (80%)§ 296.4
(89%)§
Electricity 116-398†† 508-
897††
413.18¶
CHP (η(el)) 1,540.8
(25%)#
†IPCC (2007); ‡Cidad et al. (2003); §CHP reference Decision (2006); ¶MIRA (2008); #Cogen
Vlaanderen vzw (2006); ††Born (n.d.); Envirochem (2005)
3.7.2 Case study
Energy maize
Energy maize is digested and the resulting biogas is combusted in a gas engine in a CHP system,
resulting in heat and electricity (Table 3-10). The digestate is partly used as fertilizer, partly
combusted, according to Flemish and European legislation.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-85-
Table 3-10 Energy costs for crop growth and net energy gain after conversion of energy
maize (GJ per hectare per year)
Energy (GJ ha1 yr-1) Source
Crop growth 6.77 (Cidad et al., 2003; Dalgaard, 2001) †
Transport energy maize to
digester
1.56 (Borjesson, 1996)
Indirect energy 5.04 (Cidad et al., 2003)
EI 13.37
GECEM 217.81 ‡
Net electricity 80.59
Net heat 68.61
EO 149.20 (Cidad et al., 2003; Goossens, 2007)
Epostin 40.55 §
Epostout 53.01 ¶
Epost 12.46
NE 148.29 †152 l diesel ha-1; ‡60 ton fm ha-1 y-1, 190 m³ gas ton-1 fm, 19.11 MJ m-3 gas ; §energy for
separation is 0.036 GJ ton-1 digestate (11 dm%), energy for drying is 0.87 GJ ton-1 digestate (11
dm%); ¶55.53 GJ ton-1 N (incl. transport), 33.43 ton digestate (11 dm%) replaces 170 kg N,
combustion value digestate (11 dm%) is 1.18 GJ ton-1
Because of metals in the rest product, Epost in for contaminated digestate is 40.55 GJ ha-1. Epost out is
53.01 GJ ha-1. This results in Epost = 12.46 GJ ha-1, resulting in a net positive impact of metals on
energy production (0.44 GJ ha-1) because the presence of metals forces us to use the digestate for
other purposes which are more energy efficient than its use in the reference situation.
Willow
We use a mean calorific value for willow of 19.92 GJ ton-1 dm (Vande Walle et al., 2007). Table
3-11 gives an overview of total average energy costs for willow per hectare per year. For willow,
the largest contributor is the indirect machinery cost, followed by planting material preparation
and final stool removal.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-86-
Table 3-11 Energy costs for crop growth and net energy gain after conversion of Short
Rotation Coppice (SRC) of willow (GJ per hectare per year)
Energy (GJ ha-1 yr-1) Source
Crop growth 8.41† (Cidad et al., 2003; Dalgaard,
2001)
Transport SRC to co-
combustion
0.33 (Borjesson, 1996)
Indirect energy 2.61 (Cidad et al., 2003)
EI 11.35
GECW 95.62‡ (Vande Walle et al., 2007)
(1) (2) (3)
Net electricity 31.55 12.43
Net heat 74.58 62.15
EO 31.55 74.58 74.58
Epostin 0.003§ 0.003§ 0.003§
Epostout 0 0 0
Epost -0.003 -0.003 -0.003
NE 20.20 63.23 63.23 †189 l diesel ha-1 y-1 is an average yearly use over 21 years (Cidad et al., 2003); ‡4.8 ton dm ha-1
y-1 (excl. leaves) after first rotation cycle (15-20 ton over 3 years); (1) electricity, (2) heat, (3)
CHP; §30 km transport distance, 76.8 kg ashes
There is no impact of metals in ashes on Epost in, and Epost out since we assume that transport
distances are the same for uncontaminated and contaminated ashes. Moreover, we did not take
into account the energy cost of replaced building materials by granulates in the uncontaminated
scenario.
Rapeseed
Rapeseed results are represented in Table 3-12. The same amount of rapeseed cake can be used as
fodder in the uncontaminated and contaminated scenario, resulting in a zero effect of metals on
the net energy production per hectare.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-87-
Table 3-12 Energy costs for crop growth and net energy gain after conversion (1) into PPO
and (2) into biodiesel of rapeseed (GJ per hectare per year)
Energy (GJ ha-1 yr-1) Source
(1) (2)
Crop growth 3.13 3.13 (Cidad et al., 2003)
Transport rapeseed to biodiesel/PPO +
transport straw
0.06 0.58 (Borjesson, 1996)
Indirect energy 10.90 10.90 (Cidad et al., 2003)
EI 14.02 14.54
GECPPO 44.17†
GECBD 52.73†
Electricity use 0.88 1.05
Fuel use 4.22
EO‡ 43.29 47.45
Epostin§ 0 0.30
Epostout¶ 1.97 3.09
Epost 1.97 2.79
NE 31.17 35.64 †3.3 ton rapeseed ha-1 y-1; ‡we did not take into account the transport of biodiesel or PPO after
conversion; §transport of cake and glycerine after biodiesel; ¶net energy (GJ) saved per ton cake =
(46.55 GJ-19.95 GJ)/29.2 ton cake; 750 m³ gas per ton glycerine (K. Sys156, personal
communication, April 2010) resulting in 0.72 GJ electricity and 0.61 GJ heat
3.8 CO2 abatement (case study)
The yearly CO2 abatement per hectare for each option can be found in Table 3-13. Electricity
output is based on average electricity emissions, except for the co-combustion of SRC of willow
for electricity, where the use of willow replaces the use of cokes (since this is the current energy
carrier at the installation where the willow will be used). The renewable heat output takes into
account conversion efficiency. When calculating CO2 abatement, the avoided emission of fossil
fuels was corrected for boiler efficiency. Rapeseed produces biodiesel or PPO, and in both cases
the numbers in Table 3-12 represent output before conversion in an engine. This implies that to
calculate avoided CO2 emissions, we used emission efficiency of fossil diesel as such, i.e. we do
not take into account engine efficiency for biodiesel and PPO.
The emissions for electricity input are based on average electricity emissions (Table 0-15). With
regards to fossil diesel input, the number in Table 0-15 already takes into account engine
efficiency, implying that CO2 emissions of fossil diesel do not have to be corrected for engine
156
Biogas-e vzw, for the promotion of digestion in Flanders
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-88-
efficiency. The extraction of fossil diesel is also taken into account, as well as the use of
lubricants. Transport and indirect energy use always assume the use of fossil diesel. During
biodiesel production, diesel fuel is used (8%) of gross biodiesel production.
The heat used for drying digestate comes from heat produced in the digester which takes into
account efficiency of the CHP engine. Therefore, to calculate avoided CO2 emissions, we correct
the emission of heat produced by cokes in the reference case with the boiler efficiency. The
calculation of CO2 emission avoidance of the part of the digestate used as a fertilizer (33.43 ton)
is based on the energy use for the production of chemical fertilizer (West and Marland, 2002) and
includes transport. The calculation of CO2 abatement by combustion of digestate for heat
production (13.77 ton) is based on a comparison with heat based cokes, taking into account boiler
efficiency.
Table 3-13 Net CO2 avoidance per hectare per year for energy maize, SRC of willow, and
rapeseed (kg CO2 ha-1 y-1) (net emissions between brackets)
CO2 (production) Energy maize SRC SRC SRC Rapeseed Rapeseed
diesel use (950) (791) (791) (791) (1,009) (1,047)
lubricant use (40) (50) (50) (50) (34) (34)
CO2 (conversion)(EO) Digestion Electr. Heat CHP PPO Biodiesel
electricity +9,249 +6,157 0 +1,427
heat +4,277 0 +9,975 +3,874
diesel
+3,273 +3,907
extraction diesel
+456 +544
electricity use
(101) (121)
fuel use
(313)
net CO2 avoided 12,536 5,317 9,135 4,460 2,584 2,936
Rest product sec use fertil + comb landfill landfill landfill fodder fodder
Epostin (5,375) (0.22) (0.22) (0.22) 0 (22)
Epostout +7,054
+146 +251
net after rest product (NE) 14,242 5,316 9,134 4,460 2,730 3,044
All phytoremediation crops offer the potential to reduce CO2 emissions, as would have been the
case if they were grown on uncontaminated soil. However, for energy maize the presence of
metals even has a positive effect on CO2 abatement. This is due to the fact that we started from
the economically most viable option in the uncontaminated reference scenario and not the
energetically best option. The effect is completely due to the rest product, where in the
uncontaminated and contaminated scenario the net CO2 avoidance are respectively (2,815-1,729)
kg CO2 and (7,054-5,375) kg CO2. The contaminated scenario needs heat to dry the digestate, but
combustion generates a lot of heat (replacing cokes), whereas in the uncontaminated scenario,
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-89-
less energy is necessary, since most of the digestate is applied on the field, but the avoided energy
for chemical fertilizer results in less CO2 avoidance (produced with cokes, gas, and electricity).
Considering the net energy potential before the rest product is handled, the digestion of energy
maize offers the best potential. SRC of willow to replace coke-based heat (Zn smelter) comes
second. Alternatively, SRC of willow in a biomass combustion installation and the combined
production of heat and electricity comes only after the separate production of electricity from
willow, since in the latter case willow replaces cokes, and in the former it replaces average
electricity and average heat. PPO and biodiesel score rather low on their CO2 abatement
potential, partly because of the need of fossil diesel for the production of fertilizer for production
of rapeseed.
When growing crops for energy production on land, while gradually remediating the soil, a
policy suggesting government intervention based on CO2 abatement might prove necessary to
improve economic efficiency. This is only allowed because the external benefit of CO2 abatement
is not included correctly in the price of biomass and as such not yet taken into account in
economic optimization.
Table 3-14 shows the impact of internalization of CO2 on original biomass prices (€ ton-1 fm) and
on original AGI (€ ha-1). If the valuation of CO2 is based on the marginal abatement cost (MAC)
(€ 20 ton-1 CO2), then for willow this would mean that the current AGI would double to triple.
The impact of the internalization on the price of willow (€ ton-1 fm) is smaller, but still results in
a price that would lie 44-83% higher (than without internalization), depending on the conversion
technology for which the wood would be used. The impact on the price per ton is lower than the
impact on AGI due to high cultivation costs (especially stool removal), which results in very low
AGI.
Table 3-14 Relative impact of internalization of CO2 based on MAC (i) as a % of original
AGI (€ ha-1), and (ii) as a % of original price (€ ton-1 fm)
Energy
maize
Rapeseed-
PPO-pers
use
Rapeseed -
PPO-tractor
Rapeseed
-
Biodiesel
SRC-
electr.
SRC-
heat
SRC-
CHP
AGI 1,260 1,354 1,195 1,023 111 111 111
Price
biomass 30 477 298 208 28.5 28.5 28.5
MAC CO2
% AGI 21% 6% 6% 9% 111% 180% 96%
% price 15% 5% 8% 13% 51% 83% 44%
AGI=adapted gross income
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-90-
4. Contamination in rest product - economic impact
4.1 General
A crucial aspect when growing energy crops on contaminated soil is the fact whether the
harvested crops will be classified as (hazardous) waste, or as biomass since this has an impact on
the further utilization and valorisation of the crop. Elevated metal concentrations in soils cause
increased metal concentrations in plants. Energy conversion of these plants results moreover in a
metal enriched rest product. For a detailed legal analysis we refer to the legal reports submitted
by the Centre for Environmental Sciences (CMK) of Hasselt University.
4.2 Case study
In our case study, the cultivation of energy crops (e.g. energy maize (Zea mays), rapeseed
(Brassica napus), and short rotation coppice of willow (Salix spp.)) for combined sustainable
valorisation and (phyto)remediation of metal contaminated soils in Flanders is considered.
There will always be the need to dispose of residues in the environment because some toxic
constituents cannot be destroyed, or are not commercially interesting. Most literature on the
technology of phytoremediation is fundamental, i.e. studies the process of metal uptake and -
translocation in itself, and merely mentions the external effects (if even named as such), There is
little literature concerning research on (the actual economic valorisation of) externalities resulting
from biomass production on contaminated land.
We suggest not following blind folded the obliged order of the waste management hierarchy as
defined in the European Union (and the Ladder of Lansink in Flanders) and suggest to use a cost-
benefit analysis (preferably accompanied by a Life Cycle Analysis) and choose the option that
generates the largest social benefit or causes the smallest social cost. This is also acknowledged
in preparing the Waste Framework (WF) Directive (2008/98/EC): ”The waste hierarchy
generally lays down a priority order of what constitutes the best overall environmental option in
waste legislation and policy, while departing from such hierarchy may be necessary for specific
waste streams when justified for reasons of, inter alia, technical feasibility, economic viability
and environmental protection.”
