The iLUC dilemma: How to deal with indirect land use changes when governing energy crops?

Due to land use effects, bioenergy use may cause adverse effects on biodiversity, soil and water and may even fail to guarantee a GHG emissions reduction compared to fossil fuel use. Accounting methodologies and policy instruments were elaborated to prevent these effects, but there is still no sound and consensual methodology to take into account indirect land use change that substantially contributes to GHG emissions as well as a loss of biodiversity. While the iLUC hypothesis, that is the potentiality of adverse effects arising from indirect land use change related to biomass cultivation, is hardly subject to dispute, the quantification of these effects and especially their policy implications are however contentious. Hence, bioenergy policies worldwide face a dilemma: Neglecting iLUC effects that do in fact exist or taking them into account although no sound methodology is available? The article covers the current state of the discussion and also analyses the approaches developed for taking indirect land use change into account. Assessment criteria for coping with the iLUC dilemma are developed and policy recommendations are derived from that.

[1]  Göran Berndes,et al.  Bioenergy, land use change and climate change mitigation. , 2011 .

[2]  Richard M. Cruse,et al.  Sustainable Biofuels Redux , 2008, Science.

[3]  Johann Wolfgang,et al.  FOREST CERTIFICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW , 2003 .

[4]  Gregory P Asner,et al.  Changing Drivers of Deforestation and New Opportunities for Conservation , 2009, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  Jacinto F. Fabiosa,et al.  Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change , 2008, Science.

[6]  Michael Obersteiner,et al.  Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error , 2009, Science.

[7]  Stefan Bringezu,et al.  Executive Summary: Rapid Assessment on Biofuels and the Environment: Overview and Key Findings , 2009 .

[8]  E. Ceotto.  Grasslands for bioenergy production. A review , 2011, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[9]  J. Mathews.  Towards a sustainably certifiable futures contract for biofuels , 2008 .

[10]  J. Ebeling,et al.  The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[11]  C. D. Maria,et al.  Carbon leakage revisited: unilateral climate policy with directed technical change , 2008 .

[12]  Andrew D. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material for: Ethanol Can Contribute To Energy and Environmental Goals , 2006 .

[13]  Grit Ludwig.  Energetische Verwendung von Biomasse nur mit Augenmaß vorantreiben , 2009 .

[14]  U. Fritsche,et al.  The Power of Bioenergy‐Related Standards to Protect Biodiversity , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[15]  C. Bauer,et al.  Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA (11 pp) , 2007 .

[16]  Folkard Asch,et al.  Agricultural Research for Development in the Tropics: Caught between Energy Demands and Food Needs , 2009 .

[17]  V. Dale,et al.  Biofuels: Effects on Land and Fire , 2008, Science.

[18]  J. Melillo,et al.  Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important? , 2009, Science.

[19]  B. Dehue,et al.  Summary of approaches to accounting for indirect impacts of biofuel production. , 2009 .

[20]  S. Polasky,et al.  Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt , 2008, Science.

[21]  Michael O'Hare,et al.  Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels' indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[22]  P. Pattberg.  The Forest Stewardship Council: Risk and Potential of Private Forest Governance , 2005 .

[23]  Andrzej Tabeau,et al.  Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies: Exploring Structural Changes in Production and Consumption to Reduce Biodiversity Loss , 2010 .

[24]  E. Robert,et al.  Indirect Land Use Change From Increased Biofuels Demand - Comparison of Models and Results for Marginal Biofuels Production from Different Feedstocks , 2010 .

[25]  A. Faaij,et al.  From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning , 2010 .

[26]  S. Guéneau,et al.  Towards the Privatization of Global Forest Governance? , 2008 .

[27]  Gerd Muehlheusser,et al.  Environmental liability under uncertain causation , 2008 .

[28]  G. Reinhardt,et al.  Synopsis of current models and methods applicable to indirect land use change (ILUC) , 2009 .

[29]  Hao Tan,et al.  Biofuels and indirect land use change effects: the debate continues , 2009 .

[30]  E. Meidinger,et al.  Social and Political Dimensions of Forest Certification , 2003 .

[31]  D. Nepstad,et al.  Globalization of the Amazon Soy and Beef Industries: Opportunities for Conservation , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[32]  S. Pfister,et al.  Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[33]  Betina Dimaranan,et al.  Global trade and environmental impact study of the EU biofuels mandate. , 2010 .

[34]  S. Schneider,et al.  Climate Change 2007 Synthesis report , 2008 .

[35]  Roland W. Scholz,et al.  Assessment of Land Use Impacts on the Natural Environment. Part 1: An Analytical Framework for Pure Land Occupation and Land Use Change (8 pp) , 2007 .

[36]  A. Bondeau,et al.  Indirect land-use changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in Brazil , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  R. DeFries,et al.  Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century , 2010 .