2. Accounting for Biomass Carbon Emissions
This chapter examines the way in which biomass is treated as carbon-neutral at the point of combustion because it is assumed that its emissions are accounted for in the land-use sector, and not in the energy sector, under international rules for greenhouse gas emissions. The following issues are discussed:
- Reporting and accounting rules for biomass under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, and the impact of parties’ choice of forest-management reference levels.
- An analysis of the different ways in which biomass energy emissions can go unaccounted for, or ‘missing’.
- A summary of the forest-management reference levels adopted by Annex I parties to the UNFCCC, and the levels of emissions from the use of solid biomass for energy.
- National case studies of the UK, the US, Finland and France, identifying where biomass emissions may go unaccounted for.
Reporting and accounting
This treatment is essentially an artefact of the approach taken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to greenhouse gas reporting and accounting. Greenhouse gas reporting under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the process of estimating and compiling national emissions data in order to describe the amounts of, and trends in, countries’ emissions. Accounting, by contrast, involves applying a set of predetermined rules and conventions to reported data so as to assess countries’ progress towards their national emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol (or any other climate regime with targets).108 While reporting is a necessary precursor to accounting under the UNFCCC, the two processes are distinct. Not all emissions included in a country’s greenhouse gas reports will necessarily be reflected in its greenhouse gas accounts.
In principle the changes in carbon emissions resulting from the harvesting of woody biomass and its burning for energy could be reported in either the land-use sector, at the point of harvesting and removal from the forest, or in the energy sector, at the point of combustion. In order to ensure consistency and avoid double-counting, the IPCC determined that countries should report emissions from biomass combustion only in their land-use sectors. It is this categorization of emissions that has led many policymakers to perceive biomass as a carbon-neutral energy source (although this was not the IPCC’s intention).
The IPCC’s approach is logical in the context of greenhouse gas reporting, for which countries estimate and report emissions from all sectors. However, problems start to arise when countries account for changes in their greenhouse gas emissions against their national targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Accounting for emissions from the land-use sector has always been a complex issue as, unlike other ones, this sector is subject to significant natural variation in emissions levels as a result of climatic impacts on growth as well as of fires, insect infestations and diseases. There has been considerable debate over how to account for the associated emissions, leading to specific sets of rules for land use, land-use change and forestry, which have been applied at a different pace than the rules for emissions accounting in other sectors. Problems can arise when a country does not account for land-use sector emissions at all, or accounts for them only incompletely, or accounts for its land-use and energy sectors using different benchmarks.
Accounting in the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period
In the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008–12), UNFCCC Annex I parties (essentially, developed countries) could choose whether or not to account at all for emissions from forest-management activities.109 Of the 38 parties to the protocol, 24 chose to include forest-management emissions; the land-use sector accounts of those 24 parties therefore at least partially reflected changes in emissions attributable to the use of forest biomass for energy. Emissions associated with forest-based bioenergy were not reflected anywhere in the accounts of the other 14 parties.
It is possible, however, to calculate the total volume of biomass-related emissions, as under the UNFCCC, Annex I countries are requested to report carbon dioxide emissions from biomass used for energy as a separate line item (referred to as a ‘memo item’) in their greenhouse gas inventories. As noted, these are not included in the total reported emissions for the energy sector, as it is assumed they are reflected in the land-use emissions inventory.110 Over the five years of the first commitment period, carbon dioxide emissions from biomass energy use in Annex I countries totalled approximately 4.16 Gt. This figure includes emissions from solid, liquid and gaseous biomass used for energy in all sectors of the economy – solid biomass includes wood and wood waste, black liquor, other primary solid biomass (such as municipal solid waste) and charcoal. The proportion of total biomass energy emissions attributable to solid biomass varied widely between countries, from 0 per cent to 100 per cent; on average it comprised approximately 78 per cent of all biomass energy emissions in 2012.
Accounting in the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period
For the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period (2013–20), parties agreed to adopt mandatory accounting of emissions from forest management. Parties were permitted to choose the reference level of emissions against which they accounted for changes, subject to agreed parameters and processes. This is different from how changes in emissions in the energy and other sectors are assessed, which is against a historical baseline of emissions in 1990. Of the 37 parties that adopted targets for the protocol’s second commitment period, 32 chose to account for changes in forest-management emissions against a business-as-usual baseline and three chose a historical baseline; the other two did not submit a forest-management reference level.
A business-as-usual baseline is expressed as average annual forest-management emissions projected over the second commitment period (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Business-as-usual accounting in the land-use sector
Parties choosing a business-as-usual baseline generally did so in order to minimize the potential for non-anthropogenic and/or non-additional emissions entering their national greenhouse gas accounts. However, in practice, using this baseline also allows a country to avoid accounting for a portion of emissions from biomass energy use (and other forest-management practices).
A business-as-usual baseline accounts for forest management relative to a projection – a prediction of net emissions over the commitment period. This projection may include anticipated levels of harvesting of forest biomass for energy. If so, the associated emissions will not count towards the country’s emissions target since they are already included in the baseline. (This is as long as the emissions are in line with the projection; if they are higher, then the difference between actual and projected emissions will be counted.) Only where a country does not include anticipated emissions from biomass energy in its business-as-usual baseline will it count all such emissions against its target.
This explanation assumes that all other emissions included in a business-as-usual reference level occur as projected. Accounting in the land-use sector does not differentiate between sources of emissions – for example, between emissions from forest biomass harvested for energy and emissions from harvests for wood pulp. It is therefore possible that increases in emissions from biomass energy could be balanced by falls in emissions from other activities. In this situation, a country would be able to register zero emissions in its account even though emissions from forest-based biomass energy were higher than predicted. The analysis below assumes that all non-bioenergy emissions occur as predicted in the business-as-usual projection, in order to highlight the impacts of forest-based biomass energy use on accounting.
The forest-management guidance for the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period specifies that countries should not include the effects of policies adopted and implemented after 31 December 2009 in their reference levels. Thus, countries using business-as-usual baselines will count emissions attributable to post-2009 policies, including those promoting the use of forest-based bioenergy, against their emissions targets. Parties must also account for the effects of any changes to pre-2010 policies implemented after 2009. Policies adopted and implemented prior to 2010 may be included in the reference level, though EU member states have agreed not to include policies stemming from the implementation of the 2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive.
Countries choosing to use a historical baseline, rather than a business-as-usual one, account against their forest-management emissions in 1990 (in line with accounting for other sectors) or their average annual emissions over a historical period, e.g. 1990–2009 (see Figure 4). Parties may have opted to use a historical baseline to maintain continuity with past accounting practices or to maintain consistency with accounting in other sectors. Emissions levels from a historical baseline are also easier to determine. Depending on the circumstances, the level of historical emissions may in fact be the most accurate predictor of future emissions.
Figure 4: Historical base year/base period accounting in the land-use sector
Even accounting relative to a historical base year does not result in ‘complete’ carbon accounting since the quantity of emissions occurring in the base year is subtracted from emissions in the commitment period: it is only the change in emissions that appears in the country’s greenhouse gas accounts. The full quantity of emissions appears only in a country’s greenhouse gas inventory reports. However, using the same historical benchmark for the energy and land-use sectors at least puts emissions from forest biomass-based energy on the same footing as emissions from other energy sources, thus minimizing the potential for leakage between the sectors. When the accounting system values a tonne of emissions from biomass energy the same as it values a tonne of emissions generated from other energy sources, it is less likely that mitigation targets in the energy sector will drive perverse outcomes.
Countries without sufficient domestic resources to satisfy their biomass energy demand may import woody biomass for use in their energy sectors. Because the IPCC guidance provides that emissions from biomass energy are not accounted for within the energy sector, emissions from combusting imported biomass for energy are automatically precluded from appearing anywhere in an importing country’s accounts. Whether the associated emissions are accounted for in the country of origin depends on whether the exporting country accounts for forest-management emissions, and, if so, what kind of reference level it uses.
The potential for ‘missing’ biomass energy emissions
The accounting framework described earlier creates the potential for biomass energy emissions to go unaccounted for, or ‘missing’, in three possible ways.
Imported forest biomass used for energy
The first and most obvious cause of unaccounted-for emissions is due to biomass imported from non-accounting countries. As noted, it is the exporting countries that should account for the carbon emissions, but this will not hold true when the countries growing and harvesting the biomass fall outside the accounting framework. This is the case for the US, Canada and Russia, all significant exporters of woody biomass that do not account for greenhouse gas emissions under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (though their emissions will be reported – as opposed to accounted for – under the UNFCCC).
Imports of forest biomass from countries that do account for greenhouse gas emissions within the land-use sector may also result in missing carbon emissions, depending on the exporting country’s reference-level approach.
Historical reference levels
A historical reference level reflecting past emissions that are higher than current levels will allow a country to increase its emissions over the commitment period up to that historical level without accounting for the increase. In fact, if a country remains below its historical emissions level it will receive credits – commonly referred to as ‘hot air’, or non-additional greenhouse gas reductions. In contrast, a country with a historical reference level reflecting a lower level of emissions than ultimately occur in the commitment period will account for emissions above the historical level.
Although a historical reference level that allows for unaccounted increases in emissions may result in ‘missing’ biomass energy emissions, this phenomenon is no different from greenhouse gas accounting in any other sector under the Kyoto Protocol. If the same historical year or period is used for the reference level in the land-use and energy sectors, and if the sectors are fungible, emissions from biomass energy are on an equal footing with emissions from other energy sources. In this case, the potential for leakage between sectors is minimized, also reducing the potential for biomass energy policies to drive perverse outcomes.
Business-as-usual (projected) reference levels
If a country’s projected reference level includes policies aimed at increasing the use of forest biomass for energy, it will not account for the emissions resulting from those policies (as long as they were adopted before 2010) against its greenhouse gas targets. An accounting framework that allows countries to build anticipated increases in forest harvests into their projections thus fails to reflect the true atmospheric impacts of forest-based biomass energy.
If its projected reference level does not include the impacts of bioenergy policies, a country will count emissions attributable to those policies against its allowable target level of emissions. However, even countries that have not explicitly included anticipated emissions increases due to bioenergy policies in their reference levels have often implicitly built some amount of bioenergy use into their business-as-usual projections. The resulting emissions will not count towards their emissions targets.
Harvested wood products
In addition, for countries using business-as-usual reference levels, accounting for emissions from harvested wood products may help to bring some emissions from forest-based biomass energy back into the accounting framework. The rules for harvested wood products were amended in the second commitment period to allow countries to assume that forest carbon can be stored in long-lived products. Under these rules, countries account for emissions from harvested wood products according to a set of first-order decay functions and default half-lives for three categories of products: paper (two years), wood panels (25 years), and sawnwood (35 years). (Carbon dioxide emissions from wood harvested for energy purposes are assumed to occur in the year of harvest.)111
Countries using business-as-usual reference levels generally allocate their future harvests to one of the four categories above – paper, wood panels, sawnwood or biomass for energy – based on their historical inputs into each product category. For example, if a country used 15 per cent of the volume of its domestic forest harvests for energy in the past, its reference level would assume that 15 per cent of the volume harvested over the commitment period would be used for energy. The emissions associated with the corresponding volume of biomass used for energy would not count against that country’s target, as those emissions were included in the reference level and thus ‘cancelled out’ of accounting.
