KDF Search Results

The objective of this paper is to give a comprehensive review of initiatives on biomass certification from different viewpoints of stakeholders, including national governments (such as The Netherlands, the UK, Belgium and Germany), the EC, NGOs, companies, and international bodies up until October 2007. Furthermore, opportunities and restrictions in the development of biomass certification are described, including international trade law limitations, lack of adequate methodologies, stakeholder involvement requirements and certification costs.

Indicators are needed to assess environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Effective indicators will help in the quantification of benefits and costs of bioenergy options and resource uses. We identify 19 measurable indicators for soil quality, water quality and quantity, greenhouse gases, biodiversity, air quality, and productivity, building on existing knowledge and on national and international programs that are seeking ways to assess sustainable bioenergy.

Defining and measuring sustainability of bioenergy systems are difficult because the systems are complex, the science is in early stages of development, and there is a need to generalize what are inherently contextspecific enterprises. These challenges, and the fact that decisions are being made now, create a need for improved communications among scientists as well as between scientists and decision makers.

The production of biobased feedstocks (i.e., plant– or algal-based material use for transportation fuels, heat, power and bioproducts) for energy consumption has been expanding rapidly in recent years. Biomass now accounts for 4.1% of total U.S. primary energy production. Unfortunately, there are considerable knowledge gaps relative to implications of this industry expansion for wildlife.

n the past decades, the production of biomass for energy in agriculture and forestry has increased in many parts of the world. For years to come, further increase in land use for bioenergy will be needed to meet the renewable energy ambitions of many countries, and to reduce fossil fuel use and associated GHG emissions.

Biofuels are promoted in the United States through aggressive legislation, as one part of an overall strategy to lessen dependence on imported energy as well as to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (Office of the Biomass Program and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2008). For example, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandates 36 billion gallons of renewable liquid transportation fuel in the U.S. marketplace by the year 2022 (U.S. Government, 2007).

This paper presents an overview of 67 ongoing certification initiatives to safeguard the sustainability of bioenergy. Most recent initiatives are focused on the sustainability of liquid biofuels. Content-wise, most of these initiatives have mainly included environmental principles. Despite serious concerns in various parts of the world on the socio-economic impacts of bioenergy production, these are generally not included in existing bioenergy initiatives. At the same time, the overview shows a strong proliferation of standards.

The paper discusses the importance of standards for sustainable bioenergy production. Sustainability of bioenergy production is crucial if bioenergy is supposed to contribute effectively to climate change mitigation. First, a brief overview of current bioenergy policies and of initiatives and legislation for bioenergy sustainability are given. Then, the authors show that under free market conditions undersupply of sustainable bioenergy will prevail. Two types of market failures are identified: information asymmetry and externalities in bioenergy production.

The biofuel boom has raised great expectations regarding renewable, domestic and carbon-free bioenergy sources but at the same time has led to concerns about the adverse environmental and socio-economic implications such as land-use competition, deforestation and market distortions. In this context, bioenergy systems have to demonstrate their environmental sustainability, economic viability and societal acceptability compared with fossil fuels and alternative energy sources.

Rising energy prices, geopolitics as well as concerns over increasing oil prices, national security, and the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on global climate change are driving large-scale efforts to implement bioenergy alternatives. Biomass fuels offer many new opportunities, but if not managed carefully, they may also carry significant risks. Biomass in this context is non-fossil material of biological origin from forest, energy crops, agriculture and different kind of wastes. Markets for energy generated from biomass are expanding at a fast pace.

Forest biomass is increasingly being considered as a source of sustainable energy. It is crucial, however, that this biomass be grown and harvested in a sustainable manner. International processes and certification systems have been developed to ensure sustainable forest management (SFM) in general, but it is important to consider if they adequately address specific impacts of intensified production and harvesting methods related to forest fuels.

Environmental impacts associated with the use of fossil fuels, rising prices, potential limitations in supply and concerns about regional and national security are driving the development and use of biomass for bioenergy, biofuels and bioproducts. However, the use of biomass does not automatically imply that its production, conversion and use are sustainable. Conflicts between various ecosystem services (economic production of food, fodder and fuels, biodiversity, social and cultural values, etc.) that are provided by fertile land are increasing as well.

The global indirect land use change (ILUC) implications of biofuel use in the United States of America (USA) from 2001 to 2010 are evaluated with a dynamic general equilibrium model.  The effects of biofuels production on agricultural land area vary by year; from a net expansion of 0.17ha per 1000 gallons produced (2002) to a net contraction of 0.13ha per 1000 gallons (2018) in Case 1 of our simulation.  In accordance with the general narrative about the implications of biofuel policy, agricultural land area increased in many regions of the world.  However, oil-export dependent economies e

Relationships between people and their environment are largely defined by land use. Space and soil are needed for native plants and wildlife, as well as for crops used for food, feed, fiber, wood products and biofuel (liquid fuel derived from plant material). People also use land for homes, schools, jobs, transportation, mining and recreation. Social and economic forces influence the allocation of land to various uses.

To produce, trade on or use agricultural products as fuel—a practice as old as human history—has become a policy riddle spawning emotional debate and multiple, sometimes competing and conflicting, measures and actions. Today, many see fuel derivatives from agricultural produce and forests as a new frontier in energy supply. In a context of action against climate change, the carbon emissions efficiency of some energy crops has emerged as a promising, powerful alternative to the use of fossil fuels.

These Notes from the Field summarise the governance guidelines developed by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) to address the key challenges that policy-makers face when designing and implementing policies and regulations for the increasing production, trade and use of bioenergy. The guidelines comprise an integrated and coherent set of policy recommendations and practical actions to help policy-makers and industry account for the various trade-offs presented by bioenergy and develop sustainable bioenergy production for domestic use and international trade.

The sustainable production of bioenergy is vital to avoiding negative impacts on environmental goods such as climate, soil, water, and especially biodiversity. We propose three key issues that should be addressed in any biodiversity risk-mitigation strategy: conservation of areas of significant biodiversity value; mitigation of negative effects related to indirect land-use change; and promotion of agricultural practices with few negative impacts on biodiversity.

The expectations with respect to biomass as a resource for sustainable energy are sky-high. Many industrialized countries have adopted ambitious policy targets and have introduced financial measures to stimulate the production or use of bioenergy. Meanwhile, the side-effects and associated risks have been pointed out as well. To be able to make a well-informed decision, the Dutch government has expressed the intention to include sustainability criteria into relevant policy instruments.

Taking Brazilian bioethanol as an example, this paper presents possible sustainability criteria for a certification scheme aimed to minimize negative socio-ecological impacts and to increase the sustainable production of biomass. We describe the methods that have led us to the identification of a first set of feasible sustainability criteria for Brazilian bioethanol and discuss issues to be considered when developing certification schemes for sustainability.