This section suggests specific steps to quantify net emissions reductions at Santa Elisa. The objective is to arrive at a conservative estimate established in metric tons of carbon-equivalent (mtC). As previously mentioned, net emissions reductions for the Santa Elisa project must be compared on the basis of the carbon content of the fossil fuel replaced. Thus, once a credible baseline has been identified, the principal parameters that determine the actual emissions reductions are (i) the baseline carbon emission intensity, (ii) the project emissions (if any) and (iii) the projects’ energy production rates.

Once the baseline case has been defined, the carbon accounting for energy supply projects is relatively simple. Since the Santa Elisa project will result in electric energy generation from biomass renewable sources, the net greenhouse gas savings will be realized from the reduction of fossil fuel use in thermal power generation plants that would supply electricity in the baseline case. The Santa Elisa output is then multiplied by the appropriate carbon intensity for the associated baseline electricity to determine net greenhouse gas emission reductions as follows:

ERnei — EbCh £pCp

where:

Eb = Energy produced in baseline case (generally assumed to be equal to Ep)

Сь = Carbon intensity of energy in baseline case Ep = Energy produced in the project case

Cp = Carbon intensity of energy in project case (generally assumed to be zero)

In many renewable energy projects, one can generally assume the project carbon intensity is zero, including sustainably grown biomass fuel. Thus, the carbon emission reduction is the product of the baseline carbon intensity and the measured energy supplied (or sold) by the project. Thus:

ERnei = EpCb—EpCp=EpCb

These two remaining values, the baseline carbon intensity (Сь) and the electric energy produced by the projects (Ep), are the parameters that must be quantified and measured in order to generate certified emission reductions (CERs).Thus, renewable energy supply projects can be relatively simple in that they require monitoring of only the project emissions (if any) and the energy production rates, once the baseline carbon intensity has been determined.

The baseline carbon intensity (Сь) is based on the carbon content of the fuel combusted by the baseline generation source and the efficiency with which that source operates. The assumed baseline source burns natural gas. The standard factor for the carbon content of natural gas is 0.0153 mtC/GJ according to the IPCC (1996). The typical marginal source is a combined-cycle turbine plant with a net thermal efficiency of 45 per cent, which corresponds to a heat rate of 8.0GJ/MWh. From these two parameters, the baseline carbon intensity can be calculated as follows:

Carbon intensity (mtC/MWh)

3.6 GJ/MWh [by definition] * Carbon content of fuel (mtC/GJ)

— Net thermal efficiency of plant

„ , . . , 3.6 GJ/MWh*0.0153 mtC/GJ

Carbon intensity (mtC/MWh) =————————————-

= 0.122 mtC/MWh

The renewable generation technologies emit little or no direct GHG emissions. To the extent that there are some direct C02 emissions from fossil fuel use, for example for start-up or stand-by generators or for biomass fuel production and transporta­tion, these emissions should be deducted from the total project emission reductions. However, there is no need for separate baseline calculations to account for this.

The primary source of net emission reductions for renewable energy projects is the reduction in fossil-fuel use at thermal generating stations that can be replaced or deferred by the project. This emission reduction mechanism is generally the only relevant mechanism. However, one should consider other emission sources and reduction mechanisms that have been identified in the biomass energy project.

These mechanisms include non-C02 GHG emissions, carbon sequestration, and indirect emissions resulting from the project.

At Santa Elisa, these emissions will be small or negligible, and we do not expect them to affect the baseline. Moreover, the fuel sources for the biomass energy project are assumed to be in the form of residues rather than wood from forestry planta­tions. Nonetheless, use of biomass fuel produces no net emissions, if the biomass is produced sustainably within the project.

Indirect emission impacts can result from project construction, transportation of materials and fuel (at least in the baseline), and other up-stream activities. These emissions are expected to be negligible compared to the emission reductions resulting from replacing thermal generation with renewable sources. These up-stream activities are also outside the system boundary, which includes the Santa Elisa Sugar Mill, the existing electricity generation and transmission system, and the future generation and transmission facilities to which the project will be interconnected.

