Perennial biomass cropping and use: Shaping the policy ecosystem in European countries

Abstract

Demand for sustainably produced biomass is expected to increase with the need to provide renewable commodities, improve resource security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with COP26 commitments. Studies have demonstrated additional environmental benefits of using perennial biomass crops (PBCs), when produced appropriately, as a feedstock for the growing bioeconomy, including utilisation for bioenergy (with or without carbon capture and storage). PBCs can potentially contribute to Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (2023-27) objectives provided they are carefully integrated into farming systems and landscapes. Despite significant research and development (R&D) investment over decades in herbaceous and coppiced woody PBCs, deployment has largely stagnated due to social, economic and policy uncertainties. This paper identifies the challenges in creating policies that are acceptable to all actors. Development will need to be informed by measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and other environmental, economic and social metrics. It discusses interlinked issues that must be considered in the expansion of PBC production: (i) available land; (ii) yield potential; (iii) integration into farming systems; (iv) R&D requirements; (v) utilisation options; and (vi) market systems and the socio-economic environment. It makes policy recommendations that would enable greater PBC deployment: (1) incentivise farmers and land managers through specific policy measures, including carbon pricing, to allocate their less productive and less profitable land for uses which deliver demonstrable greenhouse gas reductions; (2) enable greenhouse gas mitigation markets to develop and offer secure contracts for commercial developers of verifiable low-carbon bioenergy and bioproducts; (3) support innovation in biomass utilisation value chains; and (4) continue long-term, strategic R&D and education for positive environmental, economic and social sustainability impacts.

Keywords: BECCS; bioeconomy value chains; biomass utilisation; circular economy; energy security; farm subsidies; food security; integration into farm business; land availability; policy recommendation.

FIGURE 1

Perceived benefits (a) and potential dis‐benefits (b) associated with perennial biomass crops (PBCs) drawn from project results, the literature and practical experience depending on previous land use and social context. The term ‘Biodiversity’ refers to modifying landscapes providing habitats with lower disturbance than arable systems which have been shown to support birds, plants and small mammals especially on the transition zones (edges) between PBCs and the surrounding land use (Donnison et al., ; Lask et al., 2020). ‘Security’ refers to security of supply of biomass for the green transition and transformation of society.

FIGURE 2

Factors involved in production PUSH and market PULL for PBC upscaling (discussed in sections below). These factors interact to determine the deployment opportunities for PBCs (production and utilisation chains) and identify broad areas for discussion on policy interventions.

FIGURE 3

Top panel: Above‐ground accumulated harvest yields for three different PBC systems with different harvest cycles: annually – (C₄ grasses e.g. Miscanthus/ Switchgrass), every 2–4 years (short rotation coppice e.g. Willow), every 5–15 years (short rotation forestry e.g. Poplar) indicated by the coloured coded arrows (top, redrawn from Hastings et al., 2012). The bottom panel shows the accumulative carbon stock for soil carbon for the 0–30 cm as informed by Dondini et al. (2009). ‘Sankey style’ black line thicknesses schematically indicate how the numbers (#) of measured yields (see Table S2 for details) and soil carbon experiments diminish well before the expected crop lifespans are reached.

FIGURE 4

Five policies (out of a set of 13) ranked from top to bottom for promoting adoption of PBCs by UK farmers. Ratings of ‘desirability’, ‘feasibility’ and ‘effectiveness’ of the policies from a Delphi panel of nine experts.