David Neil Bird

Methods for the quantification of GHG emissions at the landscape level for developing countries in smallholder contexts

Landscape scale quantification enables farmers to pool resources and expertise. However, the problem remains of how to quantify these gains. This article considers current greenhouse gas (GHG) quantification methods that can be used in a landscape scale analysis in terms of relevance to areas dominated by smallholders in developing countries. In landscape scale carbon accounting frameworks, measurements are an essential element. Sampling strategies need careful design to account for all pools/fluxes and to ensure judicious use of resources. Models can be used to scale-up measurements and fill data gaps. In recent years a number of accessible models and calculators have been developed which can be used at the landscape scale in developing country areas. Some are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method and others on dynamic ecosystem models. They have been developed for a range of different purposes and therefore vary in terms of accuracy and usability. Landscape scale assessments of GHGs require a combination of ground sampling, use of data from census, remote sensing (RS) or other sources and modelling. Fitting of all of these aspects together needs to be performed carefully to minimize uncertainties and maximize the use of scarce resources. This is especially true in heterogeneous landscapes dominated by smallholders in developing countries.

Zero, one, or in between : evaluation of alternative national and entity-level accounting for bioenergy

Accounting for bioenergys carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as done under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme, fails to capture the full extent of these emissions. As a consequence, other approaches have been suggested. Both the EU and United States already use value‐chain approaches to determine emissions due to biofuels – an approach quite different from that of the KP. Further, both the EU and United States are engaged in consultation processes to determine how emissions connected with use of biomass for heat and power will be handled under regulatory systems. The United States is considering whether CO2 emissions from biomass should be handled like fossil fuels. In this context, this article reviews and evaluates the three basic bioenergy accounting options. CO2 emissions from bioenergy are not counted at the point of combustion. Instead emissions due to use of biomass are accounted for in the land‐use sector as carbon stock losses – a combustion factor (CoF) = 0 approach; CO2 emissions from bioenergy are accounted for in the energy sector – a CoF = 1 approach; and End users account for all or a specified subset of CO2 emissions, regardless of where geographically these emissions occur – 0 < CoF < 1.

Incentives for the use of forest biomass: a comparative analysis of Kyoto Protocol accounting pre- and post-2012

This article focuses on differences between incentives of current and post-2012 Kyoto Protocol land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) accounting rules. Three changes to the LULUCF accounting rules were agreed to in Durban. These changes alter national-level incentives for retaining wood in forests, using wood for products or using it for energy. Post-2012, accounting for emissions from managed forests will be mandatory rather than voluntary, as is currently the case. Reference levels, rather than historical carbon stock levels, will be used to measure these emissions. Finally, increases and decreases in harvested wood products (HWP) pools will be reported. These changes provide national-level incentives to increase forest carbon stocks and to use nationally harvested wood for products. However, the rule that no emissions are counted at the point of combustion of biomass remains unaltered. This gives entities with greenhouse gas (GHG) obligations under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) an incentive to use wood for energy, counteracting the national-level incentives. Use of additionally harvested wood for energy may increase national emissions within commitment period time-frames because combustion of biomass, in most cases, results in higher carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy supplied than combustion of the fossil fuels it replaces. In contrast, retention of wood in forests or use of domestic wood for products, will, particularly under the post-2012 rules, tend to result in lower national-level emissions being accounted. However, neither retention of wood in forests nor increases in the HWP pool results in benefits to individual entities, as currently there is no EU scheme under which the entities involved face GHG obligations.

Accounting for Algae

Interest and research in the use of algae for energy is growing but an analysis of the different methods for the accounting for the carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions that result, is lacking. In this article, four accounting systems are evaluated for their completeness, simplicity, sectoral accuracy, and scale‐independence. Two options under the Kyoto Protocol (KP), a value‐chain (end‐user responsibility) approach, and Point of Uptake and Release (POUR) are evaluated.