Search

We analyse the short‐ and long‐term consequences for atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations of forest management strategies and forest product uses in Sweden by comparing the modelled consequences of forest resource use vs. increased conservation at different levels of GHG savings from carbon sequestration and product substitution with bioenergy and other forest products. Increased forest set‐asides for conservation resulted in larger GHG reductions only in the short term and only when substitution effects were low. In all other cases, forest use was more beneficial. In all scenarios, annual carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration rates declined in conservation forests as they mature, eventually approaching a steady state. Forest set‐asides are thus associated with increasing opportunity costs corresponding to foregone wood production and associated mitigation losses. Substitution and sequestration rates under all other forest management strategies rise, providing support for sustained harvest and cumulative mitigation gains. The impact of increased fertilization was everywhere beneficial to the climate and surpassed the mitigation potential of the other scenarios. Climate change can have large—positive or negative—influence on outcomes. Despite uncertainties, the results indicate potentially large benefits from forest use for wood production. These benefits, however, are not clearly linked with forestry in UNFCCC reporting, and the European Union's Land Use, Land‐Use Change and Forestry carbon accounting, framework may even prevent their full realization. These reporting and accounting frameworks may further have the consequence of encouraging land set‐asides and reduced forest use at the expense of future biomass production. Further, carbon leakage and resulting biodiversity impacts due to increased use of more GHG‐intensive products, including imported products associated with deforestation and land degradation, are inadequately assessed. Considerable opportunity to better mobilize the climate change mitigation potential of Swedish forests therefore remains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many global climate change mitigation pathways presented in IPCC assessment reports rely heavily on the deployment of bioenergy, often used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage. We review the literature on bioenergy use for climate change mitigation, including studies that use top‐down integrated assessment models or bottom‐up modelling, and studies that do not rely on modelling. We summarize the state of knowledge concerning potential co‐benefits and adverse side effects of bioenergy systems and discuss limitations of modelling studies used to analyse consequences of bioenergy expansion. The implications of bioenergy supply on mitigation and other sustainability criteria are context dependent and influenced by feedstock, management regime, climatic region, scale of deployment and how bioenergy alters energy systems and land use. Depending on previous land use, widespread deployment of monoculture plantations may contribute to mitigation but can cause negative impacts across a range of other sustainability criteria. Strategic integration of new biomass supply systems into existing agriculture and forest landscapes may result in less mitigation but can contribute positively to other sustainability objectives. There is considerable variation in evaluations of how sustainability challenges evolve as the scale of bioenergy deployment increases, due to limitations of existing models, and uncertainty over the future context with respect to the many variables that influence alternative uses of biomass and land. Integrative policies, coordinated institutions and improved governance mechanisms to enhance co‐benefits and minimize adverse side effects can reduce the risks of large‐scale deployment of bioenergy. Further, conservation and efficiency measures for energy, land and biomass can support greater flexibility in achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Integrated assessment model scenarios project rising deployment of biomass‐using energy systems in climate change mitigation scenarios. But there is concern that bioenergy deployment will increase competition for land and water resources and obstruct objectives such as nature protection, the preservation of carbon‐rich ecosystems, and food security. To study the relative importance of water and land availability as biophysical constraints to bioenergy deployment at a global scale, we use a process‐detailed, spatially explicit biosphere model to simulate rain‐fed and irrigated biomass plantation supply along with the corresponding water consumption for different scenarios concerning availability of land and water resources. We find that global plantation supplies are mainly limited by land availability and only secondarily by freshwater availability. As a theoretical upper limit, if all suitable lands on Earth, besides land currently used in agriculture, were available for bioenergy plantations (“Food first” scenario), total plantation supply would be in the range 2,010–2,300 EJ/year depending on water availability and use. Excluding all currently protected areas reduces the supply by 60%. Excluding also areas where conversion to biomass plantations causes carbon emissions that might be considered unacceptably high will reduce the total plantation supply further. For example, excluding all areas where soil and vegetation carbon stocks exceed 150 tC/ha (“Carbon threshold savanna” scenario) reduces the supply to 170–290 EJ/year. With decreasing land availability, the amount of water available for irrigation becomes vitally important. In the least restrictive land availability scenario (“Food first”), up to 77% of global plantation biomass supply is obtained without additional irrigation. This share is reduced to 31% for the most restrictive “Carbon threshold savanna” scenario. The results highlight the critical—and geographically varying—importance of co‐managing land and water resources if substantial contributions of bioenergy are to be reached in mitigation portfolios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well-studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories - environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feeding 9-10 billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly outline the challenges, review the supply- and demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFOLU sector and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand-side measures codeliver to aid food security. We conclude that while supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas ( GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5-15.6 Gt CO2-eq. yr−1) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3 Gt CO2-eq. yr−1 at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ t CO2-eq. yr−1), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to codeliver to other policy agenda, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]