With increasing use of biomass for energy, questions arise about the validity of bioenergy as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodology able to reveal these environmental and energy performances, but results may differ even for apparently similar bioenergy systems. Differences are due to several reasons: type and management of raw materials, conversion technologies, end-use technologies, system boundaries and reference energy system with which the bioenergy chain is compared. Based on review of published papers and elaboration of software data concerning greenhouse gas and energy balances of bioenergy, other renewable and conventional fossil systems, this paper discusses key issues in bioenergy system LCA. These issues have a strong influence on the final results but are often overlooked or mishandled in most of the studies available in literature. The article addresses the following aspects: recognition of the biomass carbon cycle, including carbon stock changes in biomass and soil over time; inclusion of nitrous oxide and methane emissions from agricultural activities; selection of the appropriate fossil reference system; homogeneity of the input parameters in Life Cycle Inventories; influence of the allocation procedure when multiple products are involved; future trends in bioenergy (i.e. second-generation biofuels and biorefineries).Because many key issues are site-specific, and many factors affect the outcome, it is not possible to give exact values for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and fossil energy consumption saved by a certain bioenergy product, because too many uncertainties are involved. For these reasons, the results are here provided as a means of wide ranges. Despite this wide range of results, it has been possible to draw some important conclusions and devise recommendations concerning the existing bioenergy systems, and some emerging implications about the future deployment and trends of bioenergy products are pointed out. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

An important aspect in the linking of different emissions trading schemes is the degree to which these systems allow (or ban) external offset project categories. The EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) currently allows the use of credits from energy and industry projects developed under the Kyoto Protocol's Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) but excludes the use of carbon credits from forestry projects for compliance in the EU ETS. Forestry credits generated by the CDM have a limited lifetime and expire at the end of a project's crediting period, or earlier if the carbon stock for which the credits have been issued ceases to exist. According to the recently adopted amendment of the EU ETS Directive forestry credits will remain to be excluded until 2020. The present article reviews how the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (Australia), the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (US) and the voluntary scheme of the Chicago Climate Exchange integrate forestry offsets into the respective system and how they deal with the risk of losing stored and credited biomass. By comparing the results of different scenarios this article shows how differences in the treatment of forestry offsets could impact the efforts to link various emission trading systems in future.

Climate change is occurring with greater speed and intensity that previously anticipated. All effective environmentally and socially sound mitigation efforts need to be employed to effectively address this global crisis. Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) projects can provide significant climate change mitigation benefits as well as poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation benefits. The policies of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), the world's largest carbon market exclude LULUCF. Scientific support for this exclusion was presented in a briefing paper published by the Climate Action Network-Europe (CAN) that puts forward the proposition that land based storage of carbon is ineffective. A careful review of the scientific papers cited in support of CAN's position indicates that, while the papers themselves are scientifically sound, they do not support the continued exclusion of LULUCF projects from the EU-ETS. At the same time some important recent research papers that describe the carbon storage and social benefit potential of such projects are not included in the analysis. An in-depth consideration of the scientific evidence is necessary in evaluating this policy option. Based on this evidence a case can be made for the inclusion of LULUCF projects in the EU-ETS.

The main interest in bioenergy as a climate change mitigation strategy is that it is considered to be a CO2 neutral energy source. This is based on the argument that the same amount of CO2 is released at the point of use as has been removed from the atmosphere via the process of photosynthesis. In practice, biomass energy is not always from renewable sources. The production of biomass may result in decreases of carbon stocks in above ground biomass, below ground biomass, dead wood, litter and soil. One should include the associated CO2 emissions from the losses in these carbon stocks. The paper focuses on the three main aspects of bioenergy and land-use: 1) The GHG balance is not only influenced by direct emissions from land use, but also by the indirect emissions caused by displacement of other land uses. 2) There are trade-offs between growing biomass crops and displacing fossil fuels, or storing carbon. Modelling suggests that bioenergy production is superior if biomass, from high-yielding plantations, is produced efficiently, displaces GHG-intensive fossil energy, and a long-term view is taken. 3) To date there are few CDM methodologies for biofuels because of the impact of bioenergy on the availability of land. While the CDM focuses on the effects of individual projects, the land use issues discussed in this paper can hardly be attributed to a single activity but tend to be the result of macroeconomic developments.

Tropical deforestation is estimated to cause about one-quarter of anthropogenic carbon emissions, loss of biodiversity, and other environmental services. United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change talks are now considering mechanisms for avoiding deforestation (AD), but the economic potential of AD has yet to be addressed. We use three economic models of global land use and management to analyze the potential contribution of AD activities to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. AD activities are found to be a competitive, low-cost abatement option. A program providing a 10% reduction in deforestation from 2005 to 2030 could provide 0.3-0.6 Gt (1 Gt = 1 x 10(5) g) CO(2).yr(-1) in emission reductions and would require $0.4 billion to $1.7 billion.yr(-1) for 30 years. A 50% reduction in deforestation from 2005 to 2030 could provide 1.5-2.7 Gt CO(2).yr(-1) in emission reductions and would require $17.2 billion to $28.0 billion.yr(-1). Finally, some caveats to the analysis that could increase costs of AD programs are described.