Development strategies reflect major principles and goals and give direction and guidelines for reaching societal objectives. They should also provide road maps or a development trajectory reflecting consensus around major goals. Strategies need to be constructed with the global context in mind but should build strongly on the specific conditions found in the country or region in question, be they strengths or constraints that have to be addressed in the development process. Finally, strategies are translated into specific policies and projects, which reflect both broad and specific objectives of society. Simplifying, we could see strategies linked to long-term vision while policies are designed to shape processes towards that vision. Projects translate strategies and policies into action — it is the implementation phase (Silveira, 2004).

Often, changes in environmental quality are justified in terms of social and economic gains. Difficulties arise when we try to quantify losses and gains, and identify who the losers and winners are in each case. The quantification of resilience levels and how much environmental damage is acceptable given a certain level of return is subject to different methodologies and value scales. A project could have environmental impacts beyond what seems justifiable in terms of the social gains accrued. But if the impacts are global and perceived as abstract and the gains are immediate and quantifiable in terms of jobs and economic growth, how can various objectives be conciliated, who shall pay, who shall gain and at what point in time?

Bioenergy utilization and its impacts can be seen from both local and global perspectives in very diverse socioeconomic contexts. The traditional use of biomass, for example, can strongly characterize the way a household operates in a poor rural area. Collecting biomass takes a significant amount of time and the use of biomass serves to provide services such as cooking, lighting and heating. When new technologies are inserted in this context to provide more efficient and reliable energy services through energy carriers such as electricity, liquid or gaseous fluids, or processed solid fuels, we change life styles and the way households and communities operate. We create new functions and demands for energy services that were not there before, or we satisfy a potential demand in the cases where economic activities are being hampered by lack of proper energy provision. In the latter, energy provi­sion can open a new door that helps boost development.

When we think of bioenergy utilization in a context where modern energy services are already being provided, we are also talking about a technology transition that may affect life styles. Nevertheless, our primary initial focus is with the techno­economic transition per se and how we can put new technological solutions, and perhaps also services, into place with minimum disturbance in the quality of services provided. It is a matter of finding the right entrance for the new solution either by simply shifting smoothly towards a new solution or by adding a new service dimen­sion as a way to motivate the change.

Bioenergy does offer many new service dimensions that are appreciated by soci­ety. While the bioenergy solutions can be engineered into existing energy systems, a broader use of bioenergy requires that it is also visualized as an integrated part of the logistics of other production systems. And this is where the real complexity of the bioenergy systems lies at the moment. The existing knowledge base is enough to put markets into operation as the experiences of various countries such as Sweden,

Austria and Brazil indicate. Now is the time for gaining momentum. This can be accomplished by identifying ways of replicating successful experiences in new formats as exemplified here in Chapters 4, 7 and 8; improving the technologies or rethinking them as exemplified in Chapters 6 and 9; improving economic efficiency by linking bioenergy solutions more closely with other systems as discussed in Chapters 3, 5 and 10.

We need the strategic thinking of public and private policy makers to reframe the platforms on which bioenergy will flourish, that is, where specific projects can be visualized, engineered and realized. A lot can be done at different project scales when it comes to bioenergy. It actually allows for a revolution in face of the opportunities available for the integration of various production systems, traditional and modern. Basically, one can only think of oil prospection and exploration as a major enter­prise. In contrast, you can think of cogeneration and ethanol production in terms of the opportunities to link small — and medium-sized companies successively operating at regional, national or international levels. Within a context of well-developed energy systems, bioenergy provides a choice that can be fully integrated into existing infrastructure systems without major disturbances and, actually, with major gains.

In fact, many bioenergy technologies for power generation are advantageously used in small-scale units with further advantages in terms of location flexibility. This allows for a decentralization of the power production, which is well in line with the restructuring of electricity markets, the objectives of sustainable development and investment constraints for large-scale projects. In addition, energy infrastructure can be built step-wise allowing for a learning process even in remote areas.

Biomass resources are defined by land, water, light availability, and also labor, expertise and managerial capacity to organize a continuous and reliable production of biomass resources on a sustainable basis. The organization of biomass-based energy systems requires a number of institutional and technical arrangements, which, in turn, may need initial support and incentives from public organizations. Devel­oping countries enjoy favorable climatic conditions, which make them particularly apt for biomass production and utilization in power and heat generation, as well as liquid biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Some of these countries have large availability of land and could become net exporters of energy while great benefits are accrued in terms of job creation and income generation. Many countries lack the infrastructure or the managerial capacity to implement large bioenergy systems, but the opportunity to start at smaller scales shall be attractive for many.

