<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  	<channel>
    	<title>CE Delft - Internationale biogrondstoffen</title>
		<copyright>Copyright (c) 2012, CE Delft</copyright>
		<link>http://www.ce.nl/ce/rapporten/114/</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.ce.nlindex.php?go=home.showRapportenRSS&amp;pagenr=529" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<language>nl</language>
		<description>CE Delft Rich Site Summary</description>
		<webMaster>webmaster@ce.nl (Webmaster)</webMaster>
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Biodiversity and Land Use]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biodiversity_and_land_use/1157</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/biodiversity_and_land_use/1157</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[In a project commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, CE Delft explored whether indicators that link m2 land used for economic activities with biodiversity, are available and whether they could be applied in the various areas of policy-making in which biodiversity is an important issue.

CE Delft selected three indicators to examine in more detail: 
-&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The Mean Species Abundance indicator (MSA), developed under the TEEB program
-&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ReCiPe LCA methodology
-&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The biodiversity impact indicator developed by TNO. 

All three indicators employ the relative reduction in biodiversity compared with the pristine baseline situation to describe the impact of different kinds of land use on biodiversity. 

Each of the identified indicators has its strengths, limitations and specific features.
For application in policies, the ReCiPe indicator would be the most suitable methodology in the current situation, mainly because of its integration in LCA methodology. Its value and that of the other two indicators could be improved by improving the extensiveness and level of detail of the underlying datasets. Furthermore, combining the different methodological features of the three identified indicators would improve their value in policy applications.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:54:02 +0200</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
		        
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Feedstocks: A quick scan ]]></title>
			<link>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/feedstocks%3A_a_quick_scan_/1197</link>
			<guid>http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/feedstocks%3A_a_quick_scan_/1197</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[While there is no scarcity of biotic feedstocks, this does not hold for fertile farmland. Growing demand for feedstocks without a corresponding increase in fertile acreage will therefore lead to scarcity. This is the core message of CE Delft&amp;rsquo;s input to the &amp;lsquo;Feedstocks&amp;rsquo; discussion paper presented by the Dutch cabinet to parliament this summer. CE Delft&amp;rsquo;s main contribution was a study into expectations and impacts vis-&amp;agrave;-vis biotic feedstocks like timber and soy. The study is included in the larger study &amp;ldquo;En route to a feedstocks strategy. Quick scan for a &amp;lsquo;Feedstocks&amp;rsquo; discussion paper&amp;rdquo; carried out jointly by the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, TNO and CE Delft. The main conclusion regarding biotic scarcity is that while biotic feedstocks are not scarce, there is not enough fertile land available for growing both food and (bio)energy and (bio)chemical feedstocks. This means prices will rise and growing competition among applications (food versus fuel, for example).]]></description>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:58:57 +0100</pubDate>
			<category>Algemeen</category>
		</item>
		
			</channel>
</rss>