Metals are an example of stock pollutants, pollutants that accumulate over time. Environment has
little or no absorptive capacity for them. It is not possible to destroy metals, but we should aim to
find a solution so that they do not pose a threat to current and future generations. A systematic
approach should be developed to find the economically most efficient and cost-effective solution
for biomass produced on contaminated land. Starting from existing regulation on secondary use
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-91-
of rest products of energy production we could value the internalization of the presence of metals.
By strictly applying the rules, the presence of metals in the biomass is internalized. This is based
on the assumption that these rules and threshold values are based on e.g. health impact studies.
Table 0-1 Overview of potential end use of rest products for different scenarios, based on
input category (waste or biomass), and on legislation for end product use
Input Conversion
process
Rest
product
Input category Rest product
category
Secondary use
Willow Co-comb.
electricity
Fly+Bottom
ash
Waste/Biomass (10 01) Construction +
landfill†
Co-comb.
heat
Fly+Bottom
ash
Waste/Biomass (10 05) Construction +
landfill†
Co-comb.
CHP
Fly+Bottom
ash
Waste (19 01) Construction +
landfill†
Biomass (10 01) Construction +
landfill†
Maize Anaerobic
digestion
Digestate Waste (19 06 05/06) Fertilizer (11 dm%)‡
Combustion (85
dm%)
Landfill (85 dm%)
Biomass - Fertilizer (11 dm%)‡
Export (85 dm%)‡
Combustion (85
dm%)
Landfill (85 dm%)
Rapeseed PPO Cake Waste/Biomass - Fodder (89 dm%)§
Digestion (89 dm%)
Combustion (89
dm%)
Landfill (89 dm%)
Biodiesel Cake and
glycerine
Waste/Biomass - Fodder (89 dm%)§
Digestion (89 dm%)
Combustion (89
dm%)
Landfill (89 dm%) †VLAREA; ‡on own land, VLAREA ; §Directive 2002/32/EC, and Fodder Decision: maximum
level of Cd for fodder in Belgium (and Europe) expressed as mg kg-1 dm is 1.14
The presence of metals in the residue after conversion of biomass is a scholarly example of an
externality as this fact is not reflected in the price of the original biomass. A transparent and
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-92-
comprehensive environmental and economic evaluation of a range of strategies for rest products
should be designed. The aim of this is to economically valorise the effect of metals in the residue,
to be integrated in the total economic value of phytoremediation. The economic impact of metals
on the end use of rest products could be based on current legislation. More specifically, the value
of this externality is calculated based on a comparison of legally accepted options for the
contaminated residue with the best available (economically most efficient) reference option for
uncontaminated residue.
When biomass is uncontaminated, and following existing legislation, digestate should be used as
a fertilizer, with the remaining digestate being combusted. Rapeseed should be used as fodder,
and ashes from willow should be valorised as granulates. For contaminated biomass, strictly
applying current legislation (Table 0-1), applying part of the digestate on the land and
combusting the rest results in the highest value, or the smallest marginal impact of the metals. For
cake, the use as fodder results in no marginal impact from metals. Willow ashes have to be
disposed of because metal concentration is too high.
5. Integration
To answer our research question (part I) we had to answer subquestions. Due to restricted data we
were only able to answer the second part.
Does phytoremediation result in other than private costs and benefits and if so, are these
externalities positive or negative?
Yes, we showed based on an example from the Campine region (BE) that phytoremediation
results in renewable energy potentials with CO2 abatement. Moreover, this impact is positive for
the studied crops. A second externality that we studied in this report is the presence of
contaminants in the biomass. This will have an economic and energetic impact, since the biomass
and the rest product after processing need proper use and disposal which differs from the use or
disposal in the “reference” uncontaminated scenario.
Does phytoremediation offer an economically viable alternative for conventional
remediation technologies and which crops should be used and under what circumstances?
As mentioned previously, the economic analysis was planned at the start of the project. No data
were available yet. Therefore, most of the report is based on data from an existing case study (i.e.
the Campine region in Belgium). As a compromise, we introduced each part with a general
introduction where we indicated the parameters. We then are able to insert these parameters into
the general model as presented in part I of this report. We are convinced that the case study will
make users able to use the suggested approach easily. However, generalizations should be
avoided. Therefore, we do strongly recommend that in the course of the project the necessary
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-93-
data are gathered and inserted in the model, before any conclusions on the economic viability are
made.
6. Conclusion
Does phytoremediation, as a multifunctional and sustainable alternative for conventional
remediation technologies for functional restoration of contaminated soil, result in
economically optimal remediation strategies?
Today, it is widely recognized that cleanup activities of hazardous waste sites may be the cause
of external effects such as the emission of greenhouse gases by the use of heavy duty
construction equipment powered by diesel fuel. Five core elements of green remediation (EPA,
2010) are (i) energy, (ii) air and atmosphere, (iii) water, (iv) land and ecosystems, and (v)
materials and waste. Phytoremediation might be able to deal with all these topics. More
specifically, in this study, we analysed its potential to be a net producer of renewable energy, and
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the air. Green remediation factors might even be
included in the evaluation of the economic efficiency. To make the economic analysis for the
project, the necessary physical data should be provided by the other work packages. Therefore,
since we are only at the start of the project, the actual integration will take place when all data are
gathered, at the end of the project. However, this report is valuable in the sense that it serves as a
guideline for the other work packages in gathering necessary data.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-94-
III. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Legislation
Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently
repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (RE Directive), O.J. 5 June 2009, L 140.
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union
of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (WF Directive), O.J. 22
November 2008, L 312.
Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 May 2002 on
undesirable substances in animal feed, O.J. 30 May 2002, L 140.
Decision of the Flemish government of 5 December 2003 tot vaststelling van het Vlaamse
reglement inzake afvalvoorkoming en –beheer (VLAREA) (Belgian State Gazette 30 April
2004), as amended.
Ministerial decision of 6 October 2006 inzake de vastlegging van referentierendementen voor
toepassing van de voorwaarden voor kwalitatieve warmtekrachtinstallaties (CHP reference
Decision) (Belgian State Gazette 1 December 2006).
Ministerial decision of 12 February 1999 betreffende de handel en het gebruik van producten
die bestemd zijn voor het voederen van dieren (Annexe I) (Fodder Decision) (Belgian State
Gazette 21 April 1999), as amended.
