1. Unaccounted emissions from biofuels Alex Kaat, UNFCCC SBSTA event June 9 2011

2. What makes biofuels attractive… UNFCCC as driving force: No accounting for combustion No mandatory accounting LULUCF An.1 No accounting (indirect) LUC non An. 1 Biofuel use: a result of 1.climate policies 2.that have ignored land use emissions

3. Land use under different scenarios Reference pathway (no serious climate policy) Adapted from: M Wise et al. Science May 2009;324:1183-86

4. Land use under different scenarios CO 2 emission target of 450 ppm Policies address fossil and terrestrial emissions. Adapted from: M Wise et al. Science May 2009;324:1183-86

5. Land use under different scenarios Modeled scenario (theoretical). CO 2 emission target of 450 ppm Policies address fossil but not terrestrial emissions. Adapted from: M Wise et al. Science May 2009;324:1183-86

6. Land use emissions: very substantial Adapted from: J. Fargione et al. Science February 2008; 319: 1235-1238

7. Indirect land use change: even worse Adapted from: Lapola D M et al. PNAS 2010;107:3388-3393 CO 2 payback time of total soybean mix due to expansion (Brazil): Direct (35 years) + Indirect (211 years) = 246 years

8. WI’s concern: widespread use peat soils Energy yield and emission factor of typical biomass fuel crops on peatsoil, compared to fossil fuels. Couwenberg 2007. IMCG-newsletter 2007-3 p.12-15

9. Case: EU aims to meet GHG reduction Bio-energy: main climate strategy EU Effort to prevent extremes in land use emissions - Hope REDD will solve parts of it… - ILUC?

10. Environmental implications 2020 Studies commissioned by EU DG-Trade: Large imports from non-Annex 1 in 2020 50% ethanol, 41% diesel When also accounting ILUC: Target higher than 5,6%: no GHG benefits No fuel meets 50% reduction target with ILUC 81-167% worse than fossil fuels  56 mln tonnes extra CO 2 (IEEP 2010)

11. EU- just small at global scale IEA BLUE Map Scenario, 50% reduction energy-related CO 2 emissions from 2005

12. Conclusions Biofuel expansion largely result of climate policies Only limited expansion possible without negative environmental impacts Not accounting LULUCF is disastrous.

13. What to do: option 1 Biofuel combustion remains zero emission But all (land-use) emissions accounted also non annex I; also LUC and ILUC Negative sides: Complicated Complete new methodology; why only for biofuels?

14. What to do: Option 2 Biofuel combustion accounted; like fossil Sequestration in feed stocks accounted (thus rewarded). In the longer term, maybe the best system Negative side: Demands global accounting system Why only for biofuels?

15. Options 3 No accounting combustion of bio-energy Mandatory LULUCF accounting (all activities) Standards to ban biofuels with huge LUC, ILUC and other emissions in non-Annex 1 Possibly best for this moment… Negative side: Non-Annex 1 not accounted, only extremes excluded Incentive to import from non-Annex 1 Dependent on supply-chain certification system

16. Thank you Alex Kaat Wetlands International Alex.kaat@wetlands.org