Agroforestry and intercropping for optimizing resource potential, combining food and energy production with ancillary benefits such as pulp production, con­struction materials, fertilizers and environmental protection are fully possible today. In the northeast of Brazil, cattle raising is being successfully combined with euca­lyptus plantations for pulp production, generating residues for many small industries such as ceramics and bakeries. The sustainable use of biomass crops and residues help alleviate pressure on natural forests and landscapes, while also generating new options to rural enterprises, with jobs and improved regional economy as a result.

The availability of biomass resources is important in determining a region’s aptitude for bioenergy. Even with the formation of solid and liquid biofuel markets, a local resource base may remain desirable, at least until biofuel markets have matured and reliability is perceived as satisfactory. But there are other reasons to strive for a local and regional resource base. In Europe, for example, it will provide an opportunity for a new type of rural development. In peripheral areas, such as in the far northern parts of Europe, it offers a concrete contribution for the survival of local communities. This distributional dimension of bioenergy is strategically important, the challenge being to create mechanisms for balancing price competi­tion in open international markets, on the one hand, with regional development objectives, on the other hand.

Organizing bioenergy production requires significant logistical solutions including transport systems and a variety of biomass producers, which need policy support to be operational and be able to compete with other energy forms in an initial phase. Technical aspects of logistics and generation may be straight forward in the sense that there are tested technologies and solutions which have been continuously improved, and can be readily applied. Yet local knowledge and adaptation is often needed to get projects off the ground on a sustainable basis, building a system of significant size that can bring energy services and other benefits to society, while also providing a good business base for the actors involved.

Strong focus on projects rather than systems may lead to suboptimization. Therefore, it is good if bioenergy projects can be pulled together by platforms of action. Table 17.1 illustrates the direction that some platforms of action are heading where bioenergy has a role to play. These platforms can be used to promote bio­energy projects in a context that is broader than the project itself thus enhancing its value even beyond the provision of energy services.

The need for policy coordination among different sectors of the economy delays the introduction of bioenergy even in countries where the potential is very high. Thus innovative projects, supported by incentives and capacity building are needed to boost up the knowledge and interest for bioenergy. The tasks will have to be divided and systematically implemented in order to make it possible and manageable for even very poor countries to accrue the benefits of this knowledge base and, hope­fully, also of expanding biofuel markets.

Government organizations need to work closely with private actors in defining demonstration projects and specific incentives to foster the formation of markets. This includes allocating investments for projects that are financially risky but which have an important role in market demonstration. In addition, governmental agencies

can assess information and make it equally available to the various actors in the market or organize procurement to push for increased efficiency and innovation. In the long run, the support for research provided by the government will be essential to guarantee a continuous development of technologies.

The Plantar project will lead to total emission reductions of almost 13 million tons of СОг — Table 14.4 indicates how much is the accomplishment in each component of the project.

One of the main criticisms of plantation forestry is related to biodiversity suppression. In the Plantar project, a number of precautions are taken to bring benefits in relation to biodiversity (Kornexl, 2001).

• The plantations are certified to the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council, a strict environmental standard related to sustainable forestry worldwide. The standard requires forest operations to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity within managed areas.

• Plantation-based and sustainable charcoal production reduces pressure on native forests. Currently, Plantar itself still uses charcoal from native forests in its pig iron mill (derived from legal and authorized deforestation conduced by third parties outside Plantar’s own land). With the development of the project, Plantar will become fully self-sufficient in charcoal.

• The pilot project area of regeneration of cerrado and other native vegetation will lead to an increase in biodiversity and the return of native species of plants and animals. Plantar is also considering a more active management with assisted regeneration of the biomass, exploring landscape level biodiversity management opportunities.

• According to the baseline biodiversity study, fire suppression is the single most important biodiversity benefit of the Plantar project. By continuing its current fire monitoring and control system, Plantar could allow the cerrado and other native vegetation ecosystems on its land holdings to partially recover their original species composition through the process of secondary succession. Additionally, Plantar already provides neighboring landholders with the benefit of fire watch towers, which expands the positive impact of the project (Nepstad and Vale, 2001).