Abstract. Some climate scientists are questioning whether the practice of converting of non-forest lands to forest land (afforestation or reforestation) is an effective climate change mitigation option. The discussion focuses particularly on areas where the new forest is primarily coniferous and there is significant amount of snow since the increased climate forcing due to the change in albedo may counteract the decreased climate forcing due to carbon dioxide removal. In this paper, we develop a stand-based model that combines changes in surface albedo, solar radiation, latitude, cloud cover and carbon sequestration. As well, we develop a procedure to convert carbon stock changes to equivalent climatic forcing or climatic forcing to equivalent carbon stock changes. Using the model, we investigate the sensitivity of combined affects of changes in surface albedo and carbon stock changes to model parameters. The model is sensitive to amount of cloud, atmospheric absorption, timing of canopy closure, carbon sequestration rate among other factors. The sensitivity of the model is investigated at one Canadian site, and then the model is tested at numerous sites across Canada. In general, we find that the change in albedo reduces the carbon sequestration benefits by approximately 30% over 100 years, but this is not drastic enough to suggest that one should not use afforestation or reforestation as a climate change mitigation option. This occurs because the forests grow in places where there is significant amount of cloud in winter. As well, variations in sequestration rate seem to be counterbalanced by the amount and timing of canopy closure. We close by speculating that the effects of albedo may also be significant in locations at lower latitudes, where there are less clouds, and where there are extended dry seasons. These conditions make grasses light coloured and when irrigated crops, dark forests or other vegetation such as biofuels replace the grasses, the change in carbon stocks may not compensate for the darkening of the surface.

Incorporating changes in albedo in estimating the climate mitigation benefits of land use change projects D. N. Bird, M. Kunda, A. Mayer, B. Schlamadinger, L. Canella, and M. Johnston JOANNEUM RESEARCH, Elisabethstraße 5, 8010, Graz, Austria School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, 85 Fifth Street NW, Atlanta, GA, 30308 USA Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Graz, Schubertstraße 51, 8010 Graz, Austria TerraCarbon LLC, Dr. Eckenerstraße 21b, 8043 Graz, Austria Saskatchewan Research Council, 125–15 Innovation Blvd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 2X8, Canada Received: 12 February 2008 – Accepted: 10 March 2008 – Published: 8 April 2008 Correspondence to: D. N. Bird (neil.bird@joanneum.at) Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union.

This paper is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions through land use policies in the agriculture and forestry sectors.

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.

Many pathways have been proposed for including land use in a post-2012 climate agreement. Several involve new accounting structures which are quite different from the rules established in the Marrakech Accords and related decisions. However, a mechanism based largely on the structure agreed for the first commitment period also has its benefits. This paper discusses the weaknesses of the current system of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) accounting in the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period, and proposes a mechanism based on that existing structure, but with modifications to address the weaknesses.

The capacity to partition natural, indirect, and direct human-induced effects on terrestrial carbon (C) sources and sinks is necessary to be able to predict future terrestrial C dynamics and thus their influence on atmospheric CO2 growth. However, it will take a number of years before we can better attribute quantitative estimates of the contribution of various C processes to the net C balance. In a policy context, factoring out natural and indirect human-induced effects on C sources and sinks from the direct human-induced influences, is seen as a requirement of a C accounting approach that establishes a clear and unambiguous connection between human activities and the assignment of C credits and debits. We present options for factoring out various groups of influences including climate variability, CO2 and N fertilization, and legacies from forest management. These are: (i) selecting longer accounting or measurement periods to reduce the effects of inter-annual variability; (ii) correction of national inventories for inter-annual variability; (iii) use of activity-based accounting and C response curves; (iv) use of baseline scenarios or benchmarks at the national level; (v) stratification of the landscape into units with distinct average C stocks. Other, more sophisticated modeling approaches (e.g., demographic models in combination with forest inventories; process-based models) are possible options for future C accounting systems but their complexity and data requirements make their present adoption more difficult in an inclusive international C accounting system.

In response to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process investigating the technical issues surrounding the ability to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation in developing countries, this paper reviews technical capabilities for monitoring deforestation and estimating emissions. Implementation of policies to reduce emissions from deforestation require effective deforestation monitoring systems that are reproducible, provide consistent results, meet standards for mapping accuracy, and can be implemented at the national level. Remotely sensed data supported by ground observations are key to effective monitoring. Capacity in developing countries for deforestation monitoring is well-advanced in a few countries and is a feasible goal in most others. Data sources exist to determine base periods in the 1990s as historical reference points. Forest degradation (e.g. from high impact logging and fragmentation) also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions but it is more technically challenging to measure than deforestation. Data on carbon stocks, which are needed to estimate emissions, cannot currently be observed directly over large areas with remote sensing. Guidelines for carbon accounting from deforestation exist and are available in approved Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and can be applied at national scales in the absence of forest inventory or other data. Key constraints for implementing programs to monitor greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation are international commitment of resources to increase capacity, coordination of observations to ensure pan-tropical coverage, access to free or low-cost data, and standard and consensual protocols for data interpretation and analysis.