Where a tonne of emissions from burning biomass for energy does not count against a country’s emissions target but a tonne of emissions from fossil fuel energy sources does, there will be an incentive to use biomass energy rather than fossil fuels in order to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Due to the differences in the timing of emissions between harvested wood products and biomass used for energy, however, a country that uses a greater proportion of its domestic harvests for energy than in the past may account for the marginal increase in emissions. Emissions from the creation of longer-lived harvested wood products – wood panels and sawnwood – do not occur in the commitment period and thus are not included in a projected reference level. However, if a country increases the proportion of harvested biomass it uses for energy and reduces its production of long-lived harvested wood products, the associated volume of carbon dioxide will now occur in the commitment period. Because the reference level did not include those emissions, a country that increases the portion of its domestic forest harvests used for energy may count the marginal increase in emissions against its emissions target.
Summary
There is a risk of carbon emissions going unaccounted for or ‘missing’ as long as (1) forest biomass-exporting countries remain outside the greenhouse gas accounting framework, (2) emissions in the land-use and energy sectors are accounted for using different approaches, or (3) countries build the emissions resulting from policies promoting biomass energy use into their accounting baselines.
This risks creating perverse policy outcomes. Where a tonne of emissions from burning biomass for energy does not count against a country’s emissions target but a tonne of emissions from fossil fuel energy sources does, there will be an incentive to use biomass energy rather than fossil fuels in order to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions – even where this reduction is not ‘real’ in the sense that it is not accounted for in any country’s land-use sector accounts.
Biomass energy emissions in the second commitment period
There are currently 43 Annex I countries under the UNFCCC.112 Thirty-five of them have submitted reference levels to use for forest-management accounting in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (see Table 4). The remaining eight are either not parties to the protocol (Canada, the US), are parties without targets under its second commitment period (Japan, New Zealand, Russia, Turkey) or have not so far submitted a forest-management reference level (Monaco, which has no forests, and Kazakhstan).
Three of these 35 countries submitted forest-management reference levels based on historical emissions. Two account for changes relative to 1990 levels while the third accounts for changes relative to its average forest-management emissions in 1990–2009. The greenhouse gas accounts of these three parties will include any changes in emissions attributable to the use of forest-based biomass for energy relative to these historical levels.
The other 32 parties elected to use business-as-usual reference levels for forest-management accounting for the second commitment period. Sixteen used country-specific models or methodologies to calculate their business-as-usual scenarios: 14 EU member states relied on projections modelled by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and two parties used a linear extrapolation of historical emissions data. As discussed above, the impacts of pre-2010 biomass energy policies may be included in these parties’ reference levels, with the effect that emissions attributable to those policies will not be included in their accounting.
Of the 32 parties using business-as-usual reference levels for forest management, 21 explicitly included policies encouraging the use of biomass energy within their emissions projections. The remaining 11 countries did not model the impacts of such policies within their reference levels. This does not preclude the possibility that any increases in forest harvests and/or biomass utilization included in these countries’ business-as-usual projections could be used for biomass energy, but there is no causal link within the reference level between anticipated biomass energy demand and forest harvests. Consequently, any increases in emissions built into the reference level (and therefore excluded from accounting) are not directly attributable to increased demand for biomass energy.
For the 21 countries that explicitly included the impacts of biomass energy policies, some quantity of emissions over the commitment period will result from biomass energy use, but these emissions will not count against the countries’ national targets since they are included in the reference level. The question then is: how large is the quantity of unaccounted-for emissions?