2. Literature
Adegbidi, H.G., Volk, T.A., White, E.H., Abrahamson, L.P., Briggs, R.D., Bickelhaupt, D.H.
(2001) Biomass and nutrient removal by willow clones in experimental bioenergy plantations
in New York State. Biomass Bioenerg, 20, p. 399-411.
Adriaensen, K., Bert, V., Bohm, K., Brignon, J-M., Cochet, N., Cundy, A., Denys, S., Friesl-
Hanl, W., Gombert, D., Haag, R., Hurst, S., Jaunatre, R., Jollivet, P., Kumpiene, J., Magnie,
M-C., Marschner, B. ,Mench, M., Mikhalovsky, S., Muller, I., Onwubuya, K., Puschenreiter,
M., Raspail, F., Renella, G., Rouil, L., Ruttens, A., Schoefs, O., Soularue, J-P., Stolz, R.,
Tack, K., Teasdale, P., Tlustoš, P., Vangronsveld, J., Vialletelle, F., Waite, S. (2008)
Sustainable management of trace element contaminated soils (SUMATECS)— development
of a decision tool system and its evaluation for practical application. Project no. SN-01/20.
Final Research Report, Universitat fur Bodenkultur Wien (BOKU). 314 pp. Available at
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-95-
http://www. snowman-era.net/downloads/SUMATECS_FINAL_REPORT.pdf, last visited
October 2010.
Alkorta, I., Hernandez-Allica, J., Becerril, J.M., Amezaga, I., Albizu, I., Garbisu, C. (2004)
Recent findings on the phytoremediation of soils contaminated with environmentally toxic
heavy metals and metalloids such as zinc, cadmium, lead and arsenic. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Biotechnol., 3, p. 71-90.
Arrow, K., Cropper, M.L., Eads, G.C., Hahn, R.W., Lave, L.B., Noil, R.G., Portney; P.R.,
Russell, M., Schmalensee, R., Smith, V.K., Stavins, R.N. (1996) Is there a role for Benefit-
Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health and Safety regulation? Sci., 272, p. 221-222.
Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Heal, G., Levin, S., Maler, K-G.,
Schneider, S., Starrett, D., Walker, B. (2003) Are we consuming too much? J. econ.
Perspect., 42 p.
Assunçao, AGL., Schat, H., Aarts, MGM. (2003) Thlaspi caerulescens, an attractive model
species to study heavy metal hyperaccumulation in plants. New Phytol., 159, p. 351–360.
Baxter, L. (2005) Biomass-coal co-combustion: opportunity for affordable renewable energy.
Fuel, 84, p. 1295–1302.
Bennett, FA., Tyler, EK., Brooks, RR., Gregg, PEH., Stewart, RB. (1998) Fertilisation of
hyperaccumulators to enhance their potential for phytoremediation and phytomining. In:
Brooks R (ed) Plants that hyperaccumulate heavy metals. CAB International, Wallingford,
UK, p. 249–259.
Berndes, G., Fredrikson, F., Borjesson, P. (2004) Cadmium accumulation and Salix-based
phytoextraction on arable land in Sweden. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ, 103, p. 207-223.
Bernhard, R., Verkleij, J.A.C., Nelissen, H.J.M., Vink, J.P.M. (2006) Plant-specific responses
to zinc contamination in a semi-field lysimeter and on hydroponics. Environ. Pollut., 138, p.
100-108.
Borjesson, P. (1996) Energy analysis of biomass production and transportation. Biomass
Bioenerg., 11, 4, p. 305-318.
Borjesson, P. (1999a) Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden-I:
Identification and quantification. Biomass Bioenerg, 16, p. 137-154.
Borjesson, P. (1999b) Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden-II:
Economic Valuation. Biomass Bioenerg, 16, p. 155-170.
Bom, J. (z.d.) Aardgascentrale minder CO2 – uitstoot dan kerncentrale. Öko – Institut.
Available from: http://www.peopleplanetprofit.be/artikel.php?IK=1053.
Chaney, RL., Li, YM., Brown, SL., Angle, JS., Baker, AJM. (1995) Hyperaccumulator based
phytoremediation of metal-rich soils. In: Current topics in plant biochemistry, physiology and
molecular biology. Will plants have a role in bioremediation? Proceedings of 14th Annual
Symposium. April 10–12, 1995. Columbia, Missouri, p. 33–34.
Chaney, R.L., Malik, M., Li, Y.M., Brown, S.L., Brewer, E.P., Angle, J.S., Baker, A.J.M.
(1997) Phytoremediation of soil metals. Curr. Opin. biotechnol. 8, p. 279-284.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-96-
Chaney, RL., Li, YM., Angle, J., Baker, A., Reeves, R., Brown, S., Homer, F., Malik, M.,
Chin, M. (1999) Improving metal-hyperaccumulators wild plants to develop commercial
phytoextraction systems: approaches and progress. In: Terry, N., Banuelos, G. (eds)
Phytoremediation of contaminated soil and water. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Chaney, R.L., Reeves, P.G., Ryan, J.A., Simmons, R.W., Welch R.M., Angle, J.S. (2004) An
improved understanding of soil Cd risk to humans and low cost methods to phytoextract Cd
from contaminated soils to prevent soil Cd risks. BioMetals, 17, p. 549–553.
Chen, Y., Cheng, J. J., Creamer, K.S. (2008) Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A
review. Bioresour. Technol., 99, p. 44-64.
Chrysafopoulou, E., Kadukova, J., Kalogerakis, N. (2005) A whole plant mathematical model
for the phytoextraction of lead (Pb) by maize. Environ. int. 31, p. 255-262.
Cidad, V.G., Mathijs, E., Nevens, F., Reheul, D. (2003) Energiegewassen in de Vlaamse
landbouwsector. Steunpunt Duurzame Landbouw, Leuven, 104 p.
Cogen Vlaanderen vzw (2006) Basishandboek warmtekrachtkoppeling. Cogen, 173 p.
Dalgaard, T., Halberg, N. Porter, J.R. (2001) A model for fossil energy use in Danish
agriculture used to compare organic and conventional farming. Agric., Ecosyst. and Environ.,
87, p. 51–65.
DeVries, B. (2000) Multifunctional Agriculture in the international context: a review. 15 p.
Available from www.landstewardshipproject.org/mba/MFAReview.pdf.
Dornburg, V., Faaij, A.P.C. (2005) Cost and CO2 emission reduction of biomass cascading:
methodological aspects and case study of SRF poplar. Climatic Change, 71, p. 373-408.
Ebbs, S.D., Lasat, M.M., Brady, D.J., Cornish, J., Gordon, R., Kochian, L.V. (1997)
Phytoextraction of cadmium and zinc from a contaminated soil. J. Environ. Qual., 26, p.
1424–1430.
EEA (European Environment Agency) (2007) Progress in management of contaminated sites,
CSI 015, DK-1050 Copenhague, Denmark, available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/progress-in-management-of-contaminated-sites/progress-in-management-of-
contaminated-1, last visited October 2010.
Envirochem (2005) Identifying environmentally preferable uses for biomass resources Stage
2 report: Life-Cycle GHG Emission Reduction Benefits of Selected Feedstock-to-Product
Threads. Vancouver, Canada, 132 p.
EPA (2000) Guidelines for preparing economic analyses, EPA, 227 p.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2009) Superfund Green Remediation Strategy, 28
p.
Ericsson, K., Rosenqvist, H., Ganko, E., Pisarek, M., Nilsson, L. (2006) An agro-economic
analysis of willow cultivation in Poland. Biomass Bioenerg, 30, p. 16-27.
Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., Ekvall, T., Bjorklund, A. (2007) Life cycle assessment of fuels
for district heating: a comparison of waste incineration, biomass- and natural gas combustion,
Energy Policy, 35, p. 1346-1362.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-97-
Ernst, WHO. (1998) The origin and ecology of contaminated, stabilized and non-pristine
soils. In: Vangronsveld, J,, Cunningham, S. (eds) Metal-contaminated soils: in situ
inactivation and phytorestoration. Springer, New York, p. 17–25.
Firbank, L.G. (2008) Assessing the ecological impacts of bioenergy projects. Bioenerg Res.,
1, p. 12-19.
Flemish Government (Policy domain Agriculture and Fisheries). (2005) Koolzaad, het nieuwe
goud? Teelttechniek van koolzaad. Flemish Ministery, 58 p. Available online:
http://www2.vlaanderen.be/landbouw/downloads/plant/koolzaad.pdf.
French, C.J., Dickinson, N.M., Putwain, P.D. (2006) Woody biomass phytoremediation of
contaminated brownfield land. Environ. Pollut., 141, p. 387-395.
Fullerton, D., Stavins, R.N. (1998) How economists see the environment. Nature, 395, p.
6701.
Garbisu, C., Alkorta, I. (2001) Phytoextraction: a cost-effective plant-based technology for
the removal of metals from the environment. Bioresour Technol., 77, p. 229-236.
GAVE (2005) Op (de) weg met pure plantenolie? De technische, milieu-hygiënische en
kostengerelateerde aspecten van plantenolie als voertuigbrandstof . Report 2GAVE-05.05
SenterNovem, Utrecht, 96 p.
Ghosh, M., Singh, S.P. (2005) A review on phytoremediation of heavy metals and utilization
of its byproducts. Appl. Ecol. and Envir. Res., 3, p. 1-18.
Goossens, S. (2007) Warmte-krachtkoppeling met droge vergisting van energiegewassen:
haalbaarheidsstudie. VLAO Directie, Oost-Vlaanderen, 15 p.
Goovaerts, L., Van der Linden, A., Moorkens, I., Vrancken, K. (2009) Beste beschikbare
technieken (BBT) voor verbranding van hernieuwbare brandstoffen. Studie uitgevoerd door
het Vlaams Kenniscentrum voor Beste Beschikbare Technieken (VITO) in opdracht van het
Vlaams Gewest. 362 p.
Graves, P.E. (2007) Environmental economics, A critique of benefit-cost analysis. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, 186 p.
Grispen, V.M.J., Nelissen, H.J.M. & Verkleij, J.A.C. (2005) Phytoextraction with Brassica
napus L.: A tool for sustainable management of heavy metal contaminated soils. Environ.
Pollut., 144, p. 77-83.
Gustavsson, L. Borjesson, P., Johansson, B., Svenningsson, P. (1995) Reducing CO2
emissions by substituting biomass for fossil fuels. Energy, 20, 11, p. 1097-l 113.
Hanegraaf, M. C., Biewinga, E. E., van der Bijl, G. (1998) Assessing the ecological and
economic sustainability of energy crops. Biomass Bioenerg., 15, 4/5, p. 345-355.
Hanley, N. (2000) Cost-benefit analysis. In: Principles of environmental and resource
economics (Eds. H. Folmer, H.L.Gabel), Edward Elgar, Northampton, p. 104-129.
Hernández-Allica, J., Becerril, J.M., Garbisu, C. (2008) Assessment of the phytoextraction
potential of high biomass crop plants. Environ. Pollut., 152, p. 32-40.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-98-
Hughes, E. (2000) Biomass cofiring: economics, policy and opportunities. Biomass
Bioenerg., 19, p. 457-465.
IEABCC (International Energy Agency, Biomass Combustion and Cofiring) (2004) Techno-
economic evaluation of selected decentralized CHP applications based on biomass
combustion in IEA partner countries. Final report. IEA Task 32 project, Graz, March 2004,
87 p.
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: synthesis report. An assessment of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 52 p.
Janulis, P. (2004) Reduction of energy consumption in biodiesel fuel life cycle. Renewable
Energy, 29, p. 861–871.
Japenga, J., Koopmans, G.F., Song, J. and Römkens, P.F.A.M. 2007. A feasibility test to
estimate the duration of phytoextraction of heavy metals from polluted soils. Int. J. Phytorem.
9, 115-132.
Johansson, Per-Olov (1987) The economic theory and measurement of environmental
benefits. Cambridge University Press, London, 223 p.
Joubert, A.R., Leiman, A., de Klerk, H.M., Katua, S., Aggenbach, J.C. (1997) Fynbos (fine
bush) vegetation and the supply of water: comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis and
cost-benefit analysis. Ecol. Econ., 22, p. 123-140.
Kaltschmitt, M., Reinhardt, G.A., Stelzer, T. (1997) Life cycle analysis of biofuels under
different environmental aspects. Biomass Bioenerg., 12, 2, p. 121-134.
