IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change

9.6.4 Policies to increase substitution of forest-derived biofuels for fossil fuels and biomass for energy-intensive materials

Countries may promote the use of bioenergy for many non-climate reasons, including increasing energy security and promoting rural development (Parris, 2004). Brazil, for example, has a long history of encouraging plantation establishment for the production of industrial charcoal by offering a combination of tax exemption for plantation lands, tax exemption for income originating from plantation companies, and deductibility of funds used to establish plantations (Couto and Betters, 1995). The United States provides a range of incentives for ethanol production including exclusion from excise taxes, mandating clean air performance requirements that created markets for ethanol, and tax incentives and accelerated depreciation schedules for electricity generating equipment that burn biomass (USDOE, 2005). The Australian Government’s Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, which seeks to create a market for renewable energy, provides incentives for the development of renewable energy from plantations and wood waste (Government of Australia, 2006).

Building codes and other government policies that, where appropriate, can promote substitution of use of sustainably harvested forest products wood for more energy-intensive construction materials may have substantial potential to reduce net emissions (Murphy, 2004). Private companies and individuals may also modify procurement to prefer or require certified wood from well-managed forests on environmental grounds. Such efforts might be expanded once the climate mitigation benefits of sustainably harvested wood products are more fully recognized.

9.6.5 Strengthening the role of forest policies in mitigating climate change

Policies have generally been most successful in changing forestry activities where they are consistent with underlying profitability incentives, or where there is sufficient political will, financial resources and regulatory capacity for effective implementation. Available evidence suggests that policies that seek to alter forestry activities where these conditions do not apply have had limited effectiveness. Additional factors that influence the potential for non-climate policies to reduce net emissions from the forest sector include their ability to (1) provide relatively large net reductions per unit area; (2) be potentially applicable at a large geographic scale; and, (3) have relatively low leakage (Niesten et al., 2002).

By these criteria, promising approaches across both industrialized and developing countries include policies that combat the loss of public forests to natural disturbance agents, and “Payment for Environmental Services” (PES) systems that provide an incentive for the retention of forest cover. In both cases, there are good examples where they have been successfully implemented at small scales, and the impediments to increasing scale are relatively well understood. There is also a successful history of policies to create new forests, and these have led to large on-site reductions in net emissions. Care must be taken, however, to make sure that at plantation creation, there is no displacement of economic or subsistence activities that will lead to forest clearing elsewhere. Policies to increase the substitution of fossil fuels with bioenergy have also had a large positive impact on net emissions. If feedstock is forestry waste, then there is little potential leakage. If new plantations are created for biofuel, then care must be taken to reduce leakage.

Because forestry policies tend not to have climate mitigation as core objective, leakage and other factors that may limit net reductions are generally not considered. This may change as countries begin to integrate climate change mitigation objectives more fully into national forestry policies. Countries where such integration is taking place include Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Peru (Rosenbaum et al., 2004).