Six indicators to follow up on the biodiversity benefits accrued from the Plantar project are suggested in the study by Nepstad and Vale (2001):

• The total area of the legal reserve in the Curvelo property beyond 20 per cent (the likely area as of project initiation);

• The total area of fragments larger than 50 ha beyond the 2002 baseline;

• Reduction in fire incidence within 10 km of the ranch relative to regional fire incidence (10 to 30 km distant), using a 1999-2001 baseline of fire incidence;

• Number of native species of birds per sampling effort relative to 2002 baseline in three legal reserve fragments;

• Biomass increase in native vegetation beyond 2002 baseline;

• Testing of Eucalyptus effects on stream-flow, and incorporation of watershed management principles into harvesting regime, if warranted.

In addition to the efforts on biodiversity, Plantar will continue monitoring water hydro-biological, physical and chemical quality, and building up corridors between remaining native forest fragments, and recuperating former deforested areas in environmental fragile zones. The monitoring activities aim at accompanying the development of water quality conditions and seasonal variations, and the impact of forest activities on water quality. This information will help in identifying eventual shortcomings and propose measures to reduce impacts as well as contribute to evaluate the efficiency of the implemented environmental management system.

The total number of years for which a multiproject baseline will be considered adequate to reflect “what would occur otherwise” is the key to determining the amount of emission units that could be expected from the CDM project. Deter­mining up-front the crediting associated with a multiproject baseline would also enhance the transparency and consistency of the project, in addition to providing some certainty for the project’s potential CER buyers.

A recent Dutch study on baselines suggests considering the development of a generic list of time horizons based on the type of project (JIRC, 2000). The Brazilian climate change experts have suggested using lifetimes of 15 to 50 years for different types of power plants in Brazil, with 15 years for gas turbines and internal com­bustion engine plants, and 25 years for steam turbines. For this specific project, the lifetime considered is the same as the Santa Elisa’s investment program, which is set at 25 years. Some argue, however, that the carbon project lifetime should be shorter than the typical lifetime of power project investments.

Considering the aforementioned issues, the Santa Elisa Carbon Credit Project is aggregating the carbon credits generated in the expansion cogeneration pro­ject, which will deliver energy to the CPFL grid under a 10-year contract. In a conservative way, the project participants suggested a crediting period of 7 years. According to decisions from COP-7, it will be possible to renew the crediting period up to two times, provided that, for each renewal, a designated operational entity determines and informs the executive board that the original project baseline is still valid or has been updated. This diminishes the possibility of selling a nonexistent emissions reduction due to baseline changes.

Following on requirements of the Brazilian law, Santa Elisa has already received the Previous Environmental License from the Environment State Secretary (Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente) and the Installation License from CETESB (Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental), and can move ahead with the project.

We now apply our method on three counties in Sweden: Kalmar in the south, Orebro somewhat in the middle and Vasternorrland in the north. Table 8.2 summarizes some general facts about the counties in question. When choosing counties for this analysis, we considered the degree of urbanization of the regions due to its positive covariance with district heating.

After estimating the total heat demand for each county, we restrict ourselves to the identification of the 500 x 500 m2 clusters where the total heat demand for all building types is at least 0.5 GWh. To arrive at the potential for small-scale district heating and CHP, we subtract the existing district heating. The geographic loca­tion of the 500 x 500 m2 clusters with at least 0.5 GWh is shown in Figure 8.6.

The concentration of the population and thus of the heat demand in larger urban areas is obvious, and the very sparsely populated areas of western Vasternorrland, and northern parts of Orebro are apparent.

Table 8.3 summarizes the results obtained for different ranges of heat demand in the three counties analyzed. Though the number of clusters seems impressive at first, they actually include areas that are already served by district-heating grids. These areas need to be now subtracted from the total. Once this is done, we estimate the small-scale district heating potential at 0.9 TWh in Kalmar, 0.9 TWh in Orebro and 1.4TWh in Vasternorrland. These figures indicate that a very significant additional portion of the heat demand in these counties can be met with small-scale district heating. These increments are equivalent to 42 per cent of the total heat demand in Kalmar, 28 per cent in Orebro and 47 per cent in Vasternorrland.