Kayser, A., Wenger, K., Keller, A., Attinger, W., Felix, H.R., Gupta, S.K., Schulin, R. (2000)
Enhancement of phytoextraction of Zn, Cd, and Cu from calcareous soil: the use of NTA and
sulfur amendments. Environ. Sci. Technol., 34, p. 1778–1783.
Keoleian, G.A., Volk, T.A. (2005) Renewable energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle
energy, environmental and economic performance. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci, 24, p. 385-406.
Koopmans, G.F., Römkens, P.F.A.M., Fokkema, M.J., Song, J., Luo, Y.M., Japenga, J. and
Zhao, F.J. 2008. Feasibility of phytoextraction to remediate cadmium and zinc contaminated
soils. Environ. Pollut. 156, 905-914.
Kopp, R.L., Abrahamson, L.P., White, E.H., Volk, T.A., Nowak, C.A., Fillhart, R.C. (2001)
Willow biomass production during ten successive annual harvests. Biomass Bioenerg, 20, p.
1-7.
Kotchen, M. (2010) Cost-benefit analysis, Encyclopedia of climate and weather. 2nd edition
(Ed. S. Schneider), Oxford University press, New York.
Kuzovkina, Y.A., Quigley, M.F. (2005) Willows beyond wetlands: uses of Salix L. species
for environmental projects. Water, Air, Soil Pollut., 162, p. 183–204.
Lemmens, B., Ceulemans, J., Elslander, H., Vanassche, S., Brauns, E., Vrancken, K. (2007)
Beste Beschikbare Technieken (BBT) voor mestverwerking. Gent, Academia Press, 359 p.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-99-
Lewandowski, I., Schmidt, U., Londo, M., Faaij, A. (2006) The economic value of the
phytoremediation function – assessed by the example of cadmium remediation by willow
(salix spp). Agr. Syst. 89, p. 68-89.
Lofgren, K-G. (2000) Markets and externalities. In: Principles of environmental and resource
economics (Eds. H. Folmer, H.L.Gabel), Edward Elgar, Northampton, p. 3-33.
Lombi, E., Zhao, F.J., Dunham, S.J. and McGrath, S.P. (2001) Phytoremediation of Heavy
Metal–Contaminated Soils: Natural Hyperaccumulation versus Chemically Enhanced
Phytoextraction. J. Environ. Qual., 30, p. 1919-1926.
Marchaim, U. (1992) Biogas Processes for Sustainable Development, FAO, Rome, available
from www.fao.org/docrep/t0541e/t0541e00.htm.
Marchiol, L., Assolari, S., Sacco, P., Zerbi, G. (2004) Phytoextraction of heavy metals by
canola (Brassica Napus) and radish (Raphanus Sativus) grown on multicontaminated soil,
Environ. Pollut., 132, p. 21-27.
McGrath, S., Sidoli, C., Baker, A,, Reeves, R. (1993) The potential for the use of metal-
accumulating plants for the in situ decontamination of metal-polluted soils. In: Eijsackers H,
Hamers T (eds) Integrated soil and sediment research: a basis for proper protection. Kluwer
Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, p. 673–676.
Meers, E., Ruttens, A., Hopgood, M., Lesage, E., Tack, F.M.G. (2005) Potential of Brassica
rapa, Cannabis sativa, Helianthus annuus and Zea mays for phytoextraction of heavy metals
from calcareous dredged sediment derived soils. Chemosphere, 61, p. 561–572.
Meers, E., Tack, F.M.G., Meiresonne, L., Ruttens, A.,Vangronsveld, J. (2006) Combining
biomass production with phytoextraction of Cd and Zn on moderately contaminated sites.
Biomass for Energy conference, 25-26 September, Bruges, Belgium.
Meers, E., Vandecasteele, B., Ruttens, A., Vangronsveld, J., Tack, F.M.G. (2007b) Potential
of five willow species (Salix spp.) for phytoextraction of heavy metals. Environ. Exp. Bot.,
60, p. 57-68.
Meers, E., Van Slycken, S., Adriaensen, K., Ruttens, A., Vangronsveld, J., Du Laing, G.,
Witters, N., Thewys, T., Tack, F.M.G. (2010) The use of bio-energy crops (Zea mays) for
‘phytoattenuation’ of heavy metals on moderately contaminated soils: a field experiment.
Chemosphere, 78, p. 35-41.
Meiresonne, L. (2006) Kansen, mogelijkheden en toekomst voor de populierenteelt in
Vlaanderen. Korte-omloophout voor energieproductie: plaats in het Vlaams bosbeleid. Mei
2006. INBO.R.2006.11. In opdracht van INBO, Geraardsbergen, 197 p.
Meiresonne, L., De Somvile, B., Van Slycken, S., Verdonckt., P., Van Houtte, E.,
Vandekerckhove, B. (2009) Biomassa van korteomloophout: ook iets voor Vlaanderen?.
Sylva Belgica, 116, p. 36-42.
Mench, M., Lepp, N., Bert, V., Schwitzguébel, J.P., Gawronski, S.W., Schröder, P.,
Vangronsveld, J. (2010) Successes and limitations of phytotechnologies at field scale:
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-100-
outcomes, assessment and outlook from COST Action 859. J. Soils Sediments, 10, p. 1039-
1070.
Merkhofer, M.W. (1987) Decision science and social risk management, a comparative
evaluation of cost-benefit analysis, decision analysis, and other formal decision-aiding
approaches. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 330 p.
MIRA (2008) Kernset Milieudata MIRA-T 2008, Energiegebruik per energiebron en per
(deel)sector in PJ (Vlaanderen, 1990-2007). Available from www.milieurapport.be/nl/feiten-
cijfers/.
Mirasgedis, S., Diakoulaki, D. (1997) Multicriteria analysis vs externalities assessment for
the comparative evaluation of electricity generation systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 102, p. 364-
379.
Mirck, J., Isebrands, J.G., Verwijst, T., Ledin, S. (2005) Development of short-rotation
willow coppice systems for environmental purposes in Sweden. Biomass Bioenerg, 28, p.
219-228.
Mitchell, C.P., Stevens, E.A., Watters, M.P. (1999) Short-rotation forestry – operations,
productivity and costs based on experience gained in the UK. Forest Ecol. Manag., 121, p.
123-136.
Nussbaumer, T., Oser, M. (2004) Evaluation of Biomass Combustion based Energy Systems
by Cumulative Energy Demand and Energy Yield Coefficient . International Energy Agency
IEA Bioenergy Task 32 and Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Verenum press, Version 1.0,
Zurich, January 2004.
