Search

The scientific literature contains contrasting findings about the climate effects of forest bioenergy, partly due to the wide diversity of bioenergy systems and associated contexts, but also due to differences in assessment methods. The climate effects of bioenergy must be accurately assessed to inform policy-making, but the complexity of bioenergy systems and associated land, industry and energy systems raises challenges for assessment. We examine misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy and discuss important considerations in assessing these effects and devising measures to incentivize sustainable bioenergy as a component of climate policy. The temporal and spatial system boundary and the reference (counterfactual) scenarios are key methodology choices that strongly influence results. Focussing on carbon balances of individual forest stands and comparing emissions at the point of combustion neglect system-level interactions that influence the climate effects of forest bioenergy. We highlight the need for a systems approach, in assessing options and developing policy for forest bioenergy that: (1) considers the whole life cycle of bioenergy systems, including effects of the associated forest management and harvesting on landscape carbon balances; (2) identifies how forest bioenergy can best be deployed to support energy system transformation required to achieve climate goals; and (3) incentivizes those forest bioenergy systems that augment the mitigation value of the forest sector as a whole. Emphasis on short-term emissions reduction targets can lead to decisions that make medium- to long-term climate goals more difficult to achieve. The most important climate change mitigation measure is the transformation of energy, industry and transport systems so that fossil carbon remains underground. Narrow perspectives obscure the significant role that bioenergy can play by displacing fossil fuels now, and supporting energy system transition. Greater transp

Under the IEA Bioenergy Inter-task project ‘The Role of Bioenergy in a WB2/SDG world’, a workshop was held in Berlin, on 25 November 2019. The objective of the workshop was to examine, synthesize and disseminate information from recent studies that investigate how bioenergy and associated technologies may contribute to achieving the reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are needed to meet the WB2 target. The report summarises the workshop contributions and discussions, assesses the role of bioenergy in WB2 strategies, identifies the current state of knowledge as well as gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed. Key conclusions: Many scenarios that limit global warming to well below 2°C (WB2 world) include a significant and increasing contribution of biomass-based energy supply (bioenergy), often in combination with carbon capture and storage (CCS).Achieving the level of bioenergy and BECCS deployment found in many global WB2 scenarios will require a large increase in the biomass supply for energy and also establishment of CCS infrastructure to enable BECCS.The attractiveness of different bioenergy options differs between countries (e.g., related to biophysical conditions or geological CO2 storage capacity) and bioenergy strategies should not be prescribed at global/continental level, but rather developed within each country, reflecting the local context.Decisions concerning development of biomass resources and bioenergy systems are determined by the global as well as national and regional context. Therefore, analyses using models with different geographic scope and spatial resolution, ranging from global IAMs to more fine grained models are needed.As BECCS and other CDR (carbon dioxide removal) options commonly play important roles in WB2 pathways, it is warranted to intensify investigation and implementation of CDR in the near term.Integrated land use planning, applied at the landscape scale, can identify options for deployment of bioenergy and BECCS

Soil organic matter (SOM) has the potential to supply substantial quantities of nutrients [i.e nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and sulphur (S)] for plant uptake. Yet there is little understanding of the impact of management on the nutrient supply potential in soils (particularly, P and S). To quantify N, P and S availability from SOM, surface soils (0–10 cm) were collected from 14 management practices across three long-term (16–46 years) experimental sites under semi-arid (Luvisol), Mediterranean (Luvisol) and sub-tropical (Vertisol) environments in Australia. The practices comprised conventional (CT) and reduced tillage (RT) with mixed farming, no-till with continuous cropping (NT), and perennial pasture (PP) in the semi-arid Luvisol, while in a Mediterranean direct-drilled continuous cropping system, stubble was either retained (SR) or burnt (SB). Practices on the Vertisol comprised a factorial combination of CT, NT, SR, SB with either 0 (0N) or 90 kg urea-N ha−1 (90N) in a continuous cropping system. Soils were incubated under controlled soil moisture and temperature, and cumulative organic C mineralised (Cmin), and net available N, P and S were measured over 126 days. In the semi-arid Luvisol, CT and/or RT showed significantly higher Cmin and net available N, P and S than NT and PP. In the Mediterranean Luvisol, Cmin and net available P were not influenced by stubble management. In the Vertisol, CT-SR (cf. CT-SB and NT-SR/SB) with or without N fertilisation significantly increased Cmin, and CT-SR and/or -SB with N fertilisation (cf. CT-SR/SB without N fertilisation and NT-SR and/or -SB with or without N fertilisation) significantly increased net available N and P. This study found a continuous release of net available N (11–49 kg N ha−1 over 126 days) across all management practices, whereas, the release of available P and S was evident only during the first 30 days (6–74 kg P ha−1, −4 to 22 kg S ha−1), after which microbial immobilisation or clay fixation of P and

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and its sister conventions, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, all aim to halt or mitigate the deterioration of the ecological processes on which life depends. Sustainable land management (SLM) is fundamental to achieving the goals of all three Conventions. Changes in land management undertaken to address dryland degradation and desertification can simultaneously reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to conservation of biodiversity. Management to protect and enhance terrestrial carbon stocks, both in vegetation and soil, is of central importance to all three conventions. Protection of biodiversity conveys stability and resilience to agro-ecosystems and increases carbon storage potential of dryland systems. SLM improves livelihoods of communities dependent on the land. Despite these complementarities between the three environmental goals, tradeoffs often arise in their pursuit. The importance of human–environment interactions to the condition of land compels attention to adaptive management. In order to reconcile concerns and agendas at a higher strategic level, identification of synergies, conflicts, trade-offs, interconnections, feedbacks and spillover effects among multiple objectives, drivers, actions, policies and time horizons are crucial. Once these issues are transparent, coordinated action can be put into place across the three multilateral environmental agreements in the development of strategies and policy measures to support SLM.

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and its sister conventions, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, all aim to halt or mitigate the deterioration of the ecological processes on which life depends. Sustainable land management (SLM) is fundamental to achieving the goals of all three Conventions. Changes in land management undertaken to address dryland degradation and desertification can simultaneously reduce net greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to conservation of biodiversity. Management to protect and enhance terrestrial carbon stocks, both in vegetation and soil, is of central importance to all three conventions. Protection of biodiversity conveys stability and resilience to agro-ecosystems and increases carbon storage potential of dryland systems. SLM improves livelihoods of communities dependent on the land. Despite these complementarities between the three environmental goals, tradeoffs often arise in their pursuit. The importance of human-environment interactions to the condition of land compels attention to adaptive management. In order to reconcile concerns and agendas at a higher strategic level, identification of synergies, conflicts, trade-offs, interconnections, feedbacks and spillover effects among multiple objectives, drivers, actions, policies and time horizons are crucial. Once these issues are transparent, coordinated action can be put into place across the three multilateral environmental agreements in the development of strategies and policy measures to support SLM.