Developing countries have been reluctant to accept new commitments in the imple­mentation of the global climate agenda. This reluctance can be understood in the historical context of unequal development, national development priorities, capital shortages for new investments, and imbalances in terms of knowledge and national capacities to deal with the problem. CDM opens a window of opportunity for a stronger participation of developing countries in climate-related projects while also observing their immediate need to pursue development.

Biomass can deliver all major forms of energy, carbon is neutral if utilized on a sustainable basis, can provide a carbon sink, and contribute to large socioeconomic benefits. This makes bioenergy projects strong candidates for CDM projects. On the other hand, the need for a systems view in bioenergy solutions contrasts with the project focus of CDM. Unless well-designed development strategies and a strong multisector policy framework are provided, CDM bioenergy projects will not be able to contribute to a systems solution, or to sustainable development.

The bottlenecks for infrastructure project implementation in developing countries, including energy, are many and cannot be removed by CDM alone. Not least, the managerial and logistic requirements of bioenergy systems require moving from the technological approach often emphasized in the context of tech­nology transfer to a managerial approach that searches for models to develop local

knowledge and skills around bioenergy solutions. Again, a strong policy frame­work is essential to achieve such goals.

Since developing countries are very different in terms of economic development and institutional capacity, a differentiation of strategy for collaboration in CDM projects is justified (see Figure 12.3). While energy and climate policies are closely related, the focus in very poor countries should be on the provision of energy. In middle-income countries with emerging economies, the climate policy should be more strongly emphasized given that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing very rapidly in these countries. The strategy with poor countries should be to use the mechanism to form partnerships with the private sector and build technological and managerial capacity, thus enhancing development assistance programs. In emerging economies, CDM should be viewed in synergy with export policies aimed at the formation of new markets and technology dissemination, based on a policy frame­work to stimulate private investments in CDM projects (see also Silveira, 2005).

The CDM may help open an investment channel to develop bioenergy projects in developing countries, thereby providing an additional tool to foster wider acces­sibility to modern energy services in these countries utilizing indigenous energy sources. But the development of bioenergy systems in developing countries can also be considered in a broader context where developing countries become impor­tant producers of biomass to feed global systems, for example, in the production of forests and ethanol. Such an approach would require the recognition of the potential of developing countries as biomass producers, the opportunity to improve

energy supply security at a global level, and the key role that bioenergy global solutions may play in mitigating climate change.

REFERENCES

In general, per capita final energy consumption is lower in mountain areas when compared with country averages. On the other hand, the percentage of per capita energy consumption coming from fuelwood is substantially higher in the HKH region than in the respective countries. In India, for instance, fuelwood accounts for 66 per cent of the energy use in the HKH region compared to 47 per cent in the country as a whole (Rijal, 1999). This reflects the fact that mountain regions are marginalized in terms of access to commercial fuels, which makes them heavily dependent on fuelwood. This situation is worsened by the low level of efficiency in fuel utilization, which may also lead to health hazards, particularly affecting women who are the managers, producers and users of energy at the household level.

Cooking and heating are the main household energy uses in the HKH region, and a variety of traditional cooking and heating stoves fired with fuelwood is used among households. In mountain areas, demands are greater for space heating than cooking, if a comparison is made in terms of useful energy requirements. A typical example is that of Nepal where, 32 per cent of the useful energy required by the household sector in the mountains is used for cooking and 56 per cent for heating, compared with 40 per cent for cooking and 36 per cent for heating in the hill areas (Rijal, 1999). Lighting energy needs are met by kerosene and electricity, but electricity is not available in many parts of the mountains.

The energy needs of cottage industries (such as agro-processing, charcoal pro­duction, potteries, bakeries, blacksmiths, sawmills, carpenters’ shop and village workshop) include requirements for lighting, process heat and motive power. In general, the process heat requirements in facilities such as forges, potteries, and bakeries are met with fuelwood, although coal is also used extensively in the HKH region of China. Motive power requirements are met by electricity, diesel and kerosene where available, or else by human or animal labor using mechanical equipment. The use of fuelwood is widespread in agro-based facilities such as those for crop drying. The bulk of energy inputs for land preparation, cultivation, postharvest processing, and agriculture-related transport are in the form of human and animal labor. The degree of mechanization and use of commercial fuels in the mountain areas is generally low.