Obernberger, I., Biedermann, F., Widmann, W., Riedl R. (1997) Concentrations of inorganic
elements in biomass fuels and recovery in the different ash fractions, Biomass Bioenerg., 12,
3, p. 211-224.
Obernberger, I. (1998) Decentralized biomass combustion: state of the art and future
development. Biomass Bioenerg., 13, 1, p.33-56.
Pahl, O., Firth, A., MacLeod, I., Baird, J. (2008) Anaerobic co-digestion of mechanically
biologically treated municipal waste with primary sewage sludge - A feasibility study.
Bioresour. Technol., 99, p. 3354-3364.
Pulford, I.D., Watson, C. (2003) Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated land by
trees—a review. Environ. Int., 29, p. 529–540.
Ramage, J., Scurlock, J. (1996) Biomass. In: Renewable energy, power for a sustainable
future, p. 137-182, (Boyle, G., Ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Refsgaard, K., Halberg, N., Kristensen, E.S. (1998) Energy Utilization in Crop and Dairy
Production in Organic and Conventional Livestock Production Systems. Agric. Syst., 57, 4, p.
599-630.
Robinson, BH., Leblanc, M., Petit, D., Brooks, RR., Kirkman, JH., Gregg, PEH. (1998) The
potential of Thlaspi caerulescenss for phytoremediation of contaminated soils. Plant Soil, 203
p. 47–56.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-101-
Rosenqvist, H., Roos, A., Ling, E., Hektor, B. (2000) Willow growers in Sweden. Biomass
Bioenerg, 18, p. 137-145.
Rosenqvist, H., Dawson, M. (2005) Economics of willow growing in Northern Ireland.
Biomass Bioenerg, 28, p. 7-14.
Rulkens, W.H., Tichy, R., Grotenhuis, J.T.C. (1998) Remediation of polluted soil and
sediment: perspectives and failures. Water Sci. Technol., 37, p. 27-35.
Ruttens A, Vangronsveld J (2006) Programme Difpolmine, diffuse pollution from mine
activity, realisation. ADEME. Available at
http://www.difpolmine.org/servlet/KBaseShow?m-3&cid=10169&catid=10170&sort=-1, last
visited October 2010.
Ruttens, A. (2008) Nadere toelichting bij de landbouwgewassen koolzaad en wintertarwe.
presentation 4th users commission CLO, 20 June 2008, Balen.
Ruttens, A., Vangronsveld, J., Meiresonne, L., Van Slycken, S., Meers, E., Tack, F. (2008)
Sustainable use of metal contaminated agricultural soils: cultivation of energy crops as an
alternative for classical agriculture, Report by order of OVAM, March 2008, 76 p.
Ruttens, A., Boulet, J., Weyens, N., Smeets, K., Adriaensen, K., Meers, E., Van Slycken, S.,
Tack, F., Meiresonne, L., Thewys, T., Witters, N., Carleer, R., Dupae, J., Vangronsveld, J.,
(2010) Short rotation coppice culture of willow and poplar as energy crops on metal
contaminated agricultural soils. Int. J. Phytorem. accepted for publication.
Salt, D.E., Blaylock, M., Kumar, N.P.B.A., Dushenkov, V., Ensley, B.D., Chet, I., Raskin, I.
(1995) Phytoremediation: A novel strategy for the removal of toxic metals from the
environment using plants. Biotechnol., 13, p. 468-474.
Sami, M., Annamalai, K., Wooldridge, M. (2001) Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends.
Prog Energy Combust. Sci., 27, p. 171–214.
Saxena, P., Krishnaraj, S,, Dan, T., Perras, M., Vettakkorumakankav, N. (1999)
Phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated and polluted soils. In: Prasad MNV,
Hagemaer J (eds) Heavy metal stress in plants: from molecules to ecosystems. Springer,
Berlin, p. 305–329.
Schlamadinger, B., Apps, M., Bohlins, F., Gustavsson, L., Jungmeier, G. Marland, G.,
Pingoud, K., Savolainen, I. (1997) Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas
balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems. Biomass Bioenerg.,
13, 6, p. 359-375.
Scholz, V., Ellerbrock, R. (2002) The growth productivity and environmental impact of the
cultivation of energy crops on sandy soil in Germany. Biomass Bioenerg, 23, p. 81-92.
Schwartz, C., Echevarria, G., Morel, JL. (2003) Phytoextraction of cadmium with Thlaspi
caerulescens. Plant Soil, 249, p. 27–35.
Selvam, A., Wong, J. W-C (2009) Cadmium uptake potential of Brassica napus co-cropped
with Brassica parachinensis and Zea mays. J. of Hazard. Mater., 167, p. 170–178.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-102-
Shi, G., Cai, Q. (2009) Cadmium tolerance and accumulation in eight potential energy crops.
Biotechnol. Adv., 27, p. 555–561.
Singhal, V., Rai, J.P.N. (2003) Biogas production from water hyacinth and channel grass used
for phytoremediation of industrial effluents, Bioresour. Technol., 86, p. 221-225.
Skovgaard, M. (2008) CBAs and LCAs: learning from Nordic best practice. Waste
Management World, available from http://waste-management-world.com.
Solow, R.M. (1991) Sustainability: an economist’s perspective in: Economics of the
environment: selected readings. New York, W.W. Norton, second edition, p. 179-187.
Solow, R.M. (1992) An almost practical step toward sustainability. An invited lecture on the
occasion of the 40th anniversary of resources for the future, Washington DC, October 8, 1992.
Suenens, B. (2007) Verwerking koolzaad op bedrijfsniveau. Eindverhandeling voorgedragen
tot het behalen van de graag industrieel ingenieur in de biotechniek, bachelor in agro- en
biotechnologie, landbouw-akkerbouw, Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen, campus Geel, 45 p.
Susarla, S., Medina, V.F., McCutcheon, S.C. (2002) Phytoremediation: an ecological solution
to organic chemical contamination. Ecol. Eng., 18, p. 647-658.
Tahvanainen, L., Rytkonen, V.-M. (1999) Biomass production of salix viminalis in southern
Finland and the effect of soil properties and climate conditions on its production and survival.
Biomass Bioenerg, 16, p. 103-117.
