Flavio Freitas

Who owns the Brazilian carbon

Brazil is one of the major contributors to land-use change emissions, mostly driven by agricultural expansion for food, feed, and bioenergy feedstock. Policies to avoid deforestation related to private commitments, economic incentives, and other support schemes are expected to improve the effectiveness of current command and control mechanisms increasingly. However, until recently, land tenure was unknown for much of the Brazilian territory, which has undermined the governance of native vegetation and challenged support and incentive mechanisms for avoiding deforestation. We assess the total extent of public governance mechanisms protecting aboveground carbon (AGC) stocks. We constructed a land tenure dataset for the entire nation and modeled the effects and uncertainties of major land-use acts on protecting AGC stocks. Roughly 70% of the AGC stock in Brazil is estimated to be under legal protection, and an additional 20% is expected to be protected after areas in the Amazon with currently undesignated land undergo a tenure regularization. About 30% of the AGC stock is on private land, of which roughly two-thirds are protected. The Cerrado, Amazon, and Caatinga biomes hold about 40%, 30%, and 20% of the unprotected AGC, respectively. Effective conservation of protected and unprotected carbon will depend on successful implementation of the Forest Act, and regularization of land tenure in the Amazon. Policy development that prioritizes unprotected AGC stocks is warranted to promote conservation of native vegetation beyond the legal requirements. However, different biomes and land tenure structures may require different policy settings considering local and regional specifics. Finally, the fate of current AGC stocks relies upon effective implementation of command and control mechanisms, considering that unprotected AGC in native vegetation on private land only accounts for 6.5% of the total AGC stock.

How is biodiversity protection influencing the potential for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands

Sustainable feedstock supply is a critical issue for the bioenergy sector. One concern is that feedstock production will impact biodiversity. We analyze how this concern is addressed in assessments of biomass supply potentials and in selected governance systems in the EU and Brazil, including the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the Brazilian Forest Act. The analysis focuses on grasslands and includes estimates of the amount of grassland area (and corresponding biomass production volume) that would be excluded from cultivation in specific biodiversity protection scenarios. The reviewed assessments used a variety of approaches to identify and exclude biodiverse grasslands as unavailable for bioenergy. Because exclusion was integrated with other nature protection considerations, quantification of excluded grassland areas was often not possible. The RED complements and strengthens the CAP in terms of biodiversity protection. Following the RED, an estimated 39%–48% (about 9–11 Mha) and 15%–54% (about 10–38 Mha) of natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse in EU‐28. The estimated biomass production potential on these areas corresponds to some 1–3 and 1.5–10 EJ/year for natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively (depending on area availability and management intensity). However, the RED lacks clear definitions and guidance, creating uncertainty about its influence on grassland availability for bioenergy feedstock production. For Brazil, an estimated 16%–77% (about 16–76 Mha) and 1%–32% (about 7–24 Mha) of natural and non‐natural grassland, respectively, may be considered highly biodiverse. In Brazil, ecological–economic zoning was found potentially important for grassland protection. Further clarification of grassland definitions and delineation in regulations will facilitate a better understanding of the prospects for bioenergy feedstock production on grasslands, and the impacts of bioenergy deployment on biodiversity.