The pattern of energy use in the HKH region is characterized by the following (Rijal, 1999):

• Biomass dominates as a fuel, with fuelwood being the main source of energy;

• The household sector is a major consumer of energy (see Table 5.1);

• Energy demand is increasing as the result of agricultural diversification and intensification, rural industrialization, and increasing tourism;

• Energy use in mountain households varies with the household size, altitude, ethnic group, income and expenditure, land holding, livestock holding, and number of cooking stoves employed;

• The requirement for heat energy, primarily for cooking and heating, is higher than that for energy for shaft power as input to production processes;

• The demand for fuelwood exceeds the sustainable supply, and thus the process of destruction is a common phenomenon in large parts of the region;

• The cost of energy extraction is increasing;

• The availability of fuelwood is decreasing and the time taken for its collection is increasing;

• Continuous unsustainable use of fuelwood from the forest forces rural people to use alternative biomass fuels, degrading the environment even further; and

• Availability and access to energy technologies are improving, but not enough yet to show a reduction in human drudgery (particularly of women).

Various studies have shown that there is a tendency for fuelwood energy use to decline as GNP increases (FAO-RWEDP, 1997; Ramana, 1998; Rijal, 1999). Figure 5.1 illustrates fuel preferences in relation to income, as well as the effects of fuelwood scarcity. Truly, mountain households with increased income tend to switch from fuelwood to other fuels such as kerosene, electricity or gas. However, if the more convenient alternatives are not available or if the supply is not reliable (which is common in the mountain areas), they may refrain from the upgrade. Likewise, where fuelwood is scarce, people may downgrade to lower quality fuels.

There are no readily available substitutes for fuelwood in rural mountains, but there is a clear potential for promoting energy-saving devices in these areas. However, low affordability among local populations definitely limits the dissemina­tion of these technological options. As a result, low useful energy utilization is the

rule in mountain areas, with usually less than 20 per cent energy efficiency (see also Table 5.2). Fuelwood is currently collected in the slack season at no cost other than the time and labor involved. Given widespread unemployment, the opportunity cost for the time of unskilled labor is lower than the price of fuelwood. This means that wood is likely to remain the dominant fuel in the mountains in the foreseeable future.

Traditional cooking and heating devices are prevalent in most of the mountain areas, but a variety of modern cooking and heating stoves, biomass briquettes, and gasifiers fired with fuelwood are being promoted in some selected mountain areas to aim at different end uses such as motive power, cooking, heating and lighting (see also Table 5.2). These actions still need to be supplemented with the promotion of private sector participation in technology development, institution building, and research and development.

Biomass-based electricity generation and its environmental appeal largely depend on the availability of land to set up energy plantations to satisfy the fuel requirement

Figure 10.1. Primary energy supply in Sri Lanka (1999).

of the power plants. The total land area of Sri Lanka amounting to over 6.5 million hectares (ha) can be categorized into Urban land, Agricultural land, Forest land, Range land, Wet land, Water bodies and Barren land (see Table 10.1) (Jayasinghe, 1998).

Agricultural land usage includes sparsely used croplands, which accounts for nearly 1.3 million hectares. The agricultural activities in Sri Lanka can be divided into lowland cultivation and upland cultivation. Lowland cultivation mainly consists of paddy cultivation whereas upland cultivation is mainly in the form of dry farming. The chena or shifting cultivation is the main form of dry farming, covering an estimated area of 1 million hectares. The nature of this type of cultivation is such that the utilization of land is cyclic and, therefore, the total area occupied by these activities is underutilized at any given time. Though the extent of land under­utilization has not yet been properly evaluated, several socioeconomic studies have revealed that the livelihood of the rural farming community occupying these lands is mainly dependent on the agricultural activity (Ariyadasa, 1996).

The maximum area available for energy plantations is what has been identified as sparsely used cropland and scrubland, amounting to a total of approximately 1.7 million hectares in all districts. It is important to note that some of the areas under scrubland and sparsely used cropland have very steep terrain for properly

Figure 10.2. Variation of addition to the population and cumulative land alienation by the State,

1946-1996.

managed energy plantations due to many potential adverse environmental impacts such as soil erosion associated with felling and transport of trees in such areas.

Land alienation

With the increase in the country’s population and the improvement in the standard of living as a result of economic development, new claims for residential land and land for other economic activities is inevitable. The total area covered by homesteads has increased by 0.8 million ha between 1939 and 1998 mainly as a result of village expansion and resettlement schemes and encroachments into state land (see also Figure 10.2) (Government of Sri Lanka, Land Commissioners Department, 1946-1996). Such increased usage of land for homesteads is expected to proceed.

This shows that there has been a strong correlation between the population growth and land alienation by the state. It can be seen that for each person added to the population, approximately 0.07 ha of land area is to be set aside. The popula­tion in the country is expected to stabilize at 25 million by year 2025 with around

6.5 million persons added from 1998. This results in an additional land requirement of around 450 000 ha over the next 25 years.

Cultivation of sugarcane in Brazil has experienced important growth after the implementation of the PROALCOOL program. Brazil is a major sugarcane pro­ducer, and the industry plays an important social and economic role in the country’s economy. Together with recent developments, particularly regarding environmental legislation, sugarcane crops are about to undergo an important benchmark as green cane harvesting practices are disseminated.

The trash to be removed from the cane fields represent a significant surplus of raw material that can be utilized to the benefit of the sugarcane business total economy, possibly improving its competitiveness and attractiveness. In addition, green cane management may contribute to increase the amount of energy generated from domestic sources and to reduce C02 emissions at a global level. These factors enforce the importance to seriously consider a better utilization of the biomass generated from the sugarcane crops.

However, the green cane management is still new in Brazil. Many lessons remain to be learned about managing the excess biomass to be left in the fields together with the different practices to deal with pest controls caused by lack of burning. Complementary technology to collect, transport, and prepare the trash needs to be further developed particularly to reduce the most costly operations and counteract some of the most immediate technological drawbacks.

A crucial question to intensify biomass utilization in Brazil is how to reach competitive costs, guarantee regular supply, and commercially available technology. In terms of competitive costs, bagasse still has difficulties competing with fuel wood (US$ 3-5/ton) and other low-cost residues such as sawdust, cotton husks, coffee and peanut husks. In terms of supply, there is need to develop the supply chains so as to guarantee a regular functioning of biomass markets and conquer full credibility among users. By fully utilizing the energy potential of sugarcane crops, we will be improving the overall

The benefits of developing European standards as a means to stimulate solid biofuel utilization and trade has gradually become more apparent to many players in the bioenergy market. As a result, the European Committee for Standardisation, CEN, was given the mandate to initiate the development of European standards for solid biofuels. A work program for a CEN Technical Committee for solid biofuels was drafted and approved within a FAIR/THERMIE1 consortia sponsored by the EC Directorate General for Research and Energy. The program was based on standardization reports in all EU countries. Finally, a Technical Committee for Solid Biofuels was established at the end of May 2000 to undertake the work.

The Technical Committee should propose standards applicable to solid biofuels that originate from the following sources (CEN TC 335, 2001):

• Products from agriculture and forestry;

• Vegetable waste from agriculture and forestry; [13]

• Vegetable waste from food-processing industry;

• Wood waste, with the exception of wood waste which may contain halogen — ated organic compounds or heavy metals as a result of treatment with wood preservatives or coating (includes particularly wood waste originated from building and demolition waste);

• Cork waste.

The activities of CEN TC 335 Solid Biofuels are accompanied by the so-called Mirror Committees within the CEN member states (i. e. Germany, Austria, Sweden). Through these committees, all the concerned national key actors (i. e. manufacturers of equipment, traders, consumers, scientists) get the possibility to join the stan­dardization process and add their experiences to the work. This is very important since the European standards, when they come into force, will overrule the existing national standards.

Five working groups were established to develop more than 20 European standards (see Table 11.3). The working groups are formed by different European experts and started their work in late 2000. The first draft standards were forwarded to the Mirror Committees by the end of 2002 for voting. The first implementa­tion phase at the European level was expected during 2004. Table 11.3 shows the role of the working groups and who is leading each task. The tasks are further explained here.