Table 4: Forest-management reference levels for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol
|
Type of reference level |
Reference level includes policies driving biomass energy use? |
Explanation |
---|---|---|---|
Australia |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
Austria |
Country-specific projection |
Yes |
Includes increase in demand for woody biomass for energy of 20 per cent from 2008–20; gross domestic consumption of woody biomass for energy from 18 million cubic metres (Mm3) (145 petajoules – PJ) in 2009 to 21–22 Mm3 (170–175 PJ) in 2020. Assumes ~20 per cent supply from imports. |
Belarus |
1990 (historical base year) |
N/A |
|
Belgium |
Joint Research Centre (JRC) projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Bulgaria |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Croatia |
Country-specific projection |
Yes |
Biomass energy is a driver of increased harvests from 5.15 Mm3 in 2010 to 8.00 Mm3 in 2020, but not possible to calculate specific portion of increase due to energy policy. |
Cyprus |
Linear extrapolation |
N/A |
|
Czech Republic |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Denmark |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
Estonia |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Finland |
Country-specific projection |
Yes |
Projection includes increased use of wood chips from 5.3 TWh in 2007 to 21 TWh in 2020, increased use of wood/wood pellets from 13.7 to 16 TWh. Black liquor, industrial wood residues, wood chips for biofuels included. Assumes increased harvesting and rate of harvesting logging residues and stumps; reduced dependence on imports. |
France |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Germany |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
Greece |
1990–2009 (historical base period) |
N/A |
|
Hungary |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Iceland |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
Ireland |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
Italy |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Latvia |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Liechtenstein |
Country-specific projection |
Yes |
Projection includes an increase in harvests, an unknown portion of which is attributable to increasing use of forest biomass for energy. |
Lithuania |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Luxembourg |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Malta |
Linear extrapolation |
N/A |
|
Netherlands |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Norway |
1990 (historical base year) |
N/A |
|
Poland |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
Portugal |
Country-specific projection |
Yes |
Projected increase in harvests of 6 per cent attributable to expansion of pulp and bioenergy sectors. |
Romania |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Slovakia |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Slovenia |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
Spain |
JRC projection |
Yes |
Projection includes demand for biomass and waste for electricity and thermal energy; cannot determine type or origin of fuel. |
Sweden |
Country-specific projection |
Yes |
Projection includes increased use of forest residues and stumps for biomass energy from 8.6 TWh in 2010 to 13.3 TWh in 2020. Area of stump harvest increases from 4,800 hectares in 2010 to 23,400 hectares in 2020. |
Switzerland |
Country-specific projection |
Yes |
Projection includes 30 per cent increase in harvesting rates in 2013–20 relative to 1990–2007, an unknown portion of which is attributable to increasing use of forest biomass for energy. |
Ukraine |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
UK |
Country-specific projection |
No |
|
The volume of ‘missing’ biomass energy emissions
For the most part, the information provided in countries’ forest-management reference level submissions is not sufficient to answer the question above. Ideally, these submissions would have specified the anticipated impact of biomass energy policies on the quantity of woody biomass utilized, the origins of that biomass (additional domestic forest harvests, increased use of domestic forestry residues or higher imports) and the resulting emissions. However, of the 21 countries whose reference levels explicitly included biomass energy policies, only three – Austria, Finland and Sweden – quantified their impacts. Several other countries indicated that they had built anticipated increases in biomass energy use into their reference levels, but did not provide sufficient data to quantify the resulting impact.
As noted above, however, it is possible to calculate carbon dioxide emissions from biomass from the emissions reported as a memo item in Annex I countries’ greenhouse gas inventory reports. This covers emissions from biomass used for energy in all sectors, including energy, manufacturing and construction, transport, commercial and institutional, residential, agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories divides biomass used for energy into three categories: solid, liquid and gaseous.113 Solid biomass includes wood and wood waste, sulphite lyes (black liquor), other primary solid biomass such as plant matter, vegetal waste and animal materials and wastes, and charcoal. Liquid biomass includes biogasoline, biodiesel and other liquid biofuels. Gaseous biomass covers landfill biogas, sludge biogas and other biogas. The biodegradable fraction of municipal wastes is also included in the IPCC’s definition of biomass fuels, though some countries have now started to report emissions from municipal solid waste separately.
Although the memo item for carbon dioxide emissions from biomass energy does not break down emissions by the source of biomass, most countries report the type of biomass used in a separate emissions calculation based on economy-wide fuel use.114 Table 5 applies the proportion of emissions from solid biomass in this second calculation to each country’s memo item emissions to estimate the proportion of carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the combustion of solid biomass.115 Not all countries differentiate between emissions from solid, liquid and gaseous biomass, and some include municipal solid waste while others do not. This reinforces the fact that the figures cited here are estimates rather than precise figures.
Table 5: Carbon dioxide emissions from total biomass and solid biomass
1990 |
2000 |
2010 |
2014 |
|||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total biomass emissions (MtCO2) |
% from solid biomass |
Solid biomass emissions (MtCO2) |
Total biomass emissions (MtCO2) |
% from solid biomass |
Solid biomass emissions (MtCO2) |
Total biomass emissions (MtCO2) |
% from solid biomass |
Solid biomass emissions (MtCO2) |
Total biomass emissions (MtCO2) |
% from solid biomass |
Solid biomass emissions (MtCO2) |
Australia |
15.14 |
100 |
15.14 |
19.24 |
98 |
18.86 |
18.51 |
97 |
17.95 |
18.04 |
96 |
17.32 |
Austria |
9.93 |
98 |
9.70 |
12.48 |
95 |
11.87 |
23.25 |
87 |
20.12 |
23.35 |
81 |
18.92 |
Belarus |
2.01 |
45 |
0.91 |
3.04 |
14 |
0.43 |
5.15 |
29 |
1.49 |
5.10 |
52 |
2.65 |
Belgium |
2.30 |
76 |
1.75 |
2.96 |
75 |
2.21 |
11.60 |
73 |
8.50 |
11.00 |
71 |
7.82 |
Bulgaria |
0.81 |
100 |
0.81 |
2.58 |
100 |
2.58 |
4.30 |
14 |
0.60 |
5.06 |
4 |
0.21 |
Canada |
49.81 |
59 |
29.27 |
55.81 |
55 |
30.46 |
51.67 |
57 |
29.60 |
55.10 |
55 |
30.57 |
Croatia |
5.13 |
100 |
5.13 |
4.70 |
100 |
4.70 |
5.94 |
100 |
5.91 |
5.25 |
97 |
5.10 |
Cyprus |
0.02 |
100 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
100 |
0.03 |
0.14 |
59 |
0.08 |
0.14 |
53 |
0.08 |
Czech Republic |
5.42 |
99 |
5.34 |
5.32 |
90 |
4.78 |
9.94 |
86 |
8.60 |
13.25 |
78 |
10.34 |
Denmark |
4.57 |
73 |
3.33 |
6.84 |
64 |
4.36 |
14.90 |
77 |
11.52 |
14.72 |
73 |
10.73 |
Estonia |
0.96 |
100 |
0.96 |
2.30 |
100 |
2.30 |
3.73 |
99 |
3.67 |
3.77b |
99 |
3.72 |
Finland |
19.33 |
100 |
19.33 |
29.45 |
100 |
29.40 |
36.38 |
98 |
35.79 |
39.38 |
96 |
37.87 |
France |
44.27 |
83 |
36.90 |
42.83 |
78 |
33.50 |
60.00 |
78 |
46.80 |
57.30 |
73 |
41.57 |
Germany |
21.80 |
100 |
21.80 |
34.25 |
100 |
34.25 |
108.51 |
100 |
108.51 |
98.53 |
100 |
98.53 |
Greece |
2.08 |
100 |
2.08 |
2.73 |
100 |
2.73 |
2.83 |
NO |
0.00 |
2.68 |
NO |
0.00 |
Hungary |
3.13 |
97 |
3.05 |
3.41 |
95 |
3.25 |
8.03 |
89 |
7.15 |
7.54 |
87 |
6.59 |
Iceland |
NA, NO |
NA |
NA, NO |
NA, NO |
NA |
NA, NO |
NA, NO |
NA |
NA, NO |
NA, NO |
NA |
NA, NO |
Ireland |
0.49 |
99 |
0.49 |
0.59 |
89 |
0.52 |
1.37 |
60 |
0.83 |
1.91 |
61 |
1.16 |
Italy |
13.95 |
98 |
13.70 |
18.67 |
72 |
13.53 |
41.81 |
70 |
29.24 |
40.59 |
71 |
28.87 |
Japan |
34.86 |
100 |
34.86 |
39.62 |
100 |
39.62 |
57.79 |
100 |
57.79 |
59.99 |
100 |
59.97 |
Kazakhstan |
1.17 |
100 |
1.17 |
0.34 |
100 |
0.34 |
0.55 |
100 |
0.55 |
0.31 |
100 |
0.31 |
Latvia |
3.03 |
100 |
3.03 |
4.37 |
100 |
4.37 |
5.15 |
97 |
5.02 |
6.46 |
96 |
6.18 |
Liechtenstein |
0.01 |
72 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
79 |
0.01 |
0.02 |
88 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
93 |
0.02 |
Lithuania |
1.31 |
100 |
1.31 |
2.97 |
100 |
2.97 |
4.48 |
96 |
4.32 |
5.28 |
94 |
4.98 |
Luxembourg |
0.16 |
NO |
NO |
0.15 |
50 |
0.08 |
0.45 |
44 |
0.20 |
0.57 |
43 |
0.25 |
Malta |
IE, NO |
NE |
NE |
IE, NO |
NE |
NE |
0.00 |
NE |
NE |
0.02 |
NE |
NE |
Monaco |
0.03 |
NO |
NO |
0.05 |
NO |
NO |
0.04 |
NO |
NO |
0.04 |
NO |
NO |
Netherlands |
4.08 |
59 |
2.40 |
6.81 |
50 |
3.43 |
13.3 |
55 |
7.35 |
12.76 |
44 |
5.66 |
New Zealand |
3.61 |
95 |
3.43 |
5.33 |
97 |
5.18 |
5.70 |
94 |
5.37 |
5.49 |
94 |
5.16 |
Norway |
4.48 |
100 |
4.48 |
4.71 |
100 |
4.71 |
6.40 |
100 |
6.40 |
3.91 |
100 |
3.91 |
Poland |
6.81 |
99 |
6.80 |
16.90 |
99 |
16.80 |
30.4 |
89 |
27.1 |
34.40 |
90 |
30.82 |
Portugal |
11.40 |
86 |
9.75 |
11.68 |
78 |
9.12 |
12.90 |
67 |
8.60 |
11.17 |
60 |
6.67 |
Romania |
2.76 |
100 |
2.76 |
12.95 |
100 |
12.95 |
18.96 |
98 |
18.58 |
17.47 |
97 |
16.89 |
Russia |
62.57 |
100 |
62.27 |
18.55 |
98 |
18.15 |
14.85 |
100 |
14.85 |
13.62 |
100 |
13.62 |
Slovakia |
1.74 |
99 |
1.72 |
3.15 |
75 |
2.36 |
5.54 |
80 |
4.45 |
7.85 |
73 |
5.75 |
Slovenia |
2.18 |
100 |
2.18 |
1.98 |
100 |
1.98 |
3.16 |
93 |
2.95 |
2.86 |
93 |
2.65 |
Spain |
18.23 |
100 |
18.20 |
16.97 |
95 |
16.17 |
24.82 |
80 |
19.78 |
26.78 |
82 |
22.00 |
Sweden |
12.39 |
97 |
12.10 |
17.02 |
97 |
16.56 |
30.07 |
55 |
16.40 |
28.32 |
52 |
14.61 |
Switzerland |
4.47 |
97 |
4.33 |
4.74 |
95 |
4.52 |
6.55 |
96 |
6.29 |
6.66 |
95 |
6.32 |
Turkey |
32.82 |
100 |
32.82 |
29.56 |
100 |
29.56 |
20.87 |
100 |
20.84 |
15.25 |
98 |
14.98 |
Ukraine |
1.19 |
100 |
1.19 |
2.66 |
100 |
2.66 |
3.70 |
100 |
3.70 |
4.82 |
100 |
4.82 |
UK |
2.55 |
82 |
2.08 |
6.24 |
61 |
3.84 |
19.25 |
50 |
9.64 |
27.96 |
57 |
15.88 |
US |
219.41 |
98 |
215.02 |
227.43 |
97 |
210.76 |
265.11 |
72 |
191.59 |
293.73 |
74 |
217.65 |
Totals |
632.41 |
|
591.61 |
681.42 |
|
605.90 |
958.12 |
|
768.15 |
984.68 |
|
781.15 |
IE = included elsewhere; NA = not applicable; NO = not occurring; NE = not estimated
Source: National inventory submissions and national inventory reports to UNFCCC; aggregate greenhouse gas emission data on UNFCCC website.
Table 6: Biomass energy emissions (carbon dioxide) compared to total energy and economy-wide emissions, Annex I countries
|
1990 |
2000 |
2010 |
2014 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Total biomass energy emissions (MtCO2) |
632 |
681 |
958 |
985 |
Solid biomass energy emissions (MtCO2) |
592 |
606 |
768 |
781 |
Solid as % of total biomass energy emissions |
93.5 |
88.4 |
80.2 |
79.3 |
Total energy emissions (MtCO2) |
14,073 |
13,644 |
13,421 |
13,118 |
Solid biomass emissions as % of total energy emissions |
4.2 |
4.4 |
5.7 |
6.0 |
Total economy-wide emissions (MtCO2) |
15,006 |
14,446 |
14,186 |
13,983 |
Solid biomass emissions as % of total economy-wide emissions |
3.9 |
4.2 |
5.4 |
5.6 |
Source: National inventory submissions and national inventory reports to UNFCCC; aggregate greenhouse gas emission data on UNFCCC website.
Figure 5: Carbon dioxide emissions from biomass energy
Figure 6: Biomass as proportion of energy and economy-wide emissions
Table 6, and figures 5 and 6, present a summary of carbon dioxide emissions from total biomass and solid biomass in Annex I countries in 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2014, compared to total energy-sector and economy-wide emissions of carbon dioxide. As can be seen, total emissions from biomass energy and emissions from solid biomass have increased over the past two decades. While emissions from biomass have grown by more than 50 per cent from 1990 to 2014, however, emissions from solid biomass have grown by just over 30 per cent, thanks to faster rates of growth in liquid and gaseous biomass. The proportion of emissions accounted for by solid biomass fell from 93 per cent in 1990 to 79 per cent in 2014.
Nevertheless, in most countries, emissions from solid biomass constitute the vast majority of bioenergy emissions. In 2014, 23 of the 41 Annex I countries that reported having emissions from biomass-based energy derived 75 per cent or more of those emissions from solid biomass. The US accounts for almost 28 per cent of total Annex I solid biomass carbon emissions, while Germany, Japan and France account for a further 26 per cent. Neither the US nor Japan account for emissions from their land-use sectors under the Kyoto Protocol, Germany accounts against a business-as-usual projection that does not explicitly include bioenergy policies, and France uses a business-as-usual projection that includes bioenergy demand from policies up to, but not including, the 2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive. Woody biomass emissions from all these countries, therefore, have the potential to go unaccounted for.
National case studies
The UK
In 2014, the UK’s total carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion (excluding emissions from biomass) in all sectors – energy, manufacturing and construction, transport, commercial/institutional, residential, and agriculture/forestry/fisheries – were 416 MtCO2. Reported emissions from biomass energy were 28 MtCO2, of which about 16 MtCO2 were from solid biomass.116 Biomass for power and heat are the most significant renewable energy sources in the UK after wind, and biomass for electricity generation has been growing rapidly, due mainly to the conversion of units at the Drax power station from coal to biomass. The UK’s 2012 Bioenergy Strategy projected that by 2020 the share of biomass in power generation would account for 8–11 per cent, rising to 10–14 per cent by 2030.117 Current demand for biomass power is in line with these projections. In 2015 bioenergy, mostly from biomass power plants, accounted for 8.9 per cent of total electricity generation.118
For the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the UK accounts for its domestic forest-management emissions against a projection of business-as-usual emissions based on historical planting data. The projection is based on the assumption that managed forests are harvested according to their rotation intervals, when they reach their pre-determined age of maturity. It is therefore possible to determine the future schedule of forest harvests: emissions associated with them are included in the business-as-usual baseline and, accordingly, not accounted for against the UK’s emissions-reduction target. The reference level also assumes that a portion of the biomass from planned harvests – up to 17 per cent – will be used for biomass energy; emissions associated with any higher use of domestic forests for energy (and, correspondingly, less carbon stored in harvested wood products) would count towards the UK’s emissions target.119
The UK is heavily reliant, however, on imported woody biomass, primarily from the US, Canada, Latvia and Portugal. During the 12 months to the end of June 2016, it imported about 1.2 million tonnes of wood pellets from Latvia and about 0.3 million tonnes from Portugal.120 Like many EU countries, Latvia and Portugal account for forest-management emissions against business-as-usual projections that include ‘background’ levels of biomass energy demand.121 It is not possible to determine the level of forest harvests in exporting countries attributable to the UK’s demand for wood pellets. However, it is likely that a portion of the emissions associated with forest biomass imported by the UK is built into exporting countries’ projections, and therefore will not appear in these or any other countries’ greenhouse gas accounts.
The UK’s goals for biomass-based energy production, and its continued reliance on imports, mean that an increasing quantity of emissions are likely to be excluded from the international greenhouse gas accounting framework up to 2020.
Neither the US nor Canada are parties to the Kyoto Protocol, so none of the emissions associated with the harvest and combustion of woody biomass imported from those countries are included in accounting. During the 12 months to the end of June 2016, the UK imported about 4.1 million tonnes of wood pellets from the US and 1.4 million tonnes from Canada. Assuming that all 5.5 million tonnes were used to produce energy, 7.8 MtCO2 associated with this biomass was ‘missing’, i.e. it was not included in any country’s greenhouse gas accounts under the Kyoto Protocol. (This figure is calculated using the UK’s estimated emission factor, which may be an under-estimate. Using the emissions figures reported by Drax for 2013 gives a figure of 9.7 MtCO2.)122
The UK’s goals for biomass-based energy production, and its continued reliance on imports, mean that an increasing quantity of emissions are likely to be excluded from the international greenhouse gas accounting framework up to 2020. Emissions from domestic forest biomass resulting from planned forest harvests will not be included in accounting and, depending on the biomass’s country of origin, emissions associated with forest biomass imported may be accounted for, partially accounted for, or not accounted for at all.
The US
The US produces the world’s highest volume of emissions from solid biomass burnt for energy, although its relative contribution to the country’s total energy production is fairly low. In 2014, the US emitted 293 MtCO2 from the combustion of all types of biomass for energy, compared to 5,378 MtCO2 from total fuel combustion across all sectors (excluding biomass emissions). The US greenhouse gas inventory calculates emissions specifically from wood used for domestic energy (including black liquor); in 2014, this amounted to 218 MtCO2.123 The industrial sector (mainly pulp and paper, wood processing, chemical production and food production) was by far the largest end user, emitting 124 MtCO2 in 2014, followed by the residential sector with 60 MtCO2, and electricity generation with 26 MtCO2. Since the US is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, none of these emissions are accounted for under it (though they are reported under the UNFCCC).
The US is not only a major producer of woody biomass but also a major exporter, almost entirely to the EU. Its exports of wood pellets to the EU rose from 1.5 to 4.6 million tonnes between 2012 and 2015 (about 90 per cent of which was to the UK).124 The emissions resulting from combustion of these pellets will depend on where and under what conditions they are used. However, to the extent that the pellets were used to generate energy, the resulting emissions were not included in any country’s greenhouse gas accounts. Using the US’s emission factor for the combustion of wood for energy, these ‘missing’ emissions amounted to approximately 7.3 MtCO2 in 2015.125 (Using the Drax figures for the calculation gives emissions of 8.1 MtCO2.)
This example highlights how emissions should be accounted for either in the land-use sector of the exporting country or the energy sector of the importing country, but not both. The US has indicated that under the Paris Agreement it will track its greenhouse gas mitigation, including in the land-use sector, against a 2005 baseline.126 In 2005, US emissions from ‘forest land remaining forest land’127 were -800 MtCO2 (a net carbon sink, represented as negative emissions). If the domestic or international demand for forest biomass drives an increase in forest harvests, or a more intensive use of forest residues results in increased emissions relative to the 2005 level, the fall in the forest carbon sink will be reflected as an emission (debit) in the US greenhouse gas accounts – though this could be offset by higher forest growth.
Finland
Finland’s 2014 emissions from all types of biomass used for energy were 39 MtCO2, almost all – 38 MtCO2 – from solid biomass. This compares with 43 MtCO2 from non-biomass fuel combustion across all sectors. Finland accounts for forest-management emissions in the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period relative to a business-as-usual baseline that explicitly includes anticipated increases in emissions due to forest-based biomass energy use. The policies driving increased forest biomass demand were put in place in 2008 and therefore do not fall foul of the prohibition against including the impacts of post-2009 policies in forest-management reference levels. Finland’s renewable energy policies include the goal of replacing coal in power plants with biomass and energy efficiency measures by 2025.
Finland’s business-as-usual reference level includes the effects of a sharp increase in the demand for domestic roundwood. Domestic harvests in 2013 were approximately 56 million m3, of which 8 million m3, or 14 per cent, was for direct energy use. The country’s target for 2020 is to harvest 65–70 million m3 of wood from its forests, with 12 million m3 – approximately 17–18 per cent – harvested specifically for direct energy use.128 Because these harvests have been included in Finland’s forest-management reference level, the emissions associated with burning the resulting biomass for energy will not count against its emissions target. Using the net calorific value and emission factor for solid wood fuels supplied in Finland’s greenhouse gas inventory report, 10–21 MtCO2 from burning domestically harvested wood for energy will not be counted towards its emissions target.129
Despite Finland’s plans to increase forest harvests up to 2020, its anticipated harvest volume will still remain below the forest’s annual growth increment. So, even though Finland’s forest-management emissions do increase relative to current levels, its forests are predicted to remain a net carbon sink.
Although Finland harvests some biomass specifically for bioenergy, the majority of wood energy in the country is the by-product of forestry-based industries. The largest single source of wood energy is black liquor, the production of which is driven primarily by demand for pulp and paper rather than demand for energy. For the remaining portion, Finland’s forest-management reference level documentation indicates that it expects approximately 54 per cent of feedstock to derive from stemwood, 32 per cent from logging residues, and 14 per cent from stumps and roots. The discussion in Chapter 1 is relevant to the impact of the use of this feedstock on the climate; the length of the carbon payback period depends on what would have happened to the wood if it had not been used for energy, the rate of decay of residues, stumps and roots and other similar factors.
France
In 2014, France had the fourth highest carbon dioxide emissions from solid biomass use among Annex I countries after the US, Germany and Japan. It emitted 42 MtCO2 from burning solid biomass, compared to 313 MtCO2 from non-biomass fuel combustion.
France is one of the 14 EU member states whose forest-management reference levels were calculated using the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre’s approach. This used projections of, inter alia, global timber and bioenergy demand to drive its predictions of forest harvests in each of the countries modelled.130 Although France’s reference level does not include emissions from biomass used pursuant to the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, it does reflect the country’s earlier decision to support the development of wood-based bioenergy by increasing domestic harvests and the utilization of sawmill residues. Because France has explicitly included emissions attributable to these bioenergy policies in its reference level; it will not count those emissions toward its emissions target.
However, France also acknowledged the difficulty of accurately predicting future demand for forest biomass, and therefore future emissions. Its reference level submission noted that, despite its goal of increasing bioenergy use, practical considerations such as mobilization costs, the price of timber and the accessibility of wood may prevent it from fully achieving this. Therefore, although the government’s goal is to increase annual harvests of woody biomass for renewable energy and timber by 12 million m3 by 2020, the reference level conservatively assumes that harvests will actually increase by less than 5 million m3 compared to 2010.131 (Forest harvests in 2010 were approximately 59 million m3, and are projected to rise to approximately 63 million m3 in 2020.) Emissions associated with increases in forest harvests beyond the 5 million m3 included in the reference level will therefore be counted toward France’s emissions target. While this approach is still likely to result in unaccounted for carbon dioxide emissions, it should bring at least a portion of France’s bioenergy emissions into its accounting framework.
Conclusions and recommendations
The international greenhouse gas reporting and accounting frameworks established under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol assume that the carbon emissions associated with using woody biomass for energy are fully reported and accounted for in the land-use sector, and therefore should not be included in the energy sector. This tends to reinforce the assumption, commonly found in national policy frameworks, that biomass energy is zero-carbon at the point of use.
It is clear, however, that for the first and second commitment periods of the Kyoto Protocol, emissions from the use of woody biomass for energy have not been accurately reflected in countries’ greenhouse gas accounts. The problem of ‘missing’, or unaccounted-for, emissions arises when a country using biomass for energy:
- Imports biomass from a country outside the accounting framework – such as the US, Canada or Russia, all significant exporters of woody biomass that do not account for greenhouse gas emissions under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol;
- Accounts for its biomass emissions using a historical forest-management reference level that includes higher levels of biomass emissions than in the present; or
- Accounts for its biomass emissions using a business-as-usual forest-management reference level that (explicitly or implicitly) includes anticipated emissions from biomass energy; these emissions will not count against its national target.
In each of these scenarios, the accounting framework allows countries to avoid accounting for biomass energy emissions in both the energy and land-use sectors. However, such an absence of emissions from biomass energy is merely an artefact of the greenhouse gas accounting framework. It is a fall in emissions on paper only and does not change those emissions’ impacts on the atmosphere. This risks creating perverse policy outcomes: where a tonne of emissions from burning biomass for energy does not count against a country’s emissions target but a tonne of emissions from fossil fuel energy sources does, there will be an incentive to use biomass energy rather than fossil fuels in order to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions – even where this reduction is not ‘real’, in the sense that it is not accounted for in any country’s land-use sector accounts.
The quantity of emissions missing from the international greenhouse gas accounting framework is impossible to calculate directly, but is likely to be significant. The data gaps and ambiguities highlighted above emphasize the need for more detailed reporting on the types, sources and countries of origin of biomass used for energy. Although many countries already collect these data, they are not currently available in a form that allows for a complete understanding of the impact of biomass energy use on global or national emissions.
One solution would be to account for carbon dioxide emissions from biomass burned for energy within the energy sector, not the land-use sector. While additional rules would be required to ensure emissions were not double-counted in the energy and land-use sectors, this could be a viable solution given sufficient data and guidance to promote transparency. It would, however, require a major revision of accounting rules, so it is probably more practical to keep biomass emissions within the land-use sector. Four steps could then be taken within the existing framework to reduce the potential for missing emissions.
First, all countries should include the land-use sector in their national accounting. If carbon dioxide emissions from bioenergy continue to be reflected only in the land-use sector, then the practice of allowing biomass-producing countries to exclude their land-use sectors from accounting has the potential to create major accounting gaps with potentially perverse outcomes. The entry into force of the 2015 Paris Agreement – for which many details remain to be negotiated – affords an opportunity to revise the accounting system to incentivize all countries to report and account fully for emissions from their land-use sectors, including their forests.
Second, forest-management reference levels should contain detailed information on projected emissions from using biomass for energy, the origins of that biomass (additional domestic forest harvests or increased use of domestic forestry residues) and the resulting emissions.
Third, countries that import biomass for energy should be required to report on whether and how the country of origin accounts for biomass-based emissions. Importing biomass from a country that does not account for such emissions, or from one that has built biomass energy demand into its accounting baseline, will result in ‘missing’ emissions and is likely to promote the importing country’s potentially perverse reliance on biomass energy. Emissions associated with this imported biomass should therefore be fully accounted for by the importing country.
Fourth, countries using domestic biomass for energy should reconcile their energy and land-use sector accounting approaches in order to put emissions from each sector on a par with each other. If possible, accounting for greenhouse gas emissions in the energy and land-use sectors should use the same benchmarks – either a historical reference year/period or a business-as-usual scenario – to avoid emissions leakage between the sectors, and this should be uniform across all countries. If this is not feasible, additional methodologies and rules should be devised to bring biomass energy emissions back into the accounting framework and treated in the same way.
Although these options represent departures from current greenhouse gas reporting and accounting conventions, the scale of emissions at stake and the perverse incentives the current system creates require reform of the current system to reflect more accurately the atmospheric impacts of relying on biomass for energy.