Feedstock specific environmental risk levels related to biomass extraction for energy from boreal and temperate forests
- 1. Ecofys Germany, Am Karlsbad 11, 10785 Berlin (Germany)
- 2. Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CD Utrecht (Netherlands)
- 3. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Laurentian Forestry Centre, 1055 du P.E.P.S., P.O. Box 10380, Stn. Sainte-Foy, Québec, QC G1V 4C7 (Canada)
Description
Past research on identifying potentially negative impacts of forest management activities has primarily focused on traditional forest operations. The increased use of forest biomass for energy in recent years, spurred predominantly by policy incentives for the reduction of fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, and by efforts from the forestry sector to diversify products and increase value from the forests, has again brought much attention to this issue. The implications of such practices continue to be controversially debated; predominantly the adverse impacts on soil productivity and biodiversity, and the climate change mitigation potential of forest bioenergy. Current decision making processes require comprehensive, differentiated assessments of the known and unknown factors and risk levels of potentially adverse environmental effects. This paper provides such an analysis and differentiates between the feedstock of harvesting residues, roundwood, and salvage wood. It concludes that the risks related to biomass for energy outtake are feedstock specific and vary in terms of scientific certainty. Short-term soil productivity risks are higher for residue removal. There is however little field evidence of negative long-term impacts of biomass removal on productivity in the scale predicted by modeling. Risks regarding an alteration of biodiversity are relatively equally distributed across the feedstocks. The risk of limited or absent short-term carbon benefits is highest for roundwood, but negligible for residues and salvage wood. Salvage operation impacts on soil productivity and biodiversity are a key knowledge gap. Future research should also focus on deriving regionally specific, quantitative thresholds for sustainable biomass removal. -- Highlights: ► Synthesis of the scientific uncertainties regarding biomass for energy outtake. ► With specific focus on soil productivity, biodiversity, and carbon balance. ► Balanced determination of the risk levels associated with each aspect by feedstock. ► Comprehensive analysis of underlying attributes (indicators) determining risks. ► No feedstock free from environmental risks, though countermeasures available
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.002Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.002;
- PII
- S0961-9534(13)00051-2;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Biomass and Bioenergy
- Journal Volume
- 55
- Journal Page Range
- p. 212-226
- ISSN
- 0961-9534
- CODEN
- BMSBEO
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United Kingdom
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 45042761
- Subject category
- S09: BIOMASS FUELS;
- Descriptors DEI
- BIOFUELS; BIOMASS; CARBON; CLIMATIC CHANGE; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EXTRACTION; FORESTS; FOSSIL FUELS; GREENHOUSE GASES; HEALTH HAZARDS; PRODUCTIVITY; SOILS; SPECIES DIVERSITY
- Descriptors DEC
- ALTERNATIVE FUELS; ELEMENTS; ENERGY SOURCES; FUELS; GOVERNMENT POLICIES; HAZARDS; NONMETALS; RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES; SEPARATION PROCESSES
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2013 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.