Theunis, J., Van der Linden, A., Torfs, R., Vercalsteren, A., Spirinckx, C., Jacobs, A.,
Vrancken, K. (2003) Energetische valorisatie van hoogcalorische afvalstromen in
Vlaanderen. Deel 2: Afvalaanbod, procesbeschrijvingen en toepassingsmogelijkheden. Studie
uitgevoerd in het kader van de BBT/EMIS referentieopdracht, 182 p.
Thewys, T., Witters, N., Ruttens, A., Van Slycken, S., Meers, E., Tack, F.M.G.,
Vangronsveld, J. (2010a) Economic viability of phytoremediation of an agricultural area
using maize: impact on the farmer’s income. Int. J. Phytorem., 12, 7, p. 650-662.
Thewys, T., Witters, N., Meers, E., Vangronsveld, J. (2010b) Economic viability of
phytoremediation of an agricultural area using maize: economics of anaerobic digestion of
heavy metal contaminated maize in Belgium. Int. J. Phytorem., 12, 7, p. 663-679.
Tietenberg, T. (2003) Environmental and natural resource economics. sixth edition, Addison
Wesley, Boston, 646 p.
Van-Camp. L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A-R., Jones, R.J.A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C.,
Selvaradjou, S-K. (2004) Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the
Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. EUR 21319 EN/4, Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities, Luxembourg, 872 p.
Van de Plas, P. (2007) De Belgische biobrandstofindustrie: De impact van het Europees
biobrandstofbeleid op de Belgische biobrandstofindustrie, Universiteit Antwerpen, 117 p.
Van der Grift, B., and Griffioen, J. 2008. Modelling assessment of regional groundwater
contamination due to historic smelter emissions of heavy metals. Journal of contaminant
hydrology, 96, p. 48-68.
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-103-
Vande Walle, I., Van Camp, N., Van de Casteele, L., Verheyen, K., Lemeur, R. (2007) Short-
rotation forestry of birch, maple, poplar and willow in Flanders (Belgium) II. Energy
production and CO2 emission reduction potential. Biomass Bioenerg., 31, p. 276–283.
Van Ginneken, L., Meers, E., Guisson, R., Ruttens, A., Tack, F.M.G., Vangronsveld, J.,
Diels, L., Dejonghe, W. (2007) Phytoremediation for heavy metal contaminated soils and
combined bio-energy production. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag., 4, p. 227-236.
Vangronsveld, J. , Herzig, R., Weyens, N., Boulet, J., Adriaensen, K., Ruttens, A., Thewys,
T., Vassilev, A., Meers, E., Nehnevajova, E., van der Lelie, D., Mench, M. (2009)
Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater: lessons from the field, COST
Action 859, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 16, p. 765-794.
Van Nevel, L., Mertens, J., Oorts, K., Verheyen, K. (2007) Phytoextraction of metals from
soils: How far from practice? Environ. Pollut., 150, p. 34-40.
Van Slycken, S., Witters, N., Meers, E., Peene, A., E. Michels, E., Adriaensen, K., Ruttens,
A., Vangronsveld, J., Du Laing, G., Thewys, T. & Tack, F.M.G. (2011) Biomethanisation of
energy maize (Zea mays L.) obtained from phytoattenuation of metals on moderately
contaminated soils in the Campine region (Belgium), Environ. Pollut., to be submitted.
Vassilev, A., Vangronsveld, J., Yordanov, I. (2002) Cadmium phytoextraction: present state,
biological backgrounds and research needs. Bulg. J. Plant Physiol., 28, p. 68–95.
Vassilev, A., Schwitzguébel, J-P., Thewys, T., van der Lelie, D., Vangronsveld, J. (2004)
The use of plants for remediation of metal contaminated soils. The Sci.World J., 4, p. 9-34.
Vatn, A., Bromley, D.W. (1997) Externalities-A market model failure. Environ. Res. Econ.,
9, p. 135-151.
Verma, V.K., Singh, Y.P., Rai, J.P.N. (2007) Biogas production from plant biomass used for
phytoremediation of industrial wastes. Bioresour. Technol., 98, 8, p. 1664-1669.
Verstraete, W. (1981) Biogas. Stichting Leefmilieu v.z.w., Antwerpen, 207 p.
Volk, T.A., Verwijst, T., Tharakan, P.J., Abrahamson, L.P., White, E.H. (2004) Growing
fuel: a sustainability assessment of willow biomass crops. Front. Ecol. Environ., 2, 8, p. 411-
418.
West, T.O., Marland, G. (2002) A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and
net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agric.,
Ecosyst. Environ., 91, p. 217–232.
Weyens, N., van der Lelie, D., Taghavi, S., Vangronsveld, J. (2009) Phytoremediation: plant-
endophyte partnerships take the challenge. Current Opinion Biotechnol., 20, p. 248-254.
Weyens, N., Truyens, S., Saenen, E., Boulet, J., Dupae, J., van der Lelie, D., Carleer, R.,
Vangronsveld, J. (2010) Endophytes and their potential to deal with co-contamination of
organic contaminants (toluene) and toxic metals (nickel) during phytoremediation. Int. J.
Phytorem., online.
Witters, N., Van Slycken, S., Ruttens, A., Adriaensen, K., Meers, E., Meiresonne, L., Tack,
F.M.G., Thewys, T., Laes, E., Vangronsveld, J. (2009) Short Rotation Coppice for
HASSELT UNIVERSITY
-104-
phytoremediation of a Cd-contaminated agricultural area: A sustainability assessment.
BioEnergy Research, 2, 3, p. 144-152.
Wong M.H., Cheung, Y.H. (1995) Gas production and digestion efficiency of sewage sludge
containing elevated toxic metals, Bioresour. Technol., 54, 3, p. 261-268.
Zhang, Y., Banks, C. (2006) A comparison of the properties of polyurethane immobilised
sphagnum moss, seaweed, sunflower waste and maize for the biosorption of Cu, Pb, Zn and
Ni in continuous flow packed columns. Water res., 40, p. 788-798.
Zhang, H., Dang, Z., Zheng, L.C., Yi, X.Y. (2009) Remediation of soil co-contaminated with
pyrene and cadmium by growing maize (Zea mays L.). Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 6, p.
249-258.
Zhao, FJ., Lombi, E., McGrath, SP. (2003) Assessing the potential for zinc and cadmium
phytoremediation with the hyperaccumulator Thlaspi caerulescens. Plant Soil, 249, p. 37–43.