No abstract

Under the current accounting systems, emissions produced when biomass is burnt for energy are accounted as zero, resulting in what is referred to as the 'carbon neutrality' assumption. However, if current harvest levels are increased to produce more bioenergy, carbon that would have been stored in the biosphere might be instead released in the atmosphere. This study utilizes a comparative approach that considers emissions under alternative energy supply options. This approach shows that the emission benefits of bioenergy compared to use of fossil fuel are time-dependent. It emerges that the assumption that bioenergy always results in zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to use of fossil fuels can be misleading, particularly in the context of short-to-medium term goals. While it is clear that all sources of woody bioenergy from sustainably managed forests will produce emission reductions in the long term, different woody biomass sources have various impacts in the short-medium term. The study shows that the use of forest residues that are easily decomposable can produce GHG benefits compared to use of fossil fuels from the beginning of their use and that biomass from dedicated plantations established on marginal land can be carbon neutral from the beginning of its use. However, the risk of short-to-medium term negative impacts is high when additional fellings are extracted to produce bioenergy and the proportion of felled biomass used for bioenergy is low, or when land with high C stocks is converted to low productivity bioenergy plantations. The method used in the study provides an instrument to identify the time-dependent pattern of emission reductions for alternative bioenergy sources. In this way, decision makers can evaluate which bioenergy options are most beneficial for meeting short-term GHG emission reduction goals and which ones are more appropriate for medium to longer term objectives.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Tier 1 methodologies commonly underpin project‐scale carbon accounting for changes in land use and management and are used in frameworks for Life Cycle Assessment and carbon footprinting of food and energy crops. These methodologies were intended for use at large spatial scales. This can introduce error in predictions at finer spatial scales. There is an urgent need for development and implementation of higher tier methodologies that can be applied at fine spatial scales (e.g. farm/project/plantation) for food and bioenergy crop greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting to facilitate decision making in the land‐based sectors. Higher tier methods have been defined by IPCC and must be well evaluated and operate across a range of domains (e.g. climate region, soil type, crop type, topography), and must account for land use transitions and management changes being implemented. Furthermore, the data required to calibrate and drive the models used at higher tiers need to be available and applicable at fine spatial resolution, covering the meteorological, soil, cropping system and management domains, with quantified uncertainties. Testing the reliability of the models will require data either from sites with repeated measurements or from chronosequences. We review current global capability for estimating changes in soil carbon at fine spatial scales and present a vision for a framework capable of quantifying land use change and management impacts on soil carbon, which could be used for addressing issues such as bioenergy and biofuel sustainability, food security, forest protection, and direct/indirect impacts of land use change. The aim of this framework is to provide a globally accepted standard of carbon measurement and modelling appropriate for GHG accounting that could be applied at project to national scales (allowing outputs to be scaled up to a country level), to address the impacts of land use and land management change on soil carbon.

The complexities inherent in land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities have led to contentious and prolonged debates about the merits of their inclusion in the 2008-2012 first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Yet the inclusion of these activities played a key role in agreement on the general framework of the Kyoto Protocol, and LULUCF will likely continue to play a substantial part in negotiations on national commitments post-2012. The Marrakech Accords dictate which LULUCF activities are to be included under the Kyoto Protocol and provide rules on how they are to be accounted in the first commitment period. However, these rules have limitations and drawbacks that may be avoided in the structure of future commitments beyond 2012. Through adherence to the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate. Change (UNFCCC), and the incorporation of several critical features, a future framework can more effectively address the mitigation challenges and opportunities of this sector. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. [